Attachment 19PROVENCHER & FLATT, LLP
823 Sonoma Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: 707- 284.2380 Fax: 707- 284.2387
Mayor and Council Members of Los Gatos
Town Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Douglas B. Provencher
Gail F. Flatt
OF COUNSEL
Janis H. Grattan
Rachel Mansfield - Howlett
Via Email and hand delivery
On behalf of concerned citizens and Los Gatos Citizens for Responsible
Development (LGCRD) thank you for the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of
the FEIR prepared for the Albright Way development project.
Aesthetics and Views
The EIR wrongly asserts that private views do not constitute aesthetic impacts
under CEQA. (FEIR 8.4 -12.) Therefore, the EIR failed to adequately analyze private
views and failed to consider the numerous specific comments received on this issue.
In Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District
(2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 396, the court stated that the only limiting factor for
consideration of impacts on private views was the sheer number. If "only a few private
views" were impacted or if there were only "one or two people" expressing concerns
about the visual aesthetic impacts, an agency may determine the impacts are not
significant. In Ocean View Estates the agency argued that because there is no common
law right to unobstructed views that the impacts on the private views of the uphill
homeowners are not environmentally significant under CEQA. But the court held private
rights are distinguishable from public impacts which must still be evaluated under
CEQA.
The placement of buildings atop already elevated sites will exacerbate the
aesthetic impacts to the surrounding community, affecting the vistas from several areas
within the surrounding neighborhoods including Charter Oaks Drive. The lack of an
adequate setback combined with the 65ft height of building 94 on a 20ft hill without a
buffer is not compatible with the existing transitional land use pattern, is not in harmony
with the existing development of the surrounding neighborhood, is inconsistent with the
General plan policy and is inconsistent with the Community Design Element.
The record contains substantial evidence that the Project will negatively affect the
aesthetics and views of numerous residents in adjacent neighborhoods. (See comments on
Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1 9
the DEIR made by Anne Robinson (and Appendix (IN) FEIR)t, Mary Kaires, Giule and
Don Pepper, Eric Connor (and Appendix (M) FEIR) among numerous others.)
The surrounding structures are primarily 1 -2 story buildings. To the south the Albright
Office Park is adjacent and borders the Santa Clara County Fire Department (2 stories) and the
Charter Oaks community (1 -2 story townhouses). To the east, the Albright Office Park is
adjacent and borders the Charter Oaks community (1 -2 stories) and the Los Gatos Creek Trail. To
the west across Winchester Blvd are Courtside Athletic Club (2 stories) and the Smith Ranch
neighborhood (2 story homes). Going south into the town of Los Gatos, all buildings are 1 -2 story
with the exception of the Penthouse and the Toll House. The majority of the Albright Office
Park's 4 -story buildings are not consistent with the surrounding 1 -2 story adjacent developments
or consistent a "small town."
Because Building #4 is up on a 20 ft hill from the Charter Oaks Property it is actually 85
ft tall from the Charter Oaks neighborhood. Building 44 is too close and too intrusive in mass and
height. The building set backs from Charter Oaks Property should be reevaluated to an 85 ft
building not a 65 ft building and start from the wall that separates the two properties not from the
property line at bottom of the hill next to the sidewalk in the Charter Oaks property. The vertical
height of the hillside adds an additional negative impact of Building 114 on the Charter Oaks
community.
Building #3 sits up on a 18.5 ft hill making it 83.5 ft tall. Although it is farther back from
the property line between Charter Oaks and the Applicant, the height and mass of Building 93
will still be too excessive.
There is no mention of Building #4 and how it massively invades the landscape and
views, and Building #4 does not harmonize or blend with the scale and rhythm of the 1 -2 story
buildings of the Charter Oaks neighborhood and natural features of our community. It
significantly depletes, damages or alters existing landscape vistas. Building 94 blocks views
from the surrounding Charter Oaks property. Building #3 is more buffered from the Charter Oaks
community, but it too does not harmonize or blend into the scale and rhythm of the Charter Oaks
neighborhood. On the Tree Disposition Plan, there are several trees between the Charter Oaks
property and Building #3 that will be removed including a 40 ft. pine, a 50 ft. pine, a 55 ft. pine, a
65 ft. pine, a 70 ft. pine. Without these trees the view down Willow Hill court will significantly
change and Building #3 will be substantially more visible to the neighborhood.
The views from Charter Oaks (Figure 4.2 -5 viewpoint 6 and Figure 4.2 -6 viewpoints 7 -8)
do not include views of Building 94 and its impact of Charter Oaks. The visual simulations are
not reflective or an accurate portrayal of the impact Building #4 and Building #3 will have on
Charter Oaks. When you analyze the property and site plan, Building #3 will also have a
significant impact on Charter Oaks in regards to nighttime lighting and visual impacts. The trees
between Building #3 and the Charter Oaks property range between 40 ft and 55 ft in height.
Impact 4.2 -3, which states that the project would not substantially degrade the visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings is inaccurate. Again this section did not
include Building #4 and there was only a minor mention of Building 43, which will have a
significant affect on Charter Oaks and needs to be evaluated further to determine the degree of
significance. The parking garage will be at an elevation of 273ft with Charter Oaks at an
elevation of 268ft. resulting in a 5ft difference. The elevator and proposed solar panels installed
on the parking garage will make the height of the parking garage 49 ft, the resulting height of the
parking garage will be 54 ft and will be substantially taller than any of the homes adjacent to the
proposed project. There will be a buffer of trees ranging between l Oft and 60ft (with most of the
trees 45ft), but the trees will be inadequate to shield Charter Oaks from the parking garage.
Impact 4.2-4, which states that the project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area is inaccurate. It
states that nighttime lighting from the project would affect the residential uses to the south of
Charter Oaks neighborhood and to the west across Winchester Blvd. It states that the proposed
Page 2 of 7
The EIR failed to analyze private views and failed to adequately respond to
comments that provided substantial evidence of impacts to private views.
Traffic Impacts:
We urge the Council to seriously consider Caltrans' letter regarding the process
outlined for adequately adjudging the Project's traffic impacts and Caltrans expert
opinion that the Project would result in unmitigated impacts to State 85. Sister agency
comments are ignored at the City's peril. Caltrans stated,
State Route (SR) 85 is congested within the project area, and so any added
vehicles to SR 85 in Northbound in [the] AIM peak and Southbound in the PM
peak, Caltrans considers an impact as this would increase delay and queuing
on SR 85. Please mitigate this impact. One suggestion for impact mitigation
would be contributing to SR 85 Express Lane project. (FEIR 8.4 -29.)
The EIR also failed to analyze the Charter Oaks Dr. and Lark Ave. intersection.
Based upon the comments received in the DEIR, residents are very concerned about the
ability to egress and ingress from Charter Oaks Drive onto Lark Ave. With the
installation of the signal at Lark Ave, and University Ave., the issue of entering and
exiting Charter Oaks has gotten much worse. When the signal turns red for the cars
traveling west on Lark Ave, the cars back up and block Charter Oaks Dr. preventing cars
from entering and exiting the complex. With the current proposed project and the
planned North 40 project the impact on this intersection will get significantly worse.
The EIR must address and resolve every area where a fair argument of impacts has
been established. Numerous commenters noted the existing congestion on Charter Oaks
Drive and Lark Ave. This intersection must be analyzed, appropriate mitigation imposed,
and alternatives must be considered relative to their degree to avoid or substantially
reduce this impact.
retention of tress along the portions of the site boundaries and planting of additional landscape
trees, combined with the separation between residences, the Los Gatos Creek corridor, and the
location of the proposed buildings within the project site, would reduce the potential for
significant disturbance due to nighttime lighting. There is no buffer intended for Building #4 and
it is not possible to plant trees tall enough to mitigate the impact of nighttime lighting on the
Charter Oaks residences to a less than significant level. The trees that buffer Building #3 will not
be adequate to limit the nighttime lighting emanating from Building #3. As far as the parking
structure the top level (over 35') plus the 5ft in elevation will be significantly taller than the
homes in Charter Oaks (max. 25 ft.), and if they add 14 ft with the solar panels that is 54 ft. in
total height. Although most trees are 45ft as a buffer, we question how much light from the
parking garage will be seen from the Charter Oaks property.
There are no photo simulations of Building #4 in the DEIR, and there is no proposed
buffer on the southeast comer of Building #4 that towers over the Charter Oaks townhouses.
From the Tree Disposition Key Plan, Building #3 will not be adequately buffered and will be
visible from Charter Oaks also. The photo simulation for Building #3 is an inaccurate assessment
of the impact of Building #3 on the Charter Oaks community because it does not accurately
portray the visibility of the building.
Page 3 of 7
Biological Impacts
With regard to the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, the City of San Jose stated,
All major remaining population of the butterfly and many of the sensitive
serpentine plant populations occur in areas subject to air pollution from vehicle
exhaust and other sources throughout the Bay Area ... Therefore, even relatively
small amounts of increased nitrogen deposition resulting from new development
could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact by diminishing the population
sizes of serpentine species and possibly the chance of survival of the threatened
butterfly and the serpentine- specific plant species within Santa Clara County.
The City- of San Jose recommended feasible mitigation measures which jurisdictions can
use to mitigate impacts upon the species, but the EIR disregarded these
recommendations.
With regard to consistency with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams, the Santa Clara Valley District recommended an increased setback of the high
use parking area of 100 -feet. They noted they had already made these comments on the
negative declaration that was prepared for the Project. The EIR disregarded this
recommendation.
Inconsistencies with the General Plan Policy:
LGCRD believes that the type, density, and intensity of the new land use are
inconsistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. The proposed buildings are 65 ft.
while the maximum height of Charter Oaks is 25 ft. The other adjacent neighborhoods to
the south are not over 2 stories high. Because of the difference in mass, density, and
height, the new development is not compatible and does not blend in with the existing 1 -2
story neighborhoods in the surrounding area of Charter Oaks. A business park of this
size is not appropriate in a town that is referred to as a "small town." The buffers of
trees suggested for the project are not adequate to mitigate the impact of the proposed
buildings to a less than significant level. Residence will receive a significant amount of
light pollution from Buildings #3 and Building #4 at night, and the occupants of Building
#4 will be able to see into the homes, patios and property of the Charter Oaks residences.
Inconsistencies with the Zoning Regulations:
Building 94 and Building 93 are inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations, of the
Los Gatos Town Code (Zoning Ordinance) to preserve the natural beauty of the Town
and protect its residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of commercial interests. 65
foot office buildings at 13 and 20 ft elevations tower above 1- and 2 -story residential
dwellings, which are a maximum of 25 ft high. This represents an unnecessary
commercial intrusion into a residential neighborhood that warrants adoption of the
environmentally superior alternative.
Community Design Element:
The Project is inconsistent with the following community design elements.
Page 4 of 7
Goal CD -2: To limit the intensity of new development to a level that is consistent
with surrounding development and with the Town at large
CD -2.1: Building setbacks shall increase as mass and height increase
CD -1.1: Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the
neighborhood.
CD -1.2: New structures, remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed
to harmonize and blend the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural
features in the area.
CD -16.1: Prevent development that significantly depletes, danrages, or alters
existing landscape vistas
CD -16 -3: New structures or remodels shall be designed to respect views from
surrounding properties while allowing all affected properties reasonable access to
views
This represents an unnecessary commercial intrusion into a residential
neighborhood that warrants adoption of the environmentally superior alternative.
Greenhouse Gases
LGCRD objects to the EIR's use of the BAAQMi D's thresholds of significance,
that have now been legally challenged, for the purpose of adjudging the Project's
cumulative and direct GHG impacts. The threshold of significance must first be subjected
to CEQA review before it can be reasonably relied upon.
Alternatives:
The record contains evidence that feasible alternatives exist that substantively
reduce project impacts and retain most project objectives. The EIR identified the
Reduced Intensity Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative.
The EIR preparers concede that a smaller project alternative would reduce impacts
to aesthetics, traffic, cumulative traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gases, recreations,
utilities and service systems, and energy resources. This alternative will be more
consistent and compatible with land use, the Vision Statement, the Zoning Ordinance, the
General Plan policies, the Community Design Element, and the CEQA guidelines, that I
have mentioned in the above discussion. The "small town" character of Los Gatos will
also be better preserved. This alternative will meet the objective to create employment
opportunities and together with the intended North 40 project, employment opportunities
will increase tremendously.
An EIR must identify a "range of reasonable alternatives ... which would
feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project." (Guideline § 15126.6
subd.(a), italics added.) Necessarily, alternatives to the project will look outside the
blueprint of project objectives to fairly consider alternatives that reduce project impacts
to the greatest degree feasible. "Under CEQA, a public agency must ... consider
measures that might mitigate a project's adverse environmental impact and adopt them
if feasible. § 21002,21081." (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission
(1997) 16 CalAth 105, 124; Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d
Page 5 of 7
30, 41, italics added.)` Thus. the Project's objectives must not be construed in an
overly narrow manner, otherwise no alternative would be deemed to satisfy "most of a
project's objectives."
The developer asserts that market trends prohibit anything but a 4 -story building
from consideration. Whereas, Steve Horton and Brandon Bain, of Cassidy Turley
Commercial Real Estate Services, stated in March 2013, that they were confident there
would be significant demand for the existing building if they were again made available
for lease. This disproves the assertion that only the proposed Project would be meet
current market trends and demands. (Appendix (Q) FEIR.) Cassidy Turley state that the
actual history of the buildings show an approximate 90% occupancy rate. "Over the last
few moths we have been approached by a number of companies who would have
expressed interest in one or more of the exiting building had they been available to be
improved and leased."
Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,
technological, and legal factors. (PRC § 21061.1; Guideline § 15164.) Increased costs of
an alternative do not equate to economic infeasibility: "[t]he fact that an alternative may
be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is
financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost
profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project."
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181.
See also Kings County Fartn Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736;
City of Fremont v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (1995) 34 Ca1.App.3d
1780.)
Of course, many developers resist altering projects and prefer to build what they
have proposed. This understandable partiality does not supersede adoption of feasible
alternatives; otherwise, CEQA review would be pointless. To date, there is no
information in the record regarding the economic feasibility of alternatives. As noted in
Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1336, a
developer's assertion that an alternative is not economically feasible is not a legally
supportable position. In Preservation Action, the court found that:
[T]he City Council made no infeasibility finding as to the reduced -size alternative
and the absent finding is not supported by substantial evidence. ...The
administrative record contains no facts, independent analysis or "meaningful
detail" to support Lowe's claim that "San Jose market demands of product
selection/variety" and the need to "stock the appropriate amount of inventory"
rendered a reduced -size store (whether it was 93,000 square feet or 137,000
'- CEQA's substantive provisions have been reiterated by the California Supreme Court in
Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 41240 Cal.4th 412; Citv
ofd /arina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 CalAth 341 and by
the Court of Appeal in County of San Diego v. Grossmont- Cuyantaca Communitv College
District (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 86, and Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose
(2006) 141 Cal.AppAth 1336.
Page 6 of 7
square feet) infeasible. Lowe's reasons for proposing a large store and rejecting a
smaller store "cannot be determinative of [the smaller store's] feasibility." (Kings
County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, supra, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 736.) The
City was obligated to "independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the
alternatives in good faith." (Ibid.) And the EIR, or some other document in the
administrative record, should have "explain[ed] in meaningful detail ... the basis
for" the alleged infeasibility of the reduced -size alternative. (Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376,
405.)
.4ltemative that should also be considered:
One alternative not reviewed in the EIR is comprised of a single 4 -story building
(Building #1) located next to SR 85, then gradually lowering the building heights to one
3 -story (Building #2) and two, 2 -story buildings (Building #3 and Building 94). The
existing site office square footage would increase from 250,OOOsq.ft. to 378,125sq.ft.,
representing a 66% increase. This alternative would further lower the above -cited impacts
on the surrounding communities, would add more employment opportunities, and take
advantage of the Vasona Light Rail.
Sincerely,
NEW I US l
Rachel Mansfield- Howlett
Attorney for LGCRD
Page 7 of 7
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
,1 1
m
0
0
ro
Z
s
ro
71
f� 1
�
N
°
O
.W
4.j
0
4-J
41
pQE
®
fa
C.®
cm
fu
w-.
-W
U
.0
_
O
i
CL
41
4-1
4-J
Q)
U
O
O
a.r
O
O
In
2
m
of
^�
w
E
Q)
O
O
w
®
O
a.
fu
O
4.+
CL
0%
U
O
4-'
°�
.O
Q1
C•
O
1.
cn
r.
-0
0�
®
.O
1
.r
(0
ri
a
®d
m
O
Lfi
m
/>
,/v
M
pq\
.4d
q
y0,
Q)
m
Q)
:j
E.
