Loading...
Attachment 34Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Town Council, Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 03, 2018 5:10 PM 8Spector; Rob Rennie; Marica Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Jennifer Armer Mayor Rennie counted no East-West traffic on Hwy 9 I'm sending this directly as this just came to my attention: The traffic congestion on Hwy 9 that will be added to its already LOS F rush hour as shown in several photographic series we've submitted is the most signficant problem that a large development at the corner will cause. The added Hwy 9 congestion will affect the entire town and LGB is as well over-congested . Especially troublesome will be the congestion caused by drivers exiting from Hwy 9 North and combining with those from 9 East and those exiting from Hwy 17 South at the point where the NB 17 exiting drivers have the too short distance to merge into the left turn lane after crossing the center lane. Sight is limited there and the added volume from the 401-409 developemnt will force accidents. Direct observations of the LOS F traffic backups on Eastbound Hwy 9 & Los Gatos Blvd in rush hours have been omitted in the traffic studies done to date. If they had not, that we would have submitted the photos. Mayor Rennie, the study of congestion significance is Hwy 9 & Los Gatos Blvd, both of which we submitted photos for. We've been saying this all along. Thank You, and Regards, Bob Burke 408-896-7896 "Timely action combined w ith market knowledge creates excellence and value in the introduction of new technology." On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:57 PM , Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Council, I'm sending the attached submission and photos to you directly so that you are able to magnify the photos during preparation for next week's meeting to verify their contents. Regards, Bob Burke 408-896-7896 "Timely action combined w ith market knowledge creates excellence and value i n the introduction of new technology." This Page Intentionally Left Blank Jennifer Armer From: Sherry Moritz <sherrymoritz@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 5:32 PM To: BSpector <BSpector@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Marica Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca .gov>; Steven Leonardis <SLeonardis@losgatosca.gov>; Marcia Jensen <MJensen@losgatosca.gov>; Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>; Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> Subject: Mayor Rennie counted no East-West traffic on Hwy 9 Dear Town Council, I lived on Alberto Way for the past 4 years and I have experienced several traffic issues in going to work or returning home from work. The Alberto Way is narrow enough that sometime I can't drive through with an oncoming vehicle from the opposite direction. I have difficulties in getting home from my errands in the summer due to the traffic diverted from HWY 17 through town. In case of emergency, I can't trust the EMT will get to me on time or I will be transported to the hospital in a timely manner. When it comes to a human's life or death situation, you need to understand that people who live on Alberto Way should take precedent than the developer. Do you want that in your conscience if someone dies because you approve the project? Do the right thing and stop these non-sense politics??? Regards, Sherry April 16, 2018 Dear Council Members, RECEIVED APR 16 2018 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION We residents of Alberto Way write to support a plan for a reduced size building that allows for preservation of our existing public view corridor from the WEST SIDEWALK. We propose a setback of 80 feet from the north property line, and a resultant reduction of the north part of the proposed building that will result in a 64,000 square feet building. This represents a compromise between the 74,260 size which the applicant proposed to the Planning Commission in December 2017 and the 56,000 square feet proposal submitted by neighbors on Alberto Way {Hearing, 12/13/2017, p. 48). We believe that the 64,000 size and an 80 feet setback are more consistent with the General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines than the 70,000 square feet/72 feet setback plan offered by the developer after the public comment was closed on March 20. We also maintain that our 64,000/80 plan is arrived at objectively and meets the developer's criteria and objectives for a Class A office building. Attached are three photos showing the north view corridor with an 80 feet setback, the drone view of the setback, and a drawing of the building reduced to 64,000 square feet. The 64,000/80 plan is determined objectively because to preserve the existing public view corridor on the north (from the WEST sidewalk which has most of the pedestrian traffic) about 10,123 square feet needs to be removed from the north side of the building. The 64,000 size is more consistent with the General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines than 70,000: new development should not alter "existing" landscape vistas (CD 16.1) and when commercial development is proposed it should upreserve" views of the surrounding hills (COG 1.4). The two largest developments on Alberto Way are about 56,000 square feet-a 64,000 square feet building blends with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood better