Addendum 3�QV4 0 MEETING DATE: 06/03/13
ITEM NO:
ADDENDUM 3
!ps GASOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MAY 31, 2013
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL _
FROM: GREG CARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD -12 -001 • ARCHITECTURE
AND SITE APPLICATION S -12 -078; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT EIR -12 -003. PROJECT LOCATION: 90 -160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND
14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD. PROPERTY OWNER: LG BUSINESS
PARK, LLC. APPLICANT: JOHN R. SHENK.
A. CONSIDER A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE EXISTING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
EXISTING SITE WITH UP TO 550,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW
OFFICE /R &D BUILDINGS AND APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE
IMPROVEMENTS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON PROPERTY ZONED CM:PD. APNS 424 -31 -053, 054, 063, 424 -32 -038,
045, 049, 054, 059, 060, AND 063.
B. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL
FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
C. CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM.
Continued from May 20, 2013, Itent 7
On May 20, 2013, the Town Council held a public hearing on this item. However, the public
input portion for this item was not completed and the agenda item was continued to June 3, 2013,
PREPARED BY: Todd Capurso, Acting Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: J Assistant Town Manager own Attorney Finance
47—T
N:\DEV \TC REPORTS\2013Uune 3 Albright ADD3.doc Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 90 -160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Blvd. /PD- 12- 001 /5 -12- 078 /EIR -12 -003
May 31, 2013
Public Corninents
After the staff report, Addendum, Desk Item A, Desk Item B, and Addendum 2 were prepared
and distributed, additional correspondence was received for the period of 12:01 p.m. Thursday,
May 30, 2013, through 4:30 p.m. Friday, May 31, 2013 (Attachment 20).
Traffic and Parking
Additionally, the Town's traffic consultant (TJKM) has submitted a letter addressing traffic and
parking concerns (Attachment 21).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments 1 -6 (previously received under separate cover, prior to the staff report):
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report
2. Final Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of April 24, 2013
5. Addendum to the Plamling Commission for the meeting of April 24, 2013
6, Desk Item Report to Planning Commission for the meeting of April 24, 2013
Attachments 7 -15 (previously received with the staff report):
7. Verbatim minutes from the April 24, 2013 Planning Commission hearing (173 pages)
8. Public comments received from 1:00 PM on April 24, 2013, through 12:00 PM on "March
16, 2013 (281 pages)
"Please note —the original staff report incorrectly listed "March 16". This should be
"May 16 ".
9. Additional Letter of Justification from the applicant (14 pages)
10. Errata Sheets (2 pages)
11. Resolution certifying the Envirommental Impact Report (6 pages), Exhibits A & B received
under separate cover
12. Fiscal Impact Analysis from the applicant (28 pages)
13. Additional information from the applicant (3 8 pages)
14. Comparison table (1 page)
15. Revised plan sheets (3 pages)
Attachments previously received with Addendum:.
16. Public comments received from 12:01 p,m. on May 16, 2013, through 12:00 p.m. on
"March 17, 2013 (19 pages)
"Please note — the original staff report incorrectly listed "March 17". This should be
"May 16 ".
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 90 -160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Blvd. /PD -12- 001 /5 -12- 078 /EIR -12 -003
May 31, 2013
Attachments previously received with Desk Item A:
17. Public comments received from 2 :01 p.m. May 17, 2013, through 9:00 a.m. May 20, 2013
(43 pages)
Attachments previously received with Desk Item B:
18. Public comments received from 9:01 a.m. May 20, 2013, through 3:00 p.m. May 20, 2013
(28 pages)
Attachments previously received with Addendum 2
19. Public comments received from 3:01 p.m. May 20, 2013, through 12 :00 p.m. May 30, 2013
(101 pages)
Attachments received with this Addendum 3
20. Public comments received from 12:01 p.m. May 30, 2013, through 4:30 p.m. May 31, 2013
21. Letter dated May 30 from the Town's traffic consultant TJKM (2 pages)
TC:JP:ct
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY LEFT
BLANK
From: BSpector
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:43 PM
To: Greg Larson
Subject: FW: Facts on Albright Parking - answers from Joel
From: anne4pt @aol.com [anne4pt @aol.comj
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:16 AM
To: BSpector
Subject: RE: Facts on Albright Parking - answers from Joel
Dear Mayor Spector
Below are questions that I asked Joel regarding the parking for the proposed Albright Office Park. One
of the concerns Charter Oaks residents have besides the vehicle circulation of the proposed
development and the proximity of the 4 -level parking garage with optional solar panels to our homes is
where employees will park if there is a deficit of 415 parking spaces. Employee density was based on a
low number for Silicon Valley, and I did talk to my friend an executive at Cisco. He said they are selling
their buildings and increasing employee density.
Joel
Here are my questions:
Is it accurate that office buildings in LG require 1 parking stall per 235 sq ft of building? Yes that is the
requirement in the Zoning Ordinance.
Is it accurate that Albright because it is a PD got an exception and has 1 parking stall per 303 sq ft of
building? Yes they are requesting an exception to allow for 1 space per 303 square feet of building. It
should be noted that the proposed A &S will provide 1 space per 285 square feet of proposed building.
This would mean for the additional 300,000 sq ft added to the existing 250,000 that there would be 990
(300,000 divided by 303) employees if you use parking stalls to count employees. Is that correct? Yes,
but the Zoning Ordinance does not use parking stalls to count employees or the number of employees
to determine the number of parking stalls.
Did the traffic study use the number of parking spaces to calculate the number of employees to
analyze /study the traffic impacts? No the traffic study used building square footage,
If the proposed development went by the 1 parking stall per 235sq ft of building (550,000 sq ft total),
there should be 2,340 parking spaces - correct? Yes.
But the proposed development only has 1,915 parking stalls - correct? 1,925 parking spaces are
proposed in the A &S application.
A difference of 425 parking stalls - correct? Or There is a 415 space difference between what is required
by the Zoning Ordinance versus the proposed A &S.
If they had used the 235 sq ft per parking stall instead of 303 per parking stall they would be an
additional 1,277 employees not 990 employees for the additional 300,000 sq ft, so the traffic study
would have had to use 1,277 vehicle trips instead of 990 vehicle trips. The Zoning Ordinance does not
use parking stalls to calculate employees.
Where are all of these people going to park if there are not enough spaces? Other PD applications,
including the existing PD, have been approved with similar or greater parking exceptions and to date
parking has not been an issue and we do not believe parking will be an issue for the proposed project.
Thanks,
Anne Robinson
ATTACHMENT 20
Here are additional questions to Joel - still waiting for a response from him
Why do you believe parking will not be an issue?
If parking is an issue and there are not enough parking stalls, where will the employees park? There is a
deficit of 415 parking stalls?
What happened to underground parking?
Why are we granting an exception?
Do you think your assessment of parking is good enough to make the decision over a required criteria?
