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: 04/03/2018
ITEM NO: 07
DATE: MARCH 28, 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.
REMARKS:
At its meeting on March 20, 2018, the Town Council heard public testimony, completed
questions of the applicant, and closed the public testimony portion of the public hearing. The
item was continued to April 3, 2018, for Council deliberations.
In response to questions from Council Members, staff has prepared the following information.
Please provide updated photos of the story poles in relation to the “Christmas” tree.
Staff has confirmed that one of the photos provided by the applicant at the March 20, 2018
Town Council meeting (Photo 1, Attachment 20) showed story poles from the 83,000-square
foot building design. Attachment 20 includes three photos: Photo 1 was provided by the
applicant at the March 20, 2018 Town Council meeting, Photo 2 was taken by Town Staff on
March 28, 2018 from approximately the same angle, and Photo 3 shows the current story pole
location from the sidewalk perspective (photo taken by Town Staff on March 28, 2018).
PAGE 2 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 28, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Downloads\Staff_Report (1).docx 3/29/2018 2:58 PM
REMARKS (Continued):
What wording might be added to Condition of Approval 81 to ensure monitoring during the
dewatering process?
The following revision of condition of approval 81 is provided for consideration. Additional text
is shown in underline:
81. SETTLEMENT MONITORING AND MITIGATION PLAN: The Applicant shall prepare and implement a
Settlement Monitoring and Mitigation Plan which specifies monitoring and mitigation measures to
avoid damage to the adjacent residential community (foundations, utilities, etc.) as a result of the
project’s subterranean excavation, dewatering and subsequent construction activities, and include
any supplemental geotechnical and hydrologic plans and studies that are needed for the
development of said plan. Measurements are to be made in accordance with the best testing
practices and utilize appropriate data-gathering devices. Approved monitoring protocols shall be
reviewed by the Town’s geotechnical and geological peer review consultant and the Town Engineer,
and subsequently approved by the Town Engineer and in place prior to issuance of any grading or
building permits for the project.
What is the current minimum parking requirement, and does the proposed project exceed
the requirement?
The original proposal did exceed the Town’s minimum requirements . When the applicant
redesigned the project to reduce the size of the parking garage and facilitate construction
staging onsite, the parking count was reduced to meet the minimum requirements exactly. The
current proposal provides 298 parking spaces, which is the number requ ired by Town Code.
Please explain why a person observing and counting cars might come up with different
numbers than the results using the accepted traffic report methodology.
The Traffic Impact Policy requires the Town to use the most recent edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual for determination of project traffic
trips. The peak-hour trip generation rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for office buildings
are based on an average of multiple office buildings’ weekday peak hour vehicle trips collected
throughout the year. The generation rates also assume that these buildings are fully occupied.
A person observing and counting cars at one office building might come up with a different one-
time number than the trip generation provided by ITE, as the one-time number is not an
average covering the year and the buildings may or may not be fully occupied.
PAGE 3 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 28, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Downloads\Staff_Report (1).docx 3/29/2018 2:58 PM
REMARKS (Continued):
Please explain why there is a proportional difference between the AM peak hour trips shown
in the revised traffic analysis for the redesigned 74,300 square feet Alberto office building
and the AM peak hour trips provided by staff for a 56,000 s quare feet office building.
The Addendum to the March 20, 2018 Town Council report provided the average peak hour AM
inbound traffic trip generation rate for an office building of 56,000 s quare feet based on the
current version (version 10) of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The traffic analysis for the
Alberto project was based on version 9 of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which was the
current version at the time the analysis was completed for the environmental review. Using
version 9 of ITE, the average peak AM inbound trip generation rate for a building of 56,000 sf
would be 77. This is closely proportional to the 74,260 square foot revised Alberto average
peak AM inbound trip number but will not be completely proportional due to ITE’s use of non -
linear equations.
How far is the left turn into Alberto Way from Route 9 being extended, and how much further
could it be extended in comparison to the current plan?
The existing left-turn lane from Highway 9 to Alberto Way is about 150 feet in length. The
project proposes to extend this to 250 feet, based on the Traffic Impact Analysis. Th e current
roadway configuration may allow the left-turn lane to be extended further to a maximum
length of up to 470 feet. Ultimately, any proposed design will need to be reviewed and
approved by Caltrans, as this area is within the Caltrans right-of-way.
Attachment 21 is a letter from the applicant/appellant received after distribution of the March
20, 2018, Desk Item.
Attachment 22 is a letter from the applicant/appellant received March 21, 2018.
Attachment 23 contains additional public comments received after distribution of the March
20, 2018 Desk Item.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
In response to comments from the applicant’s attorney regarding the Planning Commission not
taking an action on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Town Attorney has provided the
following response.
PAGE 4 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 28, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Downloads\Staff_Report (1).docx 3/29/2018 2:58 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Continued):
An EIR’s primary purpose is to protect the environment. This purpose is evident in the
numerous specific findings and policies contained in the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Specifically, Public Resources Code sections 21000 and 21001 articulate fourteen
legislative findings supporting CEQA, all of which relate to the need to protect the environment.
It is well settled law that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public
agency and allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR.
In Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 177 Cal. App. 4th 837 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) the
Court rejected Las Lomas’ argument that Public Resources Code section 21061 establishes a
mandatory duty for a public agency to complete and certify an EIR before approving or rejecting
a project. Section 21061 provides in part, “An environmental impact report is an informational
document which, when its preparation is required by this division, shall be considered by every
public agency prior to its approval or disapproval of a project.” The Court explained “to require
a public agency to prepare and circulate a draft EIR, and prepare a final EIR including response
to comments, before rejecting a project would impose a substantial burden,” and “would not
produce a discernable environmental benefit” or “further the goal of en vironmental
protection.” The Court further explained, “Section 21061 is expressly limited to projects for
which an EIR is otherwise required by CEQA, and therefore does not apply to projects rejected
by the agency.”
Although members of the Planning Commission made several comments related to the EIR, the
final motion made by the Planning Commission did not include any determination on the
validity of the EIR nor was the Planning Commission required to do so by law.
The revised project would implement all of the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR
and would not result in any new or increased significant environmental impacts when
compared to the original project. Therefore, no further environmental review is required under
CEQA since all potential environmental impacts can still be mitigated by the measures listed in
the Final EIR and the revised project would not result in any new or increased significant
environmental impacts when compared to the original project.
Attachments previously received with March 20, 2018 Staff Report:
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)
PAGE 5 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
MARCH 28, 2018
C:\Users\slombardo\Downloads\Staff_Report (1).docx 3/29/2018 2:58 PM
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 p roject (includes Exhibits A, B, and C)
Attachments previously received with March 20, 2018 Addendum:
18. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m., Thursday, March 15, 2018 to 11:00 a.m., Monday,
March 19, 2018
Attachments previously received with March 20, 2018 Desk Item:
19. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m., Monday, March 19, 2018 to 11:00 a.m., Tuesday,
March 20, 2018
Attachments received with this Staff Report:
20. Site Photos
21. Letter from the Applicant/Appellant, received March 20, 2018
22. Letter from the Applicant/Appellant, received March 21, 2018
23. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, March 20, 2018 to 11:00 a.m. Thursday,
March 29, 2018
Distribution:
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025