than the larger 70,000 square feet building (CD 1.2; COG 1.4). The largest Class A office building south of Lark is 62, 109 square feet (750 University). That one and a 64,000 square feet building are not really in keeping with the small town character of Los Gatos (LU 1.6, 1.8), but more so than a 70,000 square feet building. Another problem with the 70,000/72 plan is that it is a vague "concept" submitted by the developer April 2. We do not know how much of the view of the nonh corridor will actually be preserved by the suggested 72 feet setback, and there is no photo showing that measurement. The photos submitted by the developer and staff are NOT TAKEN FROM THE WEST SIDEWALK but from a higher elevation across the street to the east. And what will the building look like with a 4,000 square feet reduction? We residents deserve to see an exact design and hopefully the Town Council will want to see it as well, in order to fairly compare it to the 64,000/80 plan. The 64,000/80 plan meets the developer's criteria as expressed in recent hearings: *It qualifies as Class A *The floor plates are 32,000 (close to the developer's request for 35,000 and greater than the 23,000 sq. ft. floor plates in his first design (DEIR 2-11) • It preserves the symmetrical look of the building * It allows for staging on site *Surface parking is not lost *It has two amenity areas The 64,000/80 plan can meet eight of the developer's objectives as specified in DEIR 2-2 and 7 . *Energy efficient, sustainable building that meets LEED Gold standards *Attractive pedestrian space *Plantings along Los Gatos/Saratoga Road *Pedestrian and bike connectivity to the Town * Net positive fiscal impact *TDM plan *Incentives to employees to use public transit, car pool, etc. *Satisfaction of market demand for high tech office uses in Class A office space The 64,000/80 plan can meet the other three objectives better than the 70,000 plan: *Design factors that blend with aesthetics, scale and character of surrounding land uses *Compliance with all applicable General Plan goals and policies as well as Town Code *Utilization of building setbacks and landscaping to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood There is significant support for the 64,000/80 plan from the Planning Commission and the Alberto Way neighbors. In their hearing January 10, 2018, the Planning Commission unanimously passed a motion supporting a building reduced to the 60,000s with a maximized view of the north corridor. Commissioner Janoff moved that the views be preserved by a one story/two story design that could result in a building 60,000 to 70,000 square feet (pp. 42-45). Commissioner Hudes, inspired by a suggestion from Commissioner Hanssen (p. 61) that a 80 feet setback from the north property line would "significantly improve" the view corridor there, amended the motion to allow for a second option of moving the setback farther south [80 feet results in a building size of 64,000 square feet, given the open space planned by the developer] (pp. 66, 68). The Boards of Directors of the four HOAs on Alberto Way have the authority to represent the residents, and these Boards have supported a building size reduced to the 60,000s and a setback on the north property line that preserves the existing view from the west sidewalk. On 12/7/2017 three of the Boards wrote to the Planning Commission in support of a building of 62,000 maximum size, an 80 feet setback from the north property fine, and a one-level underground garage [at the time the residents did not realize that a one-story garage would not accommodate a building larger than 50,000 square feet]. On 2/7/2018 representatives of all four Boards wrote to the Planning Commission to support a 64,000 square feet building and an 80 feet setback on the north. The change in the building's square footage was due to an objective determination of what reduction was necessary for an 80 feet setback. During the appeal process, after the Planning Commission did not approve Redesign 3, all four Boards wrote the Town Council to support remanding the application to the Planning Commission to arrive at a compromise of 1) either a building with a one/two story design that preserved the north corridor view OR a building with an 80 feet setback [of 64,000 square feet]; OR 2) a conditional approval of the project by the Council that required a 64,000 square feet building with an 80 feet setback to preserve the existing public view from the west sidewalk at the north property line. On 3/25 the Boards of The Commons and Pueblo de Los Gatos wrote the Council to reaffirm support for a 64,000/80 design and to oppose the developer's plan to submit a proposal for a 70,000 square feet building with a 72 feet setback that would only be evaluated by staff. In December 2017, petitions from a majority of the Pueblo de Los Gatos residents and the residents of The Commons requested a building of not more than 62,000 square feet and an 80 feet setback to preserve the existing public view from the west sidewalk on the north part of the site. This petition also supported a one story underground garage. Residents supported this position in the Planning Commission hearing on 12/13/2017 (pp. 48, SO). There were several presentations from residents during the Town Council meeting of March 20, 2018 that supported the 64,000/80 plan. Please give our 64,000/80 plan consideration . Sincerely, Board of Directors Los Gatos Commons on Alberto Way landmark for 80 feet is about 4 feet south of the small yellow palm tree west of the existing I building. Note hills north and south of large ~ T;~;"" -"':~, ~"'I~-;,~ ~I ~--1.l; i• ""'~, • ~ ~".It .