Why isn't there a correlation between how the town calculates parking needs and the number of
expected employees and the trip generation rates?
Thank you,
Anne Robinson
From: John Shepardson [mai Ito: shepardsonlaw(ame.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 3:09 PM
To: Council
Subject: ALBRIGHT (Return on Investment)
Dear Mayor Spector and Council Members:
1. 350K environmentally superior alternative (JS: I like 4 buildings 35 feet high at 75K square
feet, with underground parking,).
The position that 550K should be pursued because of the VTA is undercut by the lack of
funding, and public objection to
paying 175M for the 1.6 mile light rail extension. We pay for that with taxes to Santa Clara
County.
http: / /www.mercurynews,com /traffic /ei 22082567 /vta -light -rail- extension- los- gatos- 175 -million
"You could buy every one of (the riders) a Bentley and a driver," said Dave Fadness, a longtime Santa Clara County transportation c
"The stars are lined up now," said VTA vice chairman Joe Pirzynski, a Los Gatos councilman. "I think there's no question that this cc
Pirzynski touted the line as a new way for West Valley residents -- particularly seniors and youths -- to get around.
Still, he conceded the VTA board is not locked into the project and the rider estimates are at the "forefront" of their minds.
"There are some who say, 'If you build it they will come,' but, at the same time, that can't be a wish. It has to be validated," Pirzynski
evaluation and take a long, hard look at the benefit."
The Los Gatos line would feature fewer riders per mile than 13 of 14 light -rail extensions proposed around the nation, according to
Salt Lake City would have fewer passengers.
At the time that line was built, there was not enough money to extend it to Los Gatos, and funding is still an obstacle, Part of the money 4
earmarked for transportation projects, while officials are hoping to secure the rest with matching grants from the federal and state goverr
Washington for big spending.
VTA spokeswoman Brand! Childress said the project is still competing for funding with other South Bay transportation needs, including the
Eastridge Mall in East San Jose. That 2,3 -mile line is estimated to cost $310 million and attract fewer than 1,000 riders a day, VTA estima
The VTA's estimates show that from 2015 to 2035, the Los Gatos leg would carry an additional 430 one
roundtrips, That's 0.007 percent of the town's population. (empha6
2. Developer is rejecting based on money, ROI.
3. EPS: ROI 6.3% 350K; 7.1% 550K.
4. NetFix public filing shows 6' )M for 10 year lease on 137,500 sq. ft. = effective rate of
$46.11 sq. ft.
5. EPS is only projecting $40 sq. ft. which equates to a 63% return,
6. If use the actual Netflix lease, ROI appears to be above threshold rate of 7 %, and developer
makes sufficient
monies to proceed with environmentally superior alternative.
7. 350I{ x $46.11/ sq. ft. _ $16,138.50.
8, Development costs 199M.
9. Effective rate of return with Netflix lease = 16M divided by 199M = 8.4 %.
10. 8.4% is well above EPS's typical threshold rate of 7 to 9 %.
11. Lease rate based on discounts provided to single- tenant users. However, if smaller tenants
seek to use buildings, the lease rates per square foot should be higher.
12. Carlyle doesn't invest unless they have a very good chance to make a very high rate of
return. They
must have calculated rates of return far higher than EPS. Moreover, Carlyle must have
conducted a much more through analysis than EPS.
13. Therefore, can we get Carlyle's calculations for ROIs? Sand Hill?
In sum, the existing lease tends to suggest that the developer will earn well over the threshold
rate of
7% on the first phase build -out under its lease with Netflix. Netflix has options on the other
buildings, and I assume the lease rate is the same or similar. Can we get the actual lease? And
the actual
lease options? Smaller tenants would probably pay a higher lease rate. The exclusive site in Los
Gatos will put the
project in a category more akin to Mountain View or Palo Alto than San Jose or even Campbell.
Thank you for considering this email, and I'm sorry for all the emails, and at times rush of
information.
The time is short, we are learning as we go, and the project is the biggest in the Town's history,
and so the
proportionate emails to get you information we believe important to your decision.
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: John Shepardson [shepardsonlaw @me.comj
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:20 PM
To: BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
Subject: Albright Development
From: John Shepardson
«mailto: shepardsonlaw @me.com > <mailto: shepardsonlaw@ me. com >shepardsonlaw @me.com <maiIto
:shepardsonlaw @me.com>>
Date: May 29, 2013 12:49:08 PM PDT
To: <mailto:council @losgatosca.gov> <mailto:council @losgatosca.gov>
council @losgatosca. gov <mailto:council @losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Albright Development
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
1. <http: / /www.mercur\/news,com /peninsula /ci 22719389 /edgewood- plaza - project - allowed- continue-
despite- grave- error> <http: / /www.mercurynews,com /peninsula /ci 22719389 /edgewood- plaza- prolect-
allowed- continue - despite- grave- error>
http: / /www,mercurynews.com /peninsula /ci 22719389 /edgewood- plaza -pro ject - 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.
<htti): / /sunnyvale.ca .gov /Portals /0 /Sunnyvale /news releases/ 2012 /NR %2005 %2012 %2012 %020 -
%20STC .pdf ><http: / /sunnyvale.ca.gov /Portals /0 /Sunnyvale /news releases /2012/NR %2005 %2012 %201
2%20 -
%20STC .pdf >http: / /sunnyvale.ca.gov /Portals /0 /Sunnyvale /news releases /2012/NR %2005 %2012 %2012
%20- %20STC. 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?
< shpco _logo.png > <http: / /shpco.com />
* Home<http: / /shpco.com />
* Company Profile <http: / /shpco,com /profile /index.php>
* Contact Us<http: / /shpco.com /profile /contact us.php>
* The Team<http: / /shpco.com /profile /the team,php>
* Active Projects <http: / /shpco,com /active projects />
* Stabilized Projects <http: / /shpco.com /stabilized projects />
* Past Projects <http: / /shpco.com /past projects /index.php>
* Mixed Use<http: / /shpco.com /past projects /mixed use,php>
* Retail<http: / /shpco.com /past projects /retail.php>
* Office<http: / /shpco.com /past projects /office,php>
* Hotel <http: / /shpco.com /past projects /hotel.php>
* Industrial <http: / /shpco.com /past projects /industrial.php>
Project Locations <http: / /shpco,com /locations>
Stabilized Projects
* BROKAW SHOPS, SAN JOSE <http: / /shpco.com /stabilized projects /existing bs php>
* THE GROVE, LOS GATOS <http: / /shpco,com /stabilized projects /existing Igbp php>
* MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN, LOS ALTOS<http: / /shpco.com /stabilized projects /existing mri php>
* PEDRO POINT, PACIFICA <http: / /shpco.com /stabilized projects /existing pp php>
* QUITO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER,
SARATOGA <http: / /shpco.com /stabilized projects /existing gvsc php>
* SARATOGA OFFICE CENTER, SARATOGA<http: / /shpco.com /stabilized projects /existing soc.php>
* WESTSHORE OFFICE PARK, REDWOOD
CITY< http: / /shpco.com /stabilized projects /existing wop.php>
* WHOLE FOODS MARKET, CUPERTINO <http: / /shpco.com /stabilized projects /existing wf php>
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?
