Staff Report
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development Department Director, and
Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 03/20/2017
ITEM NO: 11
DATE: MARCH 12, 2018
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-15-056, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPLICATION U-15-009, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-16-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY.
PROPERTY OWNER: CWA REALTY. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: LP
ACQUISITIONS, LLC.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A
REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND
PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONED CH. APN 529-23-018.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission decision denying
Architecture and Site application S-15-056 and Conditional Use Permit application U-15-009.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is an approximately 2.15-acre parcel developed with three, two-story wood
frame multi-tenant office buildings with on-grade parking and daylighted basement areas. The
existing buildings on the site were constructed in the mid-1960s and comprise approximately
31,000 square feet. The existing buildings on-site are 24 to 35 feet in height.
The project vicinity contains a multi-family residential development located to the north of the
project site. Multi-family housing, office, and a hotel are located to the east (across Alberto
Way). A hotel is located across Los Gatos – Saratoga Road to the south of the project site and
an on-ramp to northbound State Route 17 is located west of the site.
PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 12, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Desktop\Council Meeting\11 Staff Report Alberto Way.docx 3/15/2018 3:44 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
The Planning Commission considered the applications on August 10, 2016, and August 24, 2016.
The applications were continued to October 26, 2016 with specific direction from the Planning
Commission. The project was then continued to January 11, March 22, April 12, and May 10,
2017 to allow the applicant additional time for revisions, responses to comments, and outreach
with the neighbors. On May 10, 2017, the Planning Commission denied the applications. The
decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant on May 19, 2017. The
applications were considered by the Town Council with public comment heard on September
19, 2017 and Council deliberations on October 3, 2017. The appeal was granted and the Town
Council remanded the applications to the Planning Commission to consider additional
modifications offered by the applicant (Attachment 1, Exhibit 7).
Upon remand, the Planning Commission considered the applications on December 13, 2017,
and continued the matter to January 10, 2018 due to the lateness of the hour. On January 10,
2018, the Commission considered the applications and continued the project with specific
direction that the applicant consider additional modifications described later in this report. The
applicant submitted a letter on January 30, 2018, explaining that additional modifications to the
project are not feasible (Attachment 10, Exhibit 27). On February 14, 2018, the Planning
Commission denied the applications, as discussed in more detail in the Discussion section of
this report. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant on
February 23, 2018.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.280, the appeal must be heard within 56 days of the
Planning Commission hearing. The Council must at least open the public hearing for the item,
but may continue the matter to a date certain if the Council does not complete its work on the
item.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted and that the Planning
Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, the Council must make one or more of
the following findings, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
1. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or address,
but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
This Code section also states that if the only or predominant reason for modifying or r eversing
the decision of the Planning Commission is the availability of new information as defined in
item 2 above, it is the policy of the Town that the application will be returned to the
PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 12, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Desktop\Council Meeting\11 Staff Report Alberto Way.docx 3/15/2018 3:44 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
Commission for review in light of the new information unless the new information has minimal
effect on the application.
To support the finding(s), the Council must also identify specific facts for incorporation into the
resolution (Attachment 16 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 17 if
granting the appeal).
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The modified project, submitted to Planning Commission for review on December 13, 2017,
is the redevelopment of the project site with the d emolition of the existing buildings and
the development of a new office building that would be consistent with the zoning and
General Plan designation for the site. The project is planning to attain a Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification.
The proposed project would create a new two-story office building totaling 74,260 square
feet with 260 parking spaces in a two-story below-grade parking structure and 38 parking
spaces at grade for a total of 298 parking spaces. Amenities and site improvements for the
project include bike storage, new landscaping, and a variety of energy efficient and/or
sustainable interior and exterior building elements.
The proposed building has a front setback of between 63 feet and 125 feet along Alberto
Way; a side setback of 55 feet bordering the multi-family housing to the north; and street
side and rear setbacks of 15 feet along Los Gatos – Saratoga Road, and the Caltrans
property along the Highway 17 on-ramp.
The proposed building would be a maximum of 30 feet, six inches high at the top of the
highest mansard roof. Building materials would consist of painted stucco, limestone tile,
bronze window frames, wrought iron guard rails, dark bronze canopy and trellis, and clay
tile mansard roof. A color and materials board will be available at the public hearing.
The story poles have been updated to reflect the modified project that was presented to
the Planning Commission on December 13, 2017 to show the location, general massing, and
height of the proposed building.
PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 12, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Desktop\Council Meeting\11 Staff Report Alberto Way.docx 3/15/2018 3:44 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
B. Planning Commission
On December 13, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the applications and
continued the matter to January 10, 2018 due to the lateness of the hour. On January 10,
2018, the Commission considered the project and continued the project with specific
direction that the applicant consider additional modifications summarized here:
1. Building Design: Consider a redesign to maximize views of the hills. Specifically, do so by
moving the second story closer to the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -
Saratoga Road, and away from the northern property line.
2. Setback: Consider increasing the setback from the northern property line for the whole
building, not just the second story.