• '~ :1~1 --..;. ~-•• ~-.\.,...... :"A!. O:~---· Note the small yellow palm tree just west of the existing building. The 80 feet setback extends about 4 feet .;.• ,J ,_. ..Arc~ (31 cd:'~ ~~ 34 ft. w~J~ i Jlli ft , IC,l'\j 3~)C. lt.t ~·:::. S-1 066 x:.J -= 10,11J. s-1 .ft-: The portion of the proposed build i n that blocks our view from the North corridor " l .} 'b Ill --.... / \ I • I \ I , .... _ .... ,-....... / \ Entry ~rtyo~ '\Ith $11allfig and ctm,!nor i>/llilUng ~ as I 'exfiinoed lal>by I o I \ Enna~ patio paving LJ7 I Smaf !J,ooplng of FlowotinQ~'{ Cherry lre<!s I , Bll<o racks for Short lo< I bil\o.· pa11dng (1B spaoee!\_ _., r ' \ Way ··-----.••• ~ .£..,,' -·-"'"·. - -· · ' Drawing of the building modified for a reduction to 64,000 ~.Qu~~~ f~e~ and ,;1.n 8~~et setb~k ~-"-~ _ / / f j.. ···-·. .. . -.-. / [ TI Hi, I • I Enla1gement-see Sh&et ~0~2i\ __ / ., ... --/ ' ,,,-,..., \,: f ! \ \ , 0 r J ,., I , I I ---------<°, --::,/L-;' - . -, ..... ___ ;.,,, ---,. \ I • I \ ..... _ .... /-...... , i • I , ..... _.1 ·Monumonl $1gn •na ""'" rol tmvel from Iha nuilding to Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: To the Town Council, Joan K Larson <joanklarson@aol.com> Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:26 AM Jennifer Armer 401-409 Alberto Way The plans for the proposed 70,000 and/or 64,000 office building project at 401-409 Alberto Way should be reviewed by you and the neighboring tenants to protect the view. Every resident would prefer something on a much lower scale. We would like to "see" the actual detail and be able to comment. We are the only senior community in Los Gatos at the Commons. We worked many years to now enjoy retirement. The loss of the view and the additional heavy traffic is bothersome. With only ONE entrance and exit on Alberto Way, since it is a dead end road, there is valid concern about any emergency vehicles being able to help us in a timely matter. Also there is a safety factor when any driver leaves the parking lot at 401-409 Alberto Way. The road is narrow and twisting with poor visibility. We suggest that at the sidewalk that there be a stop sign and speed bumps before cars enter onto Alberto Way. When there are so many cars exiting from the underground parking garage, it will be safer for anyone walking or driving by. There is a concern about the air quality during the demolition of the present buildings and the digging for a two story underground garage and removal of the debris. We will need restrictions on parking to be residential only on the road. Thank you, Joan Larson 441 Alberto Way Sent from my iPhone Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: April 26,2018 Jean Farren Jones <jfjones39@yahoo.com> Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:20 AM Jennifer Armer Request for an additional Condition of Approval for Alberto Way project We request that stop signs be placed at the two driveways of the proposed Alberto Way project. These two signs would make walking safer for the many pedestrians who walk on the west sidewalk. And, the signs will help ensure that residents attempting to exit Alberto Way have the right of way when they drive by the project driveways. Jean Farren Jones, President Board of Directors Los Gatos Commons Sent from my iPhone Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Town Council- Soozann <greatbear@frontiernet.net> Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:44 AM BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Marico Sayoc; Town Manager; Joel Paulson; Arn Andrews voiceheard@40lalbertoway.com I support 401 Alberto. As a local business owner of 27 years, I strongly feel that the town should allow the Alberto Way development to go forward. Although we may cherish the notion that we can keep our town "the way it was", we really cannot stand still- we must move forward with vision. Downtown desperately needs more transportation solutions to keep it lively. Having office space so near by with a shuttle seems to offer just what we need. Most sincerely, Sue Ann Van Epps, Owner-Great Bear Coffee 26April 2018 Dear Town Council Members, TOWN OF LOS GATOS CLERK DEPARTMENT RECEIVED 2Dl8 APR 2b A la I 9 The Pueblo de Los Gatos HOA would like to submit the below information for your consideration for the 1 May 2018 continued hearing on the project located at 401-409 Alberto Way. Our Request Despite the fact that the appellant clearly stated they were NOT appealing the Planning Commission decision based on 'new information', you unanimously voted to continue the hearing based solely on those grounds. While we look forward to continuing to explore a compromise that works for all sides, we Implore you not to take definitive action at your next meeting. To approve a project that the residents and neighbors have not seen, reviewed, and been able to provide testimony on would be a disservice to the Town's public process. To approve a project at this point without proper vetting would be arbitrary and extremely unfair to your constituents. In June of 2017, the Town Council modified the language regarding the acceptance of new information as part of the appeal process, and that language was added to the Council Policy