<http://www.ktvu.com/ videos/ news /los- gatos- proposal -to- extend -vta- light -rail-
coming/vjTxg/><http://www.ktvu.com/ videos / news /los- gatos- proposal -to- extend -vta- light -rail-
coming /vjTxg / >http: / /www.l<tvu.com /videos /news /los- gatos- proposal -to- extend -vta- light -rail-
coming /vjTxg/
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 looks to the Valley's light rail future By Joe Pirzynski
and Michael T. Burns Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 12/20/2012 02 :00:00 PM PST
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 resolute vision for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation 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 of expansion. Today, VTA light rail spans 42.2 miles 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 transportation alternative and a driver of economic development. Like Silicon Valley,
the VTA light rail system has evolved through decades that have seen economic booms and busts with
which transit ridership is so closely tied. Despite 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 taken this year, These are
trips that otherwise would have been made in cars on already overcrowded roadways. More than a
mobility option, the light rail system is the backbone to VTA's entire public transportation network that
will have carried over 42 million people by year's end,
Besides being a major contributor to reducing traffic congestion and harmful carbon emissions, light rail
stimulates growth. It becomes more than just moving people from point A to point
Advertisement
B, but about how transit transforms point A and point B. Development and investments made in and
around transit stations and corridors will help to meet goals of reduced congestion and air pollution. It is
imperative that VTA, cities, the county and greater Bay Area continue to work together toward this
vision of decades past and future generations.
In this spirit, VTA has adopted a 20 -year light rail investment program that identifies efficiencies and
capital improvements that will adapt operations to be more innovative and relevant. For example, the
VTA Commuter Express service launched in 2010 was the first to offer a faster, more direct light rail trip
by skipping stations between south San Jose and downtown San Jose, Riders have shaved 36 percent off
their travel time and VTA has seen,a 27 percent increase in ridership, By 2018, when BART service
extends through Milpitas and into the northern area of East San Jose, VTA is planning to operate express
trains throughout the entire system, connecting people from all over the Bay Area to Silicon Valley
through VTA's light rail and bus network.
As the county continues to house and employ more people, the growing demand for a green alternative
to driving and well - planned communities will mature transit ridership. Our resolve is to continue to
deliver improvements to get a better return on the investment made in the light rail system, making an
even greater impact than what has already been made in the last 25 years.
Joe Pirzynski is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority board vice chair, and Michael T. Burns is
VTA's general manager. They wrote this for this newspaper.
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 <http: / /www.huffingtonpost.com /2013/03/21/ silicon - valley - commercial -real-
estate n 2925965.htmI> <http: / /www, huff ington post.com/ 2013 /03/21/ silicon - valley - commercial -real-
estate n 2925965.html> http://www.huffingtonpost,com/ 2013 /03/21/ silicon - 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: / /www.mercurynews.com /real- estate /ci 22831654 /canadian- and - american- realty-
investors -pay- more -than> <http: / /www.mercurynews.com /real- estate /ci 22831654 /canadian -and-
american - realty - investors - pay - more -than> http://www,mercurynews.com/real-
estate/ci 22831654 /canadian- and - american- realty- investors - pay -more -than
By George Avaios
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 03/21/2013 09:59:58 AM PDT
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 <http: // marl< ets. financialcontent .com /mng- ba.siliconvalley /quote ?Symbol = AAPL >) and Mountain
View -based
Google <http: / /www.siliconvalley.com/ topics? Google %201nc. >(GOOG< http : / /markets,financialcontent,c
om /mng- ba.siliconvalley /quote ?Symbol= GOOG >). Linkedln, Palo Alto Networks, Samsung, Lab 126 and
Dell also have been growing and renting big chunks of office 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: Connie Kirby [connie.kirby @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:36 PM
To: BSpector
Subject: Albright Development
Barbara..
I hope to attend Monday's meeting! But I wanted to write you personally because I have utter respect
for you and your contributions to Los Gatos.
I live behind Courtside. And for all of us, the current footprint for Albright is a nightmare.
Traffic ... OMG! Without Albright, and with the new lights installed, I could not even make a turn from
Winchester onto Lark this evening and sat through two lights, And I'm just coming out of Wimbleton.
Building Height ... Good Grief ... 65" is gruesome and not at all in keeping with the General Plan. Indeed,
why do we have a General Plan if it's pushed aside so easily, Barbara.
Please consider rejecting the current plan and vote for something more reasonable for residents such as
myself.
Thanks,
Most cordially,
Connie
Constance Kirby
Los Gatos, CA
www. cl< irbvconsulting. com< http : / /www.cl<irbVconsuiting.com>
"When you find yourself in a hole,
stop digging!"
From: ahellmer(@comcast, net [mai Ito: ahellmer(cbcomcast, net]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10;15 PM.
To: Council
Subject: Comments Re; May 20th Meeting - Albright Way Project
Dear Honorable Mayor Spector, and Los Gatos Town Council,
Please see the attached letter and Enclosures (1) and (2) which address my serious
concerns with the size of the proposed Albright Way Project.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully,
Anna Hellmer
147 Las Astas Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
May 20, 2013
Dear Honorable Mayor Spector, and Los Gatos Town Council,
I live in the TOWN of Los Gatos, not the CITY of Los Gatos, and I am not against
Development —I am for reasonable, thoughtful Development, something within keeping with
the surrounding area, and in accordance with the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. I think we
need to guard against being just another zip code on a Developers List where there is work to
be found. The General Plan has all the guidance needed to create something that limits
building heights to thirty -five (35) feet, it provides for keeping the magnitude of the new
office space down to a level that fits in with the surrounding area, and, it tells us to keep
those scenic vistas intact because that is what gives Los Gatos its "Small Town Character ".
By the way, in the General Plan, the term "Small Town Character" is used eighteen (18) times.
There must be a reason for that.
Also important are the wonderful mountain vistas visible as you drive up Winchester
Boulevard into Los Gatos. It makes for a beautiful "gateway" vista and it is an important part
of making this a lovely Town. It should not be blocked and visible only if you happened to be
working on the top floor of a sixty -five (65) foot building in a Los Gatos office park.
The fact is we in the North 40 are facing three (3) Development Projects at once — WHICH —
when they happen, will undeniably increase density in our end of Town. It will increase
automobile traffic on Lark Avenue, and Winchester and Los Gatos Boulevard as well. In an
emergency, if Lark Avenue was gridlocked, you would have to drive one mile in either
direction, to Blossom Hill Road or to Camden Avenue to get through to Samaritan Hospital.