Q)
,�
^0
/m
E
VL/
PW
L
i
/
i°
V
W �
a�
N a
U. O
_ -W > O
_ M o
a� °' r
°w
'L a� t Ln
L °w 00
V� z °z
Lei
ce
W 'a L°� oo =
c a� (V _ +r o
LL on E mw
ce m
°1w= M r
a �Eg', O
W w o �~ O
c- m �3u
ow > >,.
V w ='r- 'Osoa� °_c w N
W of E Vl � £ > m a)-- �M ML- uw
0 cW co ocnc =s3a�o
am 0
L
O 4l
_
C w = L o
'- '-
c V)
_
_ a -a o O ca D
= co m ri L '- = OAS
O W a O
O = cn p O�.O
E O m Z 0 O J
C
_ .— '—
® O 0 N _
N _ m 'ar C Uf V C= w
0
/A \' W Q fC y L \' W® m
t •E "~ N O w> O� a, L 4' a
i O O
to O g rC d' U �. _ C
•� Ea) La�3 >'�
E. �L �'zc°�oCs� Co f°- �
Z
m
a
M1
N
N
pf
b
m
d
d
W
d
O
d
O
�
C
O
W
M
N
N
N
N
N
M
n
bm
W
b
N
W
01
d
N
b
n
O
N
Oct
b
ro
o C
M
W
N
n
T
m
a
o
O
b
W
O
~ O
y
Rj
Qj
N
pl
Yyyf
Yi
y
p!
N
n
M1
o
O
fV
o
a
r
d
N
O
O
U
N
�
H
m
m
H
H
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
H
o
N
o
0
o
m
n
o
o
m
U
b
x
W
of
n
vi
YJ
m
r
d
b
V
b
of
b
w
ai
W�
N
W
N
C
r
y�
O
v
R
H
H
H
m
m
H
H
m
H
m
H
u
M1
M
N
W
O
n
N
N
N
m
d
b
O
M
W
M
YJ
M1
m
W
b
>
o
W
M
d
b
M
m
O
W
m
m
y
y
Om
�
N
m
Of
n
m
W
N
O
�
�
T
O
N
M
�
O
u
m
m
H
m
H
m
m
m
H
m
H
m
°o
°o
b
b
m
t
d
o
o
m
m
b
m
m
n
n
m
Q
aioti
O
W
o
01
ah
N
M
vi
n
M
O
S
u
H
H
H
H
H
H
m
m
H
H
H
r
o
d
O
b
O
O
O
Y
O
O'
m
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
d
m
Ol
b
b
O
b
O
O)
O
O
m
V
O
O
O
m
b
(C
W
m•
O
M
N
a
at
n
�O
v
o
v
v
v
m
w
a
0
IL
m
H
m
m
m
H
m
m
m
m
m
c
O
o
o
W
0
o
0
0
o
o
M
b
o
o
0
0
0
o
0
M
a
o
0
at
0
o
b
o
0
C
0
0
�
E
n
�vio�or000
b
o
o
�
�
m
o
o
a
m
O
m
O
M1
N
ut
YI
N�
d
d
d
d
d
m
W
a
O
a`
a
Z
m
H
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
w
aO
m
J7
v
�
E
d
N
S
r
o
C
f
m
U
E
v
M
f
a
o
n
o
9
Q
v
r
ai
a
0
u0
..•
°
5
�
4
E
E°
M
E
a
E
N
c
E
m
y
O
H
4
o
m
0
m
�
m
U
E
y
a
N
�
a
a
Z
a
U
Y
�.J
=f•
C
°.
`0
UJ
0
t
3
^
g
am
E
a
r
Ix
OC
U
D
R
N
O
00
�•
a
E'
O>
N
`oa;z
0
azmy'co
C)ao
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
»
v
\
\
\
/
o
.
tn
"
o
±
\
%
%2,
Q
\
B
/
m
'
§
°
7
�
/
«
2
�
L.
\
k
o
�
o
[L.
k
w
o
�
\
\
2
(
vj
o
B
v
q§
0
0
Q
4-1
Ln
§
o
Q
°
2
m
/
k
Ln
§
°
°
/
\
2
(Z
Ln
c
%
ra
2
%
V)
o
�
i
k
Qj
k
Q
a\
2
W
2
k
7
q
m
Footnotes:
The purpose of this study was to get some perspective on what money is likely to come to the town
and the schools from 1 -1 -13 to 12- 31 -18. I attempted to get some forecasts from Mr. Larson and Mr.
Conway, but neither would return calls nor email. Most of what you see here I have found on the web;
talked with the business managers of both LGUSHD AND LGUSD; communicated with the Santa Clara
County Assessors office; and talked to real estate people. I relied heavily on information in the Fiscal
Impact Analysis and the EIR. I am a semi - retired business broker and 42 year resident of Los Gatos.
There is no guarantee these projects will be completed within this time frame, but each seems
reasonable given the current economic conditions and future forecasts. The developers, for the most
part, all have deep pockets and can weather storms. I think everyone on both sides of the equation are
more than ready for something to happen to the North 40.
Much of my information came from Mr. Shenks 4/4/2013 memorandum. The numbers he used came
from an independent resource, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS). I then also reference Mr. Shenks
Fiscal Impact Analysis, also produced by EPS, dated 4/24/13.
Of note, in the 4/4/13 memorandum, I think I saw that the full development costs for 550,000 sq ft were
510 per square foot, garages included. In the 4/24/13 memorandum, I noticed the cost to be $505 per
square foot. With unsecured property, it was $597 per sq. ft. For this study, and only using 350,000 sq.
ft., I used the EPS number of 510 per sq. ft. for 350,000 square feet, garage included.
Footnotes to my analysis:
Albright 350 (I used Mr. Shenk's Fiscal Impact Analysis for most numbers)
Net Property Assessment: To be conservative, I stayed within the restrictions of the General
Plan and used the smaller square footage. Numbers will be greater if the project is built out at
550,000 sq. ft. The $199,054,000 are Mr. Shenk's proforma numbers for 350,000 sq. ft.
Property Tax: 1 % of Net Property Cost. Could increase by 2% each subsequent year.
Development Fee: $.51 cents X 350,000 sq ft. I did not add the garage at $30 per square
foot as I don't think he added it to his school impact fees.
School Fees: They total up to 40.62% X Net Property Assessment. I used the numbers off Mr.
Shenk's Fiscal Impact Analysis for calculations.
Rates in Excess: Came from Mr. Shenks Fiscal Impact Analysis.
Total School Revenues: All tax money plus the development fees.
Total Recurring Revenues: Total tax money less the one time development fee. There is the
potential of a 2% increase each subsequent year.
North 40:
This was the big guesstimate and the big kahuna of all the projects. The property is for the most
part zoned agricultural, which is very low. Additionally, the property hasn't sold since the 50's, so
it has a very low basis. I found one house with an assessed value in the 1950's of $21,259 and
was purchased for $928,000 a couple of years ago. The last assessment was 2.29% of the new
assessed value, meaning that the assessment went up 4365 %. Consequently, the tax windfall to
the town and the schools will dwarf all other projects. For my study, I set the former assessed
value of the property at 10% of the new, estimated price. I have no idea on the property
improvements but assume them to be equally low.
Rumors of the cost per acre ranged from $ 2MM to $ 4MM, but the property is still in
negotiations. Swanson and Albright went for about $2.5MM per acre. My intent was to be
close, but trying to remain on the conservative side, I am guessing at $2MM / acre.
For numbers on the build -out, I used the current maximum quantities expressed in the NOP -EIR,
2- 13 -13, as the earlier numbers were even higher than these. If less is built, I would assume
these numbers would shrink; if more, grow.
New housing units sale prices seem to vary from - $500 /sq ft to $800 /sq ft. I used $600 for
this exercise believing the living units will be a higher quality than average, but many will be
condo type. I assumed they would be sold rather than rented.
For Offices and Hotel, I used the $569 per sq. ft that was in the Albright study. It could be
higher as these buildings are substantially smaller than even the 350,000 ft version of Albright. I
would also expect the hotel to have a higher cost, but I have no clue where to find that with the
time I have available. For simplicity, I added 20% for personal property taxes to the cost per
square foot in line with the 20% number used by Albright for all but the residential.
For retail, I modeled after the Swanson Ford project that was 700 per foot for 30,000 sq. ft,
(htti): / /shi)co.com /active projects /pipeline 16005.php), but again, trying to be conservative, I
used $350 per square foot at the North 40.
Bluebird Lane: There are two houses left unsold that I have added in as they will sell after 1 -1 -13
Swanson Ford: I figured the housing and the commercial separately. The retail numbers are on the
web site above. I ball parked on the residential at 52,200 sq. ft. for 29 residences. I realize the property
sold or was partnered out to DR Horton by Sand Hill.
Sisters of the Holy Name: I estimated 17 high end homes on 1/2 acre lots. There is no neighborhood
opposition to the project. I estimated the home sale value at $800 per sq ft with the homes at - 3500
sq. ft. each. On a relative fast track.
Laurel Mews: A housing project with 22 homes estimated to sell at about $2,000,000 each. Just about
completed.
Capri area: This is a housing project only in the initial stages , but does look like it has legs. There may
be some senior housing for which I am unsure of the tax status. I am estimating 38 units at 1800 sq ft
each, selling at 500 per sq. ft.
Palo Alto Medical: Formerly the McHugh Lincoln Mercury. Followed web site guidelines
(htto:/ /shorn com /active proiects /pipeline 15400 p> o ) of 40,000 sq ft, $20,000,000 build -out with
$26,000,000 tenant improvements. The lease was supposedly recently signed.
Joel Paulson
Groin: Ann Sullivan <ann.sullivan @sbcglobal.net>
.ent: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:23 PM
To: Joel Paulson
Subject: Albright Way Development Project
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Paulsen,
I had planned to of attend tonight "s city council meeting tonight, but I am not able. I am writing to you to express my
concerns about this much debated project. As a Los Gatos town resident, I request that you vote against this project
because it is not in keeping with the Town of Los Gatos' cherished small town character, but poses great traffic
problems, that an additional signal or two will not solve.
This development does not comply with the established height restrictions that all of the other commercial
developments have had to in the towns history. The general plan and zoning calls for a height maximum of 35 feet and
there is no compelling reason to allow an exception for this project. In addition, to the height the overall scale and
quantity of structures is GIGANTIC in comparison to any other in OUR lovely town. I feel these buildings and parking
structures will be a huge eyesore to our neighborhoods and turn our" small town feel" into a major industrial park that
belongs along the 101 HWY corridor. Intensification for the light rail is specious since it will likely never be built. The
staff estimates that only 12 ridders of transit will come from this project. By allowing a project of this size on a 20 acre
parcel in OUR Town is unwarranted.
There appears to be one tenant who needs 137,000 square feet and is currently operating in the Los Gatos Industrial
ark in ONE and TWO STORY buildings.
Concerning traffic, it's ridiculous to think by adding a signal to this area, that already has 4 signals and doubling the
traffic, that the traffic will not degrade from a Level D, but somehow magically improve it to a Level B. It simply doesn't
make sense. My mother always said "common sense isn't all that common" and in this case, it doesn't appear there is
much of it involving this development and those who support it. Furthermore, the traffic calculations that have been
presented in favor of this project are very suspect for two reasons: 1) The estimated number of employees are at 3.3 per
1,000 square feet is woefully low., 2) the estimates of peak traffic for even this suspect number of employees is highly
dubious. The estimated number of employees is well below the parking standards in the Town of Los Gatos for office
space, lower than the average employees in Tech Companies in Silicon Valley (250 sf per employee) and completely
inconsistent with " modern complains" like Facebook, Google, etc. The estimates for for peak traffic assume only 25% of
employees will arrive and depart work during peak hours. I understand that Tech companies allow for flexible hours,
but it is foolish to assume that 75% of them will be arriving and departing work outside of peak hours. The proof is that
other City's such as Mt. view, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose are experiencing terrible traffic jams at peak hours.
Studies have shown that most "modern" tech company employees in these cities still arrive at work and depart during
peak traffic hours. It's unavoidable if any of these employees have families, spouses and children to pick up for after
school care etc.
This GIGANTIC Complex is out of Character for our Town and will very likely decrease the ability to travel in and out of
the downtown area as well as accessing the freeways. The bottom line is the residents of our beloved town will lose in
quality of life and the Silicon Valley "stress" in getting about town and to our homes will be here to stay .
Sincerely,
Ann S.
imeowner and advocate for keeping Los Gatos on the top of the list of the most coveted Bay Area Towns to live in!
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Barbara Lea [mailto:barbara lea(a)comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:26 PM
To: Council
Cc: Town Manager
Subject: Albright Development
Ladies and Gentlemen
It's very simple. Los Gatos needs money — especially for our schools. The Albright Development will
bring us revenue. What sensible town would turn down income? I lived on Bella Vista, above the High
School, for 30 years. Would I have liked a three -story building there? No! Now I have lived behind
Courtside for 10 years, and I think developing property next to the Freeway makes sense.
One of the realtors who spoke at a Planning Commission meeting testified that he does not have enough
adequate office space to show prospective tenants. It's not just Netflix- -other companies would like to
come to Los Gatos too. The developers have gone to great lengths to change the Albright plan to
accommodate many of the original complaints. I am a retired instructor and one of the founders of
West Valley College, where we counted on getting students coming to us who had been well educated
in local schools. Proposition 13 robbed our communities of the share of local homeowner property
taxes we used to get, and the schools are in desperate need of financing. Poor schools cannot prepare
and send on excellent students. It is just not possible.
Now it is time for the citizens and the Town Council of Los Gatos to take a long- range, civic- minded view
and welcome the developers of the Albright property to Los Gatos. They need us and we need
them. It's time to vote YES on the Albright Development.
Sincerely, Barbara Lea
121 Strathmore Place, Los Gatos
From: Steinbock, Bob @ San Jose [mailto:Bob.Steinbock@cbre.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:21 PM
To: Council
Subject: Netflix Campus at Albright Way
Dear Mayor Spector and members of the Town Council:
I am writing in support of the Albright Way Office Campus.
Building a world -class office headquarters in Los Gatos is a source of pride, jobs, and revenue for our
community and it is important that we retain Netflix.
This decision effects the long term health of our community; therefore, touching every resident
regardless of where they live. The proposal to upgrade the existing outdated light industrial office park
has undergone extensive public review and environmental studies. It was concluded that there would
be no significant impact to the community. It also was concluded by professional staff that the project is
consistent and complies with the policies and goals of the General Plan, and that the use of Planned
Development zoning is appropriate.
We should be seizing the opportunity to transform the existing office park into a corporate campus to
attract leading edge companies and provide for Netflix's expansion. Today's workforce demands require
up -to -date facilities which can only be obtained through reinvestment in the property. A strong job
base keeps our community thriving.
One of the most significant benefits of the project is the property tax dollars for Town services such as
such as public safety, road repairs, and library hours as well as the over $1.4 million dollars in annual
funding to our local schools. A chance, like this, to make such a positive impact in our community only
comes around so often. I hope you will take advantage of the one before you and vote to approve the
Albright Way Campus project.
Sincerely,
Bob Ste inbock
126 Twin Oaks Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: d.madsen(o)nm.com [mailto:d.madsenCaDnm com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:26 PM
To: Council
Cc: Town Manager
Subject: Net(lix / Albright Project
As a 7 year Los Gatos resident, expecting to be for many more years, I strongly support the
Netflix project and urge you as members of the town council to approve this project and keep
Netflix in Los Gatos and allow our community to thrive.
Thank you
Dan Madsen
140 Mary Way
LG 95032
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FINANCIAL NETWORK
Dan Madsen, CLU, CLTC
Wealth Management Advisor
60 S. Market St. Suite 600 San Jose, CA 95113
W: (408) 535 -5710
C: (408) 691 -6807
F: (408) 535 -5702
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: jan prinzivalli Uanprinzivalli @hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:42 PM
To:BSpector
Subject: Please Look At Pictures & Decide
Dear Town Council:
YOU WILL MAKE A DECISION ON JUNE 3 THAT WILL PERMANENTLY AFFECT THE SKYLINE AND IMAGE OF
LOS GATOS.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE ATTACHED PICTURES OF A DEVELOPMENT ON SCOTT BLVD. IN SANTA CLARA THAT
IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSED ALBRIGHT WAY PROJECT.
Will we become the "Little Shop of Horrors" constantly subjected to incessant demands to "Feed me
Seymour, feed me." You know WeSupportLosGatos.org will not be satisfied with one exception to the
town's development limits.
Representatives of the Baccardos and Sobratos did not spend their evening at the Monday town council
meeting only to support the Albright Way project. They want to establish a precedent so no restrictions
will limit development at their sites in town and the North Forty.