Manual. Although that is only guidance language and can be ignored by the Town Council, we strongly feel that approving a new project without the opportunity for public testimony flies in the face of the spirit of that guidance, and seriously erodes the sense of fairness and transparency of the Town's process. Therefore, we ask that, if you find merit with the 'new information' provjded by the developer, please remand the issue back to Planning Commission or hold a new public hearing so that the members of the community can have a say. In addition to this primary concern over the process and our ability to see, review and provide input on what is being proposed, we continue to have a series of overarching concerns Oisted below}. In the spirit of compromise, we will attempt to clearly articulate at the end of this letter the rationale of what we think would be an appropriate fit for our neighborhood. Our Issues 1. Neighborhood Compatibility The Town Council and Planning Commission have, on numerous occasions in the past, denied (or sent back for re-design) projects solely on the grounds of bulk and mass and/or neighborhood compatibility. Even in those cases where projects met the other zoning requirements such as height limits, FAR, etc. Therefore, we contend that you do not have any grounds to find that the Planning Commission erred in its decision. We appreciate that this is a tricky neighborhood to define but this single-outlet street is home to many Los Gatos residents -your constituents. Commissioner Birch expressed a similar opinion on the issue of neighborhood compatibility at the 14 February 2018 Planning Commission: "As a commissioner, I would hope that property that is designed to fit into a sensitive comer like that would be designed with a neighborhood compatibility in mind. We all recognize that property values in Los Gatos are high and I think that is because of the sensitive design standards that we have that keep it in the small town character and keep the things that we cherish such as the views. If we begin to vary from those sensitive design standards we may not see that people do want to continue leasing here, that home values stay as high as they are." We truly hope that you have heard the unified voice of the neighbors -this development is simply too much for the neighborhood. We expect the site to be re-developed, but ask that due consideration is given to the intensification of uses and neighborhood compatibility. 2. Traffic We understand that the Council hears about traffic issues all the time, and for good reason. Never before have we seen the traffic we are now facing in Los Gatos. The summer cut-through traffic here causes many of us to feel trapped in our homes due to the standstill of traffic at the Hwy 9/Alberto Way intersection. While some of us are able to walk many places in town, many more of our neighbors are older and/or have small children. This is not a fun way to live and dramatically affects our ability to move about freely. Traffic studies are a necessary and useful tool in making land use decisions, but they are just that: a tool. And with all due respect to the Mayor's traffic counts on 3 occasions, we ask that you consider the substantial evidence regarding traffic you have heard from residents who have lived on Alberto Way for decades. Living here and experiencing the traffic daily provides a different perspective than sampling traffic at discrete points in time and applying that data to a formula. In fact, CEQA case law validates the ability of a deciding body to weigh such evidence: "Relevant personal observations of area residents on nontechnical subjects may qualify as substantial evidence." (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento {2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) "For example, an adjacent property owner may testify to traffic conditions based upon personal knowledge." (Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 173.) As further evidence, we submit Attachments 1 and 2, which are typical to our daily experience. Our traffic is more than just 250-300 additional car trips zipping efficiently in and out, but are also comprised of trucks servicing the restaurant, offices, and trash and recycling at the numerous complexes. The images show example so the large trucks delivering food and hotel supplies, garbage and recycling trucks, not to mention the numerous UPS and Fed.Ex trucks serving the hundreds of residents on Alberto Way. These photos are from a fairly typical 9:00 am morning, displaying the conflict between large trucks and neighborhood traffic that causes back-ups along Alberto Way and sometimes out onto Hwy 9. Commissioner O'Donnell at the 14 February meeting stated: "It's interesting, I've been doing this 14 years or 15 years whatever it's been and I've never seen a traffic report that doesn't tell me things are going to be fine and they never are. Then I've been told that we all use the same manuals and I have to tell you I wouldn't use the manuals because they're consistently wrong" We concur with this assessment, and ask that you consider the submittal of our evidence. 