So, please follow the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and keep the building height at thirty -five
(35) feet, and approve an amount of square footage that would provide for an office park in
keeping with the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Anna Hellmer
147 Las Astas Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
May 29, 2013
Dear Honorable Mayor Spector, and Los Gatos Town Council,
I attended the May 20, 2013 meeting and spoke against accepting the Albright Way Project at
the current intensity in which it has been proposed. My impression of the evenings' lengthy
discourse of the controversial Albright Way Project is as follows:
• The Developer wants it approved for no less than four (4) buildings at sixty -five (65)
tall for a total of five - hundred and-fifty-thousand (550,000) square feet
• The Developer's associates, the Commercial Realtors, want it
• Mr. David Wells, CEO of Netflix, wants it
• The young Netflix workers want it
• Some Los Gatos parents want it (because they believe it would add to the funding
they desire for their children's classrooms), and
• The neighbors in the adjacent neighborhoods do not want it......at the current intensity
in which it has been proposed
The North Forty residents are not opposed to progress in the form of light industrial land
development; however, they are opposed to unfettered development of same.
Throughout these proceedings I heard several themes from the supporter's of the Project as
it is currently proposed; we need Netflix to stay, we need Class A four -story office buildings to
attract other high - technology businesses, we need to progress into the future -not be stuck
with 1960's thinking, and we need the tax base to provide more money for our schools.
I think what we need to do is to be extremely focused on staying with our Los Gatos 2020
General Plan (GP) that was revamped a little over two years ago. The GP is almost three
hundred (300) pages of Vision Statements, Goals, and Policies to govern our Actions in
meeting those Goals. In the Vision statement for Los Gatos it states that "what makes Los
Gatos special is its small -town atmosphere ...... and, "the overall role of the 2020 General Plan
is to provide a framework to ensure that the Town.... maintains a balanced, well - designed
(emphasis added) mix of residential, commercial, service, and open space uses through
integrated land use planning that fosters a pedestrian- oriented community consistent with a
small -town character ". It states that the Town is situated within one of the largest
metropolitan areas of northern California and is closely tied to the fast -paced (emphasis
added) economy of Silicon Valley (Reference CD -2). It further states that Los Gatos "is an
oasis of calm within one of the major economic engines of the world, Silicon Valley"
(Reference VIS -1 and VIS -2). The fundamental question is; do we want to remain "an oasis of
calm" in Silicon Valley, or do we want Los Gatos to become just as hectic as Silicon Valley?
The GP states, "Residential and non - residential uses produce different impacts on the
community. The impacts on traffic, noise, and other quality -of -life issues will vary, depending
on the final mixture of residential and non - residential uses approved within the area. The
overall planning for the area needs to limit the adverse impacts on the quality of life of all the
residents of Los Gatos, and to provide for open space." (Reference Section Three (3) Land Use
Element, Page LU -2). I was pleased to see the GP address "orderly planning and quality
design that will be in harmony with the existing or potential development of the surrounding
neighborhood" (Reference LU -16). Also, the Goals and Policies In CD -1 through CD -8 contain
plenty of guidance for keeping things in proportion to, and within the existing character of
the existing residential neighborhood, and that new structures need to harmonize and blend
with the rhythm and scale of the neighborhood.
Our GP states "story poles" are to be placed for a new construction project (Reference Policy
CD- 17.8), yet there have been no story poles placed at Albright Way. As stated by a Charter
Oaks resident; "the cherry- pickers are a failure ", and she is right. Placing the "cherry- pickers"
in various spots has had the same effect as erecting a flagpole. It is a visual point -of-
reference, but it in no way does it provide proper visual context in order to judge the
intensity and density of the proposed structures. It seems that the proposed buildings could
be placed in such a manner so as to not compromise the privacy and views of the Charter
Oaks neighborhood, as well as not block the scenic vistas of the Santa Cruz Mountains as you
approach Los Gatos from Winchester. There has been no scale model of the project
produced in order to provide a better concept of density.
I do not see the Developer compromising one iota on the proposed five hundred and fifty -
thousand (550,000), four (4) building proposal. He states he cannot build anything less than
that, and the implication is that Netflix will "exit stage left" with him if the Town says "no" to
the Project as currently proposed. I think that if we attract Silicon Valley here by building
Class A office space on such a large scale, we would be taking a large step towards
compromising our "oasis of calm ".
Some supporters of the Albright Project believe approval of the project without any
restriction will equate to more money for our schools, and have implied that our schools will
fail without the extra revenue. A scary thought, certainly, but how have our schools done so
well up to now without this added revenue? This is disingenuous in that the GP does not
address funding for our schools, or, for that matter, funding for anything else. It is not a
funding document. It is a land use document. Consequently, the GP states that "broadening
the tax base" shall never (emphasis added) be the sole reason for allowing new commercial
development or approving a change in a commercial land use (Reference Policy LU -9.7). The
use of the word "shall" is significant. It is an imperative, not a suggestion.
So, how does Solomon split the baby? Perhaps the "Elegant Solution" presented by Mr. John
Shepardson, ESQ. is the best approach; limit the building heights to thirty -five (35) feet, and
limit the square footage to three - hundred and fifty thousand (350,000). The resultant
decrease to the Developers profit margin is minimal -0.63 percent.
Thank you for your careful consideration to this sensitive issue facing our Town.
Sincerely,
Anna Hellmer
147 Las Astas Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Enclosure (1) – May 20, 2013 LG Albright Way -A. Hellmer Comments To Reduce Project
Enclosure (2) – Albright Way Elegant Solution
Ise
\�\
7d
� ^
� ..
LO
Liu
�
� \
�K
� \
RECEIVE
I3 \�l M c: I
May 29,2013 MAY UQ 12013
,AAYOR &TOWN MUNCH..
Mayor Barbara Spector
110 E. Main St., Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
The Los Gatos General Plan enacted by the City Council in 2010 defines what we
want our town to be. It defines our small town atmosphere. It defines our values.
And I believe it, the General Plan, is supported by a majority of the citizens of Los
Gatos. Perhaps a non vocal silent majority, but a majority non the less. This last Sunday
I talked to about fifteen people at the Los Gatos Farmers Market. All but two agreed
that the General Plan Should be adhere to. Especially about the 35 foot height
criteria.
Please don't sell our values. Reject the proposed Albright Plan and invite the developer
to submit a new plan which is in harmony with the General Plan and the desires of the
Citizens of Los Gatos, and then give this new plan due consideration.
Sincerely and Best Regards
R. A. Huber
Mary I<airis 1 -tuber
107 Walnut Hill Court, LG
From: JOHN SHENK [jshenkna mac.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:03 AM
To: BSpector
Subject: Fwd: FYI
Barbara, I thought you would appreciate the latest positive news about Los Gatos' most successful employer.