Will we be known as a small town, innovation incubator with terrific schools, unique shops & fantastic
food or the home of established, high growth national & international businesses with demand for ever
increased space, more housing, bigger schools and wider roads to handle traffic congestion.
Please remember our finite infrastructure and cast your vote with the Planning Committee. Send
Albright Way back to the drawing board.
Jan Prinzivalli
101 Charter Oaks Circle
Los Gatos, CA
i t2�t
l
4
�r
y;_c .ace FIBER
3
i-
x tt
i�
E,' t
k
a
i
3
t
z
i
a
i
S
i
4
R
Y-
a
ri�i
MESSINA■S
'
r =
& .
a
i
3
t
z
i
a
i
S
i
4
is
5
From: Cecil Anison [ mailto:cecil.anison4agmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:07 PM
To: Council
Subject: Albright Way
I was on my way to Kaiser last week and drove by the massive development being built on Scott Blvd. It
looked surprisingly like the Albright development renderings I'd seen. The sight was mind boggling
invoking images of what could happen to Los Gatos. Allowing this development to be approved as
planned opens the door for similar places in LG (the North Forty, the Lark - University small business
parks, etc.). The photos attached show what I saw. The last photo is a view from my own driveway at
Charter Oaks for comparison.
Picture I - Scott Bled, Santa Clara
Picture 2 - Large building under construction across the street on Scott
Picture 3 - View from my driveway at Charter Oaks
Moving to this Town 30 years ago was purposeful for most residents. We wanted a better quality of life.
At one point I lived closer to downtown and know how much the Planning Commission worked to keep
the historic nature of Los Gatos. Please don't neglect the other end of town. The Town wants money, tax
revenue, of course. The schools want monev, understandably. But how much more money will be
generated by going against our General Plan height limit of 35 feet? S350K? For that, would you throw
away the quality of life and the future of Los Gatos. Isn't your responsibility to the people of the Town?
Our Town is not in the business of building Class A business space; there are plenty of surrounding areas
we can see and know we don't want the same for Los Gatos. Have you checked out the business parks of
Cupertino, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and San Jose?
An exception to our General Plan was made for the small, high part of the current Netflix building. The
Albright developers are using that building as rationale for the height exception. However, there is no
real comparison between that small high part of one building and the massive 65 ft block structures that
are being proposed. If Albright is approved, the door is wide open for more local development with even
greater height and mass.
The traffic on Lark, University, and Winchester has grown considerably since Netflix and Smith Ranch
Court were developed. The new building on Winchester and Knowles will add even more traffic to our
roads. For the 300 or so residents of Charter Oaks, Lark Ave is the only exit and it is already very busy.
The EIR says there will be no negative impact on traffic because it will be mitigated. How untrue that is,
especially since the EIR study was based on faulty statistics for the projected number of employees in the
new business space. There will be many, many more than 3,100 extra car trips a day. No matter how it is
"mitigated" it will be a traffic mess that will affect all of the residents of Charter Oaks, the surrounding
neighborhoods and business, and anyone else coming in or out of this pail of town.
With a clear conscience, please make the right choice for Los Gatos and return this faulty plan to the
Planning Commission for compromise.
Tr
� 1«
(
%
-
,Ad,� :
W
.
\
\�
\
\�
-�2y\
w
z -
-
�
!
I_
- l
- i It
91 fin 45 k,
ra%trtu, rnsrc8eaaaruY�-•.,
t
d <2wA
S »
�i »<
\� � �
`�_ \ \
% § �,
\ ^\\
� }i {\
«Ti
{ �f
�
/ \\
\ !/
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Joel Paulson
From: John VanUnen <jplg159 @verizon.net>
;ent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:23 PM
To: Diane McNutt; Joel Paulson
Subject: Albright development
To Council woman Mcnutt and Senior Planner Paulson,
I'm writing to ask you please DO NOT APPROVE the Albright development as it is planted.
For one, it will open the door for more Big Business to build high density, and this is a small Town,
that cannot handle the amount of traffic that will result from the amount of people coming in and out.
It will also invade the privacy of the folks in Charter Oaks.
This small Town was never intended to become bigger. The traffic on Lark Avenue is already
congested during most hours and will affect emergency vehicles and all of us who live off Lark Avenue.
And the fact, there is no possible way Lark Avenue can EVER be widened.
This Town does not have the land to expand unless you allow take over of private property, and that would
be unfair to all of us who bought here for the small, quiet. Town appeal. And with the plans to develop
Oka Road and the North Forty property, it will become a nightmare. I'm afraid our property values will drop,
and this area will be crime ridden. My husband and I have lived in the same house over 50 years, and we hate to
see
'tis Town become undesirable.
Please respect the citizens of the Lark Avenue neighborhoods and send it back for redesign and lower heights.
The tax paying citizens of this area should be listened to.
Thank You for your time.
Mr. and Mrs. J VanUnen
iplgl59cvverizon.net
From: zenorbital [mailto:zenorbitalCcbgmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:15 PM
To: Council; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski
Subject: YES on Albright Way Campus
Town Council of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Albright Way Campus - Support
Dear Town Council Members of Los Gatos,
I recently moved to Los Gatos 3 months ago, bought a home and moved my family here.
My wife and I are in our 30s, we have a 4 -year old daughter and a 2 -month old son. So far, we are a very
happy resident family of this city, with great, friendly neighbors.
I spent 8 months during my house hunting search across Los Gatos, Cupertino, Los Altos, and Mountain
View. I made 8 attempts at buying a home among the cities listed above and I was outbid each time, save
the last. My competition for buying each of those homes were very much like me: families with very
young children looking to upgrade their school district.
My previous home was in the Campbell Union school district; it's value seesawed while I lived there,
appreciating only modestly. House values in Los Gatos, Cupertino, Los Altos, and Mountain View did
not seesaw during that same period. Appreciation of those homes were among the best in the South
Bay. Why?
School district. It's all about the school district.
Los Gatos has 2 school districts to look after and an increasing amount of young families moving in. We
came for the schools first and foremost.
Please do all you can to *guarantee* that the schools will be well funded for the next 20 years while my
kids and other kids will attend these fine schools. These schools are excellent now. Keep them
excellent. Albright Way goes a long, long way towards achieving this.
Please APPROVE the Albright Way Campus.
Our schools need the increased tax base to remain excellent. Our propertq \Blues need the schools to
remain excellent. Preserve Los Gatos's future, for without it, the past doesn't matter.
Thanks you,
Michael James
I I I Loma Vista Ct, Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Aaron Bean <aaronwbean@gmail.com>
Date: May 24, 2013, 9:10:06 AM PDT
To: <sleonardisalosgatosca.gov>
Cc: Tina Bean <tinaQvisistat.com>
Subject: Albright Way / Netflix
Dear Steve,
I encourage you to allow the Albright project to move forward, as designed.
The Los Gatos Town Council's job it to make decisions based on what is best for the Town. Los
Gatos cannot bear to loose Netflix. Between the sales tax revenue, their utilization of local
business, as well as it's employee's in Town spending, Netflix has become an essential
component of the Los Gatos economy on every level. Keeping this revenue stream open is what
is best for the Town.
The proposed buildings will not in any way detract from the Town's appeal. Let's be realistic
here - the property is adjacent to highway 85, railroad tracks, the busiest section of Winchester
Boulevard in Los Gatos, in an area already zoned for commercial development. The height of
the proposed buildings will not detract for anyone's perception of Los Gatos. In fact, the new
buildings would be a tremendous improvement over what exists there now!
The construction project itself will bring money into the Town as well. Everything from permit
fees, to utilization of local businesses and contractors, to the construction crews spending money
in Town will benefit the local economy. Urban renewal is an ongoing process. The Town needs
to embrace an applicant as highly qualified as this and embrace what benefits they will bring to
the Town.
I sincerely hope that the Town Council will ignore a vocal minority's grievances about progress
and do what's best for Los Gatos.
Respectfully,
Aaron & Tina Bean
354 Johnson Avenue
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw(o)me.com]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 2:47 PM
To: Council; BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski; Marcia Jensen
Subject: Albright & Vasona Light Rail Extension
Dear Mayor Spector and Council Members:
Here's an email I received today on the funding for the light rail extension:
From: "Phelps, Cheryl W <Cheryl.Phelps(cDvta.org>
Date: May 24, 2013 2:00:59 PM PDT
To: "shepardsonlawprrie.com" <shepardsonlaw(dme.com>
Subject: Vasona Light Rail Extension
John,
To date, no funding has been identified to move the Vasona Light Rail Extension project forward
beyond the environmental review phase. However, once this phase is complete, the project is in
a better position to receive funding.
Potential funding could come from Federal, State and /or local sources such as Measure A sales
tax revenue.
I encourage you to keep visiting our website and also to click the blue envelope at top right
corner of page for any project you're interested in. After clicking the blue envelope and signing
up, you'll receive email notices any time new information is added to the location for the project
in which you're interested.
If this doesn't address your question, please let me know.
Thank you,
Cheryl Phelps
4T/9. Cheryl Phelps
Public Communication Specialist It
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First St.
San lose, CA 95134 -1927
408.321.5820 (desk)
www.vta.ora
www.facebook.com/scvta
From: Christina Haines [mailto:christina haines(o)msn.comj
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:13 PM
To: Council
Subject: The Albright Project
Dear Council Members,
As a longtime resident of Charter Oaks (33 years) and Los Gatos, I want to strongly urge you to
look into the issues with the proposed Albright Project. Already we who live in this area have
seen an increase of traffic and noise for the last couple of years. We have accepted the change
through the years as good for the town and for the residents but to increase even more will
cause an effect that is no longer benefiting the residents, especially not the ones of us who live
in this part of Los Gatos.
At the last meeting many of the attendees were employees of Netflix, real estate professionals
and business owners. Very few of these people live in the area and will only take advantage
of the expansion during the work hours, not every day, every hour as the residents of Charter
Oaks. We have to deal with traffic and noise, the beautiful views being obscured, trees being
cut down and then you are even considering a development at Oka Road and parcel 23 Lark
Ave. Where is the small town feeling also for us in this part of the town? Are we the only ones
who have the bear the brunt of progress? We feel like less wanted step - children!
Due to my work schedule I will unfortunately not be able to attend the meeting in June in
person. I wish I could be there because fewer projects deserve more attention than the
Albright Project. The impact of this proposed project if it is accepted as is, will for ever change
and destroy the town and the neighborhood that we love so much!
Please carefully consider this very important and forever changing decision you will make on
June 3!
Sincerely,
Christina Haines
105 Spruce Hill Ct.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408 - 348 -9371
408 - 378 -7751
From: John Shepardson [shepardsonlaw @me.com)
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:25 PM
To: BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
Subject: Developer's ROI & Netflix Lease
Dear Mayor Spector and Council Members Leonardis and Jensen:
The internal financial documents of Netlfix indicate that their lease obligation in the Albright project is
63.4 million over a 10 year term. The effective rate over time is $3.84 per square foot /month
which is equal to $46.11 per square foot /yr. At this rate of return, the developer's ROI for 350K
would appear to over 7 %, their represented threshold rate. Moreover, the EPS report appears to be
quite conservative, and I would imagine that the Carlyle Group has calculated an ROI over over 10% at
350K. There are hard shell and soft shell issues, and NNN to be considered as well. The footnotes in the
EPS are informative.
Thank you for considering this email.
JS:)
JOHN A. SHEPARDSON, ESQ.
59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q
Los Gatos, CA 95030
T: (408) 395 -3701
F: (408) 395 -0112
To: Mayor Barbara Spector
From: Steve Gonzalez
Address: 108 Willow Hill Ct, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Friday, May 24, 2013
Subject: Albright Development
Dear Barbara,
RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2013
MAYOR & TOWN COUND..
I'm writing to let you know my comments and feeling regarding the Albright
Development plans. I live in the Charter Oaks Townhouse just next to the proposed
development area and will have to live with, and get to look at, whatever is decided
by the LG Town council. I lived in the Los Gatos area in the 1970s and my 2 oldest
sons were born in this town. I've recently moved back for a job in Cupertino. Of
course, I chose LG for my home for the small town environment and general non-
industrial activities. I wanted to live here again for the quality of life based against
the General Plan and Vision for the Town of Los Gatos. This being said, I deplore the
proposed large buildings and traffic congestion from the Albright development.
I also understand that people and corporations should get to use the land they own
for their use and benefit. To this end, I would propose and support a "meeting in the
middle' approach, as presented below:
ALBRIGHT ELEGANT SOLUTION
EXISTING DEVELOPER
Conforms with General Plan Non - Conforming with GP /Area
The Elegant Solution makes sense to both the town and citizens of Los Gatos
Township. Netflix gets their development, protects my family's privacy, view and
enjoyment of living in Charter Oaks. In short, looks like a plan where everyone wins.
I ask you to please support this solution.
Thanks for your time and consideration. I can be reached to any concerns or
questions at 831 - 239 -5785
Steve Gonzalez
108 Willow Hill Ct
Los Gatos, CA 95032
^^L
W
LU
CL
0_'
I � 0
Q
M
•pq
Liu
LL
A
�!
M
LU
-L
(1.
ca
L
V
Z
V� �y
e >
N
X
W E
O
W
C
O
U
From: Crumpton [ mailto:crumpton3Cabverizon.netl
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:50 PM
To: Council
Subject: Against Albright Development
Dear Los Gatos City Council Member,
My Family and 1 are against the Albright Development currently before the town council.
At no time during the research I've been doing lately have I found ... specific exceptions to
the general plan height ... for any other area in town.
Once the property is developed, its foot print and visual impacts will likely be there for 30+
years.. The current traffic impacts in town are very clear and distinguishable from even 2
years ago. It takes almost 20 minutes to across town to get to 85 /Winchester now.
Significant underground parking and building height must be a priority consideration to
best blend the development into the landscape. Creating underground parking will lower
the building heights.
Respectfully,
Crumpton, Cathy, Tom & Will
124 Las Astas Dr.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
crumpton3@verizon.net
408- 356 -3632
From: David Clarke [mailto:dave1700Calyahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:32 PM
To: Council
Subject: Albright Development
Please add my a mail to the large stack of correspondence OPPOSING the Albright
Development.
I live at 104 Vasona Oaks Drive, (University Avenue across from Vasona Lake). I am the
president of the Vasona Oaks Homeowners Association and I am writing this on behalf of the 17
homes in our community. We oppose this development proposal because it will generate an
unacceptably large increase in traffic on the neighborhood streets (especially Lark, Winchester
and University) and because the height of the proposed buildings is incompatible with the vision
of the town that we believe is appropriate. If Nefflix needs higher densities, they should move
to downtown San Jose. Los Gatos residents should not have to deal with the problems
associated with high density business developments. We live here because we are trying to
GET AWAY from these types of problems.
Sincerely,
David J. Clarke
From: Michael Brozicevic [mailto :mike @iolliesfoodcompany.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:20 AM
To: Council
Subject: Albright and the General Plan
I hope your folks reviewed the General Plan. If this is not part of the plan - now is the time to
empathize this now. Does the Town want
to begin to have businesses and if so, where do they draw the line?
Why not retrofit what they have as dead property. By the way- they did this for Safeway and all it
became was the number one in alcohol
sales and created crowded aisle to do this. When the council members approved the new Safeway they
assured us this would not happen. It did.
We have lost any say as citizens for years in Los Gatos. It comes down to a small group who want to see
growth through inviting big business.
Joe and Diane are the leaders for this. Even though the General Plans says 18 times "small town" maybe
your group has to -et from each councilman "what is considered small ? ".
Sobrato usually wins his wars. He has two councilman in his pocket
From: John Shepardson [mailto:sheoardsonlaw(&me com)
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:49 PM
To: Council
Subject: Albright Development
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
1. htti)://www.mercurynews.com /peninsula /ci 22719389/edgewood- plaza- proiect- allowed - continue-
despite -grave -error
Sand Hill knocked down an historical building in Palo Alto.
2. Sand Hill involved in delaying litigation in Sunnyvale, and the City comments unfavorably on
developer's actions.
http: / /sunnyvale.ca.gov /Portals /0 /Sunnyvale /news releases /2012 /NR %2005%2012 %2012 %20-
%205TC.pdf
3. Sand Hill Website list's Albright property ( "Grove ") as a "Stablized" project. I was told by a Sand Hill
representative
that "Stablized" means a completed construction project and generating rents. Sand Hill has not
engaged in any
construction. Why has Sand Hill made this post? Has the property already been pre- approved for
development?
� C
j
r
Hom
ComDanv Profil
Contact U
The Team
I
4. Traffic:
Why doesn't the developer provide direct access off 85 onto the Albright property? Wouldn't this
reduce the traffic impacts greatly?