3. Loss of Views The loss of hillside views from the project remains a strong concern of the neighbors. At the same 14 February Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Janoff stated that "Throughout the General Plan, throughout many documents of the Town, the preservation of scenic views is so heavily emphasized, it cannot be understated how important that is to the town." We caution you to look carefully at all illustrations depicting impacts to the hillside views. I know all of you have walked the site, but to demonstrate the power of perspective, we submit 3 photos of the same view of the hills from: A) the upper lawn at PDLG (Attachment 3), B) the sidewalk immediately downslope (Attachment 4, note the car in the foreground for perspective), and C) the view from the same side of the street as the development. (Attachment 5) To this point, Commissioner Birch accurately stated "you could walk up and down that street, and from various angles or proprieties the view corridors are clearly interrupted." Simply put, a reduced building size will help protect views. 4. Aging Infrastructure We have spent in excess of $75,000 over the past three years on repair of our below-ground plumbing infrastructure. These pipes are over 50 years old and give us considerable trouble. The construction of the project as proposed (in particular the excavation of the 2 story underground parking structure that extends very near to the street) will likely cause a seismic disturbance that could damage this infrastructure above and beyond what we typically experience. We ask that a Condition of Approval be added to ensure some sort of financial guarantee to cover any damage caused by the project. Our Hydrology Expert Dr Geisler finds "The local dewatering in the Cofferdam needed around the underground parking structure is likely to cause ground subsidence that is large enough to shift foundations of existing buildings within an area of influence 250 ft of PD" 5. Public Space and Other Amenities To be clear, the issue of a dog park, public shuttle, extra landscaping and/or of some other community space on the site is a red herring. No one in the neighborhood desires to have a meeting space with a few benches placed next to a busy intersection. We do not view any of these as significant neighborhood amenities and are not interested in these features. We would gladly forego these offerings for a smaller building and reduced traffic. Our Proposal Members of The Commons have previously suggested a 64,000 sf option. While we appreciate the attempt at compromise, this does not address the fundamental issues of the other residents in the vicinity. Therefore, to address all of the concerns listed above (neighborhood compatibility, traffic, loss of views, geotechnical issues), we would like to propose the following. Eliminating the second floor of underground parking would solve many of the concerns of the Pueblo de Los Gatos community. By doing so, the number of parking spaces would be reduced to 226 (190 underground, and 36 surface spots). This would then maximize the possible square footage of the new building to 56,500 sf (1 parking spot per 250 sf per LG Municipal Code, Chapter 29-Article I). This still allows for a Class A office space, reduces excavation, construction time and cost, and alleviates the neighbors concerns over traffic, views, seismic stability and neighborhood compatibility. (Please note that the developer offered a construction window of 9am-4pm, but we believe that the Condition of Approval still states the Town default hours of Bam-8pm. We would love to see that condition changed to reflect the offer of the developer.) To illustrate the difference, please see Attachment 6 (the 74,000 sf proposal) versus Attachment 7 (an example of our 56,500 sf option, which has a significant single story section). Of course, we are not designers, but are merely using these illustrations as a tool to show the significant improvement this would be to our neighborhood. As a reminder, we presented evidence from a geotechnical expert that, given the shallow depth to groundwater in the area, shared our concerns about the second floor of the underground parking garage. By only permitting a 1 story underground garage, this eliminates the concern of our consulting geotechnical expert, and minimizes the potential disturbance to our aging sewer lines. In conclusion, we hope that you will take into account this proposal on behalf of your constituents over the interest of a developer in this decision. In that light, we sjncerely request that you either deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision, or remand the design back to Planning Commission for a new hearing where we can evaluate what is being considered and hear how the developer would respond to what we have suggested. Thank you all for your service to the Town. Sincerely, Pueblo de Los Gatos HOA Board of Directors and the residents of Pueblo de Los Gatos signatures attached (Attachment 8) 1. ------ '\. \ \. ,.. :~~~-\ '-:-..; .~ ~~ . ,· . .. \, ;,,. \ '\ ... -.l. i ·,. \ \.\ .. , .. . .... , 1. ,· ,• ~ \ ,. I • " . ' 9 , ... ) . .... .,. I 1~ kt['f(vH I\Al2~] Pu bl i c Mtn View Preservation & CDL Compli ance (no . viewing into Las Casitas be d room windows,l..J Remove this 2nd Floor & lower roo -"' I These trees to be removed and/or kepttrim : on Ca ~~~: -. . ··. . ·. -zc }-.C . £ .. I.-~•-· .. '-•",--•='liii -·•' •·-. ......_.. -- ATTACHMENT 8 PUEBLO DE LOS GATOS PETITION SIGNATURES PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE UNIT# DATE tf·J-3,/8' 4-2"$-3' -2,3-!'l? AlTACHMENT 8 PUEBLO DE LOS GATOS PETITION SIGNATURES PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE UNIT# DATE