John R. Shenk
Sent from my iPhone
408 - 242 -9052
Begin forwarded message:
From: JOHN SHENK <jsheiilc cc,mac.com<mailto:jshenk(a mac.com»
Date: May 31, 2013, 8:01:37 AM PDT
To: "John R. Shenk" <jshenk ,mac,com <mailtoJshenkcmac.com>>
Subject: FYI
NEW YORK, May 30, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Netflix, Inc.
( Nasdaq: NFLX< http: / /ww,,v.nasdag.com/symbol /nflx >) will become a component of the NASDAQ -100
Index(r) (Nasdaq:NDX), the NASDAQ -100 Equal Weighted Index (Nasdaq:NDXE), and the NASDAQ -100
Ex- Technology Sector Index (NDXX) prior to market open on Thursday, June 6, 2013. Netflix, Inc. will replace
Perrigo Company ( Nasdaq :PRGO <http: / /www.nasdaq.com /symbol /pro >).
Netflix, Inc. is headquartered in Los Gatos, California, and has a market capitalization of approximately $12.1
billion. For more information about the company, go to
< http:/ hvww. globenewswire .con-/newsroom/ctr ?d= 10034662 &1= 2 &a=www netflix com &u= http %3A %2F %2F
www.netflix.com %2F> www. netflix .com <http: / /www.netflix.com/ >.
Read more: http : / /www.nasdag,com/article /netflix- ine -to join- the- nasdaq -100- index- beginning_june- 6 -2013-
20130530- 01220 #ixzz2Usm523j9
From: ThelmaSpaziani [mailto:tlspaziani @ aol,com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8 :51 AM
To: Council
Subject: Albright Development
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Thelma Spaziani. I have lived at 204 Willow Hill Ct „Charter Oaks for 40 years. ( I will be 91-
years old July 9).. My late husband Joseph (whom I lost 18 years ago) bought the first unit in May,
1973. Except for the sales office and adjacent four - unit model homes, the whole area was a large
inviting field.
We had just sold our 5 year residency Old Adobe home and wanted to downsize, We were referred to
Charter Oaks and were immediately impressed with the quiet, open space of this and surrounding area.
We "broke the ice” and made the purchase. We lived in an apartment until our unit was finished and we
moved in on Christmas Eve, 1973. Much to be done but we loved the ambience of the property. The
development was built in three sections - ours was the first finished.
After chosing this idealistic site, we were deeply shocked to be informed that the adjacent open
space would be rezoned manufacturing and a large complex would be built, Included in the rezoning
was a triangular piece of property to our north that was supposed to be more Charter Oaks homes.
That zoning change would drastically alter the original concept of a beautiful neighborhood. Originally,
the larger doors for manufacturing activity would be right next to Charter Oaks homes. Along with the
zoning problem was that of vastly increased traffic on Lark Avenue which exists to this day. Try to be
able to enter or leave Charter Oaks at certain times of the day - impossible, They were also planning to
extend Charter Oaks drive into the office complex. That took another trip to council meeting to protest that
insane idea.
Then came along a series of zoning changes all around us which allowed the huge Courtside complex
and motel, the PG &E sub station, the massive Jewish Center, the major Netflex complex with its office
and 250 apartments- all destroying the very reason we chose Charter Oaks and bringng chaos to area
traffic. I'd like to share what our area here became known as "the armpit of Los Gatos ".
Now 40 years late -HERE WE GO AGAIN ". But, this proposed zoning change is far worse than to first
one as the elevation of those building will strip all privacy from our Charter Oaks homes which was a
major element when we all chose to live here. The mind boggles at the resulting added traffic with the
addition of a four -story parking garage.
II would gladly join the group of protesters at your June 3 meeting but due to a major health problem
I acquired when visiting in Pennsyivnia, I am unable to travel - but I have gladly signed the petitions. I
applaud my neighbors, especially Anne Robinson, for the valiant stand they are taking to protect our lives
and property ambience and values. I hope and pray wiser heads will prevail and void this zoning plan.
Thelma Spaziani tlspaziai .aol.com 408 - 378 -2227 Temporary: 570 - 443 -8976
From: AviNoa Sklar [mai!to :sklarnoaviPgrnail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Council
Subject: Please stop building !!!
Hello,
We are asking you, from our hearts, NOT to put a 4 story building at Winchester
and Lark. Not only the traffic will be even more horrendous , but esthetically,
there is no place for such building in that corner of Los Gatos. You are
destroying the magnificent views of the mountains too. Remember ! We are the
Town of Los Gatos - Not the "City of Los Gatos ".
Thank you
Noa and Avi Sklar
Los Gatos
From: Robert Schwimmer [ mailto :bobn3faw(a)sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 10:01 AM
To. Council
Subject: Albright Project - ALTERNATE Plan Suggestion
Dear Mayor Spector, Mr Leonardis, Ms McNutt, Ms ,Jensen, Mr 11irzyinski,
A different look is proposed for the development and for Netflix, wham we also want to satisfy
to remain in our beautiful town, even though we are opponents ofthe 4 -floor overly dense
buildings pla .
The present detrimental plan, briefly showing the floor and building sizes:
With 4 floors in 4 buildings: 16 floors total 650,000 sq, ft, each floor would be 40,625 f't2,
Netflix has agreed to lease 140,000 ft'. Each building. would nominally occupy 40,625 ft2,. or a.
total of 1.62,:00 ft`. They would likely want a whole building.
I have not seen anyin; to define Another configuration. Here is one to ponder:
Plan B, Build two 241oor structures of ±120,000 ft:z per floor. Total floor space ±480.000 ft'.
lsach. building occupies ±120,000 ft'. Mach floor is nearly the 140;000' Netflix desires. Final size
selection coul.d be adjusted to conform to suitably acc(. rnmodatc: immediate Netflix use.
Afini77ium iiPli79ber of floors is usually most desirable for efficient buSineSS, personal and physical
activities and commt.iilici:i.tions. Tell the Developer tlr:it Los Gatos character must be preseryecl.
Certainly provides best for handicapped workers,
(Of course there are almost an infinite number ofpossible bldg.rfloor arrangements. Ii'Netllix
would possibly grow so large that they might need the whole development, imagine moving into
more buildings with 12 more floors in. which to run a business, 1_,ess but wider floors seem to
make sense.)
The other 3 floors in the 2 bldgs can be rental space for the property owner's necessary income.
Benefits:
• Maintain the wise 35' height limit. Prevents despoiling the beauties of LG and the lovely
vistas
• Schools and taxes will get a lot more revenue than now
• Businesses will get increases in traffic with the increased employment
• Jobs will be increased
• Vehicle traffic will increase considerably, but with some moderation from the overly
dense Developer plan.
• Less impact on emergency vehicle traffic
• Avoids establishment of a forever- precedent for North 40 or other applications yet to
come in the future
Expansion availability for Netflix growth
* Much faster total completion, vs. 5 -6 years for the proposed out -sized 16 -floor plan
® Everybody happy.