5. The VTA has provided a letter in support of 550K, and Council Member Pirzynski is on the Board of
the
VTA. Do these facts have any ramifications for this vote as a Los Gatos Town Council Member?
h tt p• / /www.ktvu.co m /videos /news /los -gatos -pro posa I -to- extend -vta -1 ight -ra i I- coming /viTxg/
Council Member Pirzynski mentions the proposal of 550K of commercial office space at Albright.
Is there is difference in values and goals between Los Gatos's desire to keep its small town
character and follow its General Plan, and the VTA's goals to promote high density commercial and
residential projects
along the rail lines? How much weight should we give to the VTA when the funding may never
occur? Should we
give it more weight when funding arrives? Should we build it, and hope the funding will then be
provided?
Joe Pirzynski and Michael T'. Burns: VTA turns 25 and look
future
By Joe Pirzynski and Michael T. Burns
Special to the Mercury News
Updated: 12/25/2012 08:35:04 PM PST
When the first light rail line opened in 1987, a new era in modern transit service emerged, symbolizing imminent growth and resolutf
Authority and Silicon Valley. The nine -mile, 12- station light rail line would be the first of nine segments to be delivered over 25 years
and 62 stations with connections to VTA bus and paratransit services, Caltrain, ACE, Capitol Corridor and one day BART.
The goal was to build a mass transit system that would serve the ever - growing urbanized area of Silicon Valley, serving as a transpi
development. Like Silicon Valley, the VTA light rail system has evolved through decades that have seen economic booms and busts
times of hardship, VTA has successfully delivered on the promise to voters to build a light rail system worthy of the 10.5 million trips
have been made in cars on already overcrowded roadways. More than a mobility option, the light rail system is the backbone to VT/
carried over 42 million people by years end.
Besides being a major contributor to reducing traffic congestion and harmful carbon emissions, light rail stimulates growth. It becom
Advertisement
B, but about how transit transforms point A and point B. Development and investments made in and around transit stations and corr
air pollution. It is imperative that VTA, cities, the county and greater Bay Area continue to work together toward this vision of decade
In this spirit, VIA has adopted a 20 -year light rail investment program that identifies efficiencies and capital improvements that will a
example, the VTA Commuter Express service launched in 2010 was the first to offer a faster, more direct light rail trip by skipping st
Jose. Riders have shaved 36 percent off their travel time and VIA has seen a 27 percent increase in ridership. By 2018, when BAR
area of East San Jose, VIA is planning to operate express trains throughout the entire system, connecting people from all over the
bus network.
As the county continues to house and employ more people, the growing demand for a green alternative to driving and well - planned
to continue to deliver improvements to get a better return on the investment made in the light rail system, making an even greater in
years.
Joe Pirzynski is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority board vice chair, and Michael T. Burns is VTA's general manager.
6. If the "Google Effect" in terms of high density workers /thousand square feet is 7 /thousand
square feet, what will traffic impacts
be?
7. Can we get nighttime photo simulations of the developer's proposal? Shouldn't we have them given
the magnitude of the project?
8. What is the probability the funding for the VTA light rail extension of $175M will occur in the next 5,
10, 15, 20 years?
9. Can we get a copy of the Netflix lease?
10. Will Netflix leave Los Gatos if the property is built out to 350K per the EIR recommendation?
11. When is Sand Hill's Gateway project going to be built? We are going on 4 years.
Is there possible litigation because of his failure to act? Was there a construction contract?
Is there a construction deadline for Albright?
12. Who are the actual developers of Albright?
13. With only 1 road in, are there safety issues?
14. Since underground parking worked at the present Netflix site, why not Albright? What are the
environmental
impacts? What are the financial costs?
15. At one point would the rental rates allow the developer to earn 7% or greater at a build -out of
350K?
16. EPS report
'EPS has identified a development return of 7 percent as the minimum 'hurdle rate' required for development feasibility."
[This not the developer's hurdle rate.)
"In addition to a reconfiguration of the existing surface parking, the Proposed Project would include a structured parking garage to
accommodate the site's parking."
[Higher employee /office densities will probably result in insufficient parking.]
"A development project that generates returns below the feasibility "hurdle rate" of 7 percent is unlikely to attract the necessary
financing and would likely not result in development."
[Isn't the financing already in place? So If the project does not generate a projected 7 %, the project will not be developed ?]
"To identify an appropriate lease rate, EPS reviewed market comparables in the Silicon Valley region, as there are few, if
any, appropriate comparables available in Los Gatos specifically."
"In addition, unlike most of the available office development reflected in the comparables, these buildings are designed to attract
single - tenant users who will take the full square footage."
[What if they don't, then higher rate of return? What if Netflix leaves, who rents ?]
17. Market Information
Silicon Valley: Commercial Real Estate
Mega -Deal Involves 73 Office And
Research Buildings
Quoting from htto� / /www huffngtgni)os[ com /2013/03/211sili con - valley - commercial- real - estate n 2925965 html
TPG and DivcoWest, in addition to paying $400 million in cash for the buildings, assumed
$400 million in debt, according to a person with knowledge of the deal.
"This investment enables us to acquire a critical mass of assets in a rental market that is seeing one of
the best growth rates in the United States,..
Bill Tresham, president of global investments with Ivanhoe Cambridge, said in a prepared release.
(emphasis added)
Quoting from http-llwww.mercurynews.com/real-e5tatelO 22831654 /canad'an- and- amer'ca - ealtv-- esto s- oav -mo a -than
By George Avalos
Oakland Tribune
Updated: 03/21/2013 10:00:21 AM PDT
Leasing activity has been brisk the past two years in Silicon Valley, with the charge led by major expansions of Cupertino -based
(AAPL) and Mountain View -based Google(GOOG). Linkedln, Palo Alto Networks, Samsung, Lab 126 and Dell also have
space.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
John
JOHN A. SHEPARDSON, ESQ.
59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q
Los Gatos, CA 95030
T: (408) 395 -3701
F: (408) 395 -0112
From: Greg Snow [Greg @snowbittleston.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:42 PM
To:BSpector
Subject: Netflix Lease reduced area alternative feasibility analysis
Honorable Mayor Spector,
Thanks you for all of your due diligence on the Albright Way Project. As a public servant, you are
representing the citizens of our town proudly and honestly.
I am in the camp that believes that an alternative reduced size and mass of the development on the
subject property is not only essential to maintain the quality, definition and character of Los Gatos, but
required of those who make this very important decision based on the will of the majority of the citizens
that approved of and felt a level of comfort and accomplishment when the "General Plan" was adopted.
That was a defining document that should serve as the "'rule book" guide and instruction manual for all
future development within the town borders. Albright Way can be such a development and still meet
the goals of the developers need for a return on their investment as well as satisfying the current
tenant.
I am a CPA who lives in Los Gatos at 106 Almond Hill Court, Charter Oaks and who owns a business,
Snow Bittleston & Company CPAs, LLP located at 250 North Santa Cruz Ave. I lived at Charter Oaks in
the 1980s and only moved away (but still in Los Gatos) to raise a growing family. Now that I am single
and my housing needs have returned to a more modest sized home, I once again chose Charter Oaks
and recently purchased my townhome in October of 2011. 1 did this after feeling confident that the
prior proposed development, "Albright Way I" was turned down for the quality and aesthetic reasons I
described above. I don't believe that "Albright Way 11" improves on the prior rejected plan to the extent
that all of the concerns from AB -1 have been mitigated.
AB -II is still too large, too high and too dense relative to size, employee head count and traffic. It is
always in the developers best interest to "reach" for the maximum square footage and headcount to be
able to maximize profits.
As a CPA, I often have developer and investor clients ask me to "run the numbers" for them to
determine feasibility or income projections. I can tell you that most developers are happy with a current
market return of between 6.5% and 7.5 %, also known as the "cap rate." The reason they don't worry
about future operational costs in the planning stage is because as rents rise over time, building costs
remain fixed at current construction price levels. Additionally, as operating costs rise, they are typically
passed through to large tenant occupants as a CAM (Common Area Maintenance) charge, so the
increasing costs of an aging building does not rest on the owner, but rather on the tenants. So the ROI
(return on investment) increases as rents rise. Whatever the ROI is today, it will never get any lower;
only higher.
This project should be able to generate a 7% to 7.5% ROI at the reduced square footage. Building cost
per square foot do not vary much for a smaller building. Even though the recent EPS report, paid for by
LG Business Park, LLC, indicates that per square foot costs rise for reduced size buildings; my developer
clients tell me that it is not a significant differential because as the building gets higher, the additional
steel, foundation strength, HVAC and support for upper floors becomes more expensive per square foot.
The only non - scalable factor is the cost of the land; everything else; demolition, site prep, construction
and marketing, are fixed on a square foot basis within a fairly narrow range. The original EPS study to
reach the RO1 by the developer used $40 per square foot as a rent factor; Netflix disclosed in their
annual report that they had signed a lease for AB building #1 at $46.84 per square foot. That is more
than 17% higher than the developer used to determine RO1; so there is plenty of room for them to make
money. The EPS report paid for by LG Business Park, LLC of less than 60 days old, uses a $40 per square
foot rent to analyze the feasibility of the smaller alternative and conclude that the RO1 is only 6.3 %. If
the more realistic $46.84 per square foot rent is used, the RO1 jumps to 7.4 %, well within the acceptable
range. These calculations include a very prudent 10% vacancy factor. New construction with single
tenant spaces or pre- signed multi- tenant spaces are experiencing 0% vacancy factor which would drive
the ROI for the smaller development to over 8.2 %; very desirable in today's market, and don't forget,
THIS IS THE LOWEST ROI IT WILL EVER BEM
As indicated in the EPS report, if the other buildings not yet leased go to smaller tenants, which is very
likely based on the list of interested companies given to us at the last TC meeting, the per square foot
lease rate will be higher. The owners bought this land during the downturn when many commercial
buildings were vacant; today is a different story. Demand is high and driving up per square foot lease
rates. Money is flowing again in the Silicon Valley and companies like Netflix and many smaller
companies are clamoring for space. Many would be happy with a two story structure. ebay, in the
Greylands Business Park, which is all 3 story buildings, does'nt seem to have a problem "collaborating"
among their work groups. With a little subterranean excavation, the developers could have two 3 story
buildings and stay within the 35 foot height requirements laid down by the general plan. The town will
benefit from a healthy income stream for schools, town projects and payroll. Everybody can win here; it
is just going to take some fortitude to do the "right thing" in the face of accepting a slightly reduced
revenue stream to the town.
Please do the "right thing" and take the Planning Commission's recommendation to send this developer
a message that Los Gatos wants responsible development that fits into the General Plan. That space can
be and should be a statement of the town's commitment to responsible development that fits in well
next to their neighbors with which they shares space, views, light and noise levels. Charter Oaks is truly
"in the shadow" of the proposed development but would be a grateful neighborto the reduced size
alternative.
Thank you, Gregory W. Snow, CPA
Gregory W. Snow, CPA
Snow Bittleston & Company CPA's, LLP
250 North Santa Cruz Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Phone 408- 354 -8500
Fax 408 - 354 -3081
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw(@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:21 PM
To: Council
Subject: Re: Albright Questions & Points
Dear Mayor Spector and Town Council Members:
Is 550K in the best long -term benefit of Los Gatos?
To what extent are the VTA's goals inconsistent with Los Gatos's Small Town Character?
Are we being selfish as a Town for holding to our Small Town Character?
Do we have to have the VTA in Town to play our part as a Town in contributing to less traffic through
VTA use?
Is the closest VTA stop sufficient to meet the goals of the VTA balanced against the costs of expansion of
175M
and the Los Gatos Small Town Character?
Can the Town do more to increase use of bikes and protect the environment?
Do high tech workers use VTA?
How many Netflix workers currently use VTA?
Key Points:
1. Environment: No. 1 preferred plan under EIR- -350K.
2. Money: Developer will make money at 350K.
3. Schools: Will get approximately 636K in new money from 350K. North 40, if developed, will bring in
ample funds.
4. Area: Project inconsistent with surrounding area.
5. GP: Project inconsistent with GP.
6. PD: Spot zoning is running big holes through GP.
7. Traffic: "Google Effect" will not be mitigated by buses. Traffic will substantially exceed the estimated
3K new
car trips.
8. Small Town Character: Violated.
9. Views: Permanent loss of views of mountains, and buildings will light up the corner at night.
10. Double standard: Big developers get breaks that the rest of us don't.
11. Precedent: Other developers will use this project to increase height and density on other properties.
Open season on challenging the GP because it is not followed, which motivates developers to
challenge the GP, because they may very well get what they want.
12. Planning Commission: 4 -3 against.
Thank you for considering this email as you consider this momentous decision, one of the biggest
in the history of the Town.
JOHN A. SHEPARDSON, ESQ.
59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q
Los Gatos, CA 95030
T: (408) 395 -3701
F: (408) 395 -0112
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlawColme.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:16 PM
To: Council
Subject: Albright
Dear Mayor Spector and Council Members:
Thank you for considering this email. My, and our group's time, has
been directed to this project because the magnitude of the
decision on the Town short -term, and more importantly, long -term.
John:)
JOHN A. SHEPARDSON, ESQ.
59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q
Los Gatos, CA 95030
T: (408) 395 -3701
F: (408) 395 -0112
SAN DH I LL/PAU/CARLYLE'S 65 FT &
550K FT V.
35 FT & 350K FT (Elegant EIR -based
solution)
C05-1 BENEFIT ANALYSIS
MONEY FOR SCHOOLS LAND USE
ISSUE?
• NOT IN GENERAL PLAN
• NOT PART OF THE TOWN'S LAND USE
CONSTITUTION
5/30/2013
1
ALBRIGHT $ TO SCHOOLS
• PAU'S PROPOSAL: $1.4M (at Full build -out;
Estimate —using highest number available)
• 35/350K PROPOSAL (63.63 %): $890,820
• DIFFERENTIAL BENEFIT:
• $509,180/YR
• ($509,180 divided by 5K students
= $101.36 per student)
COSTS V. INCREMENTAL $509,180/YR?
• Weigh and balance costs v. benefits
5/30/2013
7
COSTS OF PAU PROPOSAL
1. INCREASED TRAFFIC
— "GOOGLE EFFECT" 6,7, 8 WORKERS /IK SQUARE FT = DOUBLE+
TRAFFIC ESTIMATED -6K+ NEW TRIPS /DAY NOT 3K
5 --f5
d' a" �y`4iCii'T.1"�iBYau�iri Ii tt di1iS,, rc, —
r t 'ki i d s M RM
• �. tom' .ate " �„'
• V
costs
Traffict.a...,m
m..[avo..v. c.monn x >nw.a wvr ev.uny •urmnn.. v..v.HUr*ewm.
rvrp� /..�,mw.,ryMn,rvw�e.L., npv Oke vevn �wf fur ny�vu�n +r.a_(n.em..y aefe.
uwµxnn nrmnvncrtry ¢.vnn cvw.a. r.n voiuvuxnmr,m
mury.n,ar_e•eurey nrrc vayunauerm. vn_ avw.. mfa wrvu arsn,apmn+r.rzvwn . nn ircuu,epea,rnan.vvinn unr..v.e
.,....r.m. ...,....n..k.r.wmker densities of up to seven workers per 1 ,000
square feet of space a...,
.,.. n.,.... a...... �w „.,i.�.nw.n..n,n.�......k... „w M.•........wfew.,w...r
•'. „,LMawv.kn'kmWUVN„1 rd
�rn+N wmerrnrwu rnn nrmnw�rsxy mn w„anwup'b newyrnrvmi„„.am w.m�v 1°'�o�uown.uenu vm r�l
fk,WUn,m,nn,y��e dnp,ruawnmmmmmNVVrq.Wn
.•,.�..,,�n„,�n..,.. —the biggest property impact is on parking demand. It
can increase by 50% or so.,..,.,. f.,..........„ n„ ,4„o„„....,r„„.„.�...,,,,.. „_.;
5/30/2013
C
5/30/2013
COSTS
• TRAFFIC (CONTINUED)
— 2. PAU'S GATEWAY PROJECT (4 YEARS VACANT)
• LG Staff report dated May 26, 2009 for Town Council
Meeting June 1, 2009
( http:// Iosgatos .granicus.com /MetaViewer.php ?view i
d =2 &clip id= 476 &meta id= 52729)P. 2:40K square foot
buildingPP.
9 -10: "The proposed project would generate
a net increase of approximately
1,933 average daily
trips, 164 AM peak hours trips and 187 PM peak hour
trips." (emphasis added)
• Approval of project did not ensure extension of VTA
light rail system
COSTS
• TRAFFIC (CONTINUED)
— 3. Already approximately 1 major accident a year
from backed up traffic on Winchester in front of
Courtside because Courtsider making left hand
turn out of main entrance (JS interview of
Courtside employee)
Costs
• Traffic (continued)
—1. Swanson has been vacant. The new residential
and commercial structures will add car trips on LG
Blvd, and in Town.