3. Use of Open Space: Consider a use other than a dog park for the proposed open space.
On January 30, 2018, the applicant submitted a letter explaining that additional changes to
the project are not feasible (Attachment 10, Exhibit 27). On February 14, 2018, the Planning
Commission unanimously denied the project due to concerns regarding the project’s overall
size; loss of views; inconsistency with the neighborhood; traffic concerns; compliance with
the Community Expectations section of the Commercial Design Guidelines; and
inconsistency with the General Plan.
The verbatim minutes for the February 14, 2018 meeting are included as Attachment 12.
C. Appeal to the Town Council
On February 23, 2018, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town
Council by the applicant (Attachment 13). Supporting comments and materials were
provided with the appeal. The reasons for the appeal are listed below, followed by staff
comments in italic font.
1. The appeal identified that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in
that the decision was not based on substantial evidence.
The Planning Commission was provided and considered all of the materials provided by
staff, the public, and the appellant, and the Commission’s discussion included both the
objective and subjective standards that apply to this discretionary project.
The applicant noted that the Planning Commission did not adopt findings to deny the
Project.
PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 12, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Desktop\Council Meeting\11 Staff Report Alberto Way.docx 3/15/2018 3:44 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
The project denial was stated to be based, in part, on conflicts with specific portions of
the General Plan, which is the first of four possible findings for denial under Town Code
Section 29.20.190(c).
The applicant noted that the Planning Commission rejected the modified project
without considering that the changes they requested conflicted with prior Council and
Commission direction and conflicted with the Town’s policies and Commercial Design
Guidelines.
The Planning Commission reviewed the modified project and found that there were still
significant concerns including the project’s overall size; loss of views; inconsistency with
the neighborhood; traffic concerns; compliance with the Community Expectations
section of the Commercial Design Guidelines; and in consistency with the General Plan.
The applicant further claims that the Planning Commission should have certified the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
A deciding body is not required to make a CEQA determination for project denial.
2. The appeal does not claim there is new information .
3. The appeal claims that the Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address the following issue or policy that is vested with the Town Council in that, as
referenced in the previous appeal, the project does meet the standards and objectives
of the General Plan and the Commercial Design Guidelines, and that in denying the
project the Planning Commission only considered one of the guidelines in the
Commercial Design Guidelines and only one of the policies in the General Plan, rather
than looking at both documents in their entirety as adopted by the Town Council.
The Planning Commission discussion included both the objective and subjective
standards that apply to this discretionary project, and focused particularly on those
items of concern.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and denying
the project (Attachment 15).
PAGE 6 OF 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 12, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Desktop\Council Meeting\11 Staff Report Alberto Way.docx 3/15/2018 3:44 PM
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 16) to grant the appeal and remand the applications to the
Planning Commission with specific direction, determining that the Planning Commission's
decision should be reversed or modified, and finding one or more of the following, in
accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision; or
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 17, includes Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C) granting the
appeal, certifying the EIR, and approving the project, and finding one or more of the
following, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision; or
3. Continue the application to a date certain with specific direction.
COORDINATION:
The Community Development Department coordinated with the Par ks and Public Works
Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department in the review of the applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1) was prepared for the project by
the Town’s Environmental Consultant, EMC Planning Group Inc. (available online at
www.losgatosca.gov/401-409AlbertoWay). The project will not result in a significant effect on
the environment because mitigation measures have been added for Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazardous Materials, and Transportation and Traffic, mitigating
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. As part of the environmental review process a
number of technical reports were prepared, including air quality and Green House Gas (GHG)
modeling, an arborist report, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, noise and vibration,
geotechnical, storm water management, and traffic analyses. Reports that were prepared by
outside consultants were peer reviewed by Town Consultants.
PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 12, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Desktop\Council Meeting\11 Staff Report Alberto Way.docx 3/15/2018 3:44 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Continued):
The Notice of Preparation was distributed on December 14, 2015, for a 30-day comment period
ending January 15, 2016. A scoping meeting was held on January 12, 2016. Comments
received are included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.
The Notice of Availability for review of the Draft EIR (DEIR) was released on April 29, 2016, with
the 45-day public review period ending on June 13, 2016. On June 8, 2016, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing to accept comments on the DEIR. Verbal comments were
received from one individual (who also submitted written comments). Written comments on
the DEIR were received from two public agencies and eight individuals (including the project
applicant). The Response to Comments/Final EIR was completed on June 29, 2016
(Attachment 1, Exhibit 2).
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 1, Exhibit 2) has been
prepared as required by CEQA. The MMRP includes all mitigation measures and which Town
Department(s) is/are responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is properly
implemented. All mitigation measures are also included in the conditions of approval
(Attachment 17, Exhibit B).
Attachments:
1. December 13, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 3-14)
2. December 13, 2017 Planning Commission Addendum Report (with Exhibits 15-16)
3. December 13, 2017 Planning Commission Addendum B Report (with Exhibits 17 -20)
4. December 13, 2017 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 21)
5. December 13, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (107 pages)
6. January 10, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 22-24)
7. January 10, 2018 Planning Commission Addendum Report (with Exhibit 25)
8. January 10, 2018 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 26)
9. January 10, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (70 pages)
10. February 14, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 27-28)
11. February 14, 2018 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 29)
12. February 14, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (43 pages)
13. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision, received February 23, 2018
14. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. Wednesday, February 14, 2018 to 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
15. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project
16. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
17. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibits A, B, and C)
Distribution:
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025