{Most Dewlopers, where comiderim, a similar property would do as Mr. Shenk has: "I low earl
my investors and l benefit most from a plan? . Answer: Submit a. plan 'bigger than needed,
expecting to likely have it reduced to a stall - acceptable and profi:ta.ble size,;
Respectfully,
Robert Schwimmer
200 Charter Oaks Circte
From: Molly Crowe [mailto:molly @crowellc.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:12 AM
To: Council
Subject: Albright Project
Dear Town Council Members,
As Los Gatos residents living in the La Rinconada neighborhood, we are very concerned about
the potential negative impact of the proposed Albright project, in particular the amount of
traffic it will generate. The intersections at Lark and Winchester, including the new signal lights
at Lark and University are already creating an series of delays through the local area, We fear
what may come once the North 40 project is completed and urge you to reduce the height and
density of the buildings in the Albright location,
Please help us to protect our corner of Los Gatos!
Sincerely,
Dean and Molly Crowe
14715 Eastview Drive, LG 95032
From: anne4pt@aol.com [amle4pt @aol.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:53 AM
To: BSpector
Subject: RE: Town's Objectives for Albright
Dear Mayor Spector
I hope you are doing well. I am sorry that you have been put in a very difficult situation.
wanted to expand on my thoughts regarding the Town's Objectives.
Thank you,
Anne Robinson
The Town's Objectives
I have already submitted a statement regarding the Town's Objectives for the Albright Office
Park, but I would like to expand on my thoughts. The first six objectives refer to the Vasona
Light Rail that may never be built, and I included statistics on the Vasona Light Rail showing the
lack of economic feasibility. Town Objectives 7 -11 revolve around the Environment and
Sustainability Element in the General Plan. If the Town is supports the environment and
sustainability of its resources and its natural ecology, the town should support the
Environmentally Superior Alternative in the EIR, which is the Reduced Intensity
Alternative. This Alternative at 350,000 sq ft will provide the greatest reduction in potentially
significant environmental effects when compared to the proposed project, and therefore, would
be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The main reason this would not meet the
Applicant's Objectives is because of the financial feasibility, but The Albright Development
Reduced Area Alternative Feasibility Analysis by EPS was incorrect according to our recent
findings that were submitted to the Town Council. With the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the
current Commercial Real Estate market will support the Applicant in achieving an excess of 7%
ROI threshold including the existing 10 yr lease with Netflix at the rate of $46.11 per sq ft per yr.
The Reduced Intensity Alternative will meet the Objectives of the Applicant and the Town. It
will generate financial revenue and contribute to the schools as well as fit in context with the
surrounding area and protect our neighborhoods. The Reduced Intensity Alternative is the best
option for the Town of Los Gatos. Please send the proposed Albright Office Park back to the
Planning Conunission for a reduction in height and density.
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
HEFT BLANK
Subject: FW: Albright project
Attachments: Document5- l.docx
� t
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: David Stonesifer [rnailto:larrvarzie @gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:03 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject:
CORRECT GRAMER .
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: David Stonesifer [mailto:larryarzie @gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:57 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Albright project
Please give this to the town council and confirm receipt.
Larry Arzie.
r\
Town Council May 32, 2013
Town of Los Gatos
Re: Albright Way 90 -160
Dear Council Members,
I recently gave testimony to the developers unwillingness to work
with the town in accomplishing his goals on recent local projects.
I pointed out the still vacant lot that used to be McHugh Lincoln
Mercury. Here he refused to follow the Boulevard Plan by not
placing the building up front with parking in the rear. He as well
did not interconnect the parking lot with his neighbor as
requested. On the Ford agency lot he was asked to build the
commercial buildings first. Instead the residential units are now
being built first. Perhaps this is because he does not have
commercial tenants lined up and he is planning on eliminating
retail as he did with the Mercury lot or at least having that option.
AND we let him do these things because we did not want to see the
lots stay empty. His success in getting what he wants in past
projects gives him reason to believe he can continue to bully us
into doing the same thing again. Remember what a planning
commissioner said to him "that he has his foot on our necks ".
Fortunately there is no longer in a sense of urgency regarding the
Albright way project as was with the Ford and Mercury lots. The
economy is better and we do not have to take second choice again
as we did with the Mercury lot. Albright `s land has already
changed hands and the majority of the tax base is being paid.
There as well are leasable buildings on the property. Netflix is the
only reason this developer is gambling that you will acquiesce to
his demands. Gamble is exactly what he is doing as he did with the
McHugh Mercury lot agreeing to one thing with intentions to do
another. There are no guarantees when you gamble. It would be
nice to keep Netflix but they are not a make or break situation in
our budget. The N.40 which you seem to be more willing to hold
control over, will be more difficult you cave in to him again.
Respectfully,
Larry justo Arzie
Honorable Mayor Spector and members of the Town Council, Flay, 21 ", 2013
Once again I was taken aback at the Council meeting Monday night by the "spin" of the vested interest
citizens and brokers that spoke. By "vested" I mean money and those who stand to make it at the
expense of others.
We heard from not less than 6 commercial real estate brokers who are friends of Shenk's or Pau's, who
have done business with them in the past, and who are looking forward to reaping hundreds of
thousands of dollars in leasing commissions based upon the projected rents for 550K square feet of
office space. We heard from a major contractor who may build the buildings. We heard from a
provider of concrete whose company may supply the concrete for the construction. We (rightfully)
heard from 7 employees from Netflix, including the CFO, plugging their company because they like our
town, or in the CFO's case, subtle suggestions they might leave our town. We heard from one
homeowner (the last speaker) who was In favor of the project; however his home is over % mile to the
west, on Wedgewood, with little to no impact to his ingress and egress.
We did not hear anybody speak in favor of the project as presented who live within a % mile radius of
the development. The project, which as you recall, was turned down by the planning commission; our
own town governmental body who is deemed to be wiser and more knowledgeable than the collective
speakers in the room Monday and which has no vested (moneyed) interest in this.
We also heard from many of the "little people" who may not have millions, or stand to make hundreds
of thousands of dollars from the project, but whose quality of life is in jeopardy because of where they
own homes. Those Charter Oaks folks are the voices that should be given the most serious weight and
consideration because it is the traffic, mass, height and privacy concern that really have an impact on
their quality of life and financial wellbeing. They are the "vested interest ". On Monday a speaker
referred to them as a "small minority who are against the project ". However it will affect all of us living
in the La Rinconada/ Newell areas as well, hence our quality of life too.