— 2. Bluebird and other projects adding traffic
costs
• Rat running -- increased use of side streets
because main traffic arteries are clogged
5/30/2013
5
Costs
:...o_
North Forty— 350 units in the LOS Gatos school districts 97 PD 21,000 (emphasis added)
Total New Students and New Car Trips" 488 39,229 (emphasis
added)
COSTS
— Traffic: Cost of delays to the community equals an
estimated $500 (entirely arbitrary number, could
be lower or higher) /day to the community x 365 =
$182,500
— Poor planning: Could have direct entrance off 85
off -ramp going southbound that would greatly
reduce traffic impacts, and provide a second
entrance for safety vehicle purposes
5/30/2013
0
,..p
0 ,P 1�
m
-If wtle�a -N ¢
u
w w
'munrc -o
d.
.�• .e w�aybinay.n..a sv9
� ��a
Total New Students and New Car Trips" 488 39,229 (emphasis
added)
COSTS
— Traffic: Cost of delays to the community equals an
estimated $500 (entirely arbitrary number, could
be lower or higher) /day to the community x 365 =
$182,500
— Poor planning: Could have direct entrance off 85
off -ramp going southbound that would greatly
reduce traffic impacts, and provide a second
entrance for safety vehicle purposes
5/30/2013
0
5/30/2013
Costs
• Parking
• The Town code requires 1 spot /235 FT.
Developer seeks special treatment - -1 spot /303
FT. Office use is underestimated at 3.3
employees /thousand square feet. If user rate
thousand /square feet is 6,7 or 8 ( "Google Effect ")
then there will NOT be sufficient parking. The
developers' supporters admit "collaboration"
between the anticipated hi -tech workers is a high
priority. Collaboration = Google Effect = more
cars, parking and car trips.
COSTS
• LOTS OF GLASS = LOTS OF NIGHT LIGHT
— Inadequate public display of projected buildings
— Zero developer presentations on what buildings
will look like at night
NIGHT LIGHT (GOOGLE MOUNT VIEW
BUILDING -- ACROSS FROM A FIELD)
ss
W_,� „xn, • ...�,. 1.s, d� .
5/30/2013
T
COSTS
• LOSS OF VIEWS OF GREEN MOUNTAINS
BETTER WAY: SCOTTS VALLEY APPROVED 2-
STORY BUILDINGS ON GREEN HILLS RD, THAT
ALLOWED COMMERICAL BUILDINGS FOR HI-
TECH COMPANIES AND PROTECTED THE
VIEWS OF THE MOUNTAINS AS WELL
COST OF LOSS OF VIEWS (EFFECTIVE
PLANNING: GREEN HILLS CENTER)
5/30/2013
E
COSTS (LOSS OF GREEN HILLS IF GO
TOO BIG)
COSTS
• PRECEDENT
• 1. BUILD MORE TALL, DENSE BUILDINGS
- A. LARK & 17?
- B. NEXT, A 65 FOOT TALL BUILDING IN YOUR
BACK OR FRONT YARD?
5/30/2013
10
COSTS
• DEVELOPERS' USING SCHOOL FUNDING TO
PRESSURE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DISREGARD
THE GENERAL PLAN ... IS THAT WHAT WE
WANT?
COSTS
IF OUR GENERAL PLAN DOES NOT STAND FOR
WHAT IT SAYS, DON'T WE ENCOURAGE MORE
DEVELOPERS TO DISREGARD IT, WHICH ONLY
SLOWS DOWN THE APPROVAL PROCESS?
• DOUBLE STANDARD FOR BIG DEVELOPMENTS
5/30/2013
11
COSTS
VIOLATION OF GENERAL PLAN
— INCONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING AREA
• 1. CHARTER OAKS— SINGLE FAMILY
• 2. FIRE DEPT. 2 STORY COMMERICAL
• COURTSIDE
• SMITH RANCH SINGLE FAMILY
• ACROSS CREEK SINGLE FAMILY
• HWY 85
• OTHERSIDE 85 VACANT FIELD
• NETFLIX AVE. HT. Approx. 43 FEET
COSTS
• DOUBLE STANDARD
• OUR GENERAL PLAN APPLIES TO THE
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER AND SMALL
BUSINESSPERSON AND THE DEVERLOPERS OF
LARGE PROJECTS DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT
5/30/2013
12
COSTS
• LOSS OF PRIVACY, VIEWS & SUN
- CHARTER OAKS
COSTS
LAWSUITS & DELAYS
NEWSContact:John Pilger (408) 730- 7535FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May
24, 201211elease # 05 12 12
http: / /sunnvvale.ca.gov /Portals /0 /Sunnyvale /news releases/2012/NR%
2005 %2012 %2012 %20- %20STC.pdf
"SUNNYVALE, Calif. — Sunnyvale Town Center will eventually fulfill the
City's dream of a vibrant retail, commercial and residential hub. What
many people don't know, however, is that this project is a private
development. It is neither City -owned nor City- managed.
Many have asked the City why we are not completing the project. The
answer is twofold. First, it is not ours to complete. But the second reason
is rather onerous. The project has been tied up by delaying lawsuits that
have served little purpose other than to hold the project hostage. Peter
Pau, the former minority partner in the development enterprise that was
unable to complete the project due to a lack of funding, has filed
numerous lawsuits that have only served to dissuade potential site
developers"
5/30/2013
13
COSTS
NO FUNDING FOR $175M VTA EXPANSION
John, To date, no funding has been identified to move the Vasona Light
Rail Extension project forward beyond the environmental review phase.
However, once this phase is complete, the project is in a better position to
receive funding. Potential funding could come from Federal, State and /or
local sources such as Measure A sales tax revenue. I encourage you to
keep visiting our website and also to click the blue envelope at top right
corner of page for any project you're interested in. After clicking the blue
envelope and signing up, you'll receive email notices any time new
information is added to the location for the project in which you're
interested. If this doesn't address your question, please let me
know. Thank you,Cheryl Phelps <image001.jpg >Cheryl PhelpsPublic
Communication Specialist IlSanta Clara Valley Transportation
Authority3331 North First St.San Jose, CA 95134 - 1927408.321.5820
(desk)www.vta.orgwww.facebook.com/scvta
COSTS
• EIR FIRST RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL WAS
350K, NOT 550K, SO LOSING OUT ON MOST
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT
SO DEVELOPERS CAN MAKE GREATER PROFITS
(PETER PAU AND CARLYLE GROUP)
5/30/2013
1A
COST: PROFITS OVER EIR RECOMMENDED 350K
(http://www.carlyle.com/about-carlyle/purpose-mission-values)
COSTS
DEVELOPERS OUTNEGOTIATING THE TOWN?
1. DEVELOPER ALREADY SAID NETFUX REQUIRED 85 FEET, AND NOW REQUESTING 65 FT AFTER EIR
ORDERED
2. DEVELOPERS' EPS ROI IS AVERY CONSERVATIVE 6.3 %, PURPORTED THRESHOLD 15 7 %.
DEVELOPERS' RETURN ONLY 7.1%
3. ESTIMATED LEASE RATE OF $40 SQFT/YR PROBABLE UNDERESTIMATING THE MARKET
4. NET FLIX: The internal financial documents of Netlfiz indicate that their lease obligation in the
Albright project is 63.4 million over a SO year term. The effective rate overtime is $3.84 per square
foot /month which is equal to $46.11 per square foot/yr. At this rate of return, the developer's ROI
for 350K would appear to Be over 7 %, their represented threshold rate. Moreover, the EPS report
appears to be quite conservative, and one would imagine that the Carlyle Group has calculated an
ROI over 10% at 350K-
5. In sum, the developer will most probably make plenty of money at the EIR preferred 350K level,
this should be the project that should be approved, and not 550K. The developers own retained
financial expert, EPS, calculates a 6.3% ROI which is quite conservative, and apparently does not
take into account the actual Netflix lease.
5/30/2013
15
Carlyle profCZSianals collaboratfnq zenmlezzly
„{ -
and s¢lf lezzty across funtls, fn ,¢z and
\ \l`=
geographiez to tl¢UV¢r GM1e wKd. dom.
knowl¢deE aptl r e r¢quvcd Go mvcsG
'
wisely and treat¢ value for our investors.
nuns P! YPOSe
nun, Vi3lt18;;
OUR/ mission
.,a.,.,....,_.,.,,�...b
ar..,w..� _....,.
ate,..._.. ..._,.,
COSTS
DEVELOPERS OUTNEGOTIATING THE TOWN?
1. DEVELOPER ALREADY SAID NETFUX REQUIRED 85 FEET, AND NOW REQUESTING 65 FT AFTER EIR
ORDERED
2. DEVELOPERS' EPS ROI IS AVERY CONSERVATIVE 6.3 %, PURPORTED THRESHOLD 15 7 %.
DEVELOPERS' RETURN ONLY 7.1%
3. ESTIMATED LEASE RATE OF $40 SQFT/YR PROBABLE UNDERESTIMATING THE MARKET
4. NET FLIX: The internal financial documents of Netlfiz indicate that their lease obligation in the
Albright project is 63.4 million over a SO year term. The effective rate overtime is $3.84 per square
foot /month which is equal to $46.11 per square foot/yr. At this rate of return, the developer's ROI
for 350K would appear to Be over 7 %, their represented threshold rate. Moreover, the EPS report
appears to be quite conservative, and one would imagine that the Carlyle Group has calculated an
ROI over 10% at 350K-
5. In sum, the developer will most probably make plenty of money at the EIR preferred 350K level,
this should be the project that should be approved, and not 550K. The developers own retained
financial expert, EPS, calculates a 6.3% ROI which is quite conservative, and apparently does not
take into account the actual Netflix lease.
5/30/2013
15
COSTS
• LOSS OF SMALL TOWN CHARACTER
• TNF r„FNFPAI PI Anl I ICTC TnlA /KI rwAPArTLP
18 TIMES
• BETRAYAL OF TRUST TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO
MOVED TO, AND LIVE IN, LOS GATOS FOR THE
SMALL TOWN CHARACTER
CONCLUSION
(in a phrase ... Town not City)
The cost to the community in terms of traffic, visual impacts, loss of view of the
green mountains, loss of privacy, brightly lit up corner, loss of small town
character, increased accidents, precedent for others large projects, and violation of
the general plan show that the incremental $509,180 (that would gained on top of
the additional $890,820 that would be gained from the 35/350K proposal) is not
worth the adverse impacts. 35/350K works and 65/550K violates our Town
standards.
35/350K is an elegant solution. The Developers will can develop the property and
make good money at 35/350K, and we can hold true to our Town standards and
reap almost 900K of new money for our schools...win -win.
GP calls on strong leadership from our Town Council, and to think in terms of the
long -term.
• Thank you for considering this PowerPoint presentation.
• John Shepardson, Esq.@
• Los Gatos, CA
• (408) 395 -3701
5/30/2013
16
r�
(n
U
(_-) r
cn
-ri 1
w
o
�y
� r-
-
Fri
rE
cg
w r,
m
�i
lk�l
Cl) �"'
cn m
w
cn
0
e
\use
a6 ll
N`lF_MORANDUM
To: John Shenk, LG Business Park, LLC
From: Teifion Rice - Evans, Ashleigh Kanat and Walker Toma
Subject: Albright Development, Reduced Area Alternative Feasibility
Analysis; EPS #121103
Date: April 4, 2013
E"m „nd, :. "I bind I At the request of LG Business Park, LLC, Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc. (EPS) has independently evaluated the financial feasibility of
developing the 350,000- square foot Reduced Area Alternative and
091 compared the development feasibility of the Reduced Area Alternative
relative to the 550,000- square foot Proposed Project. The purpose of
this analysis is to provide planning level guidance on the viability of
different development configurations under current market conditions.
It should be noted that changes in market conditions and /or unforeseen
changes to development costs could alter the conclusions of this
analysis.
EPS developed financial feasibility pro formal (see Tables 1 and 2) to
demonstrate the results of our analysis. The analyses are based on a
combination of standard, industry- accepted development cost
assumptions; EPS- vetted, project - specific assumptions provided by the
Developer; and, market revenue research based assumptions developed
internally by EPS. Applying these assumptions (described further
below), EPS has estimated the potential development return for the
Reduced Area Alternative and the Proposed Project. In EPS experience,
a return on cost of 7 to 9 percent is typical (calculated as annual
stabilized income divided by total project costs). EPS has identified a
development return of 7 percent as the minimum "hurdle rate” required
for development feasibility.
Economic& planning systems, Inc. EPS tested the robustness of our analysis by varying the lease revenue
250: Meath Street, Smte 200 assumptions to determine how sensitive the development return is to
8
9:90 tet analysis Berkeley, cA 94710-2257
510S�N changes in revenue. The results of the l sis are shown on
S ID
510 841 9208 ta= Table 3.
6erkehev
Denver
Los Angeles
Sacramento
www.epsys.com
Memorandum
Albright Development Feasibility Analysis
Key Findings
April 4, 2013
Page 2
Under EPS's base case lease rate assumptions ($40 per square foot), the Reduced
Area Alternative is not Financially feasible as the development return is below 7
percent.
The Reduced Area Alternative is projected to generate approximately $12.6 million in net
annual income. Projected development costs, including land costs, are approximately $199.1
million. This results in a development return of 6.3 percent, below the 7 percent "hurdle rate"
EPS identifies as an indicator of feasibility.
2. Under EPS's base case lease rate assumptions ($40 per square foot), the Proposed
Project is Financially feasible with a development return of 7.1 percent.
The Proposed Project is projected to generate approximately $19.8 million in net annual
income. Projected development costs, including land costs, are approximately $280.5
million. This results in a development return of 7.1 percent, a return on costs that EPS
identifies as marginally above the "hurdle rate" required for feasibility.
3. A sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of these Findings suggests that the
Reduced Area Alternative remains infeasible even under improved market
conditions.
Increasing the annual lease revenue to $42 per square foot results in a development return
of 6.6 percent (still below the hurdle rate of 7 percent). Reducing the annual lease revenue
to $38 per square foot further erodes the development return to 6.0 percent.
The development return under the Proposed Project increases to 7.4 percent when annual
lease revenues increase to $42 per square foot. The development return decreases to 6.7
percent when annual lease revenue decreases from $40 per square foot to $38 per square
foot.
Site Description
The 21.5 -acre- Los Gatos Business Park site is currently developed with ten buildings (total of
250,000 square feet of existing development) and accompanying surface parking at the
intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Albright Way in Los Gatos. The existing buildings
consist of one and two -story office /R &D developments and were constructed in the 1970s and
1980s. The Project site is bounded by Highway SR 85 to the north, Winchester Boulevard to the
west, and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the east.
Project Description
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project consists of four 4 -story, 137,500- square foot buildings with a height limit
of 65 feet, totaling 550,000 square feet of office /R &D space. In addition to a reconfiguration of
the existing surface parking, the Proposed Project would include a structured parking garage to
accommodate the site's parking.
Reduced Area Alternative
The Reduced Area Alternative calls for the construction of four buildings (two 2 -story buildings
and two 3 -story buildings). The four buildings would total 350,000 square feet of R &D /office.
The Reduced Area Alternative would include a minimum of 1,155 parking spaces, consisting
v!"W0ml2l+ M3.-
Memorandum
Albright Development Feasibility Analysis
April 4, 2013
Page 3
primarily of surface spaces with a small structured garage to accommodate approximately 80
spaces.
Methodology
EPS has prepared financial pro formas for the Reduced Area Alternative and the Proposed Project
that estimate the financially feasibility of development. Development feasibility is indicated by a
return of 7 percent or higher (a typical range is 7 to 9 percent). Development return is
calculated as annual net income divided by total project costs (including land). A development
project that generates returns below the feasibility "hurdle rate" of 7 percent is unlikely to attract
the necessary financing and would likely not result in development.
Key Revenue Assumptions
Lease Revenue
To identify an appropriate lease rate, EPS reviewed market comparables in the Silicon Valley
region, as there are few, if any, appropriate comparables available in Los Gatos specifically.
Annual lease rates for new, finished Class A office space range from $40 to $48 per square foot
in multi- tenant buildings. Because the Owner is developing the space to warm shell conditions
(which does not include improvements such as interior walls, flooring, fixtures, etc.) rather than
full build out, achievable lease rates for this project will be lower than for finished spaces. In
addition, unlike most of the available office development reflected in the comparables, these
buildings are designed to attract single- tenant users who will take the full square footage. Such
an arrangement is expected to be reflected in a discounted rent to account for the scale of the
space being occupied when compared to lease rates for smaller or multi- tenant leases.
Therefore, in this analysis, EPS assumes a lease rate of $40 per square foot of warm shell office
space. EPS also considered the location of the site relative to roadways and transit and the
provision of tenant improvements of approximately $50 per square foot.
Tenant Improvements
Tenant improvements (TIs) represent a cost to the Landlord but they are tied to achievable lease
rates. In EPS's experience, TIs vary widely, depending on market conditions, the quality and
condition of the space (in this case brand new warm shell construction), and the type of tenant.
Tech tenants often require higher TIs due to specific heating /cooling needs related to their
technology infrastructure. For these pro formas, EPS has estimated TIs of $50 per square foot.
Key Cost Assumptions
Land Cost Basis
The land cost basis of $52 million was provided by the property owner.
Hard Costs
Direct construction costs vary between the Proposed Project and the Reduced Area Alternative.
Direct construction costs for the Proposed Project are assumed to be $160 per square foot based
on EPS experience in Silicon Valley for similar product types, assuming a warm shell condition.
The cost per square foot is increased to $170 for the Reduced Area Alternative to reflect the loss
P:W1000111I I OJblbiigbl 1. GIIOaWOOe1JFOa b04 %121103 rea5abrliry 040413.00ei
Memorandum
Albright Development Feasibility Analysis
April 4, 2013
Page 4
of cost efficiencies associated with the shorter buildings.' This $10 differential (approximately 6
percent) is conservative. EPS spoke with construction experts who felt a 10 to 15 percent
differential would be appropriate depending on the number of "middle floors ".
Garage construction costs also vary by alternative and according to the same "efficiency" logic.
The Proposed Project will include a structured garage (ground level parking and one level of deck
parking) for approximately 965 spaces. The Reduced Area Alternative will include a structured
garage for approximately 80 spaces. Per space savings are realized in the larger garage as fixed
costs (elevator, ramp, etc.) can be spread across more spaces. This analysis assumes $25,000
per space (not including soft costs) for the Reduced Area Alternative garage and $20,000 per
space (not including soft costs) for the Proposed Project.
Demolition Costs
Demolition costs can vary widely. EPS has assumed $3.50 per square foot, applied to the
existing development of 250,000 square feet
Off -Site Costs
The off -site work estimate is provided by the owner and includes a new signalized intersection,
the connection of four existing signalized intersections, street widening, and a new bus stop pad.
EPS has no basis to verify or adjust this estimate.
Soft Costs
In EPS's experience soft costs can vary from 20 to 50 percent of hard costs depending on length
and challenges of entitlement period, Agency- specific development fees, and other project -
specific factors. EPS has used a soft cost ratio of 30 percent of hard costs, excluding tenant
improvements, fees, and miscellaneous other costs. Soft costs include architecture and
engineering, other professional services, taxes and insurance, and other soft costs. Other soft
costs include testing and inspection, surveys, environmental, construction period real property
taxes, construction period insurance costs, construction period, common area maintenance
(CAM) expenses, financing costs, and emergency prevention costs. EPS has included a
"Miscellaneous Costs" line item to account for potential lease buy -outs of existing tenants.
Permits and Fees
Permits and fees estimates vary by Project /Alternative. EPS researched the City's
development impact fees based on readily accessible fee information and prepared
fee estimates for the Proposed Project and the Reduced Area Alternative. Owner
Costs
Owner costs include leasing commissions, project administration and management costs, and
owner contingency.
' There is a difference in cost of constructing the bottom and top floors of a structure (e.g., grading,
foundation, utilities, and HVAC improvements) versus the middle floors, which are less expensive to
construct.
P:p210001R1 l 03AW19b( Los Gams \010deAl dNab,hirypL l03 F ab,h _040413 dwx
Table 1
Pro Forma: Reduced Area Alternative
Albright Development; EPS #121103
Item
Assumption
Amount
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Gross Building Square Feet
350.000
Net Leasable Area (sq.ft.)
100% Efficiency Ratio
350.000
Parking Spaces
Structured
80
Surface
1 075
Total Parking Spaces
1,155
ANNUAL INCOME
Lease Revenue
Annual Income (NNN) [11
$40.00 /sq. ft./yr.
514,000,000
(less) Vacancy/Mgmt/Reserves [21
10.0% of Gross Revenue
($1.400.000)
Net Annual Income
$12,600,000
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Land Cost Basis [3]
552,000,000
Hard Costs
Demolilion/ACM AbatemenUUtility Removal [4]
$3.50 /existing bldg. sq. ft.
S875,000
Direct Costs
$170 /gross sq. ft.
$59.500.000
Garage Work [5)
$25,000 /structured space
$2,000,000
On -Site Work
$20 /site sq. ft.
$18,835,000
00 -Site Work 161
fixed cost
$3,850000
Subtotal, Hard Construction Costs
$85,060,000
Soft Costs
Soft Costs [71
30% of Hard Costs
$25,518,000
Permits and Fees [8]
$1,750.000
Tenant Improvements [91
$50 /net leasable sq. ft.
$17,500,000
Miscellaneous Costs [10]
$500.00 0
Total Soft Costs
53% of Hard Costs
$45,268,000
Owner Costs
Leasing Commissions [111
$18 /net leasable sq. ft.
$6,300.000
Project Admin./Mgmt.
3% of Hard and Soft Costs
$3.910.000
Owner Contingency
5% of Hard and Soft Costs
$6.516 000
Total Owner Costs
20% of Hard Costs
$16,726,000
Total Costs
$199,054,000
Return on Cost [12]
6.3%
11] Annual triple net lease based on Silicon Valley comps and assumes new, Class A construction to warm shell, freeway and
Varian accessibility, single tenant lease agreement, and $50 per sq.ft. Th.
12110% is typical of other pro formes EPS has prepared.
13] Provided by the Owner.
141 Demolition costs based on existing square footage of 250,000.
151 Garage costs are calculated on a per stall basis and shown without associated soft costs. Including soft costs. per stall
costs equal approximately $32,500. A higher per stall coal, relative to the Proposed Project, is assumed due to the lower
number of total stalls and the need to spread fixed costs across fewer stalls.
[6) OR -site work estimate is provided by the Owner and includes a new signalized intersection, the connection of four existing
signalized intersections, street missing and a new bus slop pad.
17) Soft costs include architecture and engineering, other professional services, taxes and insurance, and other soft costs.
181 Permit and fee estimate prepared by EPS based on readily accessible fee information.
191 Tenant improvements vary vadely and typically range ham $20 to $100 per square foot. with tech tenants often requiring
higher Tls Higher Its typically result in lowereHectiverenls
[101 Miscellaneous costs include potential lease buy -outs.
1111 Leasing commission estimate assumes $18 per gross leasable square fool. and includes commission for both landlord
and tenant brokers. Typical range is between $16 and $20 per square foot.
1121 Typical return on cost is 7 to 9 percent.
Sources: LoGpnat Silicon Valley brokers: LG Business Park, LLC: Economic 8 Planning Systems. Inc.
Emrrwnic a Pfamug syrtms, Irc. V4allQ P1r210[Al2f InJNErg/Y lus Gazosalb0.^IFeasapirirylf2f 10] AIMgV Pmrorma WW 1] xhx
Table 2
Pro Forma: Proposed Project
Albright Development; EPS #121103
Item
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Gross Building Square Feet
Net Leasable Area sq R,)
Parking Spaces
Structured
Surface
Total Parking Spaces
ANNUAL INCOME
Lease Revenue
Annual Income (NNN) [1]
(less) Vacancy/Mgmb'Reserves f2]
Net Annual Income
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Land Cost Basis (3]
Assumption Amount
550.000
100% Efficiency Ratio 550.000
965
970
1.935
540 00 /sq ft lyr 522.000,000
10 0% of Grass Revenue (52.200 000)
$19,800,000
$52.000,000
Hard Costs
DemofitiordACM Abatement/Utility Removal 141
$3.50 /existing bldg. sq. ft.
$875.000
Direct Costs
$160 /gross sq. ft.
$88,000,000
Garage Work [5)
$20,000 /structured space
$19,300,000
On -Site Work
$20 /site sq. ft.
$18,835,000
Off -Site Work [6)
fixed cost
$3,850,00
Subtotal, Hard Construction Costs
$130,860,000
Soft Costs
Soft Costs [7]
30% of Hard Costs
$39.258.000
Permits and Fees [8]
$4,250,000
Tenant Improvements 191
$50 /net leasable sq. ft
327.500.000
Miscellaneous Costs [10)
$500.000
Total Soft Costs
55% of Hard Costs
$71,508,000
Owner Costs
Leasing Commissions [11]
518 /net leasable sq. ft .
39.900,000
Project Admin. /Mgmt.
3% of Hard and Soft Costs
$6.071,000
Owner Contingency
5% of Hard and Soft Costs
$10.118.000
Total Owner Costs
20% of Hard Costs
$26,089,000
Total Costs $280,457,000
Return on Cost [12] 7.1%
111 Annual triple net lease based on Silicon Valley comps and assumes new, Class A construction to warm shell, freeway
and transit accessibility, single tenant lease agreement, and $50 per sq ft. Tls-
12110% is typical of other pro formas EPS has prepared.
13) Provided by the Ovmer.
(4) Demolition costs based on existing square footage of 250,000.
(51 Garage costs are calculated on a per stall basis and shown without associated sell costs. Including soft coals, per stall
costs equal approximately $26,000. A lowerper stall cost, relative to the Reduced Area Alternative. Is assumed due to the
higher number of total stalls and the opportunity to spread fixed costs.
(61 Off -site work estimate is provided by the Owner and includes a new signalized intersection, the connection of four
existing signalized intersections, street widening and a new bus slop pad.
171 Soft costs include architecture and engineering, other professional services, lazes and insurance, and other soft costs.
(81 Permit and fee estimate prepared by EPS based on readily accessible lee information.
(91 Tenant improvements vary widely and typically range from $2010 $100 per square fool, with lech tenants often requiring
(10] Miscellaneous costs include potential lease buy -outs.
1111 Leasing commission estimate assumes $18 per gross leasable square foot, and includes commission for both landlord
and tenant brokers. Typical range is between $16 and $20 per square foot.
(121 Typical return on cost is 7 to 9 percent.
Sources: Loopnel; Silicon Valley brokers; LG Business Park, LLC, Economic 8 Planning Systems, Inc
Fmnanm d Planing SI.,, V¢. 11013 11121"12110UIbng lax Ga1oYAkMeiffeaaabni %1121103 AIGgY Prclwma 0aW 13,Iu
M
0
r
N
fn
IL
w
c
d
X E
O.
� O
a
f
M r L
a •y rn
F-0
t N
O1 �
S 1A
w
a
N C1 O
� N
V
d in W
C
yl
t0
J
C
Q O M
Jf9
it
d
a
N
e o
t0 V
� r
0 0
0 0
o I�
F
cr
N
0
O
O
O
N
v
d
a
m
d
Q
ami
Q
v
d
V
J
a
d
R
D•
N
O
0
0
0
N
V
d
a
d
N
O
CL
0
a`
U
c
N
N
U)
m
`m
a
E
c
0
w
in
C
E
_w
ti
a
c
a
M
E
w
From: Michael Seixas [mailto:mikeseixasC@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:35 PM
To: Council
Cc: anne4pUlaol.com
Subject: Albright Office Park Expansion.
Dear City Council Members.
My wife and I were not able to attend the Albright Office Park Meetings
in April do to conflicts. We live right across the creek in the Buena Vista
Park homes and we are in favor off letting the proposed 4 four story
buildings comprising 550,000 sq ft with a 4 story parking structure be
approved and built.
We have been told these buildings will then be the new home of NetFex
with the net effect of increasing employment and city taxes, which will
keep my taxes down. If not approved, NetFlex will leave Los Gatos and
move to San Jose (whom we have been told is working the NetFlex right
now on that alternative).
We believe the impact on the project, listed by Anne Robinson, is
minimal compared to the advantages. If you leave all the tall tree
around the project footprint, you can hardly see how big or tall the
billing are and they do not obstruct any one view.
We hope you approve the project and let a non polluting industry thrive
in Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Michael and Diana Seixas,
14685 Oka Road Spc 56, Los Gatos, Ca
From: John Shepardson [ma i Ito: shepardsonlaw@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:07 PM
To: Council
Subject: Albright (Commercial Property Info)
http: / /www.biziournals. com/sanFose/ news/ 2013 /05/28 /are- new - apple- google-
facebook.html ?iana =ind cre
CORRECTED -The new tech palaces: visionary HQs, or cursed trophies?
inShare2
Share this
Email
• Print
Related News
• Apple enloyed Irish tax holiday from the start
23 2u1s
• EU leaders talk tough on tackling Amazon Google over taxes
• British opposition leader says Google tax behavior'wrong'
• Ireland reiects blame for Apple's low tax rate
• Apple CEO makes no apology for company's tax strate
Analysis & Opinion
• Is a low corporate tax rate really in Irelands €TMs benefit?
• Apple tax fight needs global response
Related Topics
• Stocks »
• Markets »
• Media))
• Cyclical Consumer Goods »
• Industrials »
• Technology »
• Telecommuncations Services »
Mon May 2T 2013 12:40pm EDT
(Corrects time element to last week from this week in paragraphs 2 and 8)
By Bill Rigby and Alistair Barr
May 27 (Reuters) - While much of corporate America is retrenching on the real estate front, the
four most influential technology companies in America are each planning headquarters that
could win a Pritzker Architecture Prize for hubris.
Amazon. corn last week revealed plans for three verdant bubbles in downtown Seattle, joining
Apple's circular "spaceship," Facebook's Frank Gehry- designed open -office complex and a new
Googleplex on the list of planned trophy offices.
"It signals a desire, a statement, to say that we're special, we're different. We have changed the
world and we are going to continue to change it," said Margaret O'Mara, associate professor of
history at the University of Washington, who has written about the building of Silicon Valley.
"It's also a reflection of robust bank accounts. They have a lot of cash."
Historically, however, when a company becomes preoccupied with the grandeur of its premises,
it often signals a high point in its fortunes. These fantastical buildings may end up as little more
than costly monuments to vanity and a loss of focus on the core business that made for success
in the first place.
"I've been thinking the Apple spaceship is going to get nicknamed the 'Death Star' because the
project is so big and the timing is so bad," said hedge fund manager Jeff Matthews of Ram
Partners. The building is coming to fruition just as Apple's product cycles may be maturing, he
explained. "It is such a classic contrary indicator that you just get the shakes." He no longer
holds Apple stock.
Walter Price, who runs technology investment funds at RCM Capital Management LLC, shares
the outlook: "When companies build big headquarters it's usually when they're doing really well
and have strong outlooks, and that often coincides with a peak in their stock." Apple, Amazon,
Google and Facebook are battling to recruit tech talent, and attractive campuses help with that,
he added, but Apple's plan has not gone down well with investors. RCM's tech funds no longer
hold shares.
PROJECT RUNAWAY
Amazon's design, presented to Seattle city planners last week, includes three steel and glass
spheres almost 100 feet (30 meters) high, which will serve as the centerpiece for three new
skyscrapers that will house a rapidly growing workforce in downtown Seattle.
The plans call for "a series of intersecting spheres with ample space for a wide range of planting
material, as well as individuals working alone or in groups." Amazon declined further comment.
Google Inc, the world's largest Internet search company, has outgrown its original headquarters
in Silicon Valley's Mountain View and is planning to build a 1.1 million square foot Googleplex
nearby.
Called Bay View, it will have nine rectangular buildings, horizontally bent, with living roofs
surrounded by courtyards and connected by bridges. No employee will be more than a two -and-
a -half- minute walk away from any colleague, a design aimed at encouraging collaboration. A
Google spokeswoman declined further comment.
Facebook Inc is taking the collaborative idea a step further, with plans for Facebook West, an
addition to its main campus in Menlo Park, California, that will be the size of seven - and -a -half
football fields.
Facebook hired Gehry to bring his trademark style of unexpected angles and understated
drama to what is essentially one enormous open -plan office, where a worker can wander from
one end to the other without ever going through a door. The rooftop serves as a park.
An earlier version of the building plan featured flares on the ends of the structure like butterfly
wings, but Facebook decided not to go ahead with them, said Rachel Grossman, associate
planner for the city of Menlo Park.
Facebook spokesman Tucker Bounds said the expansion will be "extremely cost - effective" and
is needed to help the company develop new products for its users. He declined to comment
further.
Apple has the most ambitious idea, a 2.8 million square foot glass ring on 176 acres. It would be
in part a monument to former Chief Executive Steve Jobs, who described it as like a spaceship
and was closely involved in the plans before he died in 2011.
The project, which could cost up to $5 billion according to reports, would house about 12,000
Apple employees. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.
TEMPTING FATE
The technology sector has amassed large cash piles in recent years, leaving many companies
over - capitalized, said Bill Smead, head of Smead Capital Management, which oversees $465
million in assets and does not own shares of Apple, Amazon, Facebook or Google. "Over-
capitalized companies often don't perform well, and leaders of over - capitalized companies
sometimes squander the money," he said.