Yesterday in a candid conversation with a major, old line (75 years) Los Gatos family commercial
property owner whose properties span from highway 9 to Main Street ( and who was really unaware of
the 550 sq foot project) said to me unsolicited that "with Yuki's property developed traffic is going to be
a disaster". And also unsolicited from a major residential developer (one who the council thinks highly
of)... "traffic is going to be a mess" on Lark...... both of them confidentially verbally pondering why the
council would consider approving such a large project on such a landlocked parcel (one way in, one way
out). However, these two people I reference have enough time and resources to avoid the day to day
grind of gridlock and backup that the folks in Charter Oaks and surrounding neighborhoods don't have.
Regarding school revenue: who knows who's correct. Jak Van Adda's numbers seemed to be mostly
correct considering the pending North 40 increase. However, someone who was allegedly speaking on
behalf of the schools questioned his premise. Has the town studied the projected revenue and do we
know what the revenue is? Have we heard from a school district official? Z qto P
>�
ECERVIGE®
MAY 3 1 2013
TOWN COUNCIL
The whole argument presented Monday night by most speakers in favor-, revolved around "keeping"
Netflix, which seems totally absurd when they have allegedly only signed (has the council or manager
seen the lease ?) to the first 130 thousand square feet with the "intent" to take more, someday perhaps.
It's been said more than once that "it's not about Netfiix "._ it is about what's appropriate for the site
given its location. However, on Tuesday morning the developer put pressure on the council by issuing a
press release to the Mercury about Netflix signing his lease. Wasn't that old news?
The discussion and consideration by the town council should be about:
1.) Traffic impact; factoring in the projected additional 29,835 traffic trips per day with the pending
North 40 project, plus the additional 4000 plus trips per day at 550 thousand square feet from the
Albright project and their impact on Winchester, Lark, major highway off ramps, and Los Gatos
Boulevard,
2.) The actual (real) school revenues on 330 vs. 550 square feet of space audited by a tax expert from
the district.
3.) The height, which not only violates current town restrictions, but misrepresents the comparison
between the current Netflix headquarters and new proposed height by some 15 feet. I refer you to the
elevation drawings in the package comparing the two side by side.
These three issues should be based in reality no matter who occupies buildings there.
Respectfully,
Jeff Whalen -
Clara Street , Los ,atc s
*r ,eat►
it
MAY 3 1 2013
MAYOR &
TOWN COUNCIL
2/2-
- - . VA- due- -
RECPVP
MAY 3 1 2013
MAYOR &
TOWN COUNCIL
----- Original Messag ------
From: cynthia james fmailto :CYNTHIA @cniames.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 4:18 PM
To: Joel Paulson
Cc: JOHN SHENK; Greg Larson; Judith Propp
Subject: Albright - Applicant information for June 3, 2013 Council meeting
Dear Joel:
Please find attached additional information for the Council hearing on Monday evening. I also have copied the Town
manager and Town attorney as well.
Best,
Cynthia
Cynthia James I The James Group
P: (408) 356 -2169 1 C: (408)314 -9435 1 cynthia@cnlames.com
5�1� SIB
1
8 "U"'VA"Y
tt . . "' )l �1' -
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY LEFT
BLANK
May 30, 2013
VIA E -MAIL
a
John R. Shenk
jshenk @me.com 1408-242-9052
4w-t-Im"
1 w ,
MAY 3 1 2013
Mayor and Town Council Members T ®Vii MAYOR &
N CCU
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Albright Way Entitlement— Planned Development Overlay Zone Justification Letter
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On May 15, 2013, I submitted an additional justification letter that explained how
the Albright Way project (the "Project ") is consistent with the General Plan in general and the
Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zoning provision in particular. Because that letter was 14
pages and I realize that you have limited time to read and digest information related to the Project, I
write again to highlight why the Project is consistent with the PD Overlay provision in the General
Plan and Zoning Code.
Zoning Code section 29.80.080 states: "The purpose of the PD or planned
development overlay zone is to provide for alternative uses and developments more consistent with
site characteristics than are allowed in other zones, and so create an optimum quantity and use of
open space and encourage good design."
The Project epitomizes the intent of the PD Overlay provision. The PD Overlay
proposed as part of the Project sets development standards that differ from those in the General
Plan, which is one of the purposes of a PD Overlay Zone according to the General Plan. (See
General Plan at p. LU -16 -17 [A "Planned Development Overlay [Zone] is a specially tailored
development plan and ordinance which designates the zoning regulations for the accompanying
project, sets specific development standards, and ensures that zoning and the General Plan are
consistent." (Emphasis added)].) Where the General Plan would allow buildings up to 35 feet (two
stories) and site coverage of 50 %, the PD Overlay zone would allow buildings up to 65 feet (four
stories), which allows an Architecture and Site proposal with site coverage of just under 23 %. The
PD Overlay Zone allows the buildings to be taller than otherwise permitted, which in turn reduces
building coverage from what is otherwise allowed.
The site has historically been used for office /research and development uses and the
General Plan designated the site for continued light industrial use. The site is unique because it
mediates the transition between a busy, noisy freeway on one side and a townhome development on
the other. The site also sits between the car - oriented, well - traveled Winchester Boulevard and the
pedestrian- oriented Los Gatos Creek Trail. Finally, this site is in the Vasona Light Rail Area, which
Mayor and Town Council
May 30, 2013
Page 2
is an area recognized by the General Plan as suitable for increased development. These singular site
ch!Q cter'stics; require a distinctive planning solution.
�vu� ' livIl Further, as explained in the financial feasibility memorandum submitted on April 4
,* 9 1p'nning Systems, Inc. ( "EPS ") to make redevelopment of the site feasible, the site
must accommodate approximately 550,000 square feet of Class A office /research and development
space. A lesser amount of space or less quality of space would yield lower rents and make
redevelopment infeasible. A representative from EPS will be present at the June 3, 2013, Town
Council hearing to answer any questions that you may have regarding this assessment.
The PD Overlay Zone creates a site plan that optimizes the quantity and use of open
space for a 550,000 square feet Project. Without a PD Overlay Zone, the site plan would look like
the Reduced Height Alternative illustrated in Figure 5 -3 in the Draft EIR, which is attached as
Exhibit A to this letter. That figure shows eight buildings that are 35 feet tall and each have 68,500
square feet of space. With eight 35 foot buildings and the required parking, the site would have no
room left for the open space features offered by the Project, including the extensive tree retention
and replacement and addition of generous landscaped courtyards. Instead, it would be a much less
appealing plan of densely packed low -rise buildings and parking, with little useable open space.
Conversely, with the PD Overlay Zone, the Project site plan would be as shown in
the plan attached as Exhibit B to this letter. Unlike the Reduced Height Alternative, the Project
includes copious amounts of sustainably landscaped outdoor space. This plan can accommodate
larger setbacks from the freeway, residences, and the Creek Trail, which allows more trees to be
retained and additional trees to be planted. In addition, unlike the Reduced Height Alternative, the
Project leaves room for rows of trees between parking aisles to further screen the development from
the Charter Oaks neighborhood and the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Finally, unlike the Reduced Height
Alternative, the Project acknowledges the differences in the uses that surround each side of the site.