Apple, Amazon and Facebook are not getting tax breaks or other similar financial incentives for
their plans, according to local officials. It is not clear if Google is receiving any incentives.
While these plans radiate optimism, they risk bringing down a curse that has befallen big
companies just as they construct pyramid -scale palaces.
AOL -Time Warner started building the Time Warner Center, a 2.8 million square foot structure
on the edge of New York's Central Park featuring two towering glass skyscrapers, right as the
tech stock bubble popped in 2000, destroying more than three - quarters of the Internet and
media company's value.
The New York Times Co, Wall Street bank Bear Stearns and chemical company Union Carbide
also built ambitious headquarters just before their businesses hit tough times.
The "campus curse" has claimed several tech victims as well.
In the early 1990s, Borland Software - once the second - largest independent software company -
spent more than $100 million on offices just south of Silicon Valley that featured ponds, tennis
courts and a swimming pool. By 2008 the company had been hammered in the market
byMicrosoft and was worth less than the cost of the complex.
Since then, Yahoo Inc, MySpace, Inktomi, Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics have either
hatched plans for or moved into swaggering headquarters, only to hit the skids. Google moved
into Silicon Graphics' campus and Facebook took over Sun's headquarters.
Salesforce.com Inc got the shakes in time. In late 2011 the stock had fallen from a July high,
and analysts were criticizing the company for excessive spending on sales and marketing.
Earlier approved plans to build a $2 billion high -tech campus in San Francisco were canceled by
the following February.
PRODUCTIVITY PREMIUM?
Despite these cautionary tales, some say the new breed of tech companies are smart to
construct their own buildings, which match the collaborative way they work and can yield long-
term productivity and energy- efficiency benefits.
"As they see energy prices going up they recognize that these buildings have to last longer, and
they need to be more in control of the operation costs of these buildings. A property developer
does not focus on such long -term things," said John Barton, director of the architectural design
program at Stanford University.
"Employees are more productive in the right kinds of environments. That may be more
expensive, but if it pays back in a 5 percent productivity increase, that may be really smart," he
added.
O'Mara at University of Washington suggests the new tech giants are emulating the workplace
innovations of the famous Bell Labs, the historic research arm of AT &T that gave birth to the
transistor, the laser and technology behind mobile phones over many decades.
Bell's legendary facility, designed by modernist architect Eero Saarinen in the late 1950s, might
not be the right role monument.
Now owned by global telecom giant Alcatel Lucent, the quarter - mile -long mirrored box lies
empty, and is likely to end up being turned into a medical center - or razed. (Additional reporting
by Poornima Gupta. Editing by Jonathan Weber, Mary Milliken and Prudence Crowther)
http: / /www.contracostatimes.com /breaking- news /ci 22584814/ silicon - valley- commercial -real-
estate - market - will - continue
inShare2
Silicon Valley commercial real estate market will continue to sizzle, report says.
By George Avalos
Oakland Tribune
Pos�cd: 02%13/2013 05.27:19 PM PST
Updated: 02/14/2013 09:57:07 AM PST
SAN JOSE -- Silicon Valley's office and research leasing and development sectors this year loo
to a high - profile report released Wednesday.
What's more, the tech employment and expansion boom that has gobbled up office and reseal
couple of years is showing few signs of slowing down, the report released by commercial real
stated.
Companies are currently seeking a combined total of 7 million square feet of office and resean
reported during its annual forecast and presentation in downtown San Jose. That would be roi.
six or seven regional shopping malls.
About 4.5 million square feet of that space is being sought by companies looking for 100,000
Fredericks, managing partner of the San Jose office of Colliers.
Another big help for the commercial real estate market in San Jose: Few companies show sign
office space.
"We have a lot more users taking space than leaving space," Fredericks said. "Sublease space
Colliers also reported that the tech boom is steadily moving south in the U.S. Highway 101 col
surge of office leases and purchases with its huge campus plans in
Advertisement
p ::4
� F3
_ astination
nt
Menlo Park. VMware occupied a big office complex in Palo Alto. Google (GOOG) gobbled up bic
and Apple (AAPL) did the same in Cupertino. And both Google and Apple grabbed a number of
"The Sunnyvale office market continues to be the big story, first capturing headlines with a re(
with another stellar year," Colliers stated in its report. "Big deals continue to be the story in Si
Besides Apple and Google, Juniper Networks and Lab 126 will occupy buildings this year that
to Colliers.
"The biggest beneficiary of the ever - tightening markets to the north was Santa Clara," the rep
It makes perfect sense that commercial real estate is seeing a surge, said Tim Bajarin, principal analyst with
market research firm. (emphasis added)
"More and more companies are expanding, more startups are launching, because we are gettii
Bajarin said. "Tech companies have a brand new platform they can work with, which is mobile
"Silicon Valley is the hotbed for hardware, software and services that are being designed for rr
in one of its strongest growth periods. This could last another four or five years."
http: / /www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2013 103110 /silicon - valley - poverty n 2849285 html
"The Silicon Valley is an ecosystem of human capital, venture capital, risk, an educational
infrastructure," says WealthX president David Friedman. "All of those things combine into this
glorious cocktail of prosperity."
"Many people come here to work, but they have no idea what's really going on," said Lisa
Sobrato Sonsini, whose Sobrato Familv Foundation — funded by profits gained as a leading real
estate and development firm in the region — is the single largest contributor to local charities in
the region. "The companies are generous, but they don't see the need directly in front of them,
they want to send their money away."
JS:)
JOHN A. SHEPARDSON, ESQ.
59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue. Suite Q
Los Gatos, CA 95030
T: (408) 395 -3701
F: (408) 395 -0112
From: Patti Lovetro - Clarke [mailto: opulent. interiors(a yahoo com)
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:24 AM
To: Council
Subject: opposing Albright
We live at too Vasona Oaks Dr. in Los Gatos and we oppose the Albright
project.
Increasing the height of the buildings beyond the current town standard to
accommodate this developer would block the view of the mountains from
all angles. It would also set a president that changes the beauty and flavor of
the town forever. The traffic on Winchester and Lark is terrible currently
and the traffic on University has increased significantly the last year. The
proposed Albright and North Forty projects will create grid lock on our
towns roads. Both projects are detrimental and irresponsible for Los
Gatos.
We live here do to the small town charm of Los Gatos. The recent over
development of our small town has already over crowded and is destroying
the original charm.
Patti Clarke
From: The Ristows [mailto:ristows(&comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:01 AM
To: Council
Subject: Another Albright message
Dear Los Gatos Council Members,
Please, please send the Albright project back to the Planning Commission. The
buildings are too big for Los Gatos. This is a land use issue, and 65- foot -tall
buildings are excessive for any allowable use in this town. We need to move to the
350,000 sf favored in the EIR and compatible with the General Plan.
Reasons given to approve, and my reasons for disagreeing:
1. We need more Class A Office Space-- even if we do, 4 floors is not a mandatory
part of Class A. Let Los Gatos define what Class A is in our town.
2. Netflix will leave if we don't approve this project. Doubtful. They are only
committing to the first building. That space and more will be available in the
350,000 sf compromise. Do you want to bend rules and change town character
over threats? And there is NO guarantee Netflix will stay anyway, or stay in
business. We certainly find them a good match for LG so far, but neither party is
obliged to each other. This is business for them and town character for us.
3. This is the right place for this project. Why? Because the Charter Oaks
residents don't count? Because this will advance the agenda to move the Light rail
to LG? Truly nowhere in Los Gatos is the right place for this project as presently
presented.
4. The schools need the money. Certainly our schools can always use more money,
especially as state funding is almost gone. The most recent housing projects will
increase the number of students without proportionally increasing sufficient
funding to the schools. BUT, that does not justify this precedent- setting,
neighborhood disrupting project. The ends do NOTjustify the means.
5. The parents of over 5000 students support this project. Untrue. About 500
people signed the petition to support the Alright project, but the issue was posed
as EITHEVOR. EITHER approve the Albright Office Park and bring money to the
public schools OR send Netflix packing. There was NO compromise
discussed. There wasn't even a discussion of how this projects goes against our
general plan.
I believe that it's hard for most people to follow all the issues that come before
the Council and understand the nuances. That is why YOU were elected. Please do
what's right for our Town ... right now and in 20 years or more. Send this project
back to the Planning Commission. Send a message to all developers that they are
welcome to come to Los Gatos and work within our guidelines. Send a message to
all residents that the General Plan means something and that we hold our
Community Values above all else.
Thank you,
Maria Ristow
85 Broadway, LG
Fisher & LGHS parent
Also signed by:
Larry Lenhart (Broadway, Daves parent), Kim Karloff (Broadway, Doves parent),
Mike & Gillian Verga (Broadway, Fisher parents), Jennifer Barrier (Olde Road, Lex,
Fisher & LGHS parent), Gail Randolph (Broadway), Jennifer & GP Grewal (Charter
Oaks), Jak VanNada (Jones), Lori Howard (Main Street, Daves parent), Warren Ristow
(Broadway, Fisher & LGH5 parent), Judy Stanley (Cherry Blossom Lane, Fisher &
LGHS parent), Dixie Fisher (Broadway), Mary & Kirk Horton (Johnson, Fisher
parent), Debbie Lew & John Fowler (Cleland, Fisher & LGHS parents), Orla Maclean
(Overlook), Carol Braham (Hernandez)
Date: May 30, 20131
To: Mayor Barbara Spector and Council
From: Lee Quintana
Re: Albright Office Park
This letter addresses the following:
I. Omissions from the EIR
II. Questions /comments regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis
III.Comments on the Conditions of Approval for the A &S and PD ordinance
1. EIR OMISSIONS - MATERIAL NOT IN THE EIR'
PEER REVIEWS:
1. Traffic: TKJM peer review on traffic dated August 10, 2012 is not in the EIR ?
2. Consulting Arborist: The EIR does not contain all the peer reviews letters from the
from Town's consulting arborist.
• Letters dated January 16, 2013 and December 18, 2012 are found in Appendix B
Volume 2 of the EIR .
• Not found: The letter letter dated January 11, 2013 from Alex Jewell the project
architect to Joel Paulson referenced in the January 2013 Ellis letter.
• Not found: Town's general tree protection directions and the Supplemental Tree
Protection Specifications (pages 12 -23) referenced in the Ellis January 16, 2013
letter.
• EIR lacks: There is no summary in the EIR text to the above mentioned letters or
referenced materials in either Chapter 4, 4.2 (Aesthetics) or in Chapter 4, 4.3
(Biological Resources), although the January 16, 2013 letter is referenced at the
end of 4.3.
• EIR lacks: There is no discussion of theTown's general tree protection directions or
the Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications nor are these identified as
required by the project.
• EIR lacks inclusion of mitigation: The EIR does not include mitigation identified in
Ellis peer review letter dated January 16, 2013, which state:
"Implementing Tree Protection: This is a large project and tree protection
will be difficult to enforce. Therefore whenever there is construction work
(including landscaping) underneath the dripline of any tree to remain, the
project arborist must be on site to supervise such work and to make sure
that tree protection measures are being followed to the greatest extent
2 Nor is it clear from the records available to the public in the project file whether there are additional peer
reviews of traffic from TKJM.
possible. The arborist will also be helpful in dealing with unexpected
conditions as they occur, which is likely to happen on this project."
This requirement is not addressed in either Chapters 4.2 or 4.3 of the EIR text, and
neither this nor the Town's tree protection directions or Supplemental Tree
Protection Specifications (Ellis, February 2011) are required in the PD Ordinance
or the A &S Conditions, nor have they been added to the Tree Disposition plans for
the project as directed by Ellis.(See EIR Appendix O Architecture and Site Approva
Tree Disposition Plan L3.2 L4.1- L4 -24)
STUDIES:
1. Lighting Study:
• There is no study on the impacts of night -time lighting coming from structures,
(offices, garage and its glass elevator) on the creek area or the streetscape.
Lighting studies only address outdoor lighting.
• In fact, the landscape architect stated at a public hearing that the illumination from
proposed Building #1 would be similar to the existing Neff lix buildings on
Winchester but would be more visible because of it location adjacent to the to the
freeway and the length that parallels the freeway.3
• Appendix P, Photometric and Shadow Analysis Sheet A7.0 of the A &S proposed
plan set was added in the Final EIR, but addresses on outside building and
landscaping lighting.
2. Study on feasibility queuing mitigation:
• The EIR does not contain a study to establish the feasibility of the proposed
mitigation for queuing impacts (See Il. Traffic below) Is this in effect deferred
mitigation?
3. Cut - through Traffic:
• At the April 24th Planning Commission Hearing the traffic consultant mentioned a
study of the potential for cut through traffic in the neighborhood west of Winchester.
• This study is not included in the EIR.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS :
• The Town's response to comments by the Department of Transportation, SCVWD
and San Jose do not adequately address their comments, but rather basically
repeat what has already been stated. (CEQA 15088)
• The same is true of many comments made by the public. In many cases the
comments merely reference the reader back to the section of the EIR that is being
commented on.
3 The proposed building would also be more visible because of its greater height and longer length
parallel to the freeway.
In addition, the response to comments are not always consistent with each other or
with comments made by staff in other contexts.4
HISTORY OF INTENSIFICATION OF LAND USE IN THE VASONA ELEMENT AREAHi
• Both the applicant and the Town rely on Albright's location in the Vasona Element
area to support the projects proposed intensification. However, neither the
applicant nor the EIR provides adequate evidence to support the assumption that
the entire area of the Element was identified for intensification.
• In fact, the history of the Vascona Element and in particular that of the 1994
General Plan Amendments does not support that assumption.
• I will submit a separate letter on the 1994 General Plan Amendments as it relates
to the Albright site..5
General Plan Consistency:
• The EIR omits a full discussion of state law requiring a general plan to be internal
consistent, as well state law that requirements a project's zoning intensity
standards be consistent with the General Plan's intensity standards.
• The OPR General Plan Guidelines divide general plan consistency into five
categories (p. 12) and cites Government Code. The following apply to this project:
• Equal Weight of Elements (Government Code Section 65300.5)
• Consistency within Elements (Government code 65583(c)
• Consistency between Elements (Government code
• Text and Diagram Consistency (65300.5)
• The state GP Guidelines also address Zoning Consistency with the General Plan
beginning on page 165. The Guidelines cite Government Code 65860, 65803,
56860(c) and 65862)
• Also see my previous comments letters lated March 16, 2013, March 24, 2013 and
May 20, 2013
Potential Project Changes:
• The applicants offer of addition community benefit to deposit soil off - hauled from
the project site as fill on the section of the Creek Trail adjacent to Charter Oaks to
help reduce flooding in that area of the trail. This has not been evaluated in the
EIR, nor has the feasibility of this offer been established since this area is under
the jurisdiction of the SCVWD s
The following question regarding the traffic analysis have not been adequately
analyzed or addressed in the EIR:
II. QUESTIONS ON TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
4 These discrepancies in comments are too numerous and too time consuming to document specifically
5 More discussion of the 1994 General Plan Amendments and their relationship to the Albright site will
follow in a separate letter.
6 Offer made by John Shenk at the May 20, 2013 Town Council Hearing on the Albright Project
1. Timing of traffic counts:
• Why were traffic counts taken on the Thursday before a holiday weekend?
• The EIR states that traffic counts were taken in May 2012.(DEIR 4.6 -4))
• The Appendix to the TIA indicates the traffic counts were conducted on May 24,
2012 the Thursday before the memorial day weekend, a date that is not likely to
represent typical traffic.
2. Driveway counts /Additions to background traffic
• Why weren't the actual driveway counts used?
• The EIR states that the trips from the existing project were added to the
background using CMP guidance.
• The CMP TIA Guidelines, however allows discretion in this area, as well as many
other areas (6.3 Methodology for Future Scenarios 3rd bullet p. 23 & 1 st bullet p.
24 )
• The Guidelines say that trips or it allows for actual driveway counts to be added to
the background.
• Why not exercise Town's discretion allowed in the VTA Guidelines to not add the
calculated counts for the existing entitlement to background traffic, or why not use
actual driveway counts that have already been done? Either of these would be a
more conservative approach and consistent with the VTA Guidelines.
3. Calculated average LOS vs critical movem nt:
• Why is the LOS calculated using the average of all turning movements rather than
for the worst case "critical" movement, which would the more conservative
approach?
4. VTA TIA Guidelines:
• The VTA TIA Guidelines (p. 24, 2nd bullet) also provides discretion in how the lead
agency choses to address anticipated growth. The method used in the EIR is the
least conservation of the possible choices.
5. Design of Implementation:
• Why wasn't the study for the design and methodology to implementation signal
coordination and timing included in the EIR? (Condition PD A &S Condition #105.)