For example, the shortest "building" (the three -story parking garage) is placed closest to the Charter
Oaks neighborhood and the Creek Trail, while the taller buildings are closer to the busier roads. In
addition, the widest part of the large central landscaped area 'is adjacent to the residences in Charter
Oaks. None of the Project's thoughtfully designed landscape features would be possible without the
PD Overlay Zone.
Not only does the PD Overlay Zone allow development with more open space than
what would be provided under the development standards in the General Plan and underlying
zoning, but the PD Overlay also allows more open space than currently exists on the site. (See Draft
EIR at p. 4.1 -5.) The four proposed buildings plus parking garage would have less building coverage
than the existing 10 buildings -5.0 acres (proposed) compared to 5.6 acres (existing). Stated
differently, the Project increases the amount of open area on the site by 28.5 %, increasing the open
space from 6.3 to 8.1 acres. As discussed above, reduced building coverage will increase the open
feel of the site and provide space to preserve trees and add new trees and landscaping.
In addition to good site design, the PD Overlay Zone also promotes good
architectural design. In fact, as the Town's consulting architect, Larry Cannon, stated that the
proposed Project buildings are "excellent in their design." The buildings consist of high quality,
Mayor and Town Council
May 30, 2013
Page 3
ME
sustainable materials, including clear glass and solid masonry. The facades will be highly articulated
through the use of shifting volumes, layers of different materials, and vertical elements such as
columns and mullions to give the buildings rhythm and visual interest. Strong horizontal sun shades
decrease the heat load on the buildings and break up how one perceives the buildings. According to
Mr. Cannon, the sunshades will give the buildings a "perceived" height closer to 55 feet than the
actual 65 feet. The buildings also will be constructed to meet LEED silver criteria, which ensures
that the Project will be operationally efficient and reflect the Town's commitment to sustainability
The Project would not be possible without the PD Overlay Zone, which clearly
serves its purpose to "create an optimum quantity and use of open space and encourage good
design."
Sincerely,
John R. Shenk
Owner's Representative & Applicant
400 " g x
EXHIBIT A
c�
ilr;l 1.
w
a
W
w�
Q
W
U
Q
W
P
1
,`1e• iE
Iai
N'N
i
1 {yam
I
i
�rji
n
I�
�7i
O
Y
<t
0
J
7
O
W
CxG
Q.
U
O
F
n
a
o
W C
M
U 'O
O
R +
p
p
��_
u►
3 d
r h
U - c .�
u� '- as d
H
to m
a �Lo
V
to
o mN
Y
e�-�
m
M
C
Qa
to
t'
�
a
.-
�7i
O
Y
<t
0
J
7
O
W
CxG
Q.
U
O
F
n
a
/I � 4xlay
EXHIBIT B
711 "Mi� xx
z
z �W;.
''� Get c�c t=',�. �- r��1i� �,
Vision That MovesYour Community
Transportation r_..:., ._......M. _,- m,.....,m.o. :_ ..._,_.. _. ,..,F,.. ,, �....., ,.. ,.._...,._ ...-- - - -_..
Consultants May 30, 2013
Mr. Kevin Rohani, Town Engineer
Town of Los Gatos
f 41 Miles Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
( Re: Albright Development
Dear Mr. Rohani;
As you know TJKM Transportation Consultants has served the Town as its on -call traffic
engineering firm for about 10 years. On the Albright project, the Town asked us to
review and provide comments on the traffic study prepared for the EIR. At the conclusion
i of the review process, we were fully satisfied that the study was comprehensive and
accurate.
1
At the recent Town Council meeting on the Albright development, I was in attendance
and was prepared to give a short presentation and to answer any questions about the
1 traffic aspects of the project. Unfortunately, I will be out of town on Monday and will not
c
be able to attend the continued hearing on the project.
Instead, I have included my comments in this letter. Two of the issues that have been
' raised deal with traffic generation rates and parking rates, with the idea that the traffic and
parking rates used in the traffic study might not represent current Silicon Valley office
practices.
The study used rates taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines,
Pleasanton which are utilized throughout the country. (I serve on the national committee that
4305 Hacienda Drive provides the final review of these rates before they are published.) In my experience, the
Suite 550 rates used in the ITE references are somewhat conservative compared to actual rates in
Pleasanton, CA P
94588 -2798 1 the Bay Area. Because of the Bay Area's fairly high level of congestion, traffic tends to be
925.463,061 I
925925.4 3.0 11 j more spread out during arrival and departure periods of commuting than most other
Fresno i areas of the country from where the national rates are derived. For example, I have
516 W. Shaw Avenue personally measured the actual trip rates of buildings and complexes as regional
Suite 200
Fresno, CA congestion increases. Over time, the peak hour rates are reduced as both employees and
93704 -2515
559.325.7530 their employers spread out the start and stop times of the work day to account for the
559.221.4940 fax j congestion on the transportation system. Also, Bay area employees are more likely to
Sacramento carpool and use transit and, in some cases, employer - provided shuttles.
980 Ninth Street
16th Floor
Sacramento, CA
95814 -2736 When comparing the Albright development with comparable Bay Area employers,
916.449.9095 1 have personal knowledge of conditions at Facebook and one other very large company
Santa Rosa i that wants to remain anonymous. Both Facebook and the anonymous company are
1400 N. Dutton Avenue ;
Suite 21 considered the absolute state of the art in how they treat their employees and how their
Santa Rosa, CA i work laces are arranged. Both laces have about one millions square feet of space in the
95401 -4643 P g P q p
707 707.575.5800 By Area locations where these building complexes are located.
tjkm @tjkm.com j
www.tikm.com 4
ATTACHMENT 21
TJKM
Transportation
Consultants
Mr. Kevin Rohoni
May 30. 2013
Page Z
The large anonymous firm generates 1.16 trips for each thousand square feet in the
morning peak. Facebook has 1.30 trips per thousand square feet. For the Los Gatos study,
the engineers who prepared the EIR traffic study used trip rates of 1.60 trips per thousand
square feet. This means that the local rates used in the study are from 23 to 38 percent
higher than nearby state of the art companies.
As to parking, the Albright development proposes 3.5 stalls per thousand square feet;
Facebook requires 3.0 stalls per thousand square feet, and the anonymous firm has 2.84
stalls per thousand square feet. So, Albright parking is proposed to be provided at rates
from 17 to 23 percent higher than their workforce competition. The nationwide ITE rate
is 3.45.
I've concluded that the proposed Los Gatos Albright development study has used
conservatively high rates for peak hour trips and for the required parking supply. The high
peak hour rates means the peak hour levels of service on the transportation network are
likely overstated in the traffic studies.
I hope this information is useful to the Town.
Very truly yours,
Chris D. Kinzel, P.E.
Vice President