• Are both project and cumulative impacts covered by the required proposal in the
conditions?
• Without first establishing the the feasibility of the signal coordination and timing to
mitigate the projects queuing impacts how is it possible to determine whether this
the mitigation is feasible or a Significant Impact that cannot be mitigated?
6. Thresholds of Significance:
• The EIR 4.6- 16/4.6 -17 and Appendix F page 28 state that the Level of service
standards applied in the analysis were those CMP significance threshold was Los
Gatos, Monte Sereno, Campbell and San Jose and the CMP standards. (same
methodology but different standards)
Given that the State and VTA also use the same methodology, why weren't the
Freeway Segments & Freeway Ramp analysis completed using the states criteria
for significance as requested by Caltrans?
The CMP Guidelines do not preclude this additional analysis. Again a more
conservative approach.
Freeways:
• Aren't clogged freeways likely to divert trips to local streets thereby affecting
congestion on local streets (i.e. affect both LOS and queuing impacts?
Responsibility for improvements:
• The staff report very clearly states what traffic improvements the responsibility of
the Applicant - as opposed to the Town.
• Why aren't the PD Ordinance and A &S Conditions of Approval equally clear?
• Why are there differences between project requirements and TIF mitigation in
Appendix F and the Draft EIR and why aren't the reasons for the differences
explained in the text. (Appendix F has some of the project "impacts" mitigated by
TIF funds.)
• Since the required traffic improvements were not part of the proposed project but
are now being required as conditions of approval why aren't they considered
mitigation measures for impacts?
• Isn't this similar to Cultural Impacts, or Biological Impacts, or any other of the
impacts that are subject to regulatory requirements and not a part of the project as
submitted? It seems a little like the "Emperor's new Clothes"
• Where is the study on neighborhood cut through traffic referenced by the traffic
consultant at the Planning Commission Hearing?
III. COMMENTS ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. CONSIDER ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
TREES:
• Add a Condition of Approval that requires the implementation of Town's Standard
Tree Mitigation requirements, and Mitigation specific to this project as stated in the
Consulting Arborist' February, 2011 letter.
• Add a Condition of Approval that requires the above to be shown on the Tree
Disposition Plans
• Add a Condition of Approval requiring that the project arborist be on site during any
demolition, construction, or landscaping activity with in the drip line of retained tree
as requested in the January 16, 2013 Ellis letter.
• Add a Condition of Approval requiring bonding for all trees and establish success
criteria for all trees (retained, transplanted, newly planted) be removed given the
large number of trees involved and the potential for damaged to occur during
demolition and construction.
NUMBER OF TENANTS PER BUILDING:
Add a condition limiting the number of tenants allowed per building. If this is truly
for corporate headquarters shouldn't each building be limited to one tenant?
OFFICE SERVING USES AND ANCILLARY USES:
Add a Condition of Approval limiting the amount of square footage for these uses.
2. CLARIFY THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
TRAFFIC:
• Condition 101: REQUIRED COMMUNITY BENEFIT: Why aren't the community
benefits promised listed in condition?
• Condition 107: It is not clear what is applicant responsibility and what will be
implemented by the Town through the use of TIF funds. Please clarify
• Why is it so hard to compare "mitigation" in TIA Appendix F of EIR, in EIR the text
itself, in the staff report, in the peer review and then in the the PD Ordinance and
A &S conditions? Why aren't the traffic impacts and mitigations the same in each
of these. The mitigation appears to have kept morphing with no explanation of but
there isn't an explanation why they are different7. Why isn't there consistency
throughout. Why isn't there an explanation why they are different. Why aren't
there individual diagrams or figures of the proposed improvements as requested in
the Peer Review of the Traffic Analysis?
• Condition 105: A request for a proposal to develop and design a method for the
required signal coordination and timing, This appears to deferring the study
necessary to determine whether or not mitigation is feasible to a later date.
• Without evidence confirming the feasibility of mitigation for the queuing impacts
isn't this a potentially significant impact?
LEEDS:
• Condition 59 says project will comply with Non - Residential Mandatory Measures of
the 2010 California Green Building Code.
• EIR states goal of achieving LEED silver criteria for core and shell only, it does not
state that the project will apply for LEED's certification, as assumed by a speaker
at the May 20th hearing. A goal to meet and actual certification are very different.
How does the Town follow up on the applicants "promise "?
• How does LEEDs criteria compare to the green building requirements (core and
shell)
• Why doesn't the language in the EIR match the language in the Conditions?
Thank you for your consideration.
7 This could also be considered an omission from the EIR
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw(a)me.com>
Date: May 30, 2013 11:57:55 AM PDT
To: BSpector Barbara <bspector(@losgatosca.gov >, Steve Leonardis
<sleonardisCcDlosgatosca.gov >, MJensen aC)losgatosca.gov, councilCcDlosgatosca.gov
Subject: Albright (EIR Review)
1. Sandhill delayed on Gateway 4 years. Do we have a construction contract for
Albright? Why not?
2. Street value
Quoting from
http : / /www.newhavenindependent.org/ index .php /archives /entry /aldermen vote to sell 2 ci
ty streets to vale/
Under the proposed deal, the city would abandon the streets. Ownership would then
revert to the only abutter: Yale University. "in exchange, Yale is offering a one -time
payment of $3 million," Smith said. That figure is based on an assessment by an
appraiser agreed upon by the city and Yale. The appraiser calculated the property is
worth about $45 per square foot.
3. DEIR p. 1 -4:The EIR is an informational document used by these decision- makers so that
their actions will be consistent with the "substantive" duty under CEQA to substantially lessen
all significant environmental effects where feasible through mitigation measures or alternatives.
pp. 1 -4/5:
An EIR is therefore required to: (1) identify the potentially significant environmental effects of
the proposed project on the environment; (2) indicate the manner in which those significant
effects can be avoided or significantly lessened via the implementation of potentially feasible
mitigation measures; (3) identify a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the
proposed project that would eliminate or substantially lessen any significant environmental
effects; and (4) identify any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated
or otherwise reduced.
p. 2 -1:
The PD overlay zone is a specially tailored development tool that designates site - specific zoning
regulations consistent with the General Plan, sets development standards for the site, and
establishes site design guidance. The PD overlay zone is intended to ensure orderly planning and
quality design that will be in harmony with the existing or potential development of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Ip. 2 -2:
Despite the potential for such incremental secondary growth effects, the Los Gatos
2020 General Plan estimates that growth will remain at a consistent rate of 1 % through
2020 (based on statistical records) as it has for the last three decades, with an
additional 2,660 jobs anticipated for the community (largely in the Vasona Light Rail and
North 40 areas). The 857 total jobs generated by the proposed project would not exceed
this planned level of growth. Because the jobs associated with the proposed project
would intensify use of an underutilized site, and be located adjacent to future regional
light rail facilities within the Vasona Corridor, the potential increase in employment
would result in a less- than - significant growth- inducing impact, and benefit the
community.
[JS: What if VTA never arrives? Would there be a significant growth- inducing
impact? Is 857 news jobs realistic with "Google Effect "?
p.. 2 -23:
For the cumulative traffic assessment, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis includes
29 intersections in the Town of Los Gatos and cities of Campbell, San Jose, and Monte Sereno.
For the cumulative traffic assessment, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis includes
29 intersections in the Town of Los Gatos and cities of Campbell, San Jose, and Monte Sereno.
p. 2 -25:
Reduced Intensity Alternative. This alternative would result in similar development of the
project site with new buildings for office/R &D uses. However, the amount of proposed
office /R &D space would be reduced to approximately 350,000 square feet, which would add
approximately 100,000 square feet of office/R &D space than what is currently available on the
project site. This alternative would consist of four buildings (two 2 -story buildings and two 3_
story buildings with a 55 -foot height limit). A new third
access on Winchester Boulevard would still be required and this new intersection would still
need to be signalized.
The environmental effects of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project
except for aesthetics, traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gases (GHGs), recreation,
utilities and service systems, and energy resources, where impacts under this alternative
would be less under the proposed project. By reducing the overall square footage of the
proposed development, this alternative could reduce visibility of the proposed buildings from
off -site vantage points, thereby reducing already less- than - significant aesthetic impacts as
compared to the proposed project. This alternative's cumulative traffic impacts on the
Winchester Boulevard/Knowles Drive, Winchester Boulevard/Lark Avenue, Los Gatos
Boulevard/Lark Avenue, Los Gatos Boulevard/Blossom Hill Road intersections (under
Cumulative plus North 40 Specific Plan and Dell Avenue Area Plan Conditions) would not
be cumulatively considerable. As such, Mitigation Measure 5 -1. payment of traffic impact fees
in accordance with the TIF Ordinance, would be less under this alternative. The smaller project
size under this alternative would reduce the severity of identified noise, air quality, GHG
impacts, but the significance of these impacts would remain the same and specified mitigation
measures would still be required. In addition, this alternative's increase in demand for
recreational facilities, utilities, service systems, and energy resources at the project site would be
less than under the proposed project. However, the project's impacts on these facilities and
resources are already less than significant.
This alternative, however, would not meet some of the key project applicant objectives to
develop an office/R &D park of sufficient size and quality that enable it to attract and
accommodate large corporate tenants, support existing and proposed mass transit facilities,
support the proposed project amenities, and be financeable and financially feasible. While
this alternative would still meet most of the Town project objectives, it would not be as
consistent with Town project objectives to create employment opportunities (Policy LU -9.6) as
the proposed project because of its smaller size. In addition, it would not take full advantage of
the transit opportunities afforded by the Vasona Light Rail (Policy VLR -9.2). (emphasis added)
p. 2 -25:
Reduced Height Alternative. This alternative would have the same amount of office space as
the proposed project (550,000 square feet), but all of the buildings would have a maximum
height of 35 feet, which is the height limit allowed on properties in the Town that are zoned for
office and commercial manufacturing uses without a PD Overlay. The Reduced Height
Alternative would include up to eight office buildings (68,500 square feet each).
Additional grading required to develop underground parking would generate additional air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions from additional equipment operation and also generate
approximately 120,000 cubic yards of material that would need to be hauled off the site.
This additional off -haul would increase construction- related haul truck traffic and associated
noise, air quality, and greenhouse gases.
p.2 -26:
When the overall environmental impacts of each alternative are taken into consideration,
the Reduced Intensity Alternative would provide the greatest reduction in
potentially significant environmental effects when compared to the proposed project, and
therefore, would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, this alternative
would not meet some of the project objectives.
FLAWS IN EH2
P. 4.1 -12:
The buildings in the Aventino/Netflix development to the north are mostly three stories high with
some four -story elements (60 -foot height limit). Project buildings would be four stories (65 -foot
height limit). This five -foot difference in the height limit would be minimal, particularly since
the SR 85 freeway separates the two developments. Therefore, the project is considered to be
consistent with the existing Netflix/Aventino development to the north.
[JS: AVENTINO: AVE. HT. OF BUILDINGS APPROX. 43 FEET - -NOT 60. WHAT ABOUT
ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES
AND BUILDINGS IN THE AREA ?]
P. 4.1 -15:
Based on the permitted uses identified in the development plan, the project applicant proposes to
apply certain development standards for the project site.
The proposed uses and applicable standards would be as follows:
Parking: Minimum of 3.3 stalls per 1,000 square feet of occupied space
4.1 -16:
Proposed surface parking lots and the parking garage would provide a minimum of 33 parking
spaces for every 1,000 square feet of occupied space. The Town Code requires one parking space
for 235 square feet (or 4.26 per 1,000 square feet) for office uses and one parking space for
every 1.5 employees for research /testing /manufacturing plants.
[JS: Given "Google Effect" and developers' admitted intent to provide for "collaboration" that
more accurate ratio appears to
be 1 space for each 1.5 employee because the intent is more "research" oriented. Thus, the
parking available should be 6.6 parking
spots per 1,000 square feet, not 3.3. Thus, the parking is underestimated by 100% and so is the
traffic. There is no data
on how many buses will reduce this impact, and on the other hand, the use per square foot could
well exceed 6.66 /thousand square
feet given the "Google Effect ".
p. 4.1 -18:
Local and Regional Plans and Policies. As indicated above, the project's design would not
conflict with or significantly impact the components that define the town's "small town"
character, as listed above in the General Plan's Vision Statement. Further, project consistency
with General Plan policies must also take into consideration other General Plan policies, such as
Policy VLR -9.2 which emphasizes taking full advantage of the transit opportunities afforded by
the Vasona Light Rail in the Vasona Junction area just north of the site. The scale of the project
and buildings also must take into consideration VTA's support of land use intensification of the
site to encourage transit use (see VTA NOP comments in Appendix A
(JS: Why so much weight on VTA when no funding exists, and $175M is a lot of money to raise
to go 1.6 miles)
p. 4.1 -19:
According to Section 29.80.080 of the Town Municipal Code, the purpose of the PD overlay
zone is to provide for alternative uses and developments more consistent with site
characteristics than are allowed in other zones to achieve an optimum quantity and use of
open space and to encourage good design.
(JS: How does the proposed PD meet the spirit of a PD? Optimum quantity and use of open
space and encourage good design ?)
p. 4.2 -1:
In order to characterize views of the project site from adjoining and nearby areas, the project
plans include representative views of the property from various locations around it.
(JS: Have we been provided these views with the proposed buildings in place? Cherry pickers
are insufficient)
The proposed parking garage would be 35 feet high, but approximately 49 feet high at the
elevator tower, which would be located on the north side of the garage near the center of the
site; rooftop appurtenances such as solar shade structures would also be approximately 49 feet
high. (emphasis added)
4.2 -19:
As with the views from the southern Winchester Boulevard approach, the views from the Vasona
Junction vicinity to the north would also be partially moderated by existing and proposed
landscaping planned for the project site.
The project's proposed landscaping would block views of the building's lower levels; the upper
floor of Building 1 would remain visible from southbound Winchester Boulevard.
EIR FLAW: LARGELY IGNORES INCONSISTENCY WITH USES OTHER THAN
AVENTINO:
P. 4.2 -19:
The existing uses along Winchester Boulevard include the Courtside Club across Winchester
Boulevard from the southern part of the project site, and residences on Smith Ranch Court to the
north of the Courtside Club. Vacant lands occur on either side of the SR 85 southbound off -
ramp, which ends at Winchester Boulevard (View 2, Figure 4.2 -1). Heights of residential and
commercial structures in the project vicinity range from approximately 15 feet for single -story
residences to approximately 60 feet for the Netflix development on Winchester Boulevard
immediately north of SR 85. (emphasis added)
The development of four -story structures for office/R &D use on the property would introduce
building heights of up to 65 feet to the site. Overall, the height of the proposed project structures
would differ substantially from existing building heights of the Courtside Club facilities.
However, the perception of differences in heights between the Club buildings and the proposed
office /R &D buildings would be limited by the screening effects of street and on -site landscape
trees that block views of the Club buildings, similar to the screening effects that apply to existing
site buildings. In addition, the proposed project building heights would be consistent with
existing office building heights of the Aventino/Netflix development, across SR 85 from the
project site.
p. 4.2 -20:
However, with the introduction of buildings approximately 65 feet in height, the scale of
this new office development would be higher than the tallest commercial or residential
structures in the project vicinity. (emphasis added)
p. 4.2 -21:
However, as the area of the office space on -site would increase with the project, the level of
nighttime lighting could be increased as a result of project implementation, as compared to
existing conditions.
(JS: Could be ?)
p. 4.2 -21:
Nighttime lighting would not significantly affect any adjacent land uses. The closest uses that
would be affected by nighttime lighting from the project would be the residential uses to the
south in the Charter Oaks neighborhood and to the west across Winchester Boulevard.
Proposed retention of existing trees along portions of the site boundaries and planting of
additional landscape trees, combined with the separation between residences, the Los Gatos
Creek corridor, and the location of proposed buildings within the project site, would reduce the
potential for significant disturbance due to nighttime lighting. Additionally, the proposed
development plans are required to demonstrate project compliance with Town Code Section
29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by
floodlighting) onto any area outside of the boundaries of a given property. This requirement
would also preclude project lighting from spillover onto any area outside of the property
boundary, thereby avoiding potential lighting impacts on the Los Gatos Creek corridor.
(JS: 4 buildings, lots of glass, area will be well lit up, and seen for multiple vantage points. Car
headlights into creek area, from ingress and egress, high beams too.)
TRAFFIC
p. 4.6 -1:
Since the proposed project would involve the net addition of 300,000 s.f. of office /R &D space,
this project is considered to be a "project of statewide, regional. or area wide significance"
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, subd. (b)(2)(C)). Therefore, the scope of this traffic study was
determined based on input from affected jurisdictions as described below under Methodology, in
Section 4.6.3, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q
Los Gatos, CA 95030
T: (408) 395 -3701
F: (408) 395 -0112
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank