Loading...
Attachment 10TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 04/12/2017 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: APRIL 6, 2017 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-15-056. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION U-15-009, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-16-001. PROTECT LOCATION: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY. PROPERTY OWNER: CWA REALTY, CONTACT PERSON: SHANE ARTERS, LP ACQUISITIONS, LLC. REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONED CH. APN 529-23-018. REMARKS: The Planning Commission considered the applications on August 10, 2016 and August 24, 2016. The applications were continued to a date certain of October 26, 2016, with specific recommendations including those topics listed below. On October 26, 2016, the project was continued to January 11, 2017, to allow additional time for revisions and outreach, and then again to March 22, 2017 and April 12, 2017. The attached public comments (Exhibit 30) were received after distribution of the staff report for the March 22, 2017, meeting. The applicant submitted revised development plans in February of 2017 in response to the comments received from the public and the Commissioners at the meeting on August 24, 2016. The Town's Architectural Consultant reviewed the revised development plans and provided recommendations in a report dated February 22, 2017 (Exhibit 32). The applicant submitted revised development plans (Exhibit 36) and a letter to address these specific recommendations (Exhibit 33), along with a response letter addressing the Commissioner's comments (Exhibit 31). PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408-354-6874 www.Iosgatosca.gov ATTACHMENT 10 PAGE2OF7 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001 APRIL 6, 2017 A. Building Size The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to significantly reduce the size of the building in height, mass, and floor area. The applicant has reduced the size of the project by: • Reducing the building height between five and 12 feet (see sheet A3.03 for elevation comparisons); • Reducing the overall mass of the building in cubic feet (volume) by approximately 25 percent; and • Combining the two, two-story buildings into a single, two-story building and reducing the floor area by 8,965 square feet, approximately 10 percent of the previous floor area (see sheet A1.00 of Exhibit 36 for floor area comparison). B. Design The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to revise the proposed design to be more in keeping with the neighborhood and small town character. Specific suggestions included: 1. Moving the proposed 405 Alberto Way building further away from the residential neighbors on the north side of the project; 2. Reducing the scale (height and length) of the 401 Alberto Way building facade, with additional second floor articulation; 3. Not blocking the view of the mountains from neighbors across the street to the northeast; 4. Changing the style of proposed buildings to be more similar to the neighborhood architectural styles; 5. Increasing conformance with the Commercial Design Guidelines, specifically: Section 1.4 Community Expectations: a. Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town's residential structures; b. The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential neighborhoods; c. Scale and character appropriate to the setting; and 6. increasing conformance with General Plan Policies: a. Policy LU-1.8: Commercial development of any type (office, retail, research and development, etc.) shall be designed in keeping with the small-town character of Los Gatos; and b. Policy LU-6.5: The type, density, and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AlbertoWay401-409 04.12.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 4/6/2017 4:57 PM PAGE3OF7 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001 APRIL 6, 2017 The applicant has made the following design changes: • Moved the proposed building ten feet farther away from residential neighbors on the north side of the project; • Reduced the scale of the 401 Alberto Way building facade with additional second floor balconies; • Reduced the 401 Alberto Way building facade height and increased the front setback to 63 feet to increase views of the mountains and provide for a landscaped buffer between the street and the proposed building; and • Provided a written description of the building style choice in the applicant response letters (Exhibit 31 & 33). A follow-up report was prepared by the Town's Architectural Consultant, dated March 17, 2017 (Exhibit 34). The report provided an evaluation of the revised development plans (Exhibit 36), and specific recommendations. Should the Commission determine that the project revisions meet the direction provided at the August 24, 2016 meeting, then the Planning Commission could require all or some of the Consulting Architect's recommendations to be implemented prior to building permit approval. C. Street Width/Configuration The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to work with Town Staff and Caltrans to consider options for the following: 1. Changes to the width and alignment of Alberto Way, with consideration of bike lane(s); 2. Implementation of complete streets elements on Alberto Way; and 3. Potential improvements to improve visibility of pedestrian access along Los Gatos — Saratoga Road frontage and across the Highway 17 onramp. The applicant has proposed to dedicate approximately 1,000 square feet of land to increase the width of Alberto Way and stripe for bike lanes. If accepted, this dedication would reduce the lot size and result in a slight increase in the proposed lot coverage (from 45.3 percent to 45.8 percent), though the project would still be below the 50 percent maximum lot coverage allowed in this zone. The applicant has retained the complete streets elements previously proposed, including separated sidewalks. The applicant has retained the previously proposed improvements that would increase visibility of pedestrians crossing the Highway 17 onramp. N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AIbertoWay401-409 04.12.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 4/6/2017 4:57 PM PAGE 4 OF 7 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001 APRIL 6, 2017 D. Neighborhood Outreach The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to work with the neighbors in developing a reduced project scale and revised design. The applicant worked with the neighbors while their design was developed and held four open house outreach meetings on January 30, 2017 and March 20, 2017 (two on each day), as described in applicant's response letter (Exhibit 31). E. Project Elements to be Retained The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to keep many of the elements of the project, including but not limited to the proposed office use, high quality building, the outdoor spaces, the underground parking, and the LEED Certification. All of these elements are proposed to remain. The applicant proposed: • Increasing the number of parking spaces in the surface parking lot from 7 to 42 (adding 35 parking spaces); • Reducing the number of parking spaces in the underground parking garage from 383 to 290 (removing 93 parking spaces); and • Reducing total number of parking spaces to match the minimum required for the new building size from 390 to 332 (removing 58 parking spaces). F. Additional Items of Concern The Planning Commission also expressed concerns about a number of items without asking for a specific response. These items included concerns about the traffic numbers and emergency access for Alberto Way residents. Staff has confirmed that the traffic numbers in the traffic impact analysis comply with standard traffic engineering practices and that the Santa Clara Fire Department has no concerns about emergency access during or after construction. The applicant asked their traffic consultant, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, to specifically address these concerns. These concerns are addressed in their letter, dated April 6, 2017, attached as Exhibit 35, which has been reviewed by Town staff. G. CEQA The revised project has been reduced in scale by decreasing the proposed floor area and depth of excavation in response to comments from the Planning Commission and the public and is consistent with the project description described in the Draft EIR. The revised project would implement all of the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR and would not result in any new or increased significant environmental impacts as compared N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AlbertoWay401-409 04.12.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 4/6/2017 4:57 PM PAGE5OF7 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001 APRIL 6, 2017 to the Original Project. Therefore, no further environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act since all potential environmental impacts can still be mitigated by the measures listed in the Draft EIR and the revised project would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts as compared to the Original Project. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion Should the Planning Commission determine that the project revisions meet the direction provided at the August 24, 2016 meeting, the Commission can make the findings to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Architecture and Site applications as outlined below. B. Recommendation If the Planning Commission determines that the revised project meets the direction provided at the August 24, 2016 meeting and finds merit with the proposed project, it should: 1. Adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact (Exhibit 4); 2. Certify the Final EIR and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 15); 3. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Exhibit 28) (Note: if the application is approved the findings for denial will be removed); 4. Make the required finding that the project is in compliance with the Commercial Design Guidelines (Exhibit 28); 5. Make the findings required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure (Exhibit 28); 6. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 28); and 7. Approve Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 and Architecture & Site Application S-15-056 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 29, and the plans in Exhibit 36. C. Alternatives If the Commission has concerns with the proposed project, it can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or 2. Approve the applications with additional and/or modified conditions; or N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\ 2017\AIbertoWay401-409 04.12.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 4/6/2017 4:57 PM PAGE6OF7 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001 APRIL 6, 2017 3. Deny the applications and make the required findings for denial (Exhibit 28) (Note: if the applications are denied the provided findings for approval would be removed from Exhibit 28). EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report Previously received with August 10, 2016 Staff Report: 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 4. Required CEO1A Findings of Fact (24 pages) 5. Recommended Conditions of Approval (15 pages) 6. Letter of Justification/Project Description (15 pages), received July 15, 2016 7. Project Construction Details (three pages), received August 3, 2016 8. Letter of Outreach Conducted (40 pages), received February 10, 2016 9. Second Letter of Neighborhood Outreach (26 pages), received August 3, 2016 10. Consulting Arborist's Report (41 pages), dated September 26, 2015 11. Architectural Consultant's First Report (five pages), received September 10, 2015 12. Architectural Consultant's Final Report (five pages), received March 18, 2016 13. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting minutes, June 10, 2015 meeting (four pages) 14. Public Comments 15. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated June 29, 2016 16. Development Plans (37 pages), received July 15, 2016 Previously received with August 10, 2016 Desk Item: 17. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, August 4, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 2016 Previously received with August 24, 2016 Staff Report: 18. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2016 19. Applicant's Response Letter, received August 19, 2016 Previously received with August 24, 2016 Desk Item: 20. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 21. Applicant's Response Letter, received August 24, 2016 Previously received with October 26, 2016 Staff Report: N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AIDertoWay401-409 04.12.17 CUP A5 EIR.docx 4/6/2017 4:57 PM PAGE 7 OF 7 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001 APRIL 6, 2017 22. Communication from the applicant, received October 10, 2016 and October 19, 2016 23. Public comments received from 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, August 24, 2016 to 11:00 a.m., Thursday, October 20, 2016 Previously received with January 11, 2017 Staff Report: 24, Communication from the applicant, received November 11, 2016 25. Public comments received from 11:01 a.m., Thursday, October 20, 2016 to 11:00 a.m., Thursday, January 5, 2017 Previously received with March 22, 2017 Staff Report: 26. Communication from the applicant, received February 28, 2017 27. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, January 5, 2017 to 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 16, 2017 Received with this Staff Report: 28. Revised Required Findings and Considerations 29. Revised Conditions of Approval (21 pages) 30. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, March 16, 2017 to 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 6, 2017 31. Applicant's Response Letter (23 pages), received March 17, 2017 32. Architectural Consultant's Report on Revised Plans (six pages), received February 22, 2017 33. Applicant's Response letter to Architectural Consultant's Report (three pages), received March 16, 2017 34. Architectural Consultant's Second Report on Revised Plans (eight pages), received March 17, 2017 35. Traffic Consultant Letter (eight pages), received April 6, 2017 36. Revised Development Plans (35 pages), received March 17, 2017 Distribution: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AIbertoWay401-409 04.12.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 4/6/2017 4:57 PM This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION - April12, 2017 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 401-409 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001 Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct a new, two-story office building with underground parking on property zoned CH. APN 529- 23-018. APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: • An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed development, The Planning Commission must certify the EIR, make findings of fact, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Required findings for a Conditional Use Permit: • As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit: The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of the Town Code if it finds that: (1) The proposed use would be considered desirable in that the office buildings would replace the existing office buildings on -site and provide necessary uses and services for the community; and (2) The proposed application will continue to provide office uses in one of the few small mixed -use commercial areas of Town and the zone allows office; and (3) The existing and proposed office use are not detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare; and (4) The proposed use is in harmony with the General Plan and Town Code. Required findings to deny a Conditional Use Permit application: • As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for denying a Conditional Use Permit: The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a conditional use permit for a new office building if any of the following findings are made: EIKIIBIT (1) The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with specific provisions or objectives of the general plan and the purposes of the Town Code; (2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of businesses in the commercial district in which the use is proposed to be located; (3) The proposed use would create an over -concentration of similar types of businesses; or (4) The proposed use will detract from the existing land use mix and high urban design standards including uses that promote continuous pedestrian circulation and economic vitality. Commercial Design Guidelines: ■ The proposed buildings are consistent with applicable provisions of the Commercial Design Guidelines. Required finding for the demolition of an existing structure: ■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the demolition does not include any residential buildings. 2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance. 3_ The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure as it exists. 4. The economic utility of the structure is diminished because of age. CONSIDERATIONS Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications: ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. N.\DEV\FINDINGS\2017\ALBE RT0 401-409,DOCX CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - April 12, 2017 401-409 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001 Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct a new, two-story office building with underground parking on property zoned CH. APN 529- 23-018. APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans, Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. SIGN PERMIT: A Sign Permit from the Los Gatos Community Development Department must be obtained prior to any changes to existing signs or installation of new signs. 4. CERTIFICATE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY: A Certificate of Use and Occupancy from the Los Gatos Community Development Department must be obtained prior to commencement of use. 5. BUSINESS LICENSE: A business license from the Town of Los Gatos Finance Department must be obtained prior to the commencement of any new or change of use. 6, LAPSE FOR DISCONTINUANCE: If the activity for which the Conditional Use Permit has been granted is discontinued for a period of one (1) year, the approval lapses pursuant to Section 29.20.340 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. LEED CERTIFICATION: Prior to issuance of building permits and prior to final, the applicant shall provide documents showing progress towards and completion of LEED Silver certification. 8. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. 9. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 10. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. EXHIBIT 2 9 11. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by Deborah Ellis, identified in the Arborist's report dated September 26, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or will be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. 12. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Refer to tree fencing requirements and other protection measures identified in the Arborist Reports prepared by Deborah Ellis dated September 26, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. 13. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double -staked using rubber tree ties. 14. WATER EFFECIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. 15. LANDSCAPING: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy all landscaped must be complete. 16. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 17. SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the developer shall provide the Community Development Director with written notice of the company that will be recycling the building materials. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting the type and weight of materials, shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection. 18. AIR QUALITY 1: Final plans for the proposed buildings on the site shall be amended to include a requirement for low NOX heating systems to be installed in new buildings on the site. 19. AIR QUALITY 2: Final plans shall be amended to include a requirement for the installation of at least four electric charging stations prior to occupancy, with parking restricted to electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, and at least one handicapped space shall be provided with access to a charging station. 20. AIR QUALITY 3: The project contractor shall implement basic dust control measures at all on -site and off -site locations where grading or excavation takes place. The project contractor shall implement additional dust control measures at all on -site and off -site locations where grading or excavation takes place within 200 feet of residential properties. Basic dust control measures: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; and f. The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance coordinator. The disturbance coordinator shall respond and take correction action for any complaint received with 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. g. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph; h. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast -germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established; and i. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to six inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 21. BIOLOGY 1: If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird season, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre -construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable nesting habitat areas on and adjacent to the site to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of disturbance/construction activities. A report documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is detected during the survey, then a plan for bird nest avoidance shall be prepared to determine and clearly delineate an appropriately -sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 75-250 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with applicable project permits. To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. 22. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the projects grading plan shall indicate the requirement for a qualified archaeologist to be present at all times during grading and excavation activities on the project site. If archaeological resources are uncovered, work will not continue until the resources have been removed and/or recorded. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the responsibility of the developer(s). 23. CULTURAL RESOURCES 2: If human remains are found during construction activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the responsibility of the developer(s). 24. GEOLOGY & SOILS 1: Prior to the approval of building permits for the project site, the applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the approval of the Building Official that proposed design plans are in conformance with all current California Building Code standards and that all design measures and site preparation recommendations as suggested in the project's geotechnical exploration report prepared by ENGEO (2015) have been incorporated into the project's final design 25. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1: Prior to any demolition activities on the project site, an asbestos and lead -based paint survey shall be performed to determine if any additional waste removal activities would be required. The selected project contractor shall implement all site specific measures and recommendations identified within the site's asbestos and lead -based survey. Compliance with the asbestos and lead -based paint survey during site demolition activities shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. 26. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to implement improvements for the restriping of Alberto Way to include a dedicated right -turn lane and a shared left -through lane. Costs for these improvements will be determined by the Town's traffic consultant. 27. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide a bike box on Alberto Way at the intersection with Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, as well as the detached sidewalks with a landscape buffer on Alberto Way along the project site frontage, and on the north side of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road between Alberto Way and the State Route 17 northbound on - ramp 28. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 3: Off -site improvement plans shall show that parking on southbound Alberto Way between the two project driveways shall be prohibited to ensure sight distance is not obscured. 29. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 30. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. Building Division 31. PERMITS REQUIRED: A separate Building Permit will be required for the two level Parking Garage podium structure and a separate Building Permit shall be required for each office/commercial building. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary. 32. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue -lined in full on the second sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 33. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, size 24" x 36" minimum, 30" x 42" maximum. 34. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process. 35. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 36. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Obtain Building Department Demolition Applications and Bay Area Air Quality Management District Applications from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the Demolition Forms have been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected, return the completed Forms to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air District's J# Certificate(s), PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of Site Plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a Permit from the Town. 37. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed four (4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations. 38. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevations and on -site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining Walls 39. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue -lined (sticky -backed) onto a sheet of the plans. 40. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims Tess than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 41. FIRE ZONE: This project will require Class A Roof Assemblies. 42. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled -out, signed by all requested parties, and be blue -lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building 43. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (or Clean Bay Sheet 24x36) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second or third page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee. 44. NPDES-C.3 DATA FORMS: Copies of the NPDES C.3 Data Forms (updated based on the final construction drawings) must be blue -lined in full onto the Plans. In the event that this data differs significantly from any Planning approvals, the Town may require recertification of the project's storm water treatment facilities prior to release of the Building Permit. 45. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS: This project must, at a minimum, be in compliance with the Nonresidential Mandatory Measures of the current California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC) and all subsequent Amendments. a. Bicycle Parking: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.4.1.1 provide twenty (20) permanently anchored bicycle racks (= 5% of motorized vehicle parking) for short-term bicycle parking or ten (10) two -bike capacity racks. Per CGBSC Section 5.106.4.2 provide secure bicycle lockers for twenty (20) bicycles (= 5% of motorized vehicle parking). Note: Providing showers, changing rooms, and clothes lockers in each building is a voluntary amenity to be considered. b. Designated Parking: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.5.2 provide designated parking for any combination of low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 which equals 8% of the proposed parking or a minimum of 32 spaces. c. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.5.3, during construction provide electric vehicle supply equipment and electrical components as listed to facilitate the future installation of (or provide for during construction) electric vehicle charging stations. Per CGBSC Table 5,106.5.3.3, 12 electric vehicle charging stations spaces are required for this project or 3% of the total parking spaces. 46. SITE ACCESSIBILITY: At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance that they serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect all accessible buildings, facilities, elements and spaces that are on the same site. If access is provided for pedestrians from a pedestrian tunnel or elevated walkway, entrances to the buildings from each tunnel or walkway must be accessible. 47. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: The parking lots, as well as the parking structure, where parking is provided for the public as clients, guests or employees, shall provide handicap accessible parking. Accessible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. in buildings with multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances. 48. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development/Planning Division: Jennifer Arrner at (408) 399-5706 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Weisz at 395-5340 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000 f. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. 49. ADVISORY COMMENTS: a. Allowable Area calculations shall be provided for each building per California Building Code Chapter 5. b. Per California Building Code Section 1027.5 Exit Discharge Access to a public way, from the Shared Courtyard Amenity Area, it appears that there will be difficulty providing a direct and unobstructed access to the public way or the ability to provide a safe dispersal area in compliance with the Exception requirements. c. For the balconies, the occupant load will be calculated at 15 square feet per occupant. Please consider dividing the balconies with permanent railings to limit the balcony areas to less than 750 square feet in order to avoid the requirement for two compliant exits in anticipation of unknown future tenant improvement layouts. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 50. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job -related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense. 51. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer. 52. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any permit. 53. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to the Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all elements encroaching into the Town's right-of-way. 54. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on -site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of work that went on without inspection. 55. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 56. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 57. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 58. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. 59. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of any permits. 60. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR: The Developer shall fund a full time public works inspector, selected by the Town of Los Gatos, for the duration of the grading operations. The Applicant will be charged on a time and materials basis. A deposit for the full amount, to be estimated by the Town based on the Contractor's approved schedule, shall be paid prior to issuance of the demolition permit. 61. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any post -project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Applicant. 62. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location(s), driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint. 63. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conforms to existing pavement on Alberto Way shall be constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed. 64. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a drainage study of the project evidencing that the proposed drainage patterns will not overload the existing storm drain facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer. 65. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first, the Applicant shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town. 66. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit/building permit. 67. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes. 68. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre -construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub -contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on -site at all times during construction. 69. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process. 70. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated by separate instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued: a. Alberto Way: Right-of-way within Alberto Way for public street purposes as delineated on the plans prepared by Kier & Wright shall be dedicated in fee. b. Public Service Easement (PSE): Five (5) feet wide, along the Alberto Way frontage. 71. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 72, GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub -surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab -on -grade construction, excavation, drainage, on -site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans. 73. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare and submit a design -level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval by the Town. The Applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. Approval of the Applicant's soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 74. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design -level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an "as -built" letter/report prepared by the Applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 75. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the project's design -level geotechnical/geological investigation as prepared by the Applicant's engineer(s), and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town's consultant and costs shall be borne by the Applicant. 76. IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct public improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100% (performance) and 100% (labor and materials) prior to issuance of any permit. The Applicant shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any permit. 77. JOINT TRENCH PLANS: Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to recordation of a map. The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site lighting and associated photometrics. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public street light billing will by Rule LS2A, and that private lights shall be metered with billing to the homeowners association. Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on the plans. 78. WATER DESIGN: Water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any permit. 79. WATER METER: The existing water meters, currently located within the Alberto Way right- of-way, shall be relocated within the property in question, directly behind the public right- of-way line. The Applicant shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity. 80. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the Developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. a. Alberto Way: i. Install new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip, street lights, signing, striping, and storm drainage as directed by the Town Engineer. ii. Remove and replace the existing pavement section along the project frontage with a traffic -appropriate engineered structural pavement section from centerline to the lip of gutter on the project (west) side. iii. Provide a 2-inch grind and overlay from centerline to the east side of the street/lip of gutter. Provide two (2) travel lanes, an exclusive right -turn lane 210 feet in length and a shared left-thru lane, and a bike lane exiting Alberto Way. v. Provide a bike lane between the two travel lanes on southbound Alberto Way. vi. Install a bike box on Alberto Way at the intersection with Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. vii. Install ADA-compliant Gatos -Saratoga Road. Los Gatos -Saratoga Road: i. Install new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip, street lights, signing, striping, and storm drainage as directed by the Town Engineer. ii. Install ADA-compliant curb ramps for the pedestrian crosswalk on Los Gatos - Saratoga Road at the SR-17 northbound on -ramp. Install high visibility crosswalk stripes and pedestrian warning lights as approved by Caltrans. iii. Provide a 2-inch grind and overlay from the median island to the new lip of gutter along the project frontage. iv. Widen the north side of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and remove & replace the existing median island along Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to provide for a future bike lane and a left -turn pocket, 250 feet in length, for eastbound Los -Gatos Saratoga Road traffic turning onto northbound Alberto Way. Provide pedestrian crosswalk improvements crossing the California State Route 17 northbound on -ramp, such as high -visibility crosswalk stripes, rectangular iv. v. curb ramps at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los rapid flashing beacons, a yield line and/or appropriate signage, etc. as approved by Caltrans and the Town Engineer. 81. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MEASURES: Projects which propose work within the Town's right-of-way, including but not limited to pavement restoration, street widening, construction of curb, gutter and/or sidewalk, right-of-way dedication, etc., will be evaluated by Staff to determine its potential for the implementation of Green Infrastructure measures and associated improvements. 82. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Applicant shall be required to improve the project's public frontage to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approach(es), curb ramp(s), traffic signal(s), street lighting (upgrade and/or repaint) etc. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 83. ADA COMPLIANCE: The Applicant shall be required to meet all ADA standards, which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. This may require additional construction measures as directed by the Town. 84. ON -STREET PARKING: On -street parking along the project's Alberto Way frontage shall be prohibited after the construction and installation of public improvements. Additionally, new red curb shall be painted along the eastern curb of Alberto Way (northbound direction) at the Best Western frontage. 85_ UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE DRAINAGE: Water from the underground parking garage shall not be discharged onto the public street. The Applicant shall design a floor drainage system for the garage that collects all drainage and conveys runoff to the sanitary sewer system. Connecting said drainage system to the storm drain system is not permitted. 86. PARKING LOTS: Parking lots and other impervious areas shall be designed to drain stormwater runoff to vegetated drainage swales, filter strips, and/or other treatment devices that can be integrated into required landscaping areas and traffic islands prior to discharge into the storm drain system and/or public right-of-way. The amount of impervious area associated with parking lots shall be minimized by utilizing design features such as providing compact car spaces, reducing stall dimensions, incorporating efficient parking lanes, and using pervious pavement where feasible. The use of permeable paving for parking surfaces is encouraged to reduce runoff from the site. Such paving shall meet Santa Clara County Fire Department requirements and be structurally appropriate for the location. 87. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 88. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet current ADA standards. Sidewalk repair shall match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 89. CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR: The Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet Town standards. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 90. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Developer shall install two (2) Town standard commercial driveway approaches. The new driveway approaches shall be constructed per Town Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. 91. CURB RAMPS: The Developer shall construct one (1) curb ramp in compliance with ADA Standards which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. 92. CALTRANS APPROVAL: The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining design approval(s) and construction encroachment permits) from Caltrans for any improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way. 93. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080, 26.10.065, and 29.40.030. 94. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION): The Applicant shall upgrade existing traffic signals to current Town standards including, and may not be limited to: a. LED vehicular and pedestrian signal indication b. LED safety and intersection lighting c. ADA-compliant pedestrian push buttons d. 12" signal heads e. Emtrac fire preemption device f. Service pedestal g. New service pedestal at intersection (remove the existing service pedestal at the south end of the Best Western and install new conduit from the existing service to the new service pedestal) h. Video detection system and cameras i, Signal controller j. Traffic signal interconnect The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 95. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STREET LIGHTS): The Applicant shall replace existing street light poles with new street light poles and LED Tight fixtures. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 96. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (LOS GATOS-SARATOGA ROAD/ALBERTO WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT): Extend the left turn lane in eastbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to 250 feet in length. Re -construct the median island and necessary roadway configuration to accommodate the extended left turn lane and to provide for future bike lane. Plans shall be prepared by developer's design consultants and submitted to Town Engineer for approval prior to construction. Applicant is required to designate necessary right of way for the required widening. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 97. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FROM ALBERTO WAY TO LOS GATOS BOULEVARD): Install signal interconnect conduit from Alberto Way to the existing empty conduit approximately 300 feet east of Alberto Way. Repair said existing empty conduit if necessary and as directed by the Town Engineer, Install conduits at Los Gatos Boulevard/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road as needed for entering existing controller cabinet. Install new signal interconnect cable in the new and existing conduits from Alberto Way/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to the existing signal controller cabinet at Los Gatos Boulevard/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. Install necessary communication equipment inside existing controller cabinets at Alberto Way/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and Los Gatos Boulevard/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road for transmitting controller data and live video. Install necessary signal interconnect equipment to complete functional signal communication. 98. THIRD PARTY STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSPECTION FEES: The Developer shall pay a fee in the amount of $3,000.00 for Town's inspection of street lights and traffic signal -related work installed by the Developer. The fees shall be due at time of building permit application. 99. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM): The Developer shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management Plan for the Town of Los Gatos approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The TDM shall include the measures such as and not limited to bicycle facility provisions, shower facilities, transit passes and subsidies, carpool incentive, designated car share parking, shower and changing rooms, cash incentives, transit passes and subsidies, carpool incentives, reserved car share parking, guaranteed ride -home, etc., an annual monitoring report, and other measures that may be required by the Town Engineer. The TDM shall also include a TDM coordinator and identify the requirement and targets for an annual TDM effectiveness report to the Town of Los Gatos. 100. TRAFFIC STUDY: Any development of land use that generates greater traffic impacts than those assumed in the traffic study report may require an updated traffic study in accordance with the Town's traffic impact policy. 101. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The developer shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos, The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project using the current fee schedule is estimated at $526,768.00. The final fee with credits for complete street improvements along Los Gatos -Saratoga Road shall be calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect immediately prior to building permit issuance. 102. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from the Town Engineer. 103. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: No construction vehicles, trucks, equipment and worker vehicles shall be allowed to park on the portion of any public (Town) streets without written approval from the Town Engineer. 104. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: A traffic control plan is required and must be submitted and approved prior to any work in the public right-of-way. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption. b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation. c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation. 105. CALTRANS APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTOL PLANS: The Developer shall be responsible for submitting the proposed traffic control plans to Caltrans for approval for any work within the Caltrans right-of-way or that may affect traffic on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road (California State Route 9). 106. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL: All construction traffic and related vehicular routes, traffic control plan, and applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to beginning of any work. 107. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION: Advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding parking restriction, lane closure or road closure, with specification of dates and hours of operation. 108. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off -site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off of the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the Developer/Owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris. 109. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize, on a case -by -case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 110. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. if the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 111. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan,. Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse Iocation(s). Please refer to the Town's Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information. 112. CALTRANS: Prior to the start of any work along or within Caltrans rights -of -way and/or easement, the Developer shall obtain necessary encroachment permits for the proposed work. A copy of approved encroachment permit is required to be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to permit issuance. 113. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. A Sanitary Sewer Clean -out is required for each property at the property line, or at a location specified by the Town. 114. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land, which disturbs one (1) acre or more which are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs less than one (1) acre are required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State Water Resources Control Board. The Applicant is required to provide proof of WDID# and keep a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the construction site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and/or Building Department upon request. 115. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed arid for all material, equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders. 116. STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF: All new development and redevelopment projects are subject to the stormwater development runoff requirements. Every Applicant shall submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures. Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with the development runoff requirements. 117. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 118. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area(s), it is recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 Stormwater Handbook. 119. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more than one (1) acre. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring, for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (Q5P) as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) must be developed forty-eight (48) hours prior to any likely precipitation even, defined by a fifty (50) percent or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast) which must accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on -site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 120. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shalt be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on -site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1) late -afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. Ail public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty-five (25) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 121. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater management facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches, swales, pipes, bubble -ups, dry wells, outfalls, infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be provided on submitted plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, and approved for implementation. 122. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 123. STORMWATER DISCHARGE: New buildings shall provide a covered or enclosed area for dumpsters and recycling containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Areas around trash enclosures and recycling areas shall not discharge directly to the storm drain system. Any drains installed in or beneath dumpsters and compactors shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. The Applicant shall contact the local permitting authority and/or sanitary district with jurisdiction for specific connection and discharge requirements. 124. WATER FEATURES: The proposed fountain feature shall have a connection to the sanitary sewer system, subject to West Valley Sanitation District's authority and standards, to facilitate draining events. Discharges from this feature shall be directed to the sanitary sewer and are not allowed into the storm drain system. 125. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On -site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right-of-way. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property. 126. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: A storm water management shall be included with the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as defined in the amended provisions C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2- 2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. The plan shall delineate source control measures and BMPs together with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be certified by a professional pre -qualified by the Town. In the event that the storm water measures proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Permit. The Applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility. 127, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOTES: The following note shall be added to the storm water management plan: "The biotreatment soil mix used in all stormwater treatment landscapes shall comply with the specifications in Attachment L of the MRP. Proof of compliance shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Town of Los Gatos a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site using the Biotreatment Soil Mix Supplier Certification Statement." 128. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the biotreatment soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division Inspection staff a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site. Additionally deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering Division Inspection staff. Sample Certification can be found here: 129. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT+SOIL,. 130. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by the Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and shall specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded, and a copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits. 131. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's storm drains. 132. OUTDOOR TRASH ENCLOSURES: Outdoor trash enclosures shall be covered and provided with area drains connected to the sanitary sewer per current NPDES requirements before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Temporary trash enclosures are exempt from this condition. Connecting said drainage system to the storm drain system is not permitted. 133. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense, 134. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: Immediately upon approval of any permit, the Applicant shall initiate a weekly neighborhood email notification program to provide project status updates. The email notices shall also be posted on a bulletin board placed in a prominent location along the project perimeter. 135. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. N:\D[V\CONDITIONS\2017\Alberto 401-409.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank Jennifer Armer From: Marilyn Basham <marilynbasham c@me.com> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 3:09 PM To: Jennifer Arrner Subject: corrected email disregard 3/25/2017 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged > Dear Jennifer, > > I am a resident of the Los Gatos Commons(LGC), a senior, and a small business owner in Los Gatos along with my son, Dr Ryan Basham MD. • I want to share some of the communication that took place at the Commons on March 20 at 4:30pm with the residents of LGC and Developer Lamb of the 401-409 Alberto Way Project. > The meeting was billed as a presentation of revised building plans but in fact the square footage was unchanged and the underground garage remains two levels and unchanged. When the residents questioned the deception, Mr Lamb said he had met the request of the Planning Commissioners(PC) and reduced the MASS by 25% using cubic feet measurements. When the residents protested that the PC had requested a 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in size, he told us we were mistaken and should review the video of the meeting. > > One of the residents remarked that traffic has greatly increased in the last 6 months and that a new traffic analysis for the project appears warranted. Shane, the other developer, said "the town is comfortable with the traffic study and we need to go to the Town about traffic, not usl" > Mr Lamb said that there would be 200 diesel truck trips per day; some days more. The trucks would come 6-7 a time. When I asked him about how was he going to make the schedule work with BEACH TRAFFIC gridlock, he replied that wasn't going to be a problem. He said the gridlock was ONLY a weekend occurrence and wouldn't interfere with the trucks. When it was pointed out that summer BEACH TRAFFIC was everyday, he said he would have flagmen and walkie talkies to handle it. The residents became very concerned that this outside developer had very poor knowledge about the Town. It was especially concerning since this project will totally disrupt and isolate us at LGC ( our only exit is through the construction zone) for a year and a half to two years. > Thank You > Marilyn Basham Jennifer Armer From: Kalane McDonald <kalaneella@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:32 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Alberto Way project Hello Jennifer, First, allow me to thank you for your quick response to my previous message. I continue to have strong reservations about the project as a whole, but I have become very concerned about the construction process. After attending an information meeting presented by lam, the concept of hundreds of trucks hauling dirt away for weeks is horrifying. A few days ago as I was driving up to the corner, heading to Safeway, a large truck was parked along the curb in front of 401- 409. It left very little space to pass even crossing over to the opposite side, and luckily no car was coming in that direction. As I understand, trucks will be operating all day long, causing congestion and dangerous situations. These trucks would be necessary to haul the excavation material in order to dig out for an underground garage. I strongly object to such an underground garage. I am registering my serious concerns for safety and extreme congestion on Alberto Way and Highway 9. I will be attending the April 12 meeting. Sincerely, Kalane McDonald 443 Alberto Way B224 Sent from my iPad Jennifer Armer From: Loretta Fowier <Iorettakfowler@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:44 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: March 20 meeting of residents of 401-409 Alberto Way with Mr. Lamb and co. Attachments: Lamb2.docx We had two meetings on March 20, one at 4:30 PM, Marilyn Basham, from The Commons committee on the 401-409 project, sent you the minutes a few days ago. Here is a summary of the 6:30 meeting discussion. Loretta Fowier The Commons Committee on the 401-409 Alberto Way project March 20, 2017 6:30-8 PM Meeting of residents with Mr. Lamb in The Commons clubhouse From 9-11 present Mr. Lamb focused on trying to convince us that it was useless to oppose the project. First, he said his architect made changes to address our complaints about the mass of the building. He said the Town Architect already approved these changes, implying that this person now thinks the building is not too large and massive. Instead of reducing square footage, they "broke up mass" by reducing the cubic feet of the building so the mass is reduced by 25% (volume reduced from 1.6 million to 1.2 million cubic feet). So the building is smaller and residents° and Planning Commission complaints are adequately addressed. We objected to that logic. Then he told us that it was pointless to complain about traffic congestion. We would be wasting our time because the Town accepts the Hexagon traffic study that indicates the residents on Alberto Way will not be inconvenienced by the project. He finished by telling us that something would be built on the site and if he was not able to build the 83,000 sf office building, something worse for us would be put in that spot. From Loretta Fowler For Committee on 401-409 Alberto Way project, Los Gatos Commons Jennifer Armer From: Jim Wagner <jimwag49er@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 12:11 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Alberto Way Project/Los Gatos Commons Hello Jennifer I am writing to you to voice my objections to the proposed buildings and construction at the corner of Alberto Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. I cannot attend the Planning Commission meeting on the 12th but want my voice heard. The City of Los Gatos is very well familiar with this street and ifs communities already in here. It is so obvious there is no room for a large commercial/business,added amount of working people/traffic/parking and in addition to the all day traffic on Saratoga/LG Road. This is a quite part of Los Gatos housing many people especially seniors who want to live peacefully. Surely, the Planning Commission can understand our concerns and objections Putting us (all residents) and Alberto Way through 16 months of construction and destruction, delayed traffic, noise, dust, aggravation, anger and just plain hell will be a nightmare for all of us. With all of that, we end up with this commercial business whom we do not want there in the first place. I have to leave my home every morning at 8:00 am and getting through the streets, lights and traffic and flagmen will make me late every day and the inconvenience of having to leave earlier every day will eventually become a hardship. You are Los Gatos, we are Los Gatos, I ask you to please reject the developers plans to disrupt our environment and way of living and to find another location with space to build whatever they want and not try to squeeze into our neighborhood. I hope the Town of Los Gatos is with it's loyal people and will do the right thing. Respectfully, Marge Wagner Los Gatos Commons \rl• APR 0.3 2011 Los Gatos Town Planning Commission TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Jennifer Armer Dear Ms. Armer, We purchased our condominium in Los Gatos Commons in 2014. We have lived in the bay area for over 30 years. The appeal to purchase in Los Gatos was that over the 30 years living in this area, Los Gatos was able to maintain a wonderful small town appeal. One of the main attraction is that Los Gatos has not sold out to developers as in the case of Cupertino. Los Gatos is such a beautiful town nestled amongst the mountains and beautiful scenery. The proposed office building will cause an extreme strain on the residents of Los Gatos Commons. Alberto Way, less than one mile long will never be able to accommodate the amount of traffic that this building will bring. At this time during the weekday, traffic causes extreme congestion between highway 9 and Alberto Way. The residents are already experiencing speeding traffic coming from the office building at the end of the street. Los Gatos planning committee needs to understand Alberto Way cannot and will not be able to accommodate this type of development. i strongly urge the committee to decline this development request. Nancy Orwell 439 Alberto Way A201 Los Gatos, California 95032 Jennifer Armer From: Dick McGowan <dickmcgowan114@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 4:37 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 Alberto Way I really don't think the developers care what we think and don't think "they really" understand that this huge project is going to impact everyone that lives on Alberto Way.My husband and I both in our 80's moved to the Commons June15 and just in that short time,we've had to leave at least 20 minutes early in order to make an appointment.With this project we'll have to at least double that time plus more at times. Driving with cars that belong to the residents line both sides of the street certainly impact our safety even now. Needless,to say we're very sad about this project. Thanks for listening to me. Connie and Richard Mcgowan Sent from my iPad Jennifer Armer From: LORENESPRANDEL <lorenesprandel@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 6:59 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Alberto Project Hi Jennifer With increased traffic on Highway 9, all northbound traffic on Highway 17 exiting on East Los Gatos ramp will have a difficult time to cross highway 9 to access the left turn for Alberto Way. Many of the Commons residents have families south of here and Highway 17 is the only one they can use. Thanks for all the help you have given us at the Commons Sincerely Lorene Sprandel April 4, 2017 Planning Commissioners Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Impact of 401-409 Alberto Way Proposed Development on Bella Vista_Village Bella Vista Village is a development of 47 Craftsman -style townhomes that was constructed in 1998 and 1999 on a small farm at the base of Bella Vista Avenue. A local architectural firm, Paragon Design, put great thought into designing a project that would blend well with the existing residential homes at the end of this idyllic cul-de sac on Alberto Way. I've enjoyed this neighborhood for 18 years as an original owner. My neighbors and I have carefully watched the various proposed developments at both ends of Alberto Way with curiosity and trepidation. As a Realtor having represented buyers and sellers on 24 Bella Vista Village homes, I've experienced another perspective -- the impact the proposed project at 401- 409 Alberto Way has had on marketing homes for sale or for rent for the past two years as residents wonder what kind of impact a development of this size would have on these homes. The existing plan: Is nearly 2 % times the square footage of the existing office space • Requires an extended period of time for underground and above ground construction which ultimately could cause structural damage to adjacent properties • Will cause increased traffic congestion on Highway 9, Highway 17 and Alberto Way -- a bottleneck entrance to hundreds of homes and nearly 200,000sf of commercial office space. Without any additional development, the street already suffers from a narrow roadway limited by street parking on both sides of the street. (Kemp, 2 of 3) In my recent door to door survey in Bella Vista Village, the residents indicated they would look forward to a new development that would enhance this area of town but have an overwhelming concern for the size, mass and scale of the proposed development. They have asked me to represent them as a liaison with neighboring developments at Pueblo de Los Gatos, The Los Gatos Commons and Las Casitas to voice their concerns to the proposed developer. These concerns can best be summarized in six points: 1, The size, mass and scale of the originally designed 93,000 sf building should be reduced by one third to one half as requested by the Planning Commission at the last hearing in 201.6j46,000 to 62,000sf). 2. Compared to the current artist renderings presented by the developer, the architectural features of the project should be in keeping with the existing residential neighborhood with lower building height, breaks in the roofline, a mix of exterior buildingmaterialspossibly including wood, glass and stone with breaks in the front and side elevations and privacy for adjacent neighbors, avoiding a massive, contemporary, concrete, cubic design that blocks hill views and light at the end of the .day. 3. This project should allow reasonable ingress/egress on Alberto Way as most of the residents in Bella Vista Village are working professionals, and many families have small children that attend school and have after school activities. They are especially concerned with the number of trucks and heavy equipment that will be needed for quite some time during the extended construction phase. 4. This project should not cause an additional burden to the drainage system on Alberto Way. Please see the independent hydrologist's report for 401-409 Alberto Way which shows the project will overload neighboring systems if not mitigated properly. The Bella Vista Village developer (Landmark Development) returned a year after construction completion to install additional drainage including sump pumps to the homes on the lower half of Cuesta de Los Gatos Way due to excess water run-off they had not anticipated from the highest elevation in the development (Maggi Court which lies at the base of Bella Vista Avenue). These sump pumps have been working overtime this year with the return to normal rainfall, and our streets and curbs have often flooded when the drains failed to meet the run-off demand. Our residents realize that mitigation for any additional load on Alberto Way is going to be critical. (Kemp,3of3) 5. The 401-409 Alberto Way parking should not overflow to street parking on Alberto Way where many residents in Bella Vista Village park their vehicles due to storage in their garages. Parking after hours on the street is already at a premium for existing residents. 6. As a real estate agent, I've experienced sellers that are concerned about additional disclosures that must be provided to buyers and tenants detailing anything "that could possibly affect the value of the property" as required by law. These details include proposed size of the project and increase in traffic congestion during construction and after construction completion. Additional disclosures detailing work to be completed at some future date is seldom viewed as a positive feature. IN SUMMARY, the size and scale of this project is of tremendous concern to the residents of Bella Vista Village on a wide range of topics. We ask that the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos reject the existing EIR due to inaccuracies and reject the currently proposed development plan. Regards, Melanie Kemp Broker Associate Coldwell Banker 174 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 To: Planning Commission, Los Gatos, CA From: Loretta Fowler 451 Alberto Way, Los Gatos Commons Date: April 6, 2017 Dear Committee, I am a member of the Commons committee that wrote to you objecting to the proposed project at 401- 409 Alberto Way. We did not address in any detail the disruptions that we will experience during the construction phase of the proposed project. In our community meetings, we questioned Mr. Lamb about this and got some information. Then I consulted two project managers, both of whom worked on large buildings with underground garages. The construction phase of the proposed project, if approved, will be devastating for us. The project will have four stages, according to Mr. Lamb. Each will bring a staggering increase in traffic into Alberto Way and a significant increase in air pollution. The work will take place 9AM to 4PM. In the demolition stage there will be a continuous movement of heavy equipment in and out of the site, the street, and the intersection, Considerable dust and debris will be produced. The next phase, which Mr. Lamb said would "only" be six weeks, is excavation. Diesel trucks will come in empty and leave with loads of dirt —Mr. Lamb said 200 truckloads a day so 29 loads per hour; round trips would be 58 per hour on average. However, we have learned that if the soil is very moist, as the soil at this site will be, it will expand so even more loads will be required. It could very well be that 270 loads will go out in one day and there will be 540 round trips by diesel trucks. This would be 39 trips per hour! Then there is the garage construction phase in which large concrete trucks go in and out continuously. Mr. Lamb told us only 87 truck trips (174 round trips) per day. If that figure is accurate, we can expect 25 round trips per hour. This is followed by 8 months of above ground work with crane trucks bringing in roof tiles and many other trucks bringing supplies and services in and out every day. The construction will produce particulate matter and diesel fumes far beyond what can be mitigated by the developer's plan (two daily waterings, as described in the EIR). Nine AM to four PM includes the school rush. The traffic at the intersection of Alberto Way and between the 17 ramps and HWY 9 will be backed up as the trucks come and go. When little Grill 57 was built, we often were held up 5-15 minutes waiting for the trucks to clear. Not only will it be difficult to drive in and out of Alberto Way in a timely manner; we will not be able to comfortably and safely walk up and down the street as we usually do and as school children have to do. Please protect the quality of life on Alberto Way, half of the residents of which are seniors. This construction, if approved, will be very stressful and disruptive. The developer should put this large building with its two-story underwater garage somewhere else. Please do not approve this project. April 6, 2016 To: Town of Los Gatos Planning Commissioners Cc: Jennifer Armer, Town of Los Gatos Planning Dept. rEr;.' TIMES Tn- :3 Di From: The Alberto Way Liaison Committee ("AWLC") representing residents of 228 units living on Alberto Way in four Homeowner Associations: Los Gatos Commons, 445 Alberto Way (110 units) - John Mittelstet —443 Alberto way, Unit B123 Bella Vista Villages, (La Cuesta; Maggi Ct.) (47units) — Melanie Kemp, 174 Cuesta de Los Gatos Pueblo de Los Gatos, 420- Alberto Way, (53 units) — Bob Burke, Unit #49 Las Casitas, 435 Alberto Way (18 units), Roman Rufanov, Unit #5 Dear Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: With the understanding that the property known variously as 405 Alberto Way and as 401-409 Alberto Way is one which will ultimately be redeveloped, we hope when that day arrives, it will be a development which is an asset to the community, conforms with the Town's General Plan, fits in with the small town feel of Alberto Way, and respects the needs of all the citizens of Los Gatos. We feel that the latest revision to the Proposed Development from LP Acquisition, LLC, insufficiently addresses these goals and disrespects the earlier directives of the Planning Commission itself. Additionally, we feel that the EIR for this project contains serious errors relative to both traffic and hydrology, which in sum demand that prior to any development for this location, the EIR should be amended and recirculated for comment. The AWLC representatives submit the following reports which we believe show why the Proposed Development does not meet the goals of the Town and where the EIR has erred either by co -mission or by omission: 1) Peter Geissler, Phd., P.E., Registered Civil Engineer, R.C.E., Hydrology Report (10 pages) 2) The Los Gatos Commons Report by the Committee on the 401-409 Alberto Way Project "COAWP" (5 pages with three attachments, an additional total of 31 pages) 3) Letter from Melanie Kemp — Bella Vista Villages (2 pages) 4) Comprehensive report prepared by Bob Burke — Pueblo de Los Gatos (49 pages) with additional 14-page July 27th, 2016, VTA approved Measure B Project List as attachment. 5) Seven copies (one for each Commissioner) of the Las Casitas Opposition Summary by Roman Rufanov (7 pages with color traffic photos), and two attachments (Geissler Report; and VTA Measure B projects list — July 2016; additional total of 12 pages) ; includes signed petitions of Las Casitas residents; 18 signatures representing each of the 16 occupied residences 6) Petitions (common language) to Planning Commission from: a. Los Gatos Commons - 87 signatures representing 76 units b. Bella Vista Villages - 29 signatures representing 29 units c. Pueblo de Los Gatos — 64 signatures representing 48 units In summary, the four HOAs have submitted 198 signatures from 169 units (74%) in support of these reports. The Alberto Way Liaison Committee unanimously supports each and every one of the above reports. We have worked hard and long over the past 39+ weeks, meeting weekly since August, to understand the project and its Impact on the community. The seven members of the Los Gatos Commons COAWP have also met weekly since September. We have arranged four separate meeting times to host Lamb Partners for presentations to our residents in our attempt to educate our residents and better understand their offering. More than 77 residents attended these meetings, and gave their feedback to the developer and to their respective committees. Sadly, we feel that our collective communities' requests for adequate traffic mitigation, and our concerns about a two -level underground garage, size of the project at 83,000 sf, and loss of nearby community services have fallen on the developer's deaf ears. We ask that you reject the 401-409 Development as proposed, and that you not certify the EIR until it can be appropriately amended and re -circulated for comment. Then a developer will have an adequate roadmap for an appropriate development at 401-409 Alberto Way. Respectfully submitted: //), .0"7?r/g/P7--e...".; "<e-72z),C) John Mittelstet, Pres.- Los Gatos Commons Board of directors; Chair- Alberto Way Liaison Committee Melanie Kemp — Bella Vista Villages Bob Burke — Pueblo de Los Gatos Roman Rufanov — Las Casitas Peter Geissler, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Civil Engineer HYDROLOGY REPORT 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 31' March 2017 Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos CA 95030 And Los Gatos Commons Homeowners Association 445 Alberto Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Project. Hydrology Report re 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Project Location: 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Affected Properties: Los Gatos Commons, Los Gatos Bella Vista Village, Los Gatos Pueblo de Los Gatos, Los Gatos Las Casitas, Los Gatos Ref: Ref: Ref: Ref: TOLD WW➢-1 ! M IT MAY CONCERN ENGEO Report dated July 17, 2015, revised August 13, 2015 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration, Appendix C, DEIR Architectural Technologies Plans for Project 153948 revised 19 February 2016 Civil Engineering Plans by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 Geissler Engineering Project No. E16 -- 2402 Geissler Engineering has been asked to review hydrological and geotechnical data presented in the ENGEO Report referenced above. In addition, Geissler Engineering has been asked to review civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017. The review includes an evaluation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in the ENGEO Report and renders an expert opinion as to the hydrological impact of the proposed project on neighboring properties. In so doing, Geissler Engineering has considered the impact of the proposed construction of a 2- story underground garage on the residential developments on Alberto Way due to: (i) The likelihood of life -threatening flooding due to upstream dam failures; (ii) Soil subsidence caused by temporary dewatering during construction; (iii) Long-term hydrological effects caused by diversion of subsurface flow of groundwater following construction of the proposed 2-story underground garage; (iv) The likelihood of structural cracking (post construction) of the proposed 2-story underground garage and subsequent seepage of groundwater into the garage; (v) Long-term dewatering required to discharge the seepage of groundwater into the underground garage; (vi) Problems associated with long-term dewatering in the vicinity of the proposed 2-story underground garage; (vii) The likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm; (viii) The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a previously mapped Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone; ( ) The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a previously mapped Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone; (x) The likelihood of flooding of the proposed 2-story underground garage due to storm water runoff; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project includes the construction of a 2-story underground garage 20 to 22 feet below grade. The ground water varies in depth from year to year depending on annual rainfall during the previous 5 or 6 years. At this particular location, the depth of the ground water varies from a high of 12 feet below grade to a low of 18 feet below grade. [Ref: Section 4.1 and Section 5.13, ENGEO Report, pages 8 and 20] ENGEO recommends that for civil engineering design purposes, the groundwater must be assumed to be 12 feet below grade. Geissler Engineering concurs. [Ref: Section 4.1 and Section 5.13, ENGEO Report, pages 8 and 20] Page 2 Therefore, the bottom of the foundation of the proposed 2-story underground garage is to be constructed I 0 to 12 feet below the water table. The proposed 2-story underground garage is located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. [Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation] The location of the 2-story underground garage has been identified as an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012] The combined effect of: (i) the likelihood of seismic activity; and (ii) subgrade soils subject to liquefaction (Le., sudden Toss of strength and bearing capacity in the event of strong vibration), make this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater) garage. In the event of an earthquake, the soils below the 2-story underground garage are likely to exhibit significant loss of bearing capacity. Loss of bearing capacity is likely to result in differential foundation settlement with resultant structural cracking of the reinforced concrete structure. Cracking of the reinforced concrete structure allows significant influx of groundwater. Geissler Engineering estimates the rate of flow into the (cracked) underground (and underwater) garage structure could range from 50 gallons per minute to 500 gallons per minute, or more, depending on the severity of the cracks. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that construction of a 2-story underground parking structure shall cause soil subsidence, differential foundation settlement and cracked slabs at nearby houses in Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista Village, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas developments. Even in the absence of earthquake activity, ENGEO has admitted that differential foundation movement is likely due to seasonal shrink -swell activity of expansive sub grade soils. Such movement can cause leakage at cold joints in underground concrete walls and floors. Thus even in the absence of earthquake activity, leakage of groundwater into the underground garage is likely. The leakage of groundwater through cold joints has been estimated by Geissler Engineering to be on the order of 50 gallons per minute. Obviously, seepage as small as 50 gallons per minute could be collected in a drainage sump located within the interior of the garage and pumped out by means of submersible sump pumps. However, it is not practical to attempt to collect and discharge 500 gallons per minute or more. The underground garage is to be constructed at a location subject to significant sheet flow of storm water runoff during heavy rains. Thus, surface drainage may also result in flooding of the underground garage unless the surface drainage facilities are substantially improved. The proposed 2-story underground garage is located at a site that has been identified as one that is subject to flooding in the event of an upstream dam failure. [Ref: Section 14.4.2.2.6, Santa Page 3 Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012 Page 14-48; ABAG, 1995. Dam data from State of California Office of Emergency Services] Dam failures always pose significant risk to life and property. However, the construction of an underground garage at a location that has already been identified as one subject to flooding in the event of an upstream dam failure is beyond the ordinary concept of engineering risk; this is certain death for everyone inside the garage. Put simply, the construction of an underground parking garage that is subject to flooding in the event of a dam failure is wanton disregard for public safety. The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because they show inadequate property drainage. SOIL CONDITIONS ENGEO borings show medium dense to dense clayey sands to depths ranging between 10 to 21 feet below grade. Below this level, medium dense to very dense clayey gravels were encountered to depths of approximately 29 to 33 feet below ground surface. Bedrock was encountered below the strata of medium dense to very dense clayey gravels. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that this description of subgrade soils is accurate. The surficial clayey sands exhibit adequate strength and bearing capacity to support foundation loads. Unfortunately, the surficial clayey sands are moderately expansive (i.e., subject to shrink - swell activity when subject to periodic wetting and drying due to seasonal changes in moisture content). This can cause heaving and cracking of slabs -on -grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. [Ref: Section 4.3 ENGEO Report, page 8] The strata of clayey gravels sandwiched between the clayey sands (above) and the bedrock (below) is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. [Ref: Section 4.13 ENGEO Report, page 6] ENGEO estimates the settlements due to liquefaction -induced ground settlement as follows. C)ur liquefaction analyses indicate that gravel deposits up to 9 feet thick below the bottom of the proposed parking garage (estimated to be 20 feet below grade) may potentially liquefy and result in vertical settlements of approximately 1 inch. Additionally, our liquefaction analyses indicate that gravel deposits up to 14 feet thick for portions of the site not within the proposed parking garage may potentially liquefy and result in vertical settlements of approximately 2 inches. Ref: Section 4.1.4 ENGEO Report, page 7] ENGEO estimates the potential total and differential settlement as follows. Assuming the subterranean parking garage extends at least a distance of 20_ feet below grade, we recommend that the foundation design consider 1 inch of total and % inch of Page 4 differential settlement associated with liquefaction -induced settlement. [Ref: Section 5.7.1 ENGEO REPORT, page 15] Aside from an apparent inconsistency in the ENGEO report as regards to the magnitude of expected settlements, the message is clear. We should expect settlements on the order of 1 inch or more. Appreciate that differential foundation settlements on the order of an inch or more shall cause significant cracking in the reinforced concrete structure. In an underground (and underwater) garage. this is likely to allow the influx of substantial flow of groundwater. EARTHQUAKE RISK The project location is located within an earthquake fault rupture hazard zone. [Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation] The project location is located within an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The risk of earthquake induced liquefaction hazard has been determined to be high by the Santa Clara Planning Department. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012] Plate 1.2 of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Gatos Quadrangle (2002) indicates a likelihood of liquefaction that requires mitigation measures are required as per Public Resources Code Section 2693(c). The ENGEO Report admits that the strata of clayey gravels soils at the subject property (specifically, soils at the location of Boring B3) are subject to liquefaction according to criteria described in an authoritative research paper. [Ref: Seed, R. B., Cetin K. O., Moss R. E. S., Kammerer A. M., Wu J., Pestana J. M., Riemer M. F., Sancio, R. B,, Bray J. D., Kayen R. E., Faris A., 2003, Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A unified and Consistent Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar] GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY In 2008, Earth Systems Geotechnologies (ESG) reported encountering groundwater at a depth of approximately 18 feet at a nearby site located at 55 Los Gatos Saratoga Road. This is approximately 200 feet away from the proposed construction site. The groundwater is likely to be 5 or 6 feet higher following the end of the record drought. ENGEO did not record the groundwater level in boring B1 or boring B3. The ENGEO Report recommends using a design value of 12 feet for the depth of the groundwater at the project location. Geissler Engineering concurs. Geissler Engineering is concerned that the construction of a 22-foot deep underground garage may cause diversion of subsurface seepage patterns. The long-term effects of such diversion of Page 5 subsurface seepage include a rise in groundwater levels in neighboring properties and increased seepage flow rates which in turn may cause piping failures in adjacent soil strata. Geissler Engineering estimates that the so-called "radius of influence" of the diversion of subsurface seepage is approximately 250 feet from the underground garage. This estimate of the radius of influence is based upon soil classifications. The permeability of the surficial clayey soils estimated to be on the order of 10-8 cm /sec (very low) whereas the permeability of the gravel strata 10-5 cm /sec (very high). SURFACE HYDROLOGY The project site is located within the FEMA flood plane defined by 0.2% annual chance flood hazard. [Ref: FEMA- Santa Clara County DFIRM, 2009) Thus, the chance of NOT flooding during any 100-year period is given by the expression: P = (1 — 0.002)t0° = 82% Accordingly, the chance of flooding during any 100-year period is 18%. Based upon the size of the tributary drainage area and the slope of the surface of the ground and the runoff characteristics of the ground, Geissler Engineering estimates that the chance of flooding is 0.8% annual chance flood hazard. Geissler Engineering calculates the chance of NOT flooding during any 100-year period is given by the expression: P = (1 — 0.008)mD° = 45% Thus, Geissler Engineering estimates the chance of flooding during any 100-year period is 55%. Statistically, this is more -or -less equivalent to a 125-year flood plane. The usual standard for the assessment of the risk of flooding due to annual rainfall is whether or not the property is located within the so-called 100-year flood plane. This parcel is not located within the 100-year flood plane. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that where, as here, flooding would result in certain death for anyone caught inside the underground parking garage in the event of flooding, a higher standard should be applied by planning authorities. DEWATERING ENGEO advises that temporary dewatering during construction is required, as follows. Page 6 Based on the anticipated depths of approximately 20 feet for the planned excavation and considering groundwater levels encountered during our field exploration and a design groundwater level of 12 feet, groundwater may be encountered above the bottom of the excavation. Temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary. Assessment of dewalering should be made prior to excavation to determine the level of groundwater control and dewatering necessary to address long-term conditions for the depressed portions of the structure at this site. Temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary to keep the excavation and working areas reasonably dry. If necessary, dewalering should be performed in a manner such that water levels are maintained not less than 2 feet below the bottom of excavation prior to and continuously during shoring and foundation installation. As the excavations progress, it may be necessary to dewater the soils ahead of the excavation, such as by continuous pumping from sumps, to control the tendency for the bottom of the excavation to heave under hydrostatic pressures and to reduce inflow of water or soil from beneath temporary shoring. [Ref: Section 5.13, ENGEO Report, page 20] During construction, the contractor shall need to construct a cofferdam around the proposed construction site (Le., a partial barrier against the influx of ground water) and shall need to dewater the excavation by means of diesel -powered pumps. Geissler Engineering estimates the flow of groundwater to be on the order of 250 gallons per minute (minimum) and 500 gallons per minute (maximum). During construction, the effect of this local dewatering is two -fold. First. there is likely to be slight soil subsidence in the near vicinity of the cofferdam due to dewatering. Geissler Engineering estimates the upper limit of (downward) soil subsidence of neighboring properties to be as follows. Distance to Proposed Excavation 5 feet away from excavations 15 feet away from excavations 25 feet away from excavations 50 feet away from excavations 100 feet away from excavations 150 feet away from excavations 250 feet away from excavations Page 7 Soil Subsidence During Construction 1" of soil subsidence 3/4" of soil subsidence 1/2" of soil subsidence 3/8" of soil subsidence 1/4" of soil subsidence 1/8" of soil subsidence 1 / 16" of soil subsidence Second, the effluent from diesel -powered pumps must be discharged onto the street or other receiving drainage facility such as a storm drain. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that the discharge of 250 gallons per minute (minimum) to 500 gallons per minute (maximum) on a continuous basis will negatively impact existing property drainage facilities. At a minimum, this water is added to existing drainage facilities and, in effect, reduces the capacity of other drainage facilities (e.g., storm drains) that serve the neighborhood. Based on proximity to the proposed excavation, Geissler Engineering calculations suggest that all of the Las Casitas development and Pueblo de Los Gatos development are likely to exhibit cracked slabs as a result of soil subsidence during construction. ENGEO advises against permanent dewatering. Instead, ENGEO recommends the use of waterproofing to prevent the influx of groundwater. Specifically, ENGEO advises: Permanent dewatering is not recommended and the mat foundation or concrete slabs and basement walls should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic and/or uplift pressures. [Ref: Section 5.9 ENGEO Report, page 18] Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that it is impossible to prevent the influx of groundwater into an underground garage by means of waterproofing alone where, as here, ground settlements up to 1 inch (vertical) are expected. Put simply, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure that is badly cracked in the aftermath of an earthquake with earthquake -induced liquefaction settlements. Like -wise, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when differential foundation settlements due to seasonal groundwater variations cause differential foundation settlements of or more. It is significant that ENGEO recommended that concrete slabs be 8 inches thick at the proposed development. That shows that ENGEO appreciates the potential for cracked slabs due to seasonal groundwater variations in expansive subgrade soils. Sadly, this level of protection against cracking is not afforded neighboring properties' existing slabs. Geissler Engineering warns that the public safety is at risk. UPSTREAM DAM FAILURE The most significant hazard is posed by the possibility of an upstream dam failure. Built in 1952, the Lenihan Dam (Lexington Reservoir) is an earthen dam and is maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It holds 19,000 acre-feet of water and is just minutes upstream from the project location. Page 8 A catastrophic failure of Lenihan Dam would cause flooding at the project location within minutes. Underground parking amplifies the risk of drowning in the event of a dam failure. PROPERTY DRAINAGE The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because there is inadequate property drainage. The existing and proposed grade elevations are as follows. • The existing grade on the property at 405 Alberto Way ranges from +338.84 (near Las Casitas) feet to +341.31 feet (near Saratoga — Los Gatos Road). • The proposed finish grade is +336.63 feet (varies). • The proposed first floor elevation is +336.50 feet. • The street elevation at Alberto Way is 339.02 feet (varies). Put simply, the proposed development is not well draining and is likely to serve as a temporary storm water retention basin (i.e., ponding water) after heavy rains. The primary storm water drainage facility shown on the plans Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 is a proposed 8" diameter storm drain running towards the northwest comer of the property but which traverses the southwest corner of the neighboring development, Las Casitas. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that the proposed storm drain facility is inadequate to drain the storm water runoff. Geissler Engineering recommends that the storm water drainage must be redesigned so as to avoid traversing neighboring properties. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that there is inadequate pervious landscape to absorb a significant fraction of the storm water runoff. The likely result is ponding on the patio areas and parking areas and pedestrian areas of 405 Alberto Way. Geissler Engineering also holds the opinion that storm water surface runoff from 405 Alberto Way towards the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property is likely since the northwest corner of 405 Alberto Way is at a slightly higher elevation than is the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property. Geissler Engineering recommends that the percentage of pervious landscape surface should be increased and a hydrology study be undertaken to evaluate the effect of increased storm water runoff on neighboring properties. SANITARY SEWER Page 9 The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 show the 6" vitreous clay sewer pipe traversing the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property. Such a configuration sets the stage for future conflict between the neighboring property owners. Geissler Engineering recommends that the sewer be redesigned so as to avoid traversing adjacent properties. MITIGATION MEASURES ENGEO identifies the risks but the proposed mitigations (e.g., dewatering and waterproofing) are not sufficient to protect the neighboring properties. (Ref: DEIR 3-80-81) Geissler Engineering has identified a number of risks associated with the current design. By simply requiring that all parking remain above grade and be designed as pervious paving, all these risks can be successfully mitigated. You are welcome to contact Geissler Engineering if you have questions. We are pleased to be of service. Respectfully submitted, lam/ Peter Scott Geissler, Ph.D., P.E. Registered Civil Engineer, R.C.E. 44320 GEISSLER ENGINEERING HYDROLOGY DIVISION 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1011 San Francisco, CA 94920 TEL: (415) 760-5636 (Office) TEL: (415) 887-8704 (Mobile) Page 10 1 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, LOS GATOS FROM: LOS GATT N �' COMMOCOOMMITTEE ON �fH 401-409 Al iriERT ` Basham, Loretta o ler, Marietta Edney, Shirley Ryan, Suzanne, f authorized by the HOA members and the Board of Directors on9/21 Commons in the matter of the proposed development. DATE: April 5, 2017 AY PROJECT: Min oble. This committee was 16 to advocate for The We residents of The Los Gatos Commons (74% of whom signed the petition submitted by residents from a!I four developments on Alberto Way) ask that you not certify the EIR and that you do not approve the proposed project at 401-409 Alberto Way. Dur senior community would be adversely affected by construction of an 83,000 sf office building with a two-story underground garage and the associated traffic. THIS BUILDING WOULD BE TOO LARGE FOR THE ALBERTO WAY NEIGHBORHOOD, OF WHICH THE SENIOR COMMUNITY IS A PROMINENT AND INTEGRAL PART, AS WELL AS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY. Size and Scale of proposed building not suitable for surrounding neighborhood The office buildings currently on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road are 11,000 sf or Tess. And, on University Avenue between LG-S Rd. and Lark, where the speed limit is 35mph and the offices outnumber the residences, the office buildings are much smaller than 20,000 sf. The one exception is at 750 University and that building is 50,000 sf (set far back from the road and surrounded by trees). A building of 83,000 sf, especially in a residential neighborhood, does not meet the General Plan goal to preserve, promote, and protect the existing small-town character and quality of life within Los Gatos (LU-1; LU Policy 1.8: Commercial development of any type shall be designed in keeping with the small-town character of Los Gatos ). it is that small town feel that attracted many seniors to Los Gatos and encouraged those already here to stay and age in place. Size and Scale of proposed building not suitable for Alberto Way neighborhood where half the residents are seniors The proposed development, a huge general office building that stretches virtually from one end of the site to the other, would replace the current stores and office buildings of 31,000 sf that blend in with the scale and architecture of the street. Until the preparations for the proposed project, we enjoyed the availability of businesses at 401-409 Alberto Way, to where we could walk and where we knew the proprietors. This complex was part of our neighborhood physically and socially, and it could be renovated. 2 The proposed building, with tenants who will be largely commuters, will change the character of the neighborhood dramatically. We seniors are attracted to The Commons in large part because it is situated on a quiet street, very walkable, where we know other residents by sight and social relationship. Moreover, the proposed project does not comply with GP policies: the new construction shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood (LU6.8). Non-residential activity will be allowed in residential areas only when the character and quality of the neighborhood can be maintained (LU6.2). It does not meet GP goal LU6, to preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in residential neighborhoods. (See also , CD 1.2: New structures shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and CD 1.4: Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods; and see VIS-3, LU 1.2, LU 6.4 and LU 6.5). Cannon Design Group concluded that the proposed project at 93,000 sf was "visually quite large in scale and not sufficiently sensitive to its surrounding neighborhood context or to its prominent location at the entry to the adjacent residential neighborhood." Photos of eight buildings of less than 20,000 sf were given to serve as models for a revision of the project. For example, one 10,200 sf building is at 10251Torre Ave., Cupertino, in a predominantly residential area. But in a subsequent report, after the buildings were reduced only by 700 sf, Cannon concluded that the revised project was "sympathetic" to the other structures in the neighborhood. We do not consider the Cannon Design Group assessment credible. The EIR Aesthetics section concluded that, based on the Cannon letter, the proposed project would not change the visual character of the project site significantly (3-11). Given the lack of compliance with GP policies (see above) and the huge size of the building (inconsistent with the size of other office buildings in the vicinity), we disagree. 2 WE OPPOSE THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE. IT WILL DAMAGE OUR PROPERTY AND DISRUPT OUR LIVES IN MAJOR WAYS. THE GP REQUIRES THAT GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS SPECIFY CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO PROTECT THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AS WELL AS EXISTING RESIDENCES IN THE VICINITY, FROM IDENTIFIED HAZARDS (SAF 1.11). THE EIR NEGLECTS TO ADDRESS POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. We hired Dr. Peter Geissler of Geissler Engineering to review the ENGEO report on which the EIR assessment was based (see Attachment 1). Dr. Geissler, civilengineer and hydrologist, concluded that: 3 *As a result of soil subsidence, Las Casitas and Pueblo de Los Gatos will likely experience cracked slabs (p. 8), and we would experience huge expense and disruption from the necessary repair work, if not cracks in our foundation. *Construction of the underground garage will cause piping failures_in the neighboring properties (p. 6), very expensive and disruptive to repair. *Reduced capacity of drainage facilities in the neighborhood (p. 9) will create many problems for us, including impediment to pedestrians. The underground garage should not be built at the 401-409 site. The expense to us from damages and the accompanying disruption of our life style when repairs are made would adversely affect our senior community and the ability of our residents to live comfortably in their homes. DR. GEISSLER ADVISES "BY SIMPLY REQUIRING THAT ALL PARKING REMAIN ABOVE GRADE AND BE DESIGNED AS PERVIOUS PAVING, ALL THESE RISKS CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY MITIGATED." The EIR's conclusion that the Project will not result in hydrology, geology/soils/seismic, and health and safety impacts is not supported. Pursuant to the expert testimony of Dr. Peter Geissler, Geissler Engineering, the EIR is inadequate and incomplete and the Project's impacts have not been fully divulged. CEQ4 achieves its purpose of long-term protection of the environment by functioning as "an environmental full disclosure statute, and the EIR is the method ... [of] disclosure . » ." Rural Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 CaLApp.3d 1013, 1020. An EIR should not just generate paper, but should act as "an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. The E1R provides analysis to allow decision makers to make intelligent judgments. (Guideline Section 15151, "... the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA ...." No ail, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 82; Section 21151.) Here the EIR failed to act as a full disclosure document and must be rejected as inadequate. We request that the EIR be revised and recirculated to consider appropriate alternatives and mitigation measures that reduce these impacts prior to further consideration of the Project. 3 THE EIR'S TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IS INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE AND DOES NOT FULLY DIVULGE THE PROJECT'S TRAFFIC IMPACTS. The EIR presents unreliable projections of the post -development congestion at the Alberto Way intersection. The EIR (relying on the Hexagon study) concluded that the projected delays from the introduction of the 300 + cars at the proposed building will not significantly impact the intersection at Alberto Way (LOS B: 4 good signal progression and /or short cycle Vengths). This projection is based on outdated findings of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th ed., v. 1-3, 2012. These findings are misleading and underreport the traffic patterns that would follow from the proposed project because they are based on very old data_ The manual reports average peak hour trips associated with a "General Office Building" for sites across the nation. Of the 527 studies that are dated, 5 % were done in the 1960s; 14% in the 1970s (including two in the Los Gatos area in 1974 and 1975); 30% in the 1980s; 26% in the 1990s; and 24% from 2000-2012. The manual also concedes that the trip generation data collected post-2000 would be significantly different than data from pre-2000. (See attachment 2) It is not unreasonable to expect that the projected project delay would be far greater than LOS B. The Hexagon report did not include new traffic from 475-485 Alberto Way. Since the two office buildings at 475 and 485 Alberto Way were renovated (after the Hexagon study), the tenants have increased threefold. During March 2017 we had 100 cars going and coming from there to the intersection (75 more than before the renovation). If a third office building is approved for Pine Street, there will be up to 50 additional cars. According to the Department of Transportation, the project will add trips greater than 1% capacity on SR 17 and the ramps. Mitigation is required (See attachment 3). The proposed project includes no mitigation in the EIR other than voluntary activities by tenants. There is no guarantee public transportation will be available. The mitigations for the project's contribution to traffic congestion on Alberto Way are not adequate: restriping Alberto Way for a dedicated right turn lane (EIR 3-170, 175). Traffic corning and going from Los Gatos Blvd. would still be significantly increased. MOREOVER, WE THINK THAT TRA POLICY 2.5 SHOULD APPLY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT: Discourage single access roads of extended length, and restrict development along such roads. One of the attractions of this neighborhood for us as seniors is its walkability. We are accustomed to walking to Grill 57 and the Los Gatos Lodge, and most of us walk daily for medical reasons. Many of our residents walk dogs several times a day. Even when driving, the additional congestion at the intersection could delay us getting to medical and other important appointments on time and transporting grandchildren to school and other activities. For all these reasons, traffic from the proposed project during and post -construction negatively impacts us as seniors. (See GP, TRA 3.12: The maximum level of mitigation measures shall be required for transportation impacts adjacent to sensitive receptors; see also TRA 3 and LU 2.1). And the EIR offers inadequate mitigations. 5 IN CONCLUSION THE GENERAL PLAN CALLS FOR PROTECTING THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF SENIORS IN LOS GATOS; YET, THE PROPOSED BUILDING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS OUR INDEDPENDENT LIFE STYLE. The GP asserts that the needs of seniors must be met and a high quality of Iife maintained for them (VIS-2, VIS-3). And, the Town intends to protect independent living and walkable neighborhoods for seniors (HS 10). Moreover, new developments should work with existing senior life style living facilities (HOU 5.3, HOU 6.4). The senior restricted Los Gatos Commons on Alberto Way is a major asset to the Town: the Town should protect what it has in The Commons. "Los Gatos Commons is one of the only Bay area senior communities that offers total independent living (Living in Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos website)." The Commons is also the only senior development in Los Gatos where seniors can purchase their units. Prices are affordable and the monthly assessment is as low as $367. The proposed building undermines our quality of Iife in its size and scale, underground garage, and added traffic congestion. WE RESIDENTS OF THE LOS GATOS COMMONS URGE YOU NOT TO CERTIFY THE EIR AND NOT TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 401-409 ALBERTO WAY, Attachments: 1. Report of Dr. Peter Geissler, March 31, 2017 2. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9 ed., v. 1-3 (2012), 1: 12, Appendix: 23-47; 3: 1250-51 3. Brian Ashurst (Calif. Dept. of Transportation, Dist. 4, to Loretta Fowler, Oct. 17, 2016 (follow-up t9 Patricia Maurice, Calif. Dept. of Transportation, Dist. 4, to Jennifer Armer, June 13, 2016) ATTACHMENT 1 Report of Dr. Peter Geissler, March 31, 2017 Peter Geissler, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Civil Engineer HYDROLOGY REPORT 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 31 t March 2017 Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos CA 95030 Arid Los Gatos Commons Homeowners Association 445 Alberto Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Project: Hydrology Report re 40I-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Project Location: 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Affected Properties: Los Gatos Commons, Los Gatos Bella Vista Village, Los Gatos Pueblo de Los Gatos, Los Gatos Las Casitas, Los Gatos Ref: ENGEO Report dated July 17, 2015, revised August 13, 2015 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration, Appendix C, DEIR Ref: Architectural Technologies Plans for Project 153948 revised 19 February 2016 Ref: Civil Engineering Plans by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 Ref: Geissler Engineering Project No. E16 — 2402 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Geissler Engineering has been asked to review hydrological and geotechnical data presented in the ENGEO Report referenced above. In addition, Geissler Engineering has been asked to review civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017. The review includes an evaluation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in the ENGEO Report and renders an expert opinion as to the hydrological impact of the proposed project on neighboring properties. In so doing, Geissler Engineering has considered the impact of the proposed construction of a 2- story underground garage on the residential developments on Alberto Way due to: (I) The likelihood of life -threatening flooding due to upstream dam failures; (ii) Soil subsidence caused by temporary dewatering during construction; (iii) Long-term hydrological effects caused by diversion of subsurface flow of groundwater following construction of the proposed 2-story underground garage; (iv) The likelihood of structural cracking (post construction) of the proposed 2-story underground garage and subsequent seepage of groundwater into the garage; (v) Long-term dewatering required to discharge the seepage of groundwater into the underground garage; (vi) Problems associated with long -terra dewatering in the vicinity of the proposed 2-story underground garage; (vii) The likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm; (viii) The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a previously mapped Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone; (ix) The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a previously mapped Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone; (x) The likelihood of flooding of the proposed 2-story underground garage due to storm water runoff; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project includes the construction of a 2-story underground garage 20 to 22 feet below grade. The ground water varies in depth from year to year depending on annual rainfall during the previous 5 or 6 years. At this particular location, the depth of the ground water varies from a high of 12 feet below grade to a low of 18 feet below grade. [Ref: Section 4.1 and Section 5.13, ENGEO Report, pages 8 and 20] ENGEO recommends that for civil engineering design purposes, the groundwater must be assumed to be 12 feet below grade. Geissler Engineering concurs. [Ref: Section 4.1 and Section 5.13, ENGEO Report, pages 8 and 20] Page 2 Therefore, the bottom of the foundation of the proposed 2-story underground garage is to be constructed 10 to 12 feet below the water table. The proposed 2-story underground garage is located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. [Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation] The location of the 2-story underground garage has been identified as an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012] The combined effect of: (i) the likelihood of seismic activity; and (ii) subgrade soils subject to liquefaction (i.e., sudden loss of strength and bearing capacity in the event of strong vibration), make this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater) garage. In the event of an earthquake, the soils below the 2-story underground garage are likely to exhibit significant Loss of bearing capacity. Loss of bearing capacity is likely to result in differential foundation settlement with resultant structural cracking of the reinforced concrete structure. Cracking of the reinforced concrete structure allows significant influx of groundwater. Geissler Engineering estimates the rate of flow into the (cracked) underground (and underwater) garage structure could range from 50 gallons per minute to 500 gallons per minute, or more, depending on the severity of the cracks. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that construction of a 2-story underground parking structure shall cause soil subsidence, differential foundation settlement and cracked slabs at nearby houses in Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista Village, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas developments. Even in the absence of earthquake activity, ENGEO has admitted that differential foundation movement is likely due to seasonal shrink -swell activity of expansive sub grade soils. Such movement can cause leakage at cold joints in underground concrete walls and floors. Thus even in the absence of earthquake activity, leakage of groundwater into the underground garage is likely. The leakage of groundwater through cold joints has been estimated by Geissler Engineering to be on the order of 50 gallons per minute. Obviously, seepage as small as 50 gallons per minute could be collected in a drainage sump located within the interior of the garage and pumped out by means of submersible sump pumps. However, it is not practical to attempt to collect and discharge 500 gallons per minute or more. The underground garage is to be constructed at a location subject to significant sheet flow of storm water runoff during heavy rains. Thus, surface drainage may also result in flooding of the underground garage unless the surface drainage facilities are substantially improved. The proposed 2-story underground garage is located at a site that has been identified as one that is subject to flooding in the event of an upstream dam failure. [Ref: Section 14.4.2.2.6, Santa Page 3 Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012 Page 14-48; ABAG, 1995. Dam data from State of California Office of Emergency Services] Dam failures always pose significant risk to Life and property. However, the construction of an underground garage at a location that has already been identified as one subject to flooding in the event of an upstream dam failure is beyond the ordinary concept of engineering risk; this is certain death for everyone inside the garage. Put simply, the construction of an underground parking garage that is subject to flooding in the event of a dam failure is wanton disregard for public safety. The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because they show inadequate property drainage. SOIL CONDITIONS ENGEO borings show medium dense to dense clayey sands to depths ranging between 10 to 21 feet below grade. Below this level, medium dense to very dense clayey gravels were encountered to depths of approximately 29 to 33 feet below ground surface. Bedrock was encountered below the strata of medium dense to very dense clayey gravels. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that this description of subgrade soils is accurate. The surficial clayey sands exhibit adequate strength and bearing capacity to support foundation loads. Unfortunately, the surficial clayey sands are moderately expansive (i.e., subject to shrink - swell activity when subject to periodic wetting and drying due to seasonal changes in moisture content). This can cause heaving and cracking of slabs -on -grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. [Ref: Section 4.3 ENGEO Report, page 8] The strata of clayey gravels sandwiched between the clayey sands (above) and the bedrock (below) is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. [Ref: Section 4.13 ENGEO Report, page 6] ENGEO estimates the settlements due to liquefaction -induced ground settlement as follows. Our liquefaction analyses indicate that gravel deposits up to 9 feet thick below the bottom of the proposed parking garage (estimated to be 20 feet below grade) may potentially liquefy and result in vertical settlements of approximately 1 inch. Additionally, our liquefaction analyses indicate that gravel deposits up to 14 feet thick for portions of the site not within the proposed parking garage may potentially liquefy and result in vertical settlements of approximately 2 inches. Ref: Section 4.1.4 ENGEO Report, page 7] ENGEO estimates the potential total and differential settlement as follows. Assuming the subterranean parking garage extends at least a distance of .20 feet below grade, we recommend that the foundation design consider 1 inch of total and % inch of Page 4 differential settlement associated with liquefaction -induced settlement. [Ref: Section 5.7.1 ENGEO REPORT, page 15] Aside from an apparent inconsistency in the ENGEO report as regards to the magnitude of expected settlements, the message is clear. We should expect settlements on the order of I inch or More. Appreciate that differential foundation settlements on the order of an inch or more shall cause significant cracking in the reinforced concrete structure. In an underground (and underwater) garage, this is likely to allow the influx of substantial flow of groundwater. EARTRQUAKE RISK The project location is located within an earthquake fault rupture hazard zone. [Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation] The project location is located within an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The risk of earthquake induced liquefaction hazard has been determined to be high by the Santa Clara Planning Department. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012] Plate 1.2 of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Gatos Quadrangle (2002) indicates a likelihood of liquefaction that requires mitigation measures are required as per Public Resources Code Section 2693(c), The ENGEO Report admits that the strata of clayey gravels soils at the subject property (specifically, soils at the location of Boring B3) are subject to liquefaction according to criteria described in an authoritative research paper. [Ref: Seed, R. B., Cetin K. O., Moss R. E. S., Kammerer A. M., Wu J., Pestana J. M., Riemer M. F., Sancio, R. B., Bray J. D., Kayen R. E., Faris A., 2003, Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A unified and Consistent Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar] GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY In 2008, Earth Systems Geotechnologies (ESG) reported encountering groundwater at a depth of approximately 18 feet at a nearby site located at 55 Los Gatos Saratoga Road. This is approximately 200 feet away from the proposed construction site. The groundwater is likely to be 5 or 6 feet higher following the end of the record drought. ENGEO did not record the groundwater level in boring B1 or boring 113. The ENGEO Report recommends using a design value of 1.2 feet for the depth of the groundwater at the project location. Geissler Engineering concurs. Geissler Engineering is concerned that the construction of a 22-foot deep underground garage may cause diversion of subsurface seepage patterns. The Tong -term effects of such diversion of Page 5 subsurface seepage include a rise in groundwater levels in neighboring properties and increased seepage flow rates which in turn may cause piping failures in adjacent soil strata. Geissler Engineering estimates that the so-called "radius of influence" of the diversion of subsurface seepage is approximately 250 feet from the underground garage. This estimate of the radius of influence is based upon soil classifications. The permeability of the surficial clayey soils estimated to be on the order of 10' cm /sec (very low) whereas the permeability of the gravel strata 10-5 cm /sec (very high). SURFACE HYDROLOGY The project site is located within the FEMA flood plane defined by 0.2% annual chance flood hazard. [Ref: FEMA- Santa Clara County DFIRM, 2009] Thus, the chance of NOT flooding during any 1 00-year period is given by the expression: P = (1 — 0.002)m° = 82% Accordingly, the chance of flooding during any 100-year period is 1 8%. Based upon the size of the tributary drainage area and the slope of the surface of the ground and the runoff characteristics of the ground, Geissler Engineering estimates that the chance of flooding is 0.8% annual chance flood hazard. Geissler Engineering calculates the chance of NOT flooding during any 100-year period is given by the expression: P = (1 — 0.008)m = 45% Thus, Geissler Engineering estimates the chance of flooding during any 100-year period is 55%. Statistically, this is more -or -less equivalent to a 125-year flood plane. The usual standard for the assessment of the risk of flooding due to annual rainfall is whether or not the property is located within the so-called 100-year flood plane. This parcel is not located within the 100-year flood plane. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that where, as here, flooding would result in certain death for anyone caught inside the underground parking garage in the event of flooding, a higher standard should be applied by planning authorities. DEWATERING ENGEO advises that temporary dewatering during construction is required, as follows. Page 6 Based on the anticipated depths of approximately 20 feet for the planned excavation and considering groundwater levels encountered during our field exploration and a design groundwater level of 12 feet, groundwater may be encountered above the bottom of the excavation. Temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary. Assessment of dewatering should be made prior to excavation to determine the level of groundwater control and dewatering necessary to address long-term conditions for the depressed portions of the structure at this site. Temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary to keep the excavation and working areas reasonably dry. If necessary, dewatering should be performed in a manner such that water levels are maintained not less than 2 feet below the bottom of excavation prior to and continuously during shoring and foundation installation. As the excavations progress, it may be necessary to dewater the soils ahead of the excavation, such as by continuous pumping from sumps, to control the tendency for the bottom of the excavation to heave under hydrostatic pressures and to reduce inflow of water or soil from beneath temporary shoring. [Ref: Section 5.13, ENGEO Report; page 20] During construction, the contractor shall need to construct a cofferdam around the proposed construction site (i.e., a partial barrier against the influx of ground water) and shall need to dewater the excavation by means of diesel -powered pumps. Geissler Engineering estimates the flow of groundwater to be on the order of 250 gallons per minute (minimum) and 500 gallons per minute (maximum). During construction, the effect of this local dewatering is two -fold. First, there is likely to be slight soil subsidence in the near vicinity of the cofferdam due to dewatering. Geissler Engineering estimates the upper limit of (downward) soil subsidence of neighboring properties to be as follows. Distance to Proposed Excavation Soil Subsidence During Construction 5 feet away from excavations 1" of soil subsidence I5 feet away from excavations 3/4" of soil subsidence 25 feet away from excavations 1/2" of soil subsidence 50 feet away from excavations 3/8" of soil subsidence 100 feet away from excavations 1/4" of soil subsidence 150 feet away from excavations 1/8" of soil subsidence 250 feet away from excavations 1/16" of soil subsidence Page 7 Second, the effluent from diesel -powered pumps must be discharged onto the street or other receiving drainage facility such as a storrn drain. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that the discharge of 250 gallons per minute (minimum) to 500 gallons per minute (maximum) on a continuous basis will negatively impact existing property drainage facilities. At a minimum, this water is added to existing drainage facilities and, in effect, reduces the capacity of other drainage facilities (e.g., storm drains) that serve the neighborhood. Based on proximity to the proposed excavation, Geissler Engineering calculations suggest that all of the Las Casitas development and Pueblo de Los Gatos development are likely to exhibit cracked slabs as a result of soil subsidence during construction. ENGEO advises against permanent dewatering. instead, ENGEO recommends the use of waterproofing to prevent the influx of groundwater. Specifically, ENGEO advises: Permanent dewatering is not recommended and the mat foundation or concrete slabs and basement walls should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic and/or uplift pressures. [Ref: Section 59 ENGEO Report, page 18] Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that it is impossible to prevent the influx of groundwater into an underground garage by means of waterproofing alone where, as here, ground settlements up to 1 inch (vertical) are expected. Put simply, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure that is badly cracked in the aftermath of an earthquake with earthquake -induced liquefaction settlements. Like -wise, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when differential foundation settlements due to seasonal groundwater variations cause differential foundation settlements of Yz" or more. It is significant that ENGEO recommended that concrete slabs be 8 inches thick at the proposed development. That shows that ENGEO appreciates the potential for cracked slabs due to seasonal groundwater variations in expansive subgrade soils. Sadly, this level of protection against cracking is not afforded neighboring properties' existing slabs. Geissler Engineering warns that the public safety is at risk, UPSTREAM DAM FAILURE The most significant hazard is posed by the possibility of an upstream dam failure. Built in 1952, the Lenihan Dam (Lexington Reservoir) is an earthen dam and is maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It holds 19,000 acre-feet of water and is just minutes upstream from the project location. Page 8 A catastrophic failure of Lenihan Dam would cause flooding at the project location within minutes. Underground parking amplifies the risk of drowning in the event of a dam failure. PROPERTY DRAINAGE The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because there is inadequate property drainage. The existing and proposed grade elevations are as follows. • The existing grade on the property at 405 Alberto Way ranges from +338.84 (near Las Casitas) feet to +341.31 feet (near Saratoga — Los Gatos Road). • The proposed finish grade is +336.63 feet (varies). • The proposed first floor elevation is +336.50 feet. • The street elevation at Alberto Way is 339.02 feet (varies). Put simply, the proposed development is not well draining and is likely to serve as a temporary storm water retention basin (i.e., ponding water) after heavy rains. The primary storm water drainage facility shown on the plans Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 is a proposed 8" diameter storm drain running towards the northwest corner of the property but which traverses the southwest corner of the neighboring development, Las Casitas. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that the proposed storm drain facility is inadequate to drain the storm water runoff. Geissler Engineering recommends that the storrn water drainage must be redesigned so as to avoid traversing neighboring properties. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that there is inadequate pervious landscape to absorb a significant fraction of the storm water runoff. The likely result is ponding on the patio areas and parking areas and pedestrian areas of 405 Alberto Way. Geissler Engineering also holds the opinion that storm water surface runoff from 405 Alberto Way towards the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property is likely since the northwest corner of 405 Alberto Way is at a slightly higher elevation than is the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property. Geissler Engineering recommends that the percentage of pervious landscape surface should be increased and a hydrology study be undertaken to evaluate the effect of increased storm water runoff on neighboring properties. SANITARY SEWER Page 9 The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 show the 6" vitreous clay sewer pipe traversing the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property. Such a configuration sets the stage for future conflict between the neighboring property owners. Geissler Engineering recommends that the sewer be redesigned so as to avoid traversing adjacent properties. MITIGATION MEASURES ENGEO identifies the risks but the proposed mitigations (e.g., dewatering and waterproofing) are not sufficient to protect the neighboring properties. (Ref: DEIR 3-80-81) Geissler Engineering has identified a number of risks associated with the current design. By simply requiring that all parking remain above grade and be designed as pervious paving, all these risks can be successfully mitigated. You are welcome to contact Geissler Engineering if you have questions. We are pleased to be of service. Respectfully submitted, Peter Scott Geissler, PhD., P.E. Registered Civil Engineer, R.C.E. 44320 GEISSLER ENGINEERING HYDROLOGY DIVISION 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1011 San Francisco, CA 94920 TEL: (415) 760-5636 (Office) TEL: (415) 887-8704 (Mobile) Page 10 ATTACHMENT 2 Photocopies of pages from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 3:1250-51; 1: 12 and Appendix 23-47 may differ from the post -energy crisis data. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) analyzed the database from the third edition (1982) of Trip Generation and stated, "Based on statistical tests such as T-tests and F-ratios, it was concluded that there were no significant differences between the mean trip rates of older data (pre-1973) and new data (post-1973) for all land uses analyzed."5 1TE staff performed additional analyses comparing pre- and post-1980 data for the restaurant land uses (931, 932, 933) for the February 1995 Update to the Fifth Edition. Again it was found that there were no significant differences between the mean trip rates of the older data and the newer data and that all data points were retained in the database to maximize the sample sizes of the given land uses. Prior to the release of the eighth edition of Trip Generation, ITE examined the data that were contained in the banking land use —Drive-in Bank (912)—to determine if changes in travel patterns resulting from recent technological advances in the banking industry had a significant impact on the trip generation rates. This analysis concluded that pre- and post-2000 trip generation data were significantly different. As a result, all data from the years prior to the year 2000 were removed from the database for the two banking land uses —Walk-in Bank (911) and Drive-in Bank (912). It is anticipated that additional analyses will be performed for future updates to continue monitoring variations based on the age of the data. Variations in the Statistics Variations in trip generation characteristics for specific land uses are reflected in the range of rates, standard deviation and coefficient of determination (R2) value. (See Chapter 5, "Description of Data Plots and Reported Statistics," for additional details on these topics.) These variations may be due to a small sample size, individual marketing of the site, economic conditions of the business market, geographic location of the sites studied, or unique characteristics of the specific site. Accordingly, judgment must be exercised in the use of the statistics in this manual. Other sources of variation include different lengths of traffic count duration and the time of year the traffic volumes were counted; that is, daily and seasonal variations may exist for some land uses. Studies have not been undertaken to analyze differences based on geographic location. Limitations of the Data Plots The plots presented in Trip Generation cover only the range of independent variables for which data are available. Caution should be used if extrapolating the data beyond the ranges provided because no information has been supplied to document trip generation characteristics beyond the given ranges. It should also be noted that in some cases, because of the limited sample size and variation in the data received, the projected trip generation estimate for the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic exceeds the trip generation estimate for the peak hour of the generator. By definition, this is impossible. In these isolated cases, knowledge of the project site and engineering judgment should be used to select the appropriate trip generation approximation. Keilerco. Development and Application of Trip Generation Rates. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1985. 12 Trip Generation, 9th Edition e Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 710 General Office Building Description A general office building houses multiple tenants; it is a location where affairs of businesses, commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. An office building or buildings may contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers and tenant services, such as a bank or savings and loan institution, a restaurant or cafeteria and service retail facilities. Corporate headquarters building (Land Use 714), single tenant office building (Land Use 715), office park (Land Use 750), research and development center (Land Use 760) and business park (Land Use 770) are related uses. If information is known about individual buildings, it is suggested that the general office building category be used rather than office parks when estimating trip generation for one or more office buildings in a single development. The office park category is more general and should be used when a breakdown of individual or different uses is not known. If the general office building category is used and if additional buildings, such as banks, restaurants, or retail stores, are included in the development, the development should be treated as a multiuse project. On the other hand, if the office park category is used, internal trips are already reflected in the data and do not need to be considered. When the buildings are interrelated (defined by shared parking facilities or the ability to easily walk between buildings) or house one tenant, it is suggested that the total area or employment of all the buildings be used for calculating the trip generation. When the individual buildings are isolated and not related to one another, it is suggested that trip generation be calculated for each building separately and then summed. Additional Data Average weekday transit trip ends — Transit service was either nonexistent or negligible at the majority of the sites surveyed in this land use. Users may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in this land use to reflect the presence of public transit, carpools and other transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. Information has not been analyzed to document the impacts of TDM measures on the total trip generation of a site. See the 1TE Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition for additional information on this topic. The average building occupancy varied considerably within the studies for which occupancy data were provided. For buildings with occupancy rates reported, the average occupied gross leasable area was 88 percent, Some of the regression curves plotted for this land use may produce illogical trip -end estimates for small office buildings. When the proposed site size is significantly smaller than the average -sized facility published in this report, caution should be used when applying these statistics. For more information, please refer to Chapter 3, "Guidelines for Estimating Trip Generation," of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, 1250 Trip Generation, 9th Edition © Institute of Transportation Engineers In some regions. peaking may occur earlier or later and may last somewhat longer than the traditional 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. peak period time frames. The sites were surveyed between the 1960s and the 2000s throughout the United States. Trip Characteristics The trip generation for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the generator typically coincided with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic; therefore, only one A.M. peak hour and one P.M. peak hour, which represent both the peak hour of the generator and the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic, are shown for general office buildings. Source Numbers 2, 5, 20, 21, 51, 53, 54, 72, 88, 89, 92, 95, 98, 100, 159, 161, 172, 175, 178, 183, 184, 185, 189, 193, 207, 212, 217, 247, 253, 257, 260, 262, 279, 295, 297, 298, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 404, 407, 408, 418, 419, 423, 562, 734 Trip Generation, 9th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 1251 Appendix A. Sources 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Western Section. "Trip Generation," January 1967. 2. ITE Illinois Section. "Trip Generation Study of Selected Commercial and Residential Developments," undated. 3. ITE Southern Section. "Trip Generation for Commercial and Industrial Development," 1972. 4. ITE New England Section, 1973. 5. ITE Ohio Section, 1973. 6. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 4. "Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1965. 7. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 4. "Second Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1966. 8. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 4. "Third Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1967. 9. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 4. "Fourth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1968. 10. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 4. "Fifth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1969. 11. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 4. "Sixth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1970. 12. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 4. "Seventh Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1971. 13. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. District 4. "Eighth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1973. 14. Maryland State Road Commission, Bureau of Traffic Planning, 1968. 15. Maryland State Road Commission, Bureau of Transportation Planning, 1970. Trip Generation, 9th Edition 0 Institute of Transportation Engineers 23 16. State of Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation. "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 1." Residential Generations. Dover, DE, 1971. 17. State of Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation. "Special Traffic Generator Survey." Industrial Generations. Dover, DE, 1972. 18, State of California Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 11. "First Progress Report on Traffic Generators." San Diego, CA, 1971. 19. State of California Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, District 11. "Second Progress Report on Traffic Generators." San Diego, CA, 1972. 20. Virginia Department of Highways, Metropolitan Transportation Planning Division. Comparison of Virginia Urban Trip Generation Studies with Similar Investigations Conducted by the States of Maryland and California. Richmond, VA, 1972. 21. Trip Generation Rates, Interim Technical Report 4365-4410. New York, NY: Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1973. 22. Transportation Considerations of Regional Shopping Centers, Interim Technical Report. New York, NY: Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1969. 23. Travel to General Hospitals, Interim Technical Report. New York, NY: Tri-State Transportation Commission, 1970. 24. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Division of Highways. La Crosse Area Transportation Study, Survey Data. La Crosse, WI, 1970. 25. Wisconsin Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Janesville Area Transportation Study. Janesville, WI, 1973. 26. Lexington Transportation Study, Special Generator Study. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Highways, 1972. 27. Biciunas, A.E. "Trip Generating Potential of Hospitals." Research News, Vol. 7, No. 4 (December 1965). 28. Pendakur, V.S. and P.O. Roer. "Access and Parking Criteria for Hospitals." Highway Research Record, Vol. 371 (1971). 29. Traffic Generation Study of Rest Homes and Chronic and Convalescent Homes. Wethersfield, CT: Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1972, 30. Shuldiner, P.W., D.S. Berry and J. Montgomery Jr. "Traffic and Parking Requirements of Off - Center Medical Office Building." Highway Research Record, Vol. 49 (1963). 31. Trip Generation Equations by Zone, Dougherty Area Regional Transportation Study. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Transportation, 1969. 24 Trip Generation, 9th Edition v institute of Transportation Engineers 33 1 j • 32. Floyd -Rome Urban Transportation Study, Technical Report Number Six, Documentation of Model Development and Calibration. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Transportation, 1972. 33. State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division Planning Branch. Trip Generation Summary, Trip Generation Study of Kaiser Koulai Clinic, Study Number TG- 006, Revised. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Department of Transportation, undated. 34. Trip Generation, Las Cruces Area Transportation Study. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State Highway Department, 1970. 35. Composite Report of Traffic Generation Studies. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles, 1969. 36. Trip Making Characteristics. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles, 1972. 37. Single Family Generation Study -Summary. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles, 1972. 38. "Trip Generation Rates." Los Angeles, CA: County of Los Angeles, 1973. 39. Single Family Dwelling Unit Trip Generation Factors from Department of Traffic Studies. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles, 1973. 40. State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division Planning Branch. Trip Generation Summary. Honolulu, HI, 1972. 41. Cohen, D.S. "A Methodology for Determining the Traffic Impact of Regional Shopping Centers." Washington, DC, 1970. 42. Kimmel, H., S.E. Rowe, A. Rubenstein, R. Stanford and A. Weber. Trip Generation. Los Angeles, CA: Automobite Club of Southern California, 1967. 43. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "Traffic Characteristics of Shopping Centers." Washington, DC, 1970. 44. Hollander Associates. Study of Eighteen Alder Community Shopping Centers. Baltimore, MD: City of Baltimore, 1965. 45. Stoll, W. Characteristics of Shopping Centers -Chicago Area Transportation Study. Chicago, IL: State of Illinois, 1966. 46. Cousens, P.D., W.M. Ladd and D.A. Pampu. Residential Locations and Shopping Patterns in Oakland County, 1966. 47. Carl H. Buttke Inc. "An Approximation of Regional Shopping Center Traffic." Traffic Engineering (April 1972). 48. Miller, F.D. "Trip Generation at Shopping Centers." Traffic Engineering (1969). 49. Keefer, L.E. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 24: Urban Travel Patterns for Airports, Shopping Centers and Industrial Plants. Highway Research Board, 1966. Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 25 50. Keefer, L.E. and D.K. Witheford. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 62: Urban Travel Patterns for Hospitals, Universities, Office Buildings and Capitols. Highway Research Board, 1969. 51. Parking and Traffic Generation -Office Buildings. Newport Beach, CA: Herman Kimmel and Associates, 1970. 52. Traffic Generation and Parking Factors. St. Paul, MN: Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., 1971. 53. Summary of Special Generator Studies. Minneapolis, MN: Twin Cities Area Metropolitan Council, 1971. 54. National Association of County Engineers. "Travel Generation." Action Guide Series (July 1972). 55. DeLeuw, Cather & Company. "Parking and Trip Generation Reports and Summaries, Volume 1." Chicago, IL, undated. 56. Atlantic City Urban Area Transportation Study, Survey Data,. Atlantic City, NJ: New Jersey Department of Transportation, 1973. 57. Steinhauer, J.J. Traffic Generator Study, Shopko West Shopping Center. Green Bay, WI: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 1967. 58. Traffic Generator Study, Arlan's Shopping Center. Sheboygan, WI: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 1967. 59. Degiorgi, B.R. Traffic Generated by Shopping Centers, Poughkeepsie, NY: New York State Department of Transportation, 1971. 60. DeLeuw, Lather & Company, Palo Alto Transportation Planning Program. "Data Measured at Stanford Shopping Center." Palo Alto, CA, 1969. 61. Silver, J. and W.G. Hansen. "Characteristics of Travel to a Regional Shopping Center." Public Roads (December 1960). 62. "Studies of Three Shopping Centers at Confidential Locations," Salem, OR: Oregon State Highway Division, 1972. 63. Report of Traffic and Engineering investigation of Mayfair Shopping Center Driveways on S.T.H. 100 and West North Avenue. Wauwatosa, WI: State Highway Commission of Wisconsin, 1964. 64. Messner, W.H. Shopping Center Study. Wethersfield, CT: Connecticut Highway Department, 1968. 65. Harding, C.H.V. Shopping Centers: Planning and Design for Traffic and Traffic Generation. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California, 1960. 66. Motorola Inc. "Traffic Generator." Schaumburg, IL, 1972. 26 Trip Generation, 9th Edition e Institute of Transportation Engineers rut a iJ 67. William Harper Jr. College. "Traffic Generator." Joliet, IL, 1971. 68. Port of Portland Planning Division. Land Use Master Plan, Swan island Industrial Park. Portland, OR: Port of Portland, 1982. 69. ITE Technical Council Committee 6V-A, Traffic Engineering. Transportation Considerations of Regional Shopping Centers. Washington, DC: ITE, 1972. 70. Guideways for Driveway Design and Location. Arlington, VA: ITE, 1975. 71. Residential Trip Generation, Interim Technical Report. New York, NY: Tri-State Transportation Commission, 1971. 72. New York Metropolitan Section. Trip Generation Statistics. New York, NY: ITE, 1973. 73. Trip Generation Studies of Three Regional Shopping Centers in Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Highways, 1973. 74. Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning and Research. industrial Park Trip Generation Study. Wethersfield, CT, 1972. 75. State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division Planning Branch. "Study Number TG-005, Revised." Honolulu, Hi, 1972. 76. Gern, R.C. Variations in Traffic Flow at Regional Shopping Centers. Evanston, IL: Barton- Aschman Associates Inc., 1968. 77. Simpson & Curtin. "Various Studies of Shopping Centers." Philadelphia, PA, undated. 78. Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation. Special Traffic Generator Study. Shopping Centers. Dover, DE: State of Delaware, 1972. 79. Travel to Regional Shopping Centers, Interim Technical Report. New York, NY: Tri-State Transportation Commission, 1970. 80. Office of County Surveyor and Road Commissioner, Orange County. Trip Generation. Santa Ana, CA: Orange County, 1972. 81. Kuhn, H.A.J. "Land Use and Traffic Generation Characteristics of Rural Highway Interchanges." University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1967. 82. Trip Generation by Land Use, Tempe, AZ: Maricopa Association of Governments, 1974. 83. Kanaan, G.E. Parking and Access at General Hospitals. Westport, CT: Eno Foundation for Transportation Inc., 1973. 84. "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 1, Revision 2." Residential Generations. Dover, DE: Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation, 1974. 85. "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 2." industrial Generations. Dover, DE: Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation, 1973. Trip Generation, 9th Edition 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers 27 86. "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 3." Education Facilities Generations. Dover, DE: Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation, 1976.. 87. "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 4." Commercial Generations. Dover, DE: Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation, 1975. 88, Ninth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts. San Francisco, CA: California Department of Transportation, District 4, 1974. 89. Tenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts. San Francisco, CA: California Department of Transportation, District 4, 1975. 90. Eleventh Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts. San Francisco, CA: Department of Transportation, District 4, 1976. 91. Trip Generation Study of Various Land Uses. Wethersfield, CT: Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1974. 92. Zevin, i. Trip Generation Study of Various Land Uses, Supplement A. Wethersfield, CT: Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1975. 93. Trip Generation Study of Regional Shopping Centers. Columbus, OH: Mid -Ohio Regional Planning Commission, 1977. 94. Re -Evaluation of Trip Generation Study of Condominium Developments in the Columbus Metropolitan Area, Columbus, OH: Mid -Ohio Regional Planning Commission, 1976. 95. Carl H. Buttke Inc., Portland, OR, 1977. 96. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Department of Roads and Traffic, Toronto, Canada, 1978. 97. ITE District 7. Trip Generation Data. Alberta, Canada, 1978. 98. Paul C. Box and Associates, Skokie, IL, 1981. 99. Hensley -Schmidt Inc. Consultants, Chattanooga, TN, 1981. 100, Traffic Generators. San Diego Association of Governments, 1979-1981. 101. Transportation Planning and Engineering Inc., Bellevue, WA, 1981. 102. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, Boston, MA, 1981. 103. Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver, CO, 1980. 104. Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 1981. 105. Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., Washington, DC, 1981. 106. Grigg, G.M., Cupertino, CA, 1980. 107. Entranco Engineers. "Access Study, General Telephone Headquarters Expansion." Bellevue, WA, 1979. -,-- � c-� � r� - i.,ot�t� do .,f Trancnnrlation Engineers a 1 108. Traffic Generation Survey. Clayton, NJ: Gloucester County Planning Department, 1979. 109. Schimpeler, Corradino Associates, Louisville, KY, 1980. 110. Arnold Jr., B.D. Special Land Use Trip Generation in Virginia. Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council, 1981. 111. Metcalf, G.W., Overland Park, KS, 1980. 112. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1980. 113. Twelfth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Counts. San Francisco, CA: California Department of Transportation, District 4, 1979. 114. Thirteenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Counts. San Francisco, CA: California Department of Transportation, District 4, 1980. 115. Herp, D.J., Phoenix, AZ, 1980. 116. ITE District 7, Toronto Section. Trip Generation Data. Toronto, Canada, 1978. 117. Nash, B. Trip Generation Study. Chico, CA, 1978. 118. Brown, C., Seattle, WA, 1981. 119. Pleyte, A.P., Milwaukee, WI, 1980. 120. Center for Urban Transportation Studies. Generation Studies. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, 1980. 121. Wilbur Smith and Associates for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Marine Terminal Traffic Generation Manual. San Francisco, CA: Wilbur Smith and Associates, 1980. 122. Pursell, G. Trip Ends Generation Study. Chico, CA, 1978. 123. Wilsey & Ham Inc., Seattle, WA, 1981. 124. Byrne, A.S. "Traffic Generation Characteristics: Florida Shopping Centers." 1TE Technical Notes. Washington, DC: ITE, 1975. 125. Bureau of Traffic Engineering, Milwaukee, WI, 1980. 126. Fourteenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts. San Francisco, CA: California Department of Transportation, District 4, 1982. 127-151. Removed sources. 152. Special Land Use Trip Generation at Special Sites. Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council, 1984. 153. West Virginia Department of Transportation. "Trip Generation Rates." Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 29 154. New York Department of Transportation, Region 1, Albany, NY, 1984. 155. Carl H. Buttke Inc., Portland, OR, 1980-1984. 156. Vanasse/Hangen Associates Inc., Boston, MA, 1982. 157. Thomas S. Montgomery & Associates, California, 1983, 158. Crommelin-Pringle & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, 1974. 159. Guckert, W., Parkton, MD, 1983. 160. Segal DiSarcina Associates, Boston, MA, 1982. 161. C.E. Maguire Inc., New Britain, CT, 1984. 162. New York Department of Transportation, Albany, NY, 1984. 163. ITE Intermountain Section, Billings, MT, 1982, 164. Sear -Brown Associates PC. Rochester, NY, 1985. 165. BRW Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 1984. 166. Street Traffic Studies Ltd., Baltimore, MD, June 1984. 167. California State University, Chico, CA, April 1984. 168-170. Trip Generation at Special Sites, Final Report, Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council, 1984. 171. City of Lakewood, Lakewood, CO, 1985. 172-173. Barton-Aschman Associates, Houston, TX, 1979-1985. 174. Leigh, Scott & Clearly Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, 1985. 175. Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety, Westchester County, White Plains, NY, 1984. 176. Department of Public Works, City of Lakewood, CO, 1985. 177. Barge, Waggoner, Sumner and Cannon, Nashville, TN, 1984-1985. 178. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1984-1985. 179. City of Corvallis Utility and Engineering Services, Corvallis, OR, 1985. 180-181. Department of Public Works, City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, 1983 182. Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., Houston, TX, 1979. 183. Texas Department of Transportation, Dallas, TX, 1985. 30 Trip Generation, 9th Edition 0 Institute of Transportation Engineers 184. Nassau County Planning Commission, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Nassau County Trip Generation Report. New York, NY: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, 1986. 185-186. Westchester County Trip Generation Study, Draft Final Report. New York, NY: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, 1985. 187. New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, Suffolk County Planning Department. Suffolk County Trip Generation Study. New York, NY: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, 1985. 188. RBA Group, Atlanta, GA, 1984. 189. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Philadelphia, PA, 1985. 190. Traffic and Transportation Department, Des Moines, IA, 1986. 191. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1985. 192-203. Raymond Keyes Associates PC, Elmsford, NY, 1984. 204. Civgin, M. Trip Generation Rates for Multiple Family Residential Developments and Neighborhood Shopping Centers in the Chicago Area, Technical Memorandum 83-01. Chicago Area Transportation Study, 1982. 205. Chang, H. and A. Wolny. Fifteenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts. San Francisco, CA: Department of Transportation, 1983. 206. Shandro, P. Traffic Analysis -Wild Waters. Boise, ID: Ada County Highway Department, 1986. 207. Crawford, Bunte, Brammeier, St. Louis, MO, 1982. 208. Kinder Care Learning Centers. Trip Generation Study. Gaithersburg, MD: Street Traffic Studies Ltd., 1984. 209. Ryan, T.A. Trip Generation Analysis. Christiana Medical Offices Project. Baltimore, MD: Kidde Consultants Inc., 1984. 210. Fitzpatrick, D.R., Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Inc., Essex Junction, VT, 1984. 211. JHK & Associates. The Brandermill PUD Traffic Generation Study, Technical Report. Alexandria, VA: JHK & Associates, 1984. 212-214. San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA, 1986. 215. Baumgaertner, W.E. "Movie Theater Trip Generation Rates." 1TE Journal (June 1985). 216. Voorhies, K.O. Trip Generation Rates for New Types of Generators. Atlanta, GA: The RBA Group, 1986. 217. Beaubien, R.F., Troy, MI, 1986. 218. Montgomery County Government, Rockville, MD, 1984. Trip Generation, 9th Edition c Institute of Transportation Engineers 31 219. Reynolds/Russillo. Video Arcade Traffic and Parking, 1983. 220. State of Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT, 1988. 221. Transportation Department, City of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1988. 222. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1988. 223. San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo, CA, 1988. 224. Unknown source. 225. Gordon D. Ziecina Inc., Bradenton, FL, 1988. 226. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1989 227. Keith and Schnars, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, 1987. 228. City of Overland Park, Overland Park, KS, 1987. 229. Unknown source, 230. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1987. 231. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1987. 232. Sear -Brown Associates, P.C., Rochester, NY, 1986. 233. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1983-1987. 234. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1986. 235. F.J. Reinders & Associates, Brampton, Ontario, Canada, 1989. 236. Clough, Harbour & Associates, Albany, NY, 1988. 237. Removed source. 238. Los Angeles County of Public Works, Los Angeles, CA, 1989. 239. Orth-Rodgers & Associates, Raritan, NJ, 1988. 240. County of San Louis Obispo, CA, 1989. 241. McMahon Associates Inc., Willow Grove, PA, 1987. 242. Irving K. Chann, Wilton, CT, 1988. 243. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1988. 244. McMahon Associates Inc., Willow Grove, PA, 1987. 245, Frederick P. Clark Associates, Consultants. Southport, CT, 1987. 32 Trip Generation, 9th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers :11 33 246. Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization, Yuma, AZ, 1989. 247, Maguire Group Inc., Connecticut, 1989. 248. ITE Student Chapter, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1989. 249. Miscellaneous trip generation studies. 250. Nashua Regional Planning Commission, Nashua, NH, 1989. 251. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Pennsylvania, 1988. 252. A&F Engineering Inc., Indianapolis, IN. 253. McMahon Associates Inc., Willow Grove, PA, 1980s. 254. McMahon Associates Inc., Willow Grove, PA, 1987. 255. Weston Pringle and Associates, Fullerton, CA, 1988, 256. Traffic Planning & Design inc., Oaks, PA, 1989. 257. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, NY, 1988. 258. Vollmer Associates, North Haledon, NJ, 1989. 259. JBM and Associates Traffic Study, Overland Park, KS, 1988. 260. A&F Engineering Co., Indianapolis, IN. 261. Travers Associates Inc., Ridgewood, NJ, 1988. 262. Andrews and Clark Inc., Long Island, NY, 1987. 263. Detroit Department of Transportation, Detroit, MI, 1989. 264. County Engineering Department, San Louis Obispo, CA, 1988. 265. Barkan and Mess Associates Inc., Clinton, CT, 1986. 266. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, 1989. 267. DSA Group Inc., Bradenton, FL, 1988. 268, BRW Inc., Bloomington, MN, 1988. 269. Traffic Management Division, City of Oklahoma City, OK, 1988, 270. Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin, Orlando, FL, 1989. 271. Nolte and Associates, Santa Cruz County, FL, 1989, 272. Department of Public Works, City of Ceres, CA, 1989. Trip Generation, 9th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 33 273. San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1989, 274. "Gas/Convenience Store Trip Generation Study." Florida Department of Transportation, 1989. 275. City of Parma, OH, 1981. 276. ITE-Montana Technical Committee. "Trip Characteristics of Convenience Markets with Gas Pumps." ITE Journal (July 1987). 277. San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1987. 278. Parking and Traffic Department, City of Modesto, CA. 279. City of Overland Park, KS, 1981. 280. James T. Rapoli Consulting, Poughkeepsie, NY, 1985. 281. Sear -Brown Associates PC, Rochester, NY, 1986. 282. Lancaster, T.R., Portland, OR, 1987. 283. Carl H. Buttke Inc.. Portland, OR, 1988. 284. ASL Consulting Engineers Inc., Los Angeles, CA, August 1987. 285. Hazarvartian, K.E. "Trip Generation Characteristics of Air Force Bases." ITE Journal (October 1988). 286. The Maguire Group, Connecticut, 1987. 287. San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1987. 288. ITE New England Section, 1987-1989. 289. TransportationlTraffic Division, Department of Engineering Services, City of Camarillo, CA, 1988. 290. Keith and Schnars, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 1987. 291. Daubert Engineering Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO, 1987. 292. Miscellaneous trip generation studies. 293. Maguire Group Inc., New Britain, CT, 1987. 294. Trip Generation Rates for Drive-In/Fast-Food Restaurant and Medical Office Buildings in the OKI Region. Cincinnati, OH: Ohio -Kentucky -Indiana Regional Council of Governments, 1987. 295. Clough, Harbour & Associates, Albany, NY, 1986. 296. ITE Student Chapter, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1987. 297. PHR & A, Fairfax, VA, 1988. 298. TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA. 1988. Weir Immo INNO 34 Trip Generation, 9th Edition 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers atm i�eL Y 299. The Cafaro Company, Youngstown, OH, 1988. 300-301. Indianapolis/Marion County Site Trip Generation Counts. Indianapolis, IN: Barton- Aschman Associates, 1989. 302-306. National Research Council. NCHRP Report 323: Travel Characteristics at Large -Scale Suburban Activity Centers. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 1987-1988. 307-318. Miscellaneous trip generation studies 319-325. Montgomery County Trip Generation Rate Study. Silver Spring, MD: Maryland -National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 1986. 326. Citrus County Department of Development Services, Lecanto, FL, 1990. 327. Trip Generation From Suburban Office Buildings in New Jersey. Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 1988-1989. 328. J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering Inc., Jacksonville, FL, 1990. 329. H.W. Moore Associates Inc. Consulting Engineers, Boston, MA, 1990. 330. Maguire Group Inc., Connecticut, 1990. 331. Trip Generation Analysis for High Cube Warehouses. City of Livermore, CA: Fehr & Peers Associates, 1989. 332. State of California Transportation Agency, District 4 "Sixteenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA, 1986. 333. Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., Columbus, OH, 1990. 334. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, 1989. 335. Monteleone, M., Chapel Hill, NC, 1990. 336. Metro Traffic and Parking, Nashville, TN, 1991. 337. City of Chattanooga, Cl iattanooga, TN, 1990. 338. Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development AgencylJefferson County Public Works and Transportation Division, Louisville, KY, 1993. 339. Travers Associates Inc., New Jersey, 1991. 340, Benshoof and Associates Inc., Edina, MN, 1993. 341. Traffic Planning and Design, Altamonte Springs, FL, 1992. 342. MWCOG, Washington, DC, 1989. 343. Removed source. Trip Generation, 9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers 35 344. Central Transportation Planning Staff, Boston, MA, 1992. 345. The Traffic Group Inc., Towson, MD, 1992. 346. Muncaster Engineering and Computer Applications, Charlottesville, VA, 1990. 347-348. KHR Associates. "Mobil National Traffic Study." Irvine, CA, 1992. 349. VHB Inc., Watertown, MA, 1992. 350. Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency/Jefferson County Public Works and Transportation Division, Louisville, KY, 1993. 351. Palm Beach County Traffic Division, West Palm Beach, FL, 1989. 352. Tipton Associates Inc., Orlando, FL, 1989. 353. Traffic Generation Study for Wal-Mart Stores. Andover, MA: Robert D. Vanasse & Associates Inc., 1994. 354. Peters & Associates. Trip Generation Studies for Wal-Mart Supercenters. Little Rock, AR: Peters & Associates, 1994, 355. Maryland -National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Development of Montgomery County Trip Generation Rates. Montgomery County, MD, 1993. 356. Street Smarts, Atlanta, GA, 1990. 357-359. City of Rapid City. "Rapid City MPO, Trip Generation Rates." Rapid City, SD, 1995. 360. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA, 1989-1990. 361. Trip Generation -Golf Driving Range. Boston, MA: Bruce Campbell & Associates Inc., 1993. 362. Trip Generation Information for Quick Lubrication Shops in Vancouver. WA. Portland, OR: Kittelson & Associates Inc., 1995. 363. MCV Associates Inc., McLean, VA, 1994. 364. Removed source. 365. The Sear -Brown Group Inc., Rochester, NY, 1991-1995. 366. Inland Pacific Engineering Company, Spokane. WA, 1995. 367. Eschbacher & Associates, Syosset, NY, 1996. 368. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 1996. 369. Transportation Concepts, Clifton Park, NY, 1996. 370. TDA Inc., Seattle, WA. 36 Trip Generation, 9th Edition o Institute of Transportation Engineers 1 2 371. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, 1996. 372. Grove Miller Engineering Inc., Harrisburg, PA, 1992. 373. Tulare County Association of Governments, Visalia, CA, 1993. 374. Transportation Engineers Inc., Fullerton, CA, 1990, 375. Removed source 376. An Informational Trip Generation Report -"Big Box Users" and "Category Killers" for Power Retail Centers. Towson, MD: The Traffic Group, 1993. 377. Trip Generation and Parking Generation Study. Issaquah, WA: Optimum Environment, 1991. 378. Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz & Jacquemart Inc., New York, NY, 1990-1991. 379. JW Buckholz Traffic Engineering Inc., Jacksonville, FL, 1991. 380. Factory Outlet Center Trip Generation Study. Santa Barbara, CA: Associated Transportation Engineers, 1991-1996. 381. Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., Dallas, TX, 1986. 382. Barr, Dunlop & Associates Inc., Tallahassee, FL, 1995. 383. Barakos-Landino Design Group, Hamden, CT, 1995. 384. Benshoof & Associates Inc., Edina, MN, 1995. 385. Benshoof & Associates Inc., Edina, MN, 1992. 386. Free -Standing Retail Establishment Trip Generation Study. Rochester, NY: Bergmann Associates, 1994. 387. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 1996. 388. Langley and McDonald, Williamsburg, VA, 1990. 389. Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte, NC, 1995. 390. Creative Transportation Solutions, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, 1994-1995. 391. Creighton Manning Inc., Delmar, NY, 1994. 392. Cupertino, CA, 1993-1995. 393. DJK Associates Inc., Arlington, MA, 1991. 394. D.J. Parrone & Associates, Penfield, NY, 1993. 395. David Evans and Associates Inc., Portland, OR, 1991. 396. City of Farmington, NM. Trip Generation, 9th Editions Institute of Transportation Engineers 37 397. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1991-1994. 398. Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin, Orlando, FL, 1990-1991. 399. Grove Miller Engineering Inc., Harrisburg, PA, 1992_ 400. I.K. Chann Associates, Wilton, CT, 1996. 401. Inland Pacific Engineering Company, Spokane, WA, 1996. 402. Inland Engineering Corporation, Victorville, CA, 1995. 403. Traffic & Circulation Study for Proposed Mini Storage. Fullerton, CA: Transportation Engineers Inc., 1993. 404. Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency, Louisville, KY, 1993. 405. Mackenzie Engineering Inc., Portland, OR. 406. CE Maguire Inc.,•New Britain, CT, 1986--1994. 407. Morris County. County of Morris 1992 Trip Generation Study. Morris County, NJ, 1992. 408. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates Inc., San Mateo, CA, 1995. 409. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, 1993. 410. Town of Oro Valley, Oro Valley, AZ, 1993. 411. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, 1987-1990. 412. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, 1991. 413. City of Overland Park, KS, 1991. 414. Paul C. Box & Associates Inc., Skokie, IL, 1987-1991. 415. Prosser, Hallock & Kristoff Inc., Jacksonville, FL, 1994. 416. Robert D. Vanasse & Associates Inc., Andover, MA, 1993. 417. TRC Raymond Keyes Associates, Tarrytown, NY, 1994-1995. 418. Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., San Jose, CA, 1987-1995. 419. Balloffet & Associates Inc., Denver, CO, 1995. 420. State of Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT, 1990. 421. CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 1993-1996. 422-424. DKS Associates, Portland, OR, 1991-1996. 425. Transportation Planning & Engineering Inc_, Bellevue, WA, 1991-1992. 8 Trip Generation, 9th Edition 0 Institute of Transportation Engineers 426. Tim Miller Associates Inc., Cold Spring, NY, 1992. 427. Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County, Lafayette, IN, 1995. 428. Travers Associates Inc., New Jersey, 1990-1994. 429. Vollmer Associates, Rochelle Park, NJ, 1993. 430. Western Planning & Research Inc., Auburn, CA, 1996. 431. University of Tennessee Transportation Center, Knoxville, TN, 1995. 432. University of Wisconsin. District IV Trip Generation Study. Platteville, WI: ITE Student Chapter, Platteville, 1994-1995. 433. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, 1995. 434. University of Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR, 1995. 435. Supplement to San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1991-1995. 436-439. Traffic Planning and Design, Maitland, FL, 1991-1996. 440-441. Associated Transportation Engineers, Santa Barbara, CA. 442. Sprinkle Consulting Engineering, Lutz, FL, 1990-1993. 443-445. DKS Associates, Portland, OR, 1991-1996. 446. International Council of Shopping Centers Trip Generation Study. Tarrytown, NY: Raymond Keyes Associates Inc., 1994. 447. CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 1995. 448. Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington, CT, 1996. 449. Lumber Store Trip Generation Analysis. Jacksonville, FL: JW Buckholz Traffic Engineering Inc., 1992. 450. University of Texas at El Paso, TX, 1999. 451. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 1999. 452. Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 1999. 453. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1999. 454. Removed source. 455, CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 1995-1998. 456. DeShazo, Tang and Associates Inc., Dallas, TX, 1997. Trip Generation, 9th Edition 0 Institute of Transportation Engineers 39 457. Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum Consultants Inc., Cincinnati, OH, 1999. 458. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 1998. 459. Doyle, J. "Trip Generation for Entertainment Land Uses." ITE 1999 Annual Meeting and Exhibit Compendium. Washington, DC: ITE, 1999. 460-499. Blank sources. 500. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Somerset, NJ, 2001. 501. Corcoran, S. "Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Demand Characteristics." ITE 1996 Annual Meeting and Exhibit Compendium. Washington, DC: ITE, 1996. 502. Creighton Manning Engineering LLP, Albany, NY, 1999. 503. Removed source. 504. Jha, M.K. and D.J. Lovell. "Trip Generation Characteristics of Free -Standing Discount Stores: A Case Study." ITE Journal on the Web (May 1999): 85-89. 505. Removed source. 506. Removed source. 507. Traffic Planning and Design Inc., Maitland, FL, 1997-2002. 508. Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., San Jose, CA, 1999. 509. Barakas-Landino Inc., Meriden, CT, 1998. 510. 510. Transportation Concepts LLP, Clifton Park, NY, 1998. 511. Removed source. 512. Removed source. 513. Trans Associates, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996. 514. Kittelson & Associates Inc., Portland, OR, 1997-1998. 515. Charbonneau Engineering LLC, Portland, OR, 1999. 516. DeShazo, Tang & Associates Inc., Dallas, TX, 2002. 517. San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1998. 518. Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., San Jose, CA, 1998. 519. A&F Engineering Company Inc., Indianapolis, IN, 1998. 520. The Sear -Brown Group Inc., Syracuse, NY, 1997. 521. Removed source. 40 Trip Generation, 9th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 522. Mid -Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Columbus, OH, 1996. 523. Removed source. 524. Resource Systems Group Inc., White River Junction, VT, 1998. 525. J-U-B Engineers Inc., Orem, UT, 1998-1999. 526. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., Tucson, AZ, 2001. 527. Removed source. 528. The Traffic Group Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1992. 529. Albun Inc., 1999. 530. Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission. Knoxville, TN, 1996. 531. DKS Associates, Portland, OR, 1999. 532. The Sear -Brown Group Inc., DeWitt, NY, 2003. 533. San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 2002. 534. City of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, CA, 2000. 535. Henningson, Durham & Richardson Inc.. Omaha, NE, 2000. 536. TEI Engineers & Planners, Lake Mary, FL, 2001. 537. Creighton Manning Engineering LLP, Albany, NY, 2001. 538. R.E. Gray & Associates, Selbyvilte, DE, 2000-2001. 539. LandMark Design Group Inc., Williamsburg, VA, 2000. 540. City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, CA, 1996-1997. 541, Removed source. 542. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 1996-1997. 543. Removed source. 544. San Diego Traffic Generators, San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1996. 545. Removed source. 546. Removed source. 547. The HNTB Companies, Milwaukee, WI, 11997. 548. Removed source. 549. Removed source. Trip Generation, 9th Edition c Institute of Transportation Engineers 41 550-551. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1996-2001. 552. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1995-2002. 553, Dixon Associates Consulting Engineers, Galloway, NJ, 2002. 554. LSC Transportation Consultants Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, 2001. 555. FRA Engineering PC, Henrietta, NY, 1998-2000. 556-558. Removed sources. 559. Perry Engineering Inc., Coventry, RI, 2001. 560. Removed source. 561. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Somerset, NJ, 2002. 562. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Somerset, NJ, 1997-2001. 563. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1997-2001. 564. BL Companies, Meriden, CT, 2002. 565. Fricker, J.D. "Trip Generation at Youth Soccer Complexes: Some Unforeseen Issues." !TE Journal on the Web (February 1999): 75-78. 566. Kittelson & Associates Inc., Portland, OR, 2001-2002. 567. Removed source. 568. Washington Group international Inc., Glenwood Springs, CO, 2000-2002. 569. Removed source. 570. Rernoved source. 571. McMahon Associates Inc., Fort Washington, PA, 1994-2003. 572. Pape -Dawson Engineers Inc., San Antonio, TX, 2001. 573. CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 1995-2003. 574. Removed source. 575. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., Ocala, FL, 2002. 576. Traffic Planning and Design Inc., Pottstown, PA. 577. Trans Associates Engineering Consultants Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 2000-2002. 578. Removed source. 579-580. DKS Associates, Portland, OR, 2001-2002. 42 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 581. Eschbacher, R.M. 'Trip Generation and Parking Demand Characteristics of Assisted Living Facilities_" 1TE 2002 Annual Meeting and Exhibit Compendium. Washington, DC: ITE, 2002. 582. Parsons Corporation. Southfield, MI, 2002. 583-584. DKS Associates, Portland, OR, 1994-2001. 585. USKH Inc., Spokane, WA, 2005. 586. FRA Engineering/T.Y. Lin International, Orchard Park, NY, 2007. 587. Removed source. 588. BL Companies, Meriden, CT, 2006. 589. Shropshire Associates LLC, Medford, NJ, 2004. 590. Gwinnett County Department of Transportation, Lawrenceville, GA, 2003. 591. Van Cleef Engineering Associates, Whippany, NJ, 2002. 592. ITE Student Chapter, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 2007. 593. ITE Student Chapter, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, 2007. 594. G.W. Nickelson, Walnut Creek, CA, 2004-2007. 595. Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, Clearwater, FL, 2004. 596. R.Q. Zande & Associates Inc., Columbus, OH, 2003. 597. KD Anderson & Associates, Loomis, CA, 2007. 598-599. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 2000-2007. 600. Transportation Resource Group inc., York, PA, 2007. 601, Traffic Planning and Design Inc., Pottstown, PA, 2006. 602. Omland Engineering Associates Inc., Cedar Knolls, NJ, 2006. 603. Kerins and Associates, Newark, DE, 2006. 604. Kittelson & Associates Inc., Portland, OR, 2005. 605. CMX. Trip Generation Study, Land Use Code 152, High Cube Warehouse. Manalapan, NJ, 2006. 606. Removed source. 607. ITE Student Chapter, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 2007. 608. ITE Student Chapter, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2007. 609. ITE Student Chapter. University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, 2007. Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 43 610. CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 2007. 611-612. DKS Associates, Portland, OR, 1999-2007. 613. WGM Group Inc., Missoula, MT, 2007. 614. Maurer -Stutz Inc., Peoria, IL, 2008. 615. Kroger and Associates Inc., Denver, CO, 2005-2007. 616--618, Greenman -Pedersen Inc., Nashua, NH, 1999-2006. 619. Crain & Associates. San Bernardino/Riverside County Warehouse/Distribution Center Vehicle Trip Generation Study. Los Angeles, CA, 2005-2007, 620. Lee Engineering, LLC, Dallas, TX, 2007. 621. Traffic Data Inc., St. Louis Park, MN, 2004-2005, 622. Bogart Engineering, Moscow, PA, 2006. 623. Removed source. 624. Ferguson & Associates Inc., Bend, OR, 2005, 625. VRPA Technologies Inc. Trip Generation Characteristics of Free -Standing Discount Superstores. San Diego, CA, 2006. 626, Oracle Engineering Inc., Piscataway, NJ, 2007. 627. Town of Hilton Head Island. Hilton Head Island, SC, 2004. 628. City of Overland Park, Kansas, Overland Park, KS, 2007-2011. 629-630. McMahon Associates Inc., Fort Washington, PA, 1997-2008. 631, Rick Engineering Company, Lake Forest, CA, 2007. 632, Prosser Hallock inc., Jacksonville, FL, 2004. 633. Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers. Daycare Transportation Impact Analysis & SDC Alternate Calculation Methodology. Eugene, OR, 2003. 634, Stahl Sheaffer Engineering, LLC, State College, PA, 2006. 635. ITE Student Chapter, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2007. 636. HDRIWHM Transportation Engineering, Austin, TX, 2007. 637. WGM Group Inc., Missoula, MT, 2005-2007. 638. C3 Consulting Group, Wellesley, MA, 2003, 639, Bogart Engineering, Moscow, PA, 2006. 44 Trip Generation, 9th Edition o Institute of Transportation Engineers 640. Kinney Engineering, LLC, Anchorage, AK, 2007. 641 City and County of Denver, CO, 2004. 642 Peters Engineering Group. Trip Generation Study. High -Cube Warehouse Buildings. Fresno, CA; and Trip Generation Study, Fresno Area Mini Storage Complexes. Clovis, CA, 2007. 643. Removed source. 644. ITE Student Chapter, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 2005. 645. King Engineering Associates, Jacksonville, FL, 2007, 646-647. Removed sources. 648. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Independent Trip Generation Study. Tampa„ FL, 2007. 649. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Large -Scale Retail Distribution Centers. Tampa, FL, 2007. 650. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. Assembly Square Mixed -Use Redevelopment Study. Somerville, MA, 2006. 651-652. Texas Transportation Institute. Nationwide Discount Supercenter Study. College Station, TX, 2008. 653--655. Removed sources. 656. ELA Group Inc., State College, PA, 2003. 657. Gibson Traffic Consultants Inc., Everett, WA, 2007. 658. Stantec Consulting Inc., Phoenix, AZ, 2007. 659. Removed source. 660. Loudoun County - Office of Transportation Services, Leesburg, VA, 2010-2011. 661. MRO Engineers Inc., Rocklin, CA, 2004. 662. Unknown source. 663-699. Blank sources. 700. ITE Student Chapter, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 2008. 701. Hubbell, Roth & Clark Inc., Bloomfield Hills, MI, 2008. 702. City of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2009-2011. 703. CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 2008. 704. Fisher Associates, Rochester, NY, 2008-2009. 705. A & F Engineering Company LLC, Indianapolis, IN, 2008. Trip Generation, 9th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 45 706. Transportation Resource Group Inc., York, PA, 2007, 707. ITE Student Chapter, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 2008. 708. ITE Student Chapter, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 2008. 709. Morrison Maierle Inc., Tempe, AZ, 2008. 710, Group Mackenzie, Portland, OR, 2008. 711. John Davenport Engineering Inc., Winston-Salem, NC, 2006-2007. 712. ITE Student Chapter, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2008. 713. BL Companies, Meriden, CT, 2009. 714. GENIVAR, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2012. 715. The Traffic Group Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1989-2010. 716. T.Y. Lin International, Orchard Park, NY, 2008. 717. Burgess & Niple, Columbus, OH, 2007. 718. ITE Student Chapter, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 2009 719. McMahon Associates, Fort Washington, PA, 2009-2010. 720. MRO Engineers Inc., Rocklin, CA, 2010. 721. Buckholz Traffic, Jacksonville, FL, 2007-2009. 722, ITE Student Chapter, University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, HI, 2009-2011. 723. ITE Student Chapter, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 2009-2011. 724. ITE Student Chapter, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2008-2009. 725. ITE Student Chapter, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 2008-2009. 726. ITE Student Chapter, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 2008. 727. Traffic Data Inc., St. Louis Park, MN, 2009. 728. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT, 2006-2010. 729. ITE Student Chapter, University of North Carolina -Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, 2009. 730. ITE Student Chapter, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2009. 731. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. 732. Neal Ogden, Arroyo Seco, NM, 2008. 46 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers r=I iape 211 3 3 733. ITE Student Chapter, Portland State University. Portland: OR. 2009. 734. Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, Manchester, NH. 735. DKS Associates, Portland, OR. 736. Removed source. 737. Shropshire Associates I l_C, Lumberton, NJ, 2008. 738. Shea Carr Jewell Inc., Olympia, WA, 2010. 739. Washington State Department of Transportation, Union Gap, WA, 2002. 740. Blank source. 741. Removed source. 742. Blank source. 743-744. Removed source. 745. The Traffic Group Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1989-2010. 746. ITE Student Chapter, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 2008. 747. ITE Student Chapter, University of Nevada -Reno, Reno, NV, 2009. 748. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA, 2011. 749. The Traffic Group Inc., Baltimore, MD, 2008. 750. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. 751. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT, 2006--2010_ 752. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, 2008-2009. 753. Street Smarts, Duluth, GA, 2007. 754. Blank source. 755. DKS Associates, Portland, OR, 2003. Trip Generation, 9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers 47 ATTACHMENT 3 Letter from Brian Ashurst (CA Dept. of Transportation, Dist. 4) to Loretta Fowler, October 17, 2016 4 .-. Loretta Fowler dorettakfowler@gmail.com> 401-409 Alberto Way Office Development Project --Draft Environmental Impact Report Ashurst, Brian@DOT <brian.ashurst@dot.ca.gov> Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:17 PM To: Loretta Fowler <lorettakfowler@gmail.com> �ai!o Ms. Fowler: 22r. ary 22, 2016 indicated (on page 6) tnat the rreev, segment cr, SR 17 between Lark Ave to Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd will be added 1.18% capacity unaer oroic_ condition. So mitigation measure would be needed for this impact. Thank vuu for your patience, white ! conferred with the technical expert who provided Ms. Maurice and me with that particular comment. Please let me know, if you have any further questions. Sincerel, + r;an A srurs .. 1.t Associate Transportation Planner Office o� Transit and Community Planning .11 Grand Avenue, MS 10D office From: Loretta Fowler [mailto:•""-''''''"°"" Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 1:45 PM To: Ashurst, Brian@DOT <1:,u. •._,:. _ : _ : . - ,> Subject: Re: 401-409 Alberto Way Office Development Project --Draft Environmental Impact Report https://mail.google.comfmail/?ui=2&ik=f33 8086f09&view=pt&search—inbox&msg=157... 10/18/2016 r Loretta Fowler <Iorettakfowler@gmail.com> 401-409 Alberto Way Office Development Project --Draft Environmental Impact Report Ashurst, Brian@DOT <brian.ashurst@dot.ca.gov> Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:17 PM To: Loretta Fowler <Iorettakfowler@gmail.com> Hello Ms. Fowler: The impact analysis for this project dated January 22, 2016 indicated (on page 6) that the rreewE „ segment on SR 17 between Lark Ave to Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd will be added 1.189'o capacity under orolec: condition. So mitigation measure would be needed for this impact. Thank you for your patience, while I conferred with the technical expert who provided Ms. Maurice and me with that particular comment Please let me know, if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Brian Ashurst, J.D. Associate Transportation Planner Local Development - intergovernmental Review Office of Transit and Community Planning California Department of Transportation, District 4 111 Grand Avenue, MS 10D Oakland, C' 94612 - _ fax �;.'::� office t •• ; ,, `.,� �`-v;.:; From: Loretta Fowler [mailto:""""''''"'°''''''°"' ` ] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 1:45 PM To: Ashurst, Brian@DOT ,> Subject: Re: 401-409 Alberto Way Office Development Project --Draft Environmental Impact Report �11UU16U LGALliIUUG.., https://mail.google.corn/mail/?ui 2&ik=f338086ff 9&view=pt&search--inbox&msg=157... 10/18/2016 r-o !n L5-F,4 tz.L.7‘ES April 4, 2017 Planning Commissioners Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Impact of 401-409 Alberto Way Proposed Development on Bella Vista Village Bella Vista Village is a development of 47 Craftsman -style townhomes that was constructed in 1998 and 1999 on a small farm at the base of Bella Vista Avenue. A local architectural firm, Paragon Design, put great thought into designing a project that would blend well with the existing residential homes at the end of this idyllic cul-de sac on Alberto Way. I've enjoyed this neighborhood for 18 years as an original owner. My neighbors and I have carefully watched the various proposed developments at both ends of Alberto Way with curiosity and trepidation. As a Realtor having represented buyers and sellers on 24 Bella Vista Village homes, I've experienced another perspective -- the impact the proposed project at 401- 409 Alberto Way has had on marketing homes for sale or for rent for the past two years as residents wonder what kind of impact a development of this size would have on these homes. The existing plan: Is nearly 2 Y2 times the square footage of the existing office space • Requires an extended period of time for underground and above ground construction which ultimately could cause structural damage to adjacent properties • Will cause increased traffic congestion on Highway 9jHighway 17 and Alberto Way -- a bottleneck entrance to hundreds of homes and nearly 200,000sf of commercial office space. Without any additional development, the street already suffers from a narrow roadway limited by street parking on both sides of the street. (Kemp, 2 of 3) In my recent door to door survey in Bella Vista Village, the residents indicated they would look forward to a new development that would enhance this area of town but have an overwhelming concern for the size, mass and scale of the proposed development. They have asked me to represent them as a liaison with neighboring developments at Pueblo de Los Gatos, The Los Gatos Commons and Las Casitas to voice their concerns to the proposed developer. These concerns can best be summarized in six points: 3. The size, mass and scale of the originally designed 93,000 sf building should be reduced by one third to one half as requested by the Planning Commission at the last hearing in 2016 (46,000 to 62,000sf). 2. Compared to the current artist renderings presented by the developer, the architectural features of the project should be in keeping with the existing residential neighborhood with lower building height, breaks in the roofline, a mix of exterior building materials possibly including wood,_ glass and stone with breaks in the front and side elevations and privacy for adjacent neighbors, avoiding a massive, contemporary, concrete, cubic design that blocks hill views and light at the end of the day. 3. This project should allow reasonable ingress/egress on Alberto Way as most of the residents in Bella Vista Village are working professionals, and many families have small children that attend school and have after school activities. They are especially concerned with the number of trucks and heavy equipment that will be needed for quite some time during the extended construction phase. 4. This project should not cause an additional burden to the drainage system on Alberto Way. Please see the independent hydrologist's report for 4017409 Alberto Way which shows the project will overload neighboring systems if not mitigated properly. The Bella Vista Village developer (Landmark Development) returned a year after construction completion to install additional drainage including sump pumps to the homes on the lower half of Cuesta de Los Gatos Way due to excess water run-off they had not anticipated from the highest elevation in the development (Maggi Court which lies at the base of Bella Vista Avenue). These sump pumps have been working overtime this year with the return to normal rainfall, and our streets and curbs have often flooded when the drains failed to meet the run-off demand. Our residents realize that mitigation for any additional load on Alberto Way is going to be critical. (Kemp, 3 of 3) S. The 401-409 Alberto Way parking should not overflow to street parking on Alberto Way where many residents in Bella Vista Village park their vehicles due to storage in their garages. Parking after hours on the street is already at a premium for existing residents. 6. As a real estate agent, I've experienced sellers that are concerned about additional disclosures that must be provided to buyers and tenants detailing anything "that could possibly affect the value of the property" as required by law. These details include proposed size of the project and increase in traffic congestion during construction and after construction completion. Additional disclosures detailing work to be completed at some future date is seldom viewed as a positive feature, IN SUMMARY, the size and scale of this project is of tremendous concern to the residents of Bella Vista Village on a wide range of topics. We ask that the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos reject the existing EIR due to inaccuracies and reject the currently proposed development plan. Regards, Melanie Kemp Broker Associate Coldwell Banker 174 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 14Li Alberto Way Citizens' Opposition to the Revised Plan filed March 9, 2017 by Lamb Partners for 405 Alberto Way (formerly 401-409 Alberto Way) Submitted by Bob Burke, Pueblo de Los Gatos Table of Contents Introduction 3 Los Gatos is not requesting adequate Impact Recovery on Commercial Developments for Impact to LG Roads or our LG School Systems 5 I . The Revised PD Attempts and Fails to address these issues 7 A. Reviewability 7 B. Size & Mass of the Buildings 8 C. VTA decided to fund the 9 & 17 Interchange before Measure B passed 8 D. North side of Revised PD allows its Tenants to look into Las Casitas Windows and confiscates 100% of Las Casitas Santa Cruz Mountain views 8 E. F. G. Buildings block our Santa Cruz Mountain Views 9 Revised PD fails to adequately straighten Alberto for Safety & on -street parking 15 Traffic on Hwy 9 is already too congested & Alberto Way will become severely congested by the Revised PD 16 1. Traffic congestion will impact Alberto Way and LG within a 3/ mile radius 16 H. Our traffic Study — See Also Roman Rufanov's companion submission 16 I. There is no Construction Plan and no Plan can avoid blocking Residents and emergency vehicles for extended periods of time 27 II. Revised PD did not attempt to address these EIR Issues at all 27 A. Hydrology & Geo-Technical 27 1. Water Table Issues addressed by our expert, Dr. Geissler (report attached): 27 2. Water table beneath the Revised PD has risen significantly since the June, 2015 borings. 28 3. Hydrology impacts to us that are not revealed in the EIR are ID'd by our Expert 29 III. Not Addressed at all by Changes made in the Revised PD 33 A. Aesthetics (3:1-14): EIR concludes no negative impacts - we disagree 33 B. Air quality (3:14-38): Impacts are understated and mitigations inadequate 33 C. Public service (EIR 3:135-41): Negative Impacts that weren't identified 35 1. EIR conclusion Area Schools: The impact is not insignificant in our view. 35 2. EIR CONCLUSION Fire and Emergency Medical Services: The impact is not insignificant in our view. 36 1lPage D. Traffic & Transportation Conclusions of the EIR (3:141-80) & Rebuttals 37 1. Impact (EIR 3-140): The project would result in less than significant impacts to area fire department facilities 37 2. False Traffic Report Data on Appendix H: Hwy-9 & Alberto Way: Eastbound PM Rush "Existing + Proposed" 38 3. Trip Generation Sensitivity Study 39 4. Impact (EIR: 3-179) The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit (less than significant) 40 Mitigation T3 Causes a new and Unacceptable Environment& Impact on 420 & 435 Alberto Way 41 E. FEIR Impacts that have not been adequately addressed 42 Unidentified Impact: The PD will depress Alberto Way Property Values both during and after construction....... .... 42 Unidentified impact: The Revised PD driveway and parking areas are insufficient 42 Unidentified Impact: The Revised PD appears to have no turn -around large enough for Busses 42 Unidentified. Impact: The Revised PD Garage is blocked while trash and recycling is picked up, backing up traffic on Alberto & Hwy-9 or in the PDs garage while they are present 42 Unidentified Impact: The curve in front of the PD is a sight problem for vehicles 42 Unidentified Impact: No construction plan can prevent complete shutdown of Alberto Way for extended periods42 Unidentified Impact: During construction, work crews of 50 — 100 will be present on the site at all times, each arriving in a separate vehicles: it is not possible for them to all park on the PD property ....... 42 Unidentified Impact: If water is used to control particulates during construction, the trucks exiting the site will leave with caked -on mud on their tires, which will be deposited in Alberto Way and Hwy-9 43 Unidentified Impact: During construction, the road beds of Alberto Way and Hwy-9 will be destroyed or seriously damaged by the fully loaded concrete trucks which weigh up to 80 tons 43 Unidentified Impact: Mitigation T-2 calls for a construction contract with Los Gatos, however, there is no Mitigation for the construction contract with Caltrans 43 Unidentified Impact: As a Mixed -Use development, the PD would, generate high levels of continuous traffic that are not disclosed in the DEIR or FEIR. 43 F. Revised and Missing Mitigations 43 FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-4: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane along the entire length of the Proposed Development on Hwy-9 to allow safe right turns from Alberto Way: 43 FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-5: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane each direction between the Hwy-17 Overpass and the 2 lane sections on both sides to enable the EB left turn pocket into Alberto to be extended enough to prevent AM gridlock 44 FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-6: Reduce PD Footprint by enough to enable the widening of Hwy-9 by one lane each direction between the Hwy-17 Overpass and the 2 lane sections on both sides 45 G. ALTERNATIVES (EIR 6: 1-12): Alternatives Considered 46 H. Revised PD Design Features in conflict with General Plan Policies 46 Revised PD Features in conflict with LG Commercial Design Guidelines- 47 1.3 PURPOSE 47 Provide a greater degree of project review and approval predictability. .... 47 21Page Plan Deficiency. 47 Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos. 47 Maintain a building scale that is consistent with the Town's small scale image 48 Reinforce the special qualities of the Town's visual character.... 48 Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate adjacent development 48 To encourage signs which are in scale and harmony with the architecture and the character of the Town. 48 1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS 48 Maintenance of the existing small town feel 48 Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town's residential structures 48 Small scale buildings with a strong pedestrian orientation 48 The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential neighborhoods 48 Strong encouragement of a unique Los Gatos scale and character 48 1.5.1 Design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Los Gatos 48 Break overall building masses into segments similar to those of nearby structures and parcels. 48 Avoid design which consists largely of boxes with applied design elements. 48 Break facade segments into modules 49 1.5.3 Provide a unified design around all sides of buildings 49 Where continuity of design is difficult to achieve, substantial landscaping 49 1.5.5 Integrate the screening for all trash and service areas into the design of the buildings. 49 1.5.6 Operable windows 49 1.5.7 Provide visual buffering of on -site utility elements 49 Locate transformers, valves and similar elements where they will be least visible 49 1.5.8 Subordinate parking to the buildings 49 Avoid parking lots in locations that interrupt retail and/or structural continuity near front property lines. 49 Projects with multiple tenants will be required to prepare a Master Signage Program 49 Dintrod Ict ofi We the Citizens of Alberto Way ask that the Town of Los Gatos: - Not certify the Environmental Impact Report and Not approve the Revised 405 Alberto Way Proposed Development (PD) This Report addresses the Applicant's Current March 9, 2017 Design. In it, we address only issues that remain to exist with the Design and the original EIR. To avoid duplication we refer to reports submitted by the other three HOA 3IPage Members of our Coordinating Committee, which consists of myself, John Mittelstet (The Commons), Roman Rufanov (Las Casitas) and Melanie Kemp (Bella Vista Village). The EIR presently on -file for the original site layout and building design vs. the current Design and it: Significantly understates the negative impact the Revised PD would have on Alberto Way residents & non - Alberto Way Los Gatos Citizens Contains Geotechnical & underground Hydrological assessments that bar the site from any buildings of the size of the PD based on liquefaction and settling as well as the Revised PDs underground parking, the lower level of which would be underwater - Contains a Traffic Report whose computation analysis fails to acknowledge, disclose or predict the photographic evidence of the high degree of congestion, including the "F" Level of Service suffered daily during the 7:45AM — 8:45AM and 5.15PM — 6:15PM Rush Hours Fails to acknowledge impact to all who use Hwy 9 during the other two afternoon Rush Hours at Noon (lunch) & 2:30 (school's out) Understates the additional trips generated by omitting all trips to and from the PD by tenant employees who leave during the day to conduct business off -premises and return before the end of the day, - Understates the additional trips generated by failing to disclose the maximum number of tenant personnel that can occupy the PDContains a Traffic Report that fails to acknowledge that the limiting factor to Eastbound Traffic flow from Hwy 17 to Los Gatos Blvd. along Hwy 9 is limited by the two-lane section of Los Gatos Blvd from Van Meter Elementary to the High School on Main Street, and instead represents that the congestion can be controlled by traffic Tight coordination at the Los Gatos Blvd and Alberto Way intersections with Hiway-9. - Confiscates approximately 90% of Alberto Way's present Santa Cruz Mountain views upon completion to 100% within a decade as proposed plantings grow to block it all Negatively impacts existing Alberto Way property values without compensation to current owners Remains too massive to be legally constructed under the LG 2020 General Plan, Commercial Design Guidelines and Ordinances Creates enough new traffic that it compounds the existing Rush Hour '`F" Level of Service on Hwy 9: no proposed traffic improvement is able to accommodate the proposed development because it doesn't address the root cause: LG Blvd must be widened first. - Placement of the PD on the property prevents the Hwy-9 & 17 Intersection renovation that is approved for Measure B funding (see attached VTA July, 2016 Resolution). A significant portion of the site is likely to be condemned for the Hwy-9 congestion -relieving renovation. Approval of the PD should not occur before the Intersection's new design. The Caltrans ROW design of the intersection's replacement will likely interfere with the current placement on site of the PD. The submitted EIR provides inadequate mitigations to all issues. - And too many more to list in this summary The 9% decrease in the Revised PD to 83,000sf is not consistent with LG's 2020 General Plan, Ordinances or Commercial Design Standards. The Revised PD does not address the concerns of Alberto Way Residents and ignores requests made by the Planning Commission, 3 members of which called for floor space reduction to as low as 43,000sf and up to 62.000sf in the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing. 4IPage Los Gatos is not requesting adequate Impact Recovery on Commercial Developments for Impact to LG Roads or our LG School Systems Patricie Maurice, CalTrans Oakland District Branch Chief wrote to LG on June 13, 2016 that there are impacts to State Hwys 9 & 17, including the Interchange that require mitigation and that Los Gatos, as the Lead Agency, is responsible to mitigate and pay for them: 2 3 7 Lead Agency As the lead agency. the Town of Los Gatos (Town) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Ms. Jennifer Anner/Town of Los Gatos June 13, 2016 Page 2 Tr�fic Imparts 1. This development will add trips greaterthan one percent of capacity on southbound SR 17 during AM and PM peak hours, so will significantly impact the STN and require mitigation. For example, the northbound (NB) SR 17/Saratoga Los Gatos Road diagonal on -ramp and the southbound (SS) SR 17/Saratoga Los Gatos Road loop on -ramp have existing ramp metering equipment installed and are to be further metered in the future with metering rates typically between 240 and 900 vehicles per hour. These additional trips will significantly impact the capacities of these ramps. 2. A closed circuit television (CCTV) camera, ramp metering, and other traffic monitoring are instalied in the area of the Saratoga Los Gatos Road (SR 9) on -ramp to NB SR 17. The proposed development has the potential to impact these installations, particularly the conduit which rums to the service connections at Alberto Way. Please refer to the As -Built plans for EA 150264, 151364, and other relevant EAs and field verify locations of the installations and connections, as existing conditions may have changed (e.g., the recent Bridge Rail Replacement Project, EA 1A3404). Tredfic Impact Fees Given the project's contribution to area traffic and its proximity to SR 17 and SR 9, the project should contribute fair share traffic impact fees to the planned Sly 17 ramp metering, nature auxiliary lanes, and other improvements to SR 17 and SR 9 to mitigate these impacts. These contributions would be used to lessen future traffic congestion and improve transit in the project vicinity. Yet the FEIR summarily dismisses the Mitigations asserted by Caltrans without any mention of negotiation or mathematical traffic analysis, and thereby dismisses the Applicant's required funding with these comments: 5IPage 2. The commenter's statement that the proposed project would add trips greater than one percent of capacity on southbound State Route 17 during AM and PM hours is aclmowledged. However, the commenter's statement that this addition of trips would create a significant impact to the State Transportation Network and require mitigation is not clear as it would relate to the analysis and conclusions in the project's Draft EIR. An analysis of impacts to these freeway ramps was included in the project's Draft EIR, Section 3.11 Transportation and Traffic, with a conclusion that impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the analysis and conclusions of the project's Draft EIR are based upon a transportation impact analysis which was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (2016) and peer reviewed by the Town's transportation consultant. As stated in the project's transportation impact analysis: "Per CMP technical guidelines, a freeway segment level of service analysis is required when a project would add trips greater than one percent of a segment's capacity. Although the proposed project would add trips greater than one percent of capacity on southbound SR 17 from Lark Avenue to Los Gatos - Saratoga Road during the AM peak hour, this freeway segment is currently operating at an acceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour. The increase in segment trips would not significantly impact the freeway LOS." No further analysis or mitigation measures are required. The FEIR Response to CalTrans comments both explains away CalTrans comments using the Signal Light Level of Service (LOS) table below that includes a "B" at Alberto Way & Hwy 9. which our photographic evidence proves to be an LOS of F and leaves Los Gatos responsible for mitigations and to pay or finance them. Table 16 Sty Intersections F isring Levels of St i Sty Ntnnbei Intersection Peel Hoar Comsat Date Avg. Delay (set) LOS 1 KczntaCruz Ave &Los Gatos Saratoga R.z ./ AM 't.A21/2015 47.3 D PM 9/25/2014 37.2 D 2 University Ave & Las Gatos Saratoga Road AM 1/21/2015 34.5 C PM 9/25/2014 30_8 C 3 Ault ata Way & Los Gatcrs Saratoga Road AM 5/12/2015 11.2 B PM 5/12/2015 12.4 B 4 Los Gatos Blvd & Los Gatos Saratoga Road AM 5/12/2015 22.8 C FM 5/12/2015 24.3 C D Los Gatos Bald Sr Caldwell Ave/KennedyRoad AM 5/12/2015 37.2 D PM 5/12/2015 24A C Sp ared: HSgoL Tr, n po i Caas1r].MeS 30;0 6IPage The table is sourced from the very same Hexagon Consultants who refused to speak with us when we called to inquire about the computational methods and Highway 17 Traffic tables vs. their departure from reality as portrayed by our rush hour photographs. Furthermore, the stakes are much larger than this single Application. California Housing Element Law, Title 7. Planning and land use [65000 - 66499.58] requires that LG add housing in sufficient quantity to allow the holders of new jobs added into The Town, so the Application has impact on schools, roads and services that far exceed the puny traffic impact fees the Town plans to assess. An example: Lexington Elementary was rebuilt at a cost over $20M for up to 285 students, This equates to $70K per student. For reasons detailed from the 2010 Census below, the ball park of what a reasonable "per job created" School Impact Fee would be _72 (students / tenant employee) x $70K or $50K per Tenant Employee. However, LGUSD staffer Thomas Gray shares that the school impact fee is limited by law to $3.36 / sq ft for residential and $.54 / sq. ft. for commercial buildings. Using well known averages in California for family size (2.90 people/family, from this URL I s://www.census gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010 census/obi 1-cn137.html) and school age chldren's fraction of the population, the average tenant employee in the PD may be predicted to bring .72 of a student (https://wwwcensus.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.0f) to LG Area Schools. The present School impact Fee sums to $201/ student added to LG schools for Commercial buildings, a puny fraction of the real cost of $50K. The School Impact on our two LG school systems brought to LG are easily computed to be in the range of $16.7M vs: $44K at current school impact fees. We fail to see that The Town of LG should approve any new Proposed Development until such time as it can convince the State of California to eliminate this unfunded mandate that subsidizes the actual cost to schools generated by Planned Developments via a revised State authorization of Impact Fees that are in line with actual impact costs to add new students. The computation of "New Trips" generated to and from the PD originally submitted was woefully inadequate. Point -by -point, what follows is our explanation of how the changes contained in the Revised PD ignores consequences of the EIR's warnings and is adverse to specific portions of LG's 2020 General Plan, Ordinances and Commercial Design Standards. H. The evsed P1' ttempts and FaHs to address these ossLuies A. Revuewabd ty The Revised PD is not adequately reviewable since it is a simply a set of revised plans. In order for Citizens and LG Staff to review it, there must be full complement of documentation, including a revised DEIR. The Original EIR is inadequate and incorrect in many areas. Since the EIR is legally obliged to identify negative impacts and there are litigated precedents covering the consequences to Applicants & Jurisdictions to approvals of inadequate EIRs and Mitigations, we cannot agree that certification of the current EIR is in any Party's interest. 74Page B. Size & Mass of the Buildings The Revised PD reduces the floor space from 92,000 square feet to 83,000. During the Planning Commission hearing on Aug 24, 2016, Members suggested significant size reductions to between 43,000 and 62,000 as targets. The Revised PD is still so large that it violates Section 1.4 of LGs Commercial Design Guidelines. Applicant will attempt to position the current design to the Town as acceptable by attempting to position it as a 25% decrease in Mass by changing the roof design to reduce the new height. The Revised PD combines all the floor space into one huge building and attempts to mask its mass by: moving it to the rear of the property and - reducing its height. It still does not conform to Section 5.1.1 of LGs Commercial Design Guidelines. C. VTA decided to fund the 9 & 17 Interchange before Measure B passed The Revised PD would, if approved and construction started, block the VTA Approved & funded renovation. Los Gatos needs the improvements for traffic congestion relief. LG should not therefore approve any application for this parcel prior to completion of the intersection's design and condemnation of any portion needed for the interchange renovation. Los Gatos needs the interchange improvements for traffic congestion relief and pedestrian / cycling safety. LG should not therefore approve any application for this parcel prior to completion of the intersection's design and condemnation of any portion needed for the intersection renovation. Furthermore, VTA does have the Hwy-17 widening to or past Hwy 9 on its future project list. VTA documentation, including the Resolution clarifying the 9 & 17 is funded are attached. D. North side of Revised PD allows its Tenants to look into Las Casitas Windows and confiscates 100% of Las Casitas Santa Cruz Mountain views The Revised PD moves the North end of one single massive building farther from Las Casitas. It is still 2 stories and second story windows, creating line -of -sight into nearby Las Casitas second story bedrooms. This is in violation of Commercial Design section 2.3.3.The Revised PD then attempts to block the view with trees, which still removes the Mountain views enjoyed by Las Casitas owners and residents. The only method that can completely and permanently prevent this violation of the Commercial Building Guidelines is that the North half of the proposed building is one story. This is consistent with feedback from the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Members to Iamb Partners to reduce the size to between 43,000 to 60,000 square feet. 2.3.3 Respect the privacy of neighboring residents a) Aroid windows which would provide riets s into residential private yes(' spaces. Avoid windows looking into residential private yard spaces 8IPage E. Buildings block our Santa Cruz Mountain Views The Revised PD combines all the floor space into one huge, massive building and attempts to address it's blockage of our Mountain Views by lowering the foundation's elevation by 4.5 feet. moving it to the rear of the property and modifying the roof features. The Revised PD blocks all the view we have now with the exception of the highest peak to the west and does not conform to Los Gatos Policy CD1.1. The only acceptable design that would conform to LG Policies, Ordinances and Commercial Design Guidelines would be a one story building. Below are photos of the present Mountain views followed by the view afforded by the Revised PD as shown in Applicant's illustrations. Blue netting outlines the current March 9, 2017 building profile and orange was the design as of the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing. On a "viewable area" basis, the photos show that the presently submitted March 9, 2017 profile block, in total, over 90% of our current Santa Cruz Mountain views. 9JPage Photo is view from 420 Alberto (Pueblo) - enlarge the photo to see that the March 9 Story Poles (Blue netting) eliminate approximately 75% of the existing SC Mountain view. 10IPage • Photo 2: view from 420 Alberto (Pueblo) - enlarge the photo to see that the March 9 Story Poles (Blue netting) eliminates approximately 90% of the existing SC Mountain view. 11'Page Photo 3: view from 420 Alberto (Pueblo) - enlarge the photo to see that the March 9 Story Poles (Blue netting) eliminates approximately 95% of the existing SC Mountain view. 121Page Photo 4: Is the view from 435 Alberto (Las Casitas) - enlarge the photo to see that the March 9 Story Poles (Blue netting) eliminate 100% of the existing SC Mountain view. Applicant failed to submit an illustration for this view. 131Page 0 VLF. . "� FR EA* 7 O F TrE - TREE5 AT tN"TL&L aac-r rrf Photo (Illustration) 5: Applicant's February 2017 design Artist Rendering from the N drive of 420 Alberto Way: approximately 90% of the present Santa Cruz Mountain Views are eliminated by this design.. �'2 VIEW FROM NORTH EAST OF SITE - TREES AT FIVE-YEAR GROWTH Photo, (Illustration) 6: Applicant's updated March 2017 design Artist Rendering at build -out + 5 years: by 10 years, only the one highest peak will be visible. 14IPage 1 libie 41444411.4 PALI 1141111 - llilllpeseila 1iSW111;11E1117 P! 2 semi marl aim se■ ■e1 r r ■ U I 111;7f 1 411IGII111U11,7111 tli EAST al-vkTia.": 0 Photo (Illustration) 7: Applicant's updated March 2017 design: illustration attempting to favorably position the Mass of their March 9, 2017 design to the Original (as of August 24,2016) design: the March 9, 2017 design removes 90% of our present SC Mountain views. The entire North (right) side of the building would need to be one story to comply with LG 2020 General Plan, Commercial Design and Ordinance requirements. Revised PD Eliminates on -street parking & denies residential access to its parking spaces by permit or explicit permission. Even though the Revised PD provides significantly more parking spaces in the front, the PD shows them to be off limits to Residents via signage. Applicant told us during outreach that the Plan is for existing street parking spaces to be removed and the PD's street level parking would not be made available to residents. i . kevised PD tails to adequately straighten s! for Safety & on-s. =et parking This is in response to our rejection of Mitigations T-1 & T-1 in the FEIR. Alberto way is not sufficiently widened to keep all existing on -street parking nor is the curve straightened enough to elevate the flow and safety of traffic. Alberto Way's pavement width is presently 36 feet. At community outreach, Applicant described widening the pavement from 39 feet to 42 feet. The PD, however, shows widening the ROW by 0" to 3'-6" near the North end of the Revised PD and down to 2'-9" at the South end by Hwy-9. We asked for more like widening the pavement to 49 feet to accommodate improved safety, parking, the bike lane, two auto exit lanes and one incoming lane as illustrated by this aerial photo and the white line. Coosi:e •a fi c.. TWtnlM`% 7..4, 0:-R1 A:e i. a:.1.7. ❑ :. 7,7 ❑:. Ri ❑ a. RT ❑ 1., HER tone ❑:. c. . 0:- cw.. D:. 1re ▪ 1w.1 ❑ :. 704 r• • tees ud , se raiee.:. n — r x ,; 11:0 h J 1 ,t nit A...Ln.J►.'R S at, ® • 1_ .. U w :. •. t. ;,". 15IPage G. Traffic on Hwy 9 is already too congested & Alberto Way will become severely congested by the Revised PD 1. Traffic congestion will impact Alberto Way and LG within a 1 mile radius a. Adding more traffic will make rush hour unbearable b. As is without adding another 342+cars we have severe backups for cars traveling East (hwy17 to Los Gatos Blvd) and turning left into Alberto way c. Traffic should consider proposed construction at Alberto Oaks (475-485 Alberto Way) to account for cumulative effect, Proposed construction at Alberto Oaks is submitted and known and needs to be considered. H. Our traffic Study - See Also Roman Rufanov's companion submission To largely avoid duplication we split the Traffic comments - please see Roman Rufanov's companion submission from Las Casitas. We conducted our own Traffic Study for this submission. We observed the 7:45AM-8:45AM & 5:15PM - 6:15PM rush hours multiple times. Eastbound Hwy-9 traffic takes several cycles and several minutes for vehicles to get through the lights at Los Gatos Blvd and Alberto Way. All observations see continuous light failures at Hwy 9 & Alberto with vehicles waiting for several minutes through multiple cycles to clear the intersection and move up onto Los Gatos Blvd. Here is one of two sets of photos taken of the Alberto Way & Hwy-9 intersection during the AM Rush Hour on September 15, 2016 between 7:45Am and 8:45AM: We've highlighted the backups resulting from: - present failures to clear the light at Alberto & Hwy-9 which blocks either one or both Hwy-17 ramps onto Eastbound Hwy 9 - present failures to clear the light at Hwy-9 onto Los Gatos Blvd 16'Pagge Sep 15 Here is the second of the photo series we've recorded. It was made during the 7:45AM-8:45AM on September 7, 2016, a school day. This continuous series illustrates one of several observed AM "failures to clear" at the Alberto & Hwy 9 intersection. 17IPage 181Page Here is a series of 5:15PM -- 6:15PM Rush Hour photos taken on February 27, 2017, illustrating several instances of the same eastbound backup and "failure to clear" the Alberto & Hwy-9 intersection as the AM Rush. First set showing the intersection's congestion; Left view is to the West on Hwy-9 and right view is East on Hwy-9. 19'Page Here is a second set showing the intersection's congestion:. Left view looks East on Hwy-9 and right view looks West on Hwy-9. 201Page Here is a third set showing the intersection's failure to clear. Left view looks East on Hwy-9 and right view looks West on Hwy-9. 21 1Page Here is a fourth set during the 5:15PM — 6:15PM Rush Hour photo series taken on February 27, 2017, illustrating the same eastbound backup as the AM Rush. Note that the left view shows the black auto in the intersection where it remains after the light at Alberto on Hwy-9 changes to green. 22IPage Here is a fifth set of 5:15PM — 6:15PM Rush Hour photos taken on February 27, 2017, illustrating the same eastbound backup: Left view is to the West on Hwy-9 and right view is East on Hwy-9. And finally, here is a sequence of photos at 5:40PM on April 4, 2017showing the Los Gatos Blvd & Hwy-9 congestion that drives the Hwy-9 & Alberto Way Signal Light to an "F" LOS. What happens in the PM Rush is that the Southbound traffic on LG Blvd backs up toward Van Meter Elementary. Southbound LG Blvd Cars wanting to tum West on Hwy-9 are stuck in the line since the LG Blvd section between Hwy-9 and Van Meter is one lane in each direction with a short right turn pocket near Hwy-9. Meanwhile, most Eastbound traffic on Hwy-9 is destined for Northbound Los Gatos Blvd, so it backs up past Alberto, the Hwy-17 North off -ramp all the way to the Hwy-17 Overpass. 231Page This photo shows southbound Los Gatos Blvd from its intersection with Los Gatos Blvd (Hwy-9): it's backed up as far as the eye can see. 24IPage This second photo shows traffic arriving from the West on Los Gatos-Saratoge Rd (Hwy-9) at Los Gatos Blvd. It's backed up past Alberto Way & the Hwy-17 Ramp: the last visible car is on the Hwy-17 overpass. 251Page This photo series is proof positive that the Alberto Way & Hwy-9 intersection is above capacity, failing and delivering a Level of Service (LDS) of F today. The EIR's traffic computations are clearly incorrect and the EIR must be re -done, mitigations accounted for, funded and re -circulated for comments. Applicant's traffic study does not reveal this fact as observed by us and photographed multiple times, proving the inaccuracy of the Applicant's Traffic Study. This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the EIR or addressed in any Mitigation since the Tenant population is not known or limited in the EIR and since the Applicant omitted the Hwy-17 Intersection and Traffic in the EIR. We further observed on multiple occasions that, as shown above, that the root cause of the AM & PM Rush Hours "F LOS" is the congested 2 lane segment of Los Gatos Blvd from its transition in front of Van Meter Elementary to the Town's offices. This cannot be addressed by any traffic signal coordination as has been described by the Applicant in the August 24, 2015. No trip generating PD should be approved before Los Gatos Blvd is widened. The EIR inadequately addresses Traffic, both present, future and cumulative and needs revision to address the current rush hour congestion and re -circulation for comments. Below are the results of the sensitivity study we delivered for the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing scaled down to show trips generated by the PD based on the 9,000 square foot reduction to 83,000 square feet: k_ , .AM tot PM tat 5 Alberto Revised PD Dail 'oresentiy as Present' n Count Sensitivity Studv _jaaiir fi c 2 bouts as flied least Possltfie Trek 1 hour Rush 45 minute Rush most likely rush time) 30minute Rush 0,5 •Ti.Rat T—` AM 11340 AM out 334 PM in 340 PM Out 140 ogees employees employees employees AM 663 Altnut 6n3 rri 661 PM out 663 tie ias Revisi' as Revise'Employs-eV fesp+uyeo5la fmployeesp fmpioyeesq 384 574 51 76 405 609 805 1208 scale to 83,000 sq ft 0.90217 The Traffic Report in the Transportation DEIR is Defective: The Technical Traffic Appendices to the EIR Transportation Report (H) are missing. The Busy Hours are not specified. The counts are low enough that Applicant apparently counted traffic outside the busy hours. Applicant's traffic study recorded an incorrect Number of Busy Period Trips into and out of Alberto Way to be generated by the Proposed Development: and has an economic incentive to do so to get the project approved anyway and to reduce cost the traffic impact fees. They omitted both lunch-time exits and re-entries as we!! as mid -day exits and re-entries by employees, many of which occur during the busiest two daily rush hours: Early AM and at the end of the day. And since the Applicant's traffic study did not find that the intersection of Alberto Way & Hwy-9 has a present Level of Service (LOS) of "F" during the Early AM & Day End Rush Hours, the study cannot be accepted as representative of actual observable reality. The photographed congestion through multiple observations proves otherwise. 261Page ased on the photographic evidence, the traffic report is rife with: Errored data of the Hwy-17 intersections of Hwy-9 & Lark Ave from the Intersections at which Traffic was studied that omit the numbers needed to verify the Traffic Study in its entirety and in specific enable Applicant to falsely report the present and as -proposed Rush Period traffic caused by the proposed development - It is obvious from the photos that the Traffic Study data incorrectly depresses the submitted numbers for Rush Period vehicle arrivals at Alberto Way and Hwy-9 both presently and as generated by the Proposed Development - Similarly, the Study incorrectly portrays the number of Busy Period Trips into and out of Alberto Way to be generated by the Proposed Development. - We believe the photos show that the Study's time interval during the Rush Period incorrectly reduces Rush Period vehicle arrivals at Alberto Way and Hwy-9 both presently and as generated by the Proposed Development - We believe that the sq. ft. per employee assumption submitted for the Proposed Development is the subject of gross underestimation in a manner which would correspondingly also understate the daily and rush period trips generated by the Proposed Development. - Substitution of partial and stale Hwy-17 traffic data in the place of collecting traffic data during 2015 when the Alberto Way & Hwy-9 intersection was studied seems to have been sourced from either Caltrans in 2013 (stated by 011ie Zhou Hexagon on the phone) or from VTA in 2014 (Stated in one of the Applicant's filings). All of the omissions, assumptions and false numeric entries work in whole to under -represent the traffic generated by the Proposed Development. Traffic Impact Rebuttal: 1. There is no Construction Plan and no Plan can avoid blocking Residents and emergency vehicles for extended periods of time The Revised PD contains no construction plan. Alberto Way is a dead-end street with only one entrance / exit. The only access points that would avoid extended blockage of our access to and from our homes on Alberto Way would be that access to the construction site is allowed from a temporary entrance to and exit from Hwy 9 and the Northbound ramp of Hwy 17 adjacent to the property. Applicant will damage both roads regardless of entrance and exit points with concrete, dirt & construction material trucks. Il. Revised PD did not attempt to address these EIR Issues at all A. Hydrology & Geo-Technical 1 lssrleE ;40(1r-Ps=:ed by our expert, n, Geissler (report aft2checi). a) The Water Table is now too shallow now for a 2-level underground garage and requires boring at this time to confirm the current wet period water table level prior to approval & start of construction b) The ENGEO Geo-Tec report finds in section 4.1.4 that the PD's foundation is subject to settlement from liquefaction during shaking or construction induced earth defect after construction. Should the foundation crack below the waterline, no waterproofing can guarantee that leaks won't occur. No underground parking can remain dry with cracks. Safeway's single -level underground garage, for example, has suffered rising water 27!Page flooding since the winter of 2014-2015 as an example of this phenomenon. The Revised PD does not address this risk to the PD itself. Our hydrology expert Dr. Peter Geissler, PE, asserts that settling after construction or liquefaction are, at some point in its life, likely to crack the foundation of the underground parking structure, leading it to flood and need continuous de -watering. The Revised PD does not address this risk. c) ENGEO's report finds in section 4.2 that existing fill is a settlement risk. It does not address the existing fill on the site from the 1950's era construction of Lenihan Dam and the accompanying Hwy 17 re -construction that filled in the former Los Gatos Creek area that was at the time beneath the PD's property, installed the concrete swale on the other side of 17, eliminating the LG creek channel that used to flow beneath the PD. The Revised PD does not address this risk. d) ENGEO's report shows water level at 21 feet below elevation, 340 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The boring was done while the site was still in the drought. e) ENGEO's report in section 5.9 recommended no de -watering beneath or around the parking structure. De - watering will be required once the foundation cracks from either liquefaction or fill -induced settlement. f) The Revised PD places the ground level of the building at 336.5 ft AMSL, 5 feet lower elevation than the site's 2015 Boring Logs show water at 21 feet below ground level. This means water was, at that time, 17.5 feet below the currently proposed ground level. This means that water was at a level that is 2.5 feet above the currently proposed P-2 (lower parking level) floor. g) Our Hydrology Expert, Dr Geissler finds that the local dewatering in the coffer dam needed around the underground parking structure is likely to cause ground subsidence during construction that is large enough to shift foundations of existing buildings within an area of influence 250 feet around the PD. This includes Las Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, Grill 57, Satellite Health Care & the Inn at Los Gatos. This can cause foundation shifts leading to cracks or pipe breaks to our properties, Las Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, and also to Grill 57, Satellite Health Care & the Best Western Inn at Los Gatos. h) Our Hydrology Expert, Dr Geissler finds that the underground water diversion around the PDs underground parking structure may interfere with current underground water flow in the area. This is covered in more detail below in section 3. Applicant's Revised PO would construct a 2-level underground parking structure that will run into water issues that appear to be insurmountable. The PD sits on a filled -in former portion of the Los Gatos Creek bed. Viewing satellite photos of LG from 17 & S. Santa Cruz Ave through Vasona Reservoir and on through Campbell on Google Earth, one can clearly see that 405 Alberto sits in the original LG Creek bed. The creek itself was re-routed during the mid-1950's during the Lenihan Dam's construction for flood control and water supply reasons. This eliminated the frequent floods into Los Gatos. The concrete swale was constructed from S Santa Cruz Ave to about 250 ft N of Hwy 9 to keep LG Creek out of the remainder of the plain in which the Revised PD sits. A rebuild of Hwy-17 at that time accommodated the concrete swale. A Caltrans magazine from the era describes it: "Included in this project is a relocation of Los Gatos Creek for a distance of 6,000 feet, requiring a concrete line channel." The construction is documented on-line here: https://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Los Gatos Creek (Santa Clara County, California) We know residents of Los Gatos who lived in here during the 1950's before LG Creek was diverted from beneath 405 Alberto. Additional proof is found in an easement to San Jose Water Works granted in 1876 for a water flume on Tract II of 17250 Pine to the North of 401-409 Alberto (APN 529-21-044) and the position of the former Forbes Mill to the South, which used water wheel power when built. 2. Water tabu berneatii the Revise() PD has risen significantly since the June, 2015 borings. 2,8[Page a) Applicant drilled 3 core borings on June 27, 2015 (B1, B2 & B3) shown in the hydrology report. b) ENGEO found water at 21 feet below the elevation of B2, which is 340 feet AMSL (above Mean Sea Level). This means that the Revised PDs lowest parking level (P-2) was partially underwater per the EIR's ENGEO report. c) At the community outreach meeting, Applicant described that it would now build the walls of the entire structure with poured concrete as an attempt to counteract the "hydrological pressure." This means the entire structure would have been and might still be Light enough to float up until it cracks and floods. We computed the weight of the building and of the water it displaces and should the depth to water at the North end be in the 0-10 feet range, as illustrated in SCVWD map below, the North end of the building would be subjected to significantly larger "Lift Forces" than the South end of the building since the weight of the water displaced by the building is greater in that region. This Lift differential is much more likely to cause cracks in the North end of the underground parking structure than if the "depth to water" is uniform. PD presents no Civil Engineering representation that the UG Parking Structure is immune to lift differential -induced cracks. Cracks would lead to leaks and constant water removal, which could cause the same land subsidence detailed in Dr, Geissler's report for construction de -watering. d) The Revised PD places the above ground floor's slab at 336.5 ft AMSL, 3.5 feet below the top of B3's elevation at 340 ft AMSL. Revised PD sheet 15 reveals that it lowers the foundation of the first floor to 4.5 feet below the location of B3 and then excavates to place the below ground P-2 floor at 20.5 feet lower. The excavation will be 2-3 feet lower than the foundation and will hit deep water during construction. This table illustrates the water level below boring B2 in June, 2015 and likely February 2017 levels per Dr. Geissler and the illustration of "depth to water", overlaid onto the floor levels shown in the Revised PD. Underground Water Table Levels In Revised 405 Alberto Planned Development: July 2015 at Depth of Drotrghtvs. Februaur2017 atter Draught Recovery June 27, 2015 -B2 claimed Bored In ENGEO EJR Report Location Elevation - FeetMASI Feet Below Top af 82 Water over Park LvI2Floor February 2017 per Dr. Geissler Report Feet Below [levofB2 Water Iv! Feet >P-1arP2 Top of boring B2 per Revised PD Sheet 16 1st Foot Level Revised PD, sheet 15 UG Water Ivl in boring B2 & above P-2 floor - Floor level ofP-1sheet 15 UG Water Level in boring 62 & above P-2 floor per ENGEO report Floor Level P-2 per sheet 15 340 0 336.5 -3.5 - 325 -15 UG water level is 3 feet above P-2 320 •21 floor 316 -24 0 -3.5 UG water level tan be as at high level of -12 high as 3ft above P-1 Floor -15 UG water level tan be as at low level of •113 low as 6 It above p-2 Floor -24 e) The DEIR made no mention of the fact that, at the time of its publication, the water table was higher than the floor of lower parking level P-2. It does, however, state that the PD is likely to suffer settling & cracking. This will lead to flooding in the parking structure and constant pumping the water out of the parking structure as well as from around and beneath the foundation, thereby causing foundation shifts to Las Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, Grill 57 and likely pipe breaks in water & sewer serving all communities and businesses along Alberto Way. f) There is no Hydrology mitigation plan that can relieve the conditions mentioned in a) through e), nor are they acknowledged or addressed in the DEIR. tiydrolo y Illupacts to us that are not revealed in the EIR ere ID'd by our Expert We hired Dr. Peter Geissler, a certified PE who specializes in Hydrology to advise us. His report is attached. a) Our expert Dr. Geissler reports that adverse impact on surrounding properties will likely be caused by dewatering the Revised PDs underground parking structure excavation during construction to our foundations from soil subsidence in Las Casitas and Pueblo De Los Gatos. Both will be caused by the 29IPage u I', P. a C- k r.. :,d - O X It a. Fi ❑. Cz p Revised PD's de -watering (pumping from beneath its foundation required to drain P-1 & P-2) and ground movement caused by the interruption of the present water flow by blockage of water flow from the area beneath the PD to around the underground parking structure and the water flow backup to our properties caused by the underground parking structure. b) Water Table level was measured by Applicant during the period of the lowest possible water table level at the end of the 5 year drought c) Next is a screen shot of the water depth map kept by the Santa Clara Valley Water District for Los Gatos showing the Revised PD site and the neighbors properties to lie principally in the red 0-10 feet depth to water zone with the corner near to Hwy 9 & Alberto in the orange 10-20 feet zone: The map's URL is here (you will need to visit the site to zoom in and read the street names & Depth to Water legend): https:l/qis.valleywater.orq/GroundwaterElevations/map.php E C 4 a erdre : Mpa^gii aileyam crp.era.r,xa:i .r,,. an:rr.gd.phy. p- Appt .e.44.43 6.7r444 I*1144144.4cs 0140 040 Ous,:Xs Piev7 UrwseNte9WOM stir PoISUMW; Give Poor - iego This water depth map illustrates why the PD's underground parking structure, in both the Original & Revised designs, would move water toward us by pinching the constricted high water area shown in red, thereby pushing water into the surrounding properties in which underground water is already so close to the surface. This would further elevate the surface water in the surrounding properties. d) Water depth beneath Bella Vista Village (middle of the red 0-10 fi depth to water zone) is a low- lying area so close to the water table that ten townhomes, 110-132 Cuesta de Los Gatos have sump pumps installed under their ground level concrete slabs which are on a 1.5 foot high perimeter foundation. This area experiences water levels at inches below ground level in wet periods when their pumps operate. d): Bella Vista Village is at high risk to elevated ground water levels as portions of Bella Vista Village lie in a 0-10 feet below ground to water zone as does a portion of the PD's property, all of which is represented in the EIR as being in the 10-20 feet below ground to water zone. e) We note that the location of Boring B-3, shown below from the EIR, lies on the 0-10 feet depth to water zone on the map above. Engeo did not indicate the water depth, noting that the boring collapsed when removing the hollow auger. We find this curious since the purpose of the hollow auger was to extract the core intact from the auger itself: a collapse of the boring walls would have had no impact on the core and 30IPage therefore, the water depth would have been found. When we contacted Engeo with questions, they refused to confirm anything. tc7rt,�Rc.fnG•IGl� 406 ERPSANATIO Au imams Asr AMIginktri 1430 aa,azo IMP s64m OG7au CANN MC I GG QhZY. CAS D66VCSA eta, at' oc_.= RAM AS 1111115116 tL •w.Iwl\9f V1A 1 EIIFI-9•.I1.1.r flee, *WI bate Fy-II ow 31IPage f) The PD is likely to cause foundation movement or over -run these Bella Vista sump pumps' capacities. g) As further evidence of the drought recovery: the Santa Clara Plain water well depth has risen from 45 to 85 feet AMSL since the Summer of 2015 and the URL is here: (Santa Clara Valley Plain Well Depth Santa Clara Plain Well 07S01W25L001(San Jose 01. ► y r 5 .1 it 0 fa —11 7 C • er Aa C •-6- GIOtiNow•arFit dan ;ay./aryl, 2*1.7 h) The storm drainage system in front of the PD is already at capacity. These photos show the storm drainage over -running capacity immediately across the street from the PD: this has occurred during most of the current wet season storms, Blow up the photos to see water pooling in the drain grate. 321Page III. Not Addressed at all by Changes made in the Revised PD A. Aesthetics (3:1-14): EIR concludes no negative impacts - we disagree. EIR Conclusions (2)Impact: "The proposed project would change the visual character of the project site (less than significant)." As the EIR notes, the town architect found that the project was inconsistent with the 2020 General Plan that requires keeping with the small-town character and blending and harmonizing with established areas (EIR:2:23). Rebuttal: The report indicates that subsequently the project was "redesigned" to correct this problem. We do not see any change that would address the General Plan's requirement that the property type (office building), density and intensity be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. We see no indication that the developer would achieve the small-town character by "the quality of development plans and the judgment exercised in the design review process" (3:11). This project offers nothing to its neighbors. It replaces small businesses (chiropractors, law offices, and other community services) which are part of the community fabric of Los Gatos and the Alberto Way neighborhood with a massive building that will be off limits to its neighbors. (3)Impact: "The project would create less than significant light and glare (less than significant)." Rebuttal: Actually, the proposed building will stand very near the Las Casitas property and in that building people will work late hours and light will shine into Las Casitas bedrooms. People working late will be able to look out their windows into rooms at the Las Casitas complex. Moreover, the proposed building will cast giant shadows that will block the sunlight that residents currently enjoy. B. Air quality (3:14-38): Impacts are understated and mitigations inadequate The proposed project will introduce hundreds of trips into the Alberto Way cul-de-sac. As they wait to clear signals, cars will idle at intersections on Highway 9, at the Alberto Way intersection, and on the Highway 17 ramp area and its approach. As the EIR points out (3:146-47), there will be queues on the ramps and on Highway 9 that will require up to three or more signal cycles to clear. This idling will increase air pollution in the neighborhood. The mitigations suggested do not address the problem of congested traffic emissions. EIR CONCLUSIONS: Three Impacts (1) Impact: "The project is inconsistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan," the goal of which is to attain air quality standards and reduce population exposure. The Bay Air Basin is now in non -attainment status for some pollutants so emissions from the proposed project could elevate the pollution levels. Rebuttal to EIR's Impact mitigation measures: The furnace upgrade does not reduce vehicle emissions. The charging stations for electric/plug-in vehicles would have little effect on the traffic emissions, and there is no guarantee the tenants would have these kinds of cars in large numbers. Charging from a 24V charging station takes 9.5 hours for most popular Tesla Model S cars. Four cars will be able to charge per day, which is about 1% of the total parking spots. The construction site regulations for lower diesel emissions are not fully implemented now (3: 21-22). 33'Page The trip reduction program is voluntary and probably unrealistic: ride sharing may not occur; there is no easy access to public transit; cycling is not very convenient or safe. Tenants probably are not local residents, so they won't be walking or biking on dangerous roads. Restriping the intersection at Alberto Way is not going to reduce congestion because we currently have an unmarked right turn lane that we use and we still have long waits for a gap in traffic. Space for the bike box is problematic, and the extensive use of bicycles by tenants is questionable and proven by current tenants in both 475-485 and 401-409 Alberto Way to be negligible to non-existent. The sidewalk improvement is not necessary - we currently use the sidewalk that is there and the dangerous ramp crossings to highway 17 will not be improved. In short, none of these "mitigations" actually reduces traffic congestion significantly. Emissions will not be reduced. (2) Impact: "The project would result in less than significant emissions of criteria air pollution emissions due to a reduction in per capita trips." No mitigation necessary. Rebuttal: Mitigation is necessary. Where does the Clean Air Plan call for "per capita" trip statistics? This per capita approach is misleading in terms of traffic congestion. There would be an increase of hundreds of daily trips including hundreds in peak hours. This is an increase in trips and the PD provides no data on how the increase would contribute to pollution. The EIR concludes that because the site is an office complex, patrons will not spend time outside exposed to the roadway emissions with high volumes of traffic, including diesel trucks so the effect of roadway emissions is less than significant. This ignores the fact that Tenants will breathe the outside air via the PDs HVAC system. So do residents as they open windows & doors, walk in the neighborhood, including near the proposed project site, every day, and most homes have outdoor patios or balconies. (3)Impact: "The project could result in pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors." Rebuttal: The EIR concedes that sensitive receptors (elderly and seriously ill persons and children) are especially affected by pollutant concentrates and that a separation of 500 feet between high volume freeways and sensitive receptors is recommended. The California Air Resources Board says quality of life issues need to be considered for this population, not just the volume of daily trips. The CEQA guidelines require that there not be a net increase of criteria pollutants in non -attainment status and that sensitive receptors should not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. We need to know the pollution levels, especially on highway 17, to evaluate if the proposed project would create substantial levels of pollutants. Almost all Los Gatos Commons and Las Casitas residents are within 500 feet of Southbound Hwy 17. And we need to have the "quality of life" issue recognized and addressed. Response to Mitigation Measures: These measures focus on the construction site and the dust it will produce. One of our residents, Lewis Darrow, is a construction project manager/owners' rep with 30 years of experience working on projects in Silicon Valley. He is currently working on a similar project for a major client a two-story building of 96,000 square feet, with 210 spaces of underground parking. The site is located in a commercial business park with no residential neighbors and three times as much land with two access roads. Mr. Darrow points out that the Alberto Way site will not support the construction of this proposed project without major impacts on all of the residents in the Alberto Way neighborhood. The site being proposed at Alberto Way has one access point, a point already with congestion at the traffic light. To excavate a two story 332-car underground parking garage on this site would involve multiple diesel trucks in demolition and debris off hauling. Excavation could take six to eight weeks with dump trucks hauling 200 loads per day for 1450+ loads. Other trucks will be required: concrete trucks making 4-5 deliveries with about 200 loads per day, 10 yards per truck, 80 tons per load. The roads were not meant to support these massive construction loads and will have to be 341Page replaced and repaired. These trucks are massive and will be continuous, blocking visibility and creating plumes of dust and particulate into the air. If they try to control it with mist and water, the heavy treaded truck ties will drag mud everywhere. Cleanup will need to be constant, thus adding additional trucks and delays to the overtaxed street and intersection. These trucks and the number of them required and the number of trips required to do this project will emit diesel and particulate, and current regulations on diesel emissions are not fully implemented (3:21-22). The street will need to be closed down to be safe during these periods of demolition, excavation, concrete and foundation work. How will residents and clients of existing business and emergency vehicles be guaranteed access? They cannot be. All of these problems are worsened because of the proximity of the site exiting to the busy intersection and single entry point into Alberto Way. The number of workers to support concrete pours, rebar installation and general construction will number 60-80 at any given time and these workers will need to park somewhere. There is no space for them on Alberto Way. The proposed project will add serious air and noise pollution and ensnarl a small residential one -entry cul-de-sac with gridlock traffic. C. Public service (EIR 3:135-41): Negative Impacts that weren't identified 1. EIR conclusion Area Schools: The impact is not insignificant in our view. 3i51Page Rebuttal: There is no EIR for the Revised PD. The PD itself would force Los Gatos to allow construction of a living unit within its border for each job placed in it per CA Housing Element Law. And new legislation was recently submitted to add Penalties for non-compliance. The No Impact on Schools" conclusion in the EIR can only be true if State Housing Element Law didn't force Los Gatos to add living units within its border based on the number of jobs added within Los Gatos by the PD and if either all employees in the new building were already living in Los Gatos or have children in schools elsewhere. Some of the latter could place their children in the Los Gatos area private schools and after school programs, then then pick them up after work and drive home. This would increase traffic in the town and even a small increase in student population could require new facilities. This project will add students to the schools in Los Gatos, due to the addition of living units added to Los Gatos, a fact which seemingly is ignored in the EIR. The mention of a development impact fee does not include any specifics on how the fee would be used to address overcrowding. 2. EIR CONCLUSION Fire and Emergency Medical Services: The impact is not insignificant in our view. Rebuttal: There is no EIR for the Revised PD. There will be added delay time for emergency services caused by the Revised PD's added traffic congestion. The fire department and associated EMS on University south of Hwy-9 respond to emergencies on Alberto Way, and especially at the Commons senior condominiums. This is contrary to the EIR statement on 3:135 and as conveyed by Mr. Lamb in public meetings,. A higher than average 7.75 calls per month to Alberto Way since 2014 are documented, yet there is no plan to address delays. The traffic study by Hexagon did not consider the impact of the proposed project on emergency calls to the residents on Alberto Way; nor does the EIR, &though in the Traffic and Transportation section, access of emergency vehicles to the new building was assessed and the developer is required to produce a plan at some point in the future to show the project would not impede emergency response to the project site (3:179). Mr. Ray Toney, in a letter to the Planning Commission in August, 2016, reported that Mr. Lamb told him the Fire Department had approved the proposed project for safety. The Fire Department told Mr. Toney that that was not true. In addition to EMS vehicles, every day Outreach vehicles come to the Commons to take people to and from medical appointments. Hospice and home health workers come to administer pain relief, IV medication, chemotherapy, and physical therapy. Missed or delayed appointments due to traffic congestion are a real problem, as is the disruption of schedules of medicine. State of CA CEQA Section 21100(b)(5) specifies that the growth -inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an EIR. They were not. 36'Page State of CA CEQA Guideline Section 15126.2(d) states that a proposed project is growth -inducing if it could "foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." And that the EIR shall: Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 Specifies that: An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Reasons were largely missing in the EIR for this PD. D. Traffic & Transportation Conclusions of the EIR (3:141-80) & Rebuttals 1. Impact (EIR 3-140): The project would result in Tess than significant impacts to area fire department facilities Rebuttal: This is incorrect and is based on the Traffic Report's omitted and under -stated added trip numbers. The LOS at Hwy-9 & Alberto is highly under -reported as a result. We present photographic proof that the LOS during rush is much worse than "B" and is in fact an "F" during two of the Rush Hours now. Traffic Report is based on an exaggerated 2-hour rush period for tenant employee arrivals and departures, which lowers the reported rush period trip generation to below that generated by employer's stated working hours. Original Traffic Report used 370 employees in the PD based on an atypical "spacious" office layout Vs. the more typical 735 employees , which lowers the reported trip generation to below that generated by high tech employers using 1/3rd cubicles and 2/3rd bull pen office layouts. These figures are scaled to 90% of the original new trip generation figures. Rebuttal: EiR ignores its own observed AM Rush Hour Spillback on EB Hwy-9 approaching Alberto Way that has blocked Fire and EMS access to Alberto Way 37IPage This is what is ignored (EIR 3-146-147): Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. During the AM peak period, heavy traffic volume was observed only on the eastbound leg of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. There was spillback from the downstream intersection on Los Gatos -Saratoga. Road at Los Gatos Boulevard. As a result, the inner eastbound through lane on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road queued to the State Route 17 southbound on -ramp, and the outer eastbound through lane on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road queued onto the State Route 17 northbound off -ramp. Because of the spillback issue from Los Gatos Boulevard, the eastbound through movement on Los Gatos - Saratoga Road required several signal cycles to clear the queue. Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road_ During the AM peak period, heavy traffic volume was observed on the eastbound leg of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. The eastbound left -turn lane on Los Gatos - Saratoga Road feeds onto northbound Los Gatos Boulevard, but because of spillback issues at the downstream intersection at Caldwell Avenue, the eastbound left -turn lane on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road requires three cycles to clear. The right -turn lane on Los Gatos Saratoga Road queued only to the location of the Bella Vista Avenue overpass, and cleared within one signal cycle. No significant issues were observed on other movements. During the PM peak period, heavy traffic volumes were observed on the southbound through movement on Los Gatos Boulevard and eastbound left -turn movement on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. Both movements required two signal cycles to clear. Rebuttal: Additional trips generated by the Project were Under -reported: they will further block entry to Eastbound traffic from both Hwy-17 ramps and for Fire + EMS on University. All of the omissions, assumptions and false numeric entries work in whole to under -represent the traffic generated by the Proposed Development. Rebuttal: Traffic Fee calculation uses 700 additional trips ($615,800 / $879/additional trip). This is under -stated. This is far less than the fee that would be paid should the Tenants employ 735 people using the high density seating layout. Attached is an e-mail from Bernie Walik of Caltrans, The new trips generated in the rush periods alone are twice what the fee calculation shows presently. 2. False Traffic Report Data on Appendix H: Hwy-9 & Alberto Way: Eastbound PM Rush "Existing Proposed" Applicant is showing 1 parking space for approximately every 250 square feet. This equates to -332 employees. This said, it's clear that Applicant spread the trips generated over -2 hours Rush Period since it asserts --180+I- trips in the Peak Hour(s). The building's capacity is reasonably as high as 735 employees and there is no mass transit into Los Gatos. Employees will be principally commuters in autos with very minor numbers being in carpools and other alternatives. The rush period for tenants employees is much more likely to be 40 minutes rather than 2 hours. 38IPage While there are factors that can depress any particular day's "out of office" employee count, the trips generated will be far higher than Applicant estimates. Asserting reliance on ITE's Handbook without providing the detailed basis assumptions for this or anything else in the Traffic Report is a telling sign that Applicant may be hiding them to show lower results. Trip Generation Sensitivity Studer For decision making purposes, it's reasonable to size the building's floor space and parking space count so that the floor space limit is based on the minimum possible square feet per employee and that be used to compute the required parking spaces. Applicant selected a 2 hour peak window, spreading projected 332 +1- tenants' arrivals over 2 hours. Corporate tenants will have a scheduled start and end time: about 90% of employees arrive and leave within +1- 15 minutes of the start and end times, per the experience of those who work in these types of offices. Applicant has under -stated the Peak period traffic flow. Below we present the sensitivity study showing how peak traffic rates vary with the two variables that determine them: Tenant Employees and the width in minutes of the Peak Traffic Interval. Sensitivity Study of trip generation by the Proposed Development Employees vs. Peak Traffic Interval Filed by Applicant (top line on left) vs. Calculated Hourly Traffic Flow Rates in Vehicles/Hour Rush Period Trip Rate in Trips / Hour A' of `V TM 4vrr 'too 334 Pf n'3d0 'rful 405 Alberto Revised PD Daiit presently as Presently:. employees employe n,ployee empl0 'in Count Sen stud cRus flee Fle:a I as Pewsas Revis- evisi as Re 1 143, 19' 1 hour Rush 45 minute Rush most likely rush time 30 minute flush scale to 83,000 so ft 0..90217 AM in663 AMout 663 PM in 63i PrRnu1 Employ �_-� '.Employee,Employee Emplq•�. 302 304 ,lu _ 75 111r— _ 323 51 7. 405 760 100 148, 80. 76 11. ante. 1 "7 151 222 »n Applicant originally filed 159 AM inbound arrivals / hour and 152 PM outbound exits / hour for 370 tenant employees. We've scaled all numbers in the chart above down to 90.2% of the original to account for the reduction in the Revised PDs size. We observed and photographed the AM rush hour multiple times. Existing Eastbound Hwy-9 traffic takes several cycles and 6-8 minutes over 2-3 cycles to get through the light at Alberto Way. This means the intersection is failing and the Level of Service (LOS) is F. We further observed on multiple occasions that the root cause of the AM Rush "F LOS" is the congested 2 lane segment of Los Gatos Blvd from its transition in front of Van Meter Elementary to the Town's offices. No trip generating PD should be approved before Los Gatos Blvd is widened. This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation since the Tenant population is not known or limited in the FEIR and since the Applicant omitted the Hwy-17 Intersection and Traffic in the EIR. Rebuttal: FEIR did not identify all Transportation Environmental Impacts 39'Page The errored data, omissions, low -balled calculations and stale data (2013 or 2014 from Caltrans or VTA) led to omission of several Traffic Mitigation Techniques needing to be implemented by the Proposed Development (PD), or that the Proposed Development needs to be designed for, in order to accommodate their near term future construction. These are what the -$617K is or should be earmarked for. And the tab to be sent to Caltrans or the VTA has yet to be identified. The omissions accrue to the benefit of the Applicant. Furthermore, EIR ignores Los Gatos' own Design Rules and Policies, including the Los Gatos Commercial Design Standards: Streamline the development review process by more clearly communicating community expectations to property owners and developers. This has not been done with Citizens and [adjacent] property owners other than sending notice cards out. Impact (EIR: 3-i 1.9) 1 he project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for = rycles, perstrians, and tr nsit (less than significant) Rebuttal: There is no construction plan and no mitigation proposed while the sidewalk on the 401-409 Mberto side of the street is closed during demolition and construction There is no place for pedestrians to cross Alberto Way when the PD side is closed and they must cross to go to Los Gatos Blvd. There are dozens of children and elderly who walk to school and businesses from the PD side of the street. Today they walk to the corner and cross at the Hwy-9 light in the crosswalk. There is no crosswalk on Alberto and drivers traveling to and from Alberto Oaks speed all along Alberto Way. Rebuttal: This impact is significant since the Impact is Injury prone up to and including Death Rebuttal to Traffic Related Cumulative Impact Statements Traffic related impact statements that rely on the Traffic Study are errored due to: Traffic data errors on Table 20, Figures 6 & 11 Exaggerated assumptions that understate the Project - generated trips Rebuttals to Traffic Mitigations T-1 & T-2 Mitigation T-1 (EIR:3-175) is: T-1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to implement improvements for the restriping of Alberto Way to include a dedicated right-tum lane and a shared left through lane. Costs for these improvements will be determined by the Town's traffic consultant. Mitigation T-2 (EIR:3-177) is: T-2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide a bike box on Alberto Way at the intersection with Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, as well as the detached sidewalks with a landscape buffer on Alberto Way along the project site frontage, and on the north side of Los Gatos - Saratoga Road between Alberto Way and the State Route 17 northbound on -ramp. Mitigations T1 & T2 constitute a simple re -painting of Alberto Way. There is simply insufficient paved surface width to do this re -painting to convert what is presently 2 lanes into 3 lanes + the Bike Box. 40IPage Rebuttal: Mitigations T1 & T2 cannot be implemented as proposed: Alberto needs to be widened. The Revised PD proposes insufficient widening. The widening proposed in the Revised PD is insufficient and provides for sub -par minimum lane width of 10 feet The Caltrans Road Design Manual Chapter 300 specifies minimum lane width for an area collector road is 11 feet and 12 is preferred: Index 301.1 — Lane Width The minimum lane width on two-lane and multilane highvvays, ramps, collector -distributor roads, and other appurtenant roadways shall be 12 feet, except as follows: For conventional State highways with posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour and AADTT (truck volume) less than 250 per lane that are in urban, city or town centers (rural main streets), the minimum lane width shall be 11 feet. The preferred lane width is 12 feet. It goes on to specify minimum bike lane width at 4 feet. FEIR proposes these two mitigations together without widening Alberto Way. Alberto Way is 1 foot too narrow to do so using 11 foot wide lanes and 4 feet too narrow using the preferred 12 foot lanes. Mitigation T3 Causes a new and Unacceptable EnvuoHarnentai Impaci un 420 & 435 Alberto Way Residents & Visitors T-3 Off -site improvement plans shall show that parking on southbound Alberto Way between the two project driveways shall be prohibited to ensure sight distance is not obscured. Mitigation T-3 furthermore attempts to remove eight of "our" on -street parking spaces. 401-409, 420 & 435 Alberto Way and Alberto Way itself were designed with sufficient on -street and off-street parking for the sizes and occupancies of their buildings. 401-409 Alberto Way never have full parking lots. Los Gatos approved the construction of Grill 57, which replaced the former registration lobby of the Los Gatos Inn, which brought significant additional use of the on -street parking, without requiring that the Inn or Grill 57 add parking for its patrons. Now the Grill's employees and patrons use the on -street parking, forcing residents and guests to compete with residents and guests on Bella Vista and The Commons for on -street parking. Furthermore LP Acquisitions LLP declines in meetings with us to provide any substitute parking to Alberto Way Residents and our visitors who use on -street parking today. Elimination of on -street parking while denying 420 & 435 Alberto Way Residents & Visitors access to the same number of parking spots on the PD is an Environmental Impact of significant proportions that E!R proposes and along with the insufficient width of Alberto Way to implement Mitigations 1-3 without pavement widening. These misses accrue to the financial benefit of LP Acquisitions at the expense of Alberto Way Residents & Visitors. Mitigations T1, T2 & T-3 fail to widen Alberto Way in front of 401-409 to Los Gatos Street Design Standards despite the need to do so 41 IPage E. FEIR Impacts that have not been adequately addressed Unidentified Impact: The PD will depress Alberto Way Properly Values both during and after construction, Property that is sold during the construction period will sell at significantly lower pricing due to construction inconvenience and traffic uncertainty. PD proposes no compensation to damaged sellers. Property that is after construction will sell at significantly lower pricing due to added traffic, diminished desirability caused by the PDs non-compliance with the 2020 General Plan, LG Commercial Design Guidelines and Ordinances. PD proposes no compensation to damaged sellers. See the current impact on Real Estate as detailed in Melanie Kemp's report from Bella Vista Village. She is a practicing real estate agent. Unidentified Impact: The Revised PP driveway and narking areas are insufficient on Applicant's property when visitors are also parked and there is no alternative to blocking a portion of the street for moving trucks and a second bus: This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation. The PD is usable for: Underground parking is insufficient for use by Busses, UPS, Fedex and similar large delivery and moving trucks Driveway and its parking areas are sufficient only for brief stops by Busses, UPS, Fedex and similar large delivery trucks Unidentified Impact The Revised PD appears to have no turn -around large enough for Busses and the cul-de-sac at the end of Alberto is too small for the turn: this is not disclosed in the DEIR of FEIR and forecloses the possibility of most bus travel to the PD Unidentified Impact. The Revised PD Garage is blocked while trash and recycling is picked up, backing up traffic on Alberto & Hwy-9 or in the PDs garage while they are present this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: The curve in front of the PD is a sight problem for vehicles this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation l Inidnntifierl Impartconsfnrclien plan ran prevent cornpinte shutdown of ,Ihrrto k.W:v for extended periods since there is insufficient room for street ingress and egress of the large concrete trucks, cranes, materials delivery and dirt/debris hauling trucks without using the entire street to enter and exit the PD site and there will be a continuous stream of such trucks particularly during demolition, excavation & concrete pour: this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: During construction, work crews of 50 — 100 will be present on the site at all times, each arriving in a separate vehicles: it is not possible for them to all perk on the PD property after demolition ends. There is insufficient parking for them in the area: this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation 421Page Unidentified Impact: If water is used to control particulates during construction, the trucks exiting the site will leave with caked -on mud an their tires, which will be deposited in Alberto Way and Hwy-9 during construction: this Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: During construction, the load beds of Alberto Way and Hwy-9 will be destroyed or seriously damaged by the fully loaded concrete trucks which weigh up to 80 tons and fully loaded hauling trucks which weigh up to 30 tons: this Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation including T-2 (construction contract) and there is no construction damage Mitigation showing restoration of the roads at Applicant's expense: this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact. Mitigation T-2 calls for a construction contract with Los Gatos, however, there is no Mitigation for the construction contract with Caltrans Unidentified Impact: As a Mixed -Use development, the PD would, generate high levels of continuous traffic that are not disclosed in the DEIR or FEIR. Applicant has stated that the target tenants are corporate offices of 1-2 high tech firms and has not accurately characterized the trip generation this type of tenant nor disclosed calculation details despite our request to do so. No traffic study is submitted for a mixed use development. No Traffic Mitigation for Mixed Use is contained in the FEIR. F Revised and Missing Mitigation Alberto Way is highlighted in the Los Gatos street map as an Area Collector Road in the Los Gatos Maps. The Town's Street Design Standard here: http:/Iwww.losgatosca.gov11150130-Circulation requires that flatlands Streets to be designed with a 60 foot wide Right -of -Way (ROW) and 40 foot wide minimum pavement. Alberto Way has 36 foot wide pavement. To meet street design standards, Alberto Way needs widening and should be widened even more by eliminating the curve in front of the PD and keeping on -street parking vs. minimizing applicant's costs at the Alberto Way Residents' expense. The EIR proposes no such widening per the Design Standard at Applicant's expense, but rather to Impact us by removing on -street parking instead of widening Alberto by using a pertion of Applicant's land to accomplish the traffic safety objective while preserving our on -street parking. FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-4: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane along the entire length of the Proposed Development on Hwy-9 to allow safe right turns from Alberto Way: This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation. 43IPage vGo •rleg, F[e Fdt Yxs huh AN Get woolen.• gain • 0.. R1 D,: o R2 ❑ a'= rj O . RR p8v Rs ❑a• R6 0ao R7 O o CZ Ong ▪ Cone; Coro,0io Coro, Sao= luny? O . lion 7 ❑ :. G:s lu•o:oo ae conk: - []' c.,,mery. bn+ka. 0 • f0'F/ Farde•.ao9;wds Ply n r: • E Fkara CI= Roes. ' ▪ 0 $E Wise . • 0) 4kEelAxeaeness • Men — s x ■ This Mitigation is needed because: Since Hwy-9 is 1 lane in each direction, there is not sufficient room to extend the EB left turn pocket into Alberto Way by enough to avoid queued Present + PD generated Busy Period traffic from creating AM Gridlock (see our Traffic Study findings & corrections) Enables widening Hwy 9 WB from 1 lane to 2 from Alberto Way to the Hwy-17 Overpass for 2 continuous lanes Left turn lane from Hwy-9 east bound into Alberto enhances safety and allows Bus & Delivery Truck into Alberto by reducing queuing, gridlock and EMS blockages - The proposed sidewalk replacement on the south side of PD along Hwy 9 is purely cosmetic in nature and solves no actual Environmental Impact FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-5: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane each direction between the Hwy-17 Overpass and the lane sections on both sides to enable the EB left turn pocket into Alberto to be extended enough to prevent AM gridlock This Major Environmental Impact Design defect is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation 44IPage • any... Tar& QM."ir - PJ.: e. oeswete • E`iF .^crec,e Br. w ... -▪ Elo 0 mac. Oc red; • .y Qces • ❑ 0 w.,,M. • 0 Gt., • D:v' • 0.- Mr. This is needed because: - Each end of the 4 - lane Hwy 17 overpass is 1 Hwy-9 lane for a hundred feet or so - Since Hwy-9 is 1 lane in each direction, there is not sufficient room to extend the EB left turn pocket into Alberto Way by enough to avoid queued Present + PD generated Busy Period traffic from creating AM Rush Hour Gridlock (see our Traffic Study findings & busy period corrections) - Widens Hwy 9 from 1 lane to 2 in the west direction from the Hwy 17 Overpass to Alberto Way - Eliminate the gridlock and congestion as well as to extend the left turn lane from Hwy-9 east bound into Alberto to control EB queuing, gridlock and EMS blockages - It is a step that enables the renovation of the 17 & 9 Intersection to handle the increased traffic actually to be caused by the correct traffic volumes generated by the PD as well as future increases FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-6: Reduce PD Footprint by enough to enable the widening of Hwy-9 by one lane each direction between the Hwy-17 Overpass and the 2 lane sections on both sides 45IPage doggie WI% — e x RC lit NI. lash *d P1 i C.W D?ra& 19.stry ❑;- R, ❑:.R? o:z. RS R5 ❑t. Tro O :t RY 0:• wan lPM 0:. Curer: ❑ :.- Itrn � :t• Teti I.M'Ma e • 0. Apr This is needed because: The PD, if built, would otherwise foreclose the possibility of ever rebuilding the Hwys 17 & 9 intersection since the placement of the proposed buildings location and footprint are on top of land needed to rebuild the intersection. - Or is the PD were built, renovating the Intersection would require the removal of significant portions of the PD at a high cost to Caltrans and Los Gatos. Our Citizens Opposition report filed on August 4 detailed these changes as well. ALTERNATIVES (DR 6: 1-12): Alterna,'ves Considered Alternative #1: No Project/Existing Square Footage. We disagree that the existing square footage alternative would "not be consistent with the proposed project's objectives" or only "partially" met. The only question would be how to provide a building that satisfies the wishes of high-tech office users in Class A office space. Surely it would be possible with a creative design and with some selectivity in tenants. Alternative #2: Reduced Project, A one-story underground parking garage would carry the negative impacts we raised in Traffic, Transportation and Air Quality. Revised PE) lesian Features in cerfliet with Genera! Plan Policies LU-1.2: "Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance of a small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image." LU-1.8: "Commercial development of any type (office retail, research and development, etc.) shall be designed in keeping with the small-town character of Los Gatos" LU-6.3: "Protect existing residential areas from adjacent non-residential uses by assuring that buffers are developed and maintained. 46IPage LU-9.1: Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance of a small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image. LU-9.6: Encourage development that maintains and expands resident -oriented service and/or creates employment opportunities for local residents consistent with overall land use policies of the Town. LU-9.9: Buffers shall be required as conditions of approval for non-residential projects that are adjacent to residential areas and may consist of landscaping, sound barriers, building setbacks, or open space. 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 with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area." CD-3.7: Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened and such screening shall be considered as part of the structure foe height limitations. TRA-6.5: Require bicycle parking in private parking lots, and provide bicycle parking in all public lots in the Downtown," TRA-9.5: Alternative transportation means shall be required whenever the traffic generated by a development would result in a significant increase in air pollution, traffic congestion, or noise. Revised PD Features in conflict with LG Commercial Design Guidelines Referring to :ittp:flwww.losgatosca.qov/DocumentCenterNiew/325 HERE IS THE UST OF FEATURES IN CONFLICT: 3 PURPOSE The guidelines contained in this document are intended to accomplish the following: Provide a greater degree of project review and approval predictability. Plan Deficiency: The guidelines in the Purpose section are not adhered to by the proposed project. The project review was minimal from the perspective of the residents of Alberto Way. The project staff did not interact in a significant way with the residents or attend the meetings held by the developer in the neighborhood. The Developer held very few meetings and in his interaction with the residents was at time not forthright or courteous; he made it clear he was not interested in the residents' input. The guidelines call for the streamlining of the development review process by more clearly communicating community expectations to property owners and developers. But the property owners did not have much contact with the planning staff in the early stages of the review process and did not receive timely information in the more recent time. Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos Plan Deficiency: The proposed project does not reinforce and support the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos because the immense scale contrasts with any office building in the neighborhood or downtown. Thus, the proposed building scale is not consistent with the Town's small scale image. . 47IPage Maintain a building scale that is consistent with the Town's small scale image. Plan Deficiency: The building is 34 x the size of surrounding buildings and others in The Town Reinforce the special qualities of the Town's visual character. Plan Deficiency: The building is a serious break from the Town's character due to its floor space and mass Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate adiacent development. Plan Deficiency: Approval would be inappropriate adjacent development. To encourage signs which are in scale and harmony with the architecture and the character of the Town. Plan Deficiency: there is no signage plan for the PD. 1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS Maintenance of the existing small town fee' Plan Deficiency: The project does not maintain the existing small town feel; it is massive in scale, looks like a downtown San Jose or San Mateo development and looms over the other structures on the street. Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town's residential structures Plan Deficiency: PD building is not similar at all Small scale huildinos with a strung neriestrian orientation Plan Deficiency: There cannot be a strong pedestrian orientation because access to the West is made difficult by the unmitigated dangerous ramp crossings between the proposed project site and the University and Santa Cruz downtown streets. The sensitive interlace of on Icial developnent with adjacent residential neighborhoods Plan Deficiency: This massive building is clearly could not be described as providing a sensitive interface of commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Strong encouragement of a unique i_os Gatos scale and character Plan Deficiency: This massive building fails to encourage the unique scale and character of Los Gatos and is more suitable as a remodel or replacement of the current footprint and limited to one story so it does not interfere with existing mountain and sunset views. �.b.`i Design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Los Gatos r„-era11 building masses into segmcn-or, similpr to those cif nt 7rh', ctrurt(ires and parcel. Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development is one massive buildings with almost 2 acre on 2 floors under roof. It is far from similar in scale to all other nearby parcels and structures. Avoid design which consists largety of boxes with applied design elements Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development's building contains 3 massive boxed sections with a minor modification from pure rectangles. 481Page Break facade segments into module. that reflect those common along nearby commercial building frontages. For facades along streets that are closely related to nearby residences, break larger building elements into modules that are sympathetic to the smaller scale of those houses. Plan Deficiency: The building is not at all sympathetic to the smaller scale or nearby residential structures. 1.5.3 Provide a unified design around all sides of buildings Where continuity of design is difficult to achieve, substantial landscapin should be provided to screen the area. Los Gatos example of facade depth and detail Los Gatos example above showing simple reflection of front facade design on building side Commercial Design Guidelines Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development plans to remove all existing mature landscaping and replace them with immature non substantial landscaping whose trees will take decades to screen the area. Furthermore, large trees are proposed for placement so they will, within 10 years, block the remainder of the 10% of our present SC Mountain views the PD wants to let us have. 1.5.5 Integrate the screening for all trash and service areas into the design of the buildings Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development plans to remove the existing trash & recycling area in the rear of the building, place trash & recycling in the front where it blocks the PD's parking entrance and place immature non substantial landscaping whose trees & bushes will take decades to screen the area. The trash area will be near the sidewalk and the odors will be a nuisance to pedestrians. 5.6 Operable windows are encouraged in recognition of the area's temperate climate and the typically small scale of commercial structures. Plan Deficiency: Nowhere does the Plan indicate any description of the Windows or their operability. 1,5.7 Provide visual buffering of on -site utility elements. I.ocate transformers valves and similar elements where they will he least visible from public rights -of way. If not possible, these elements should be placed underground or, at a minimum, screened from view with walls and landscaping that relate to the remainder of the project. Plan Deficiency: No Transformer vaults are shown: they were near Alberto Way Utilize landscaping and/or walls to screen transformers and other utility elements if they must be located in close proximity to the public right-of-way. 1.5.8 Subordinate parking to the buildings Avoid paHH i'eg lots in locations that interrupt retail and/or structural continuity rIear front l lv lines. Plan Deficiency: The underground parking lot entrance and exit disrupt any possible retail use via their location at the front of the property. 6. Signage Projects with multiple tenants will be required to prepare a Master Signage Program for review and approval. The program will establish the specific location and design for major project signs (e.g., Ground Signs) Plan Deficiency: There is no Master Signage Program in the Plan. 49IPage 6.3 Illir S A M I A C l !� R£ P Valley Trarspariation Authority Date: July 27, 2016 Current Meeting: August 4, 2016 Board Meeting: August 4, 2016 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria 1. Fernandez FROM: Director of Government Affairs, Jim Lawson SUBJECT: Append Project Lists to Resolution No. 2016.06.17 (Ballot Measure) Policy -Related Action: Yes RECOMMENDATION: Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No ACTION ITEM Formally append to Resolution 2016.06.17 the candidate project lists previously approved by the Santa Clara Valley (VTA) Board of Directors on June 2, 2016 as part of the adoption of the framework and funding amounts for the %2 cent 30-year sales tax measure. BACKGROUND: At the June 2, 2016 Board of Directors meeting, the Board of Directors unanimously approved a Resolution attaching candidate project lists, and introduced an Ordinance placing before the voters the question of a'/2 cent Sales Tax to fund various transportation projects and services. Subsequent to this action, the State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) recommended more precise language to describe the projects proposed for the SR 85 Corridor. As a result of this recommended language change to the adopted Resolution, the Board unanimously agreed to revise only this language in the previously approved Resolution at its June 24'h meeting. At the June 24, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting, the Board voted unanimously to rescind Resolution No. 2016.06.12 and adopt Resolution No. 2016.06.17, which revised only the language describing the State Route 85 Corridor -related projects. 3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300 6.3 DISCUSSION: Since there were no changes to the previously approved project lists, these lists were not included in the Board action on June 24th. Because the approved project lists were not included in the June 24th Board package, however, concern has been expressed about the Board's intent regarding the approved project lists. To avoid any possible confusion regarding the status of the approved project list, staff recommends the Board take formal action to append the attached lists entitled Attachment A, Attachment B, Attachment C and Attachment D to the approved Resolution No. 2016.06.17. By taking this formal action, there will be a permanent record of the approved candidate project lists associated with. Resolution No. 2016.06.17 and the Ballot Measure proposed to the voters at the November 8, 2016 General Election. ALTERNATIVES: The Board may accept or reject the recommendation. Rejecting the recommendation may cause uncertainty as to the approved project list. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to this decision. Prepared by: Jim Lawson Memo No. 5675 ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution No 2016.06.17 (PDF) • Resolution No 2016 06 17 - Attachments A thru D I PDF) Page 2 of 2 6.3.a RESOLUTION NO. 2016.06.17 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016 AND REQUESTING THE CONSOLIDATION OF SUCH SPECIAL VTA ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY A MEASURE SEEKING AUTHORIZATION FOR ADOPTION OF A RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX ORDINANCE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) deems it advisable to submit a measure to the voters within the territory of VTA at a special election to be held on November 8, 2016, to authorize the VTA Board of Directors to adopt a one- half of one percent retail transactions and use tax ordinance pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 100250 et seq., which tax shall be in effect for 30 years, NOW THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY that the measure hereinafter set forth in full be submitted to the voters within the territory of VTA, which is the incorporated and unincorporated territory lying within the County of Santa Clara, at a special election to be held and conducted on November 8, 2016, and that the Registrar of Voters be, and thereby is, directed to publish such notice as may be required by law for the time and in the manner so required, and to place the same on the ballot at an election to be held throughout the territory of VTA on November 8, 2016. The full text of the proposed measure, which shall be printed in the voter inforrnation that accompanies the official vote by mail ballot and in the appropriate sample ballot pamphlet, is set forth as follows: To repair potholes and fix local streets; finish the BART extension through downtown San Jose and to Santa Clara; improve bicycle and pedestrian safety; increase Caltrain capacity, in order to ease highway congestion, and improve safety at crossings; relieve traffic on the expressways and key highway interchanges; and enhance transit for seniors, students, low-income, and disabled, shall the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) enact a retail transactions and use tax ordinance, Ordinance No. 2016.01, imposing (a) a tax for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail upon every retailer in Santa Clara County, the territory of VTA, such tax to be at the rate of one-half of one percent of the gross receipts of the retailer from the sale of tangible personal property sold by him/her at retail in the territory of VTA; and (b) a complementary tax upon the storage, use, or other consumption in Santa Clara County, the territory of VTA, such tax to be at the rate of one-half of one percent of the sales price of the property whose storage, use, or other consumption is subject to the tax; collection of such tax to be limited to thirty years? VTA shall be the administrator of the tax, shall establish a program and develop program guidelines to administer the tax revenues received from the enactment of 1 6.3.a Resolution No. 2016.06.17 this measure (the "Program"). Tax revenues received for the 30-year life of the tax, including any interest or other earnings thereon, less any funds necessary for satisfaction of debt service and/or cost of borrowing and costs of program administration and oversight, such as costs of grant administration and financial management, shall be referred to herein as "Program Tax Revenues." VTA shall allocate the Program Tax Revenues to the following categories of transportation projects: Local Streets and Roads; BART Phase 11; Bicycle and Pedestrian; Caltrain Grade Separation; Caltrain Capacity Improvements; Highway Interchanges; County Expressways; SR 85 Corridor; and Transit Operations. The present value (i.e, present day purchasing power) of the Program Tax Revenues, as of April 2017, is forecasted to be approximately $6.3 Billion. The actual revenues to be received over the 30-year life of the tax will be affected by various economic factors, such as inflation and economic growth or decline. The estimated amounts for each category reflect the allocation of approximately $6.3 Billion. The estimated amounts for each category, divided by $6.3 Billion, establishes ratios for the allocation among the categories. The VTA Board of Directors may modify those allocation amounts following the program amendment process outlined in this resolution. Local Streets and Roads — Estimated at $1.2 Billion of the Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars. To be returned to cities and the County on a formula basis to be used to repair - and maintain the street system. The allocation would be based on the population of the cities and the County of Santa Clara's road and expressway lane mileage. Cities and the.County will be required to demonstrate that these funds would be used to enhance and not replace their current investments for road system maintenance and repair. The program would also require that cities and the County apply Complete Streets best practices in order to improve bicycle and pedestrian elements of the street system. If a city or the County has a Pavement Condition Index score of at least 70, it may use the funds for other congestion relief projects. • BART Phase II —Estimated at $1.5 Billion of Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars (capped at a maximum of 25% of Program Tax Revenues). To fund the planning, engineering, construction, and delivery costs of BART Phase Il, which will create a new regional rail connection by extending BART from the Berryessa Station in San Jose to Santa Clara with stations at Alum Rock/28th Street, downtown San Jose, San Jose Diridon Station, and Santa Clara. • Bicycle/Pedestrian — Estimated at $250 Million of Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars. To fund bicycle and pedestrian projects of countywide significance identified by the cities, County, and VTA_ The program will give priority to those projects that connect to schools, transit, and employment centers; till gaps hi the existing bike and pedestrian network; safely cross barriers to mobility; and 2 6.3.a Resolution No. 2016.06.17 make walking or biking a safer and more convenient means of transportation for all county residents and visitors. Bicycle and pedestrian educational programs, such as Safe Routes to Schools, will be eligible for funding. Candidate Projects are set forth in Attachment A. • Caltraia Grade Separation — Estimated at $700 Million of Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars. To fund grade separation projects along the Caltrain corridor in the cities of Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Palo Alto, separating the Caltrain tracks from roadways to provide increased safety benefits for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians and also reduce congestion at the intersections. • Caltrain Corridor Capacity lnnprovemeuts —Estimated at 5314 Million of Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars. To fund Caltrain corridor capacity improvements and increased service in Santa Clara County in order to ease highway congestion, including: increased service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy, station improvements, level boarding, extended platforms, and service enhancements. ▪ Highway Interchanges — Estimated at S750 Million of Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars. To fund highway projects throughout the valley that will provide congestion relief, improved highway operations and freeway access, noise abatement, roadway connection overcrossings, and deploy advanced technology through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Candidate Projects are set forth in Attachment B. Cjiunty Expressways — Estimated at S750 Million of Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars. To fund Tier 1 improvement projects in the County's Expressway Plan in order to relieve congestion, improve safety and increase the effectiveness of the expressway system in the county. Candidate Projects are set forth in Attachment C. e State Route 85 Corridor — Estimated at $350 Million of Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars. To fund new transit and congestion relief projects on SR 85, including a new transit lane from SR 87 in San Jose to U.S. 101 in Mountain View. Additionally this category will fund noise abatement along SR 85 and will provide funding to study transportation alternatives that include, but are not limited to, Bus Rapid Transit with infrastructure such as stations and access ramps, Light Rail Transit, and future transportation technologies that may be applicable. 3 6.3.a Resolution No. 2016.06.17 • Transit Operations — Estimated at $500 Million of Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars. The revenue from this program category will provide additional funds specifically for bus operations to serve vulnerable, underserved, and transit dependent populations throughout the county. The goals of the program category are to increase ridership, improve efficiency, enhance mobility services for seniors and disabled, and improve affordability for the underserved and vulnerable constituencies in the county. As VTA considers modifications to bus operations and routes to improve ridership and efficiencies, these funds may also be utilized to maintain and expand service to the rnost underserved and vulnerable populations. The funds may be used to increase core bus route service frequencies, extending hours of operations to early morning, evenings and weekends to improve mobility, safe access and affordability to residents that rely on bus service for critical transportation mobility needs. Attachment D describes the list of Candidate Projects and Programs. The Program Categories will be administered in accordance with program guidelines and policies to be developed and approved by the VTA Board of Directors. An independent citizen's oversight committee shall be appointed to ensure that the funds are being expended consistent with the approved Program. Annually, the committee shall have an audit conducted by an independent auditor. The audit shall review the receipt of revenue and expenditure of funds. The committee shall hold public hearings. and issue a report annually to inform the Santa CIara County residents how the funds arc being spent. The hearings will be public meetings subject to the Brown Act. To support and advance the delivery of projects in the Program, VTA may issue or enter into financial obligations secured by the tax revenues received from the State Board of Equalization (SBOE), including but not limited to, bonds, notes, commercial paper, leases, loans and other financial obligations and agreements (collectively, "Financing Obligations"), and may engage in any other transactions allowed by law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to obtain the strongest credit ratings and lowest financing costs, VTA may pledge up to the full amount of tax revenues received from the SBOE as security for any Financing Obligations of the Program and may contract with the SBOE to have pledged amounts transferred directly to a fiduciary, such as a bond trustee, to secure Financing Obligations to fund any project in the Program. Any Financing Obligation shall be fully paid prior to the expiration of this tax measure. If approved by a 3/4 majority of the VTA Board of Directors, and only after a noticed public meeting in which the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, and the city council of each city in Santa Clara County have been notified at least 30 days prior to the meeting, VTA may modify the Program for any prudent 4 6.3.a Resolution No. 2016.06.17 purpose, including to account for the results of any environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act of the individual specific projects in the Program; to account for increases or decreases in federal,. state, and local funds, including revenues received from this tax measure; to account for unexpected increase or decrease in revenues; to add or delete a project from the Program in order to carry out the overall purpose of the Program; to maintain consistency with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan; to shift funding between project categories; or to take into consideration new innovations or unforeseen circumstances. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such measure will appear in summarized form upon the ballot as follows: Measure To relieve traffic, repair potholes; shall VTA enact a 30-year half cent sales tax to: • Repair streets, fix potholes in all 15 cities; • Finish BART extension to downtown San dose, Santa Clara; ® Improve bicycle/pedestrian safety, especially near schools; o Increase Caltrain capacity, easing highway congestion, improving safety at crossings; o Relieve traffic on all 9 expressways, key highway interchanges; • Enhance transit for seniors, students, disabled; Mandating annual audits by independent citizens watchdog committee to ensure accountability. YES NO BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to consolidate this election with the statewide general election and any other elections to be held within the County of Santa Clara on November 8, 2016, and that it include in its proclamation or notice of the special election that Article 3 of Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Elections Code relating to arguments concerning county measure applies, and that the Office of the County Counsel is directed to prepare an impartial analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Elections Code section 10403, VTA acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Elections Code section 10418, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is requested to permit the Registrar of Voters to render all services specified by Elections Code section 10418 relating to the election, for which services VTA agrees to reimburse the County. 5 BE ff FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Elections Code section 10418, all proceedings related to, connected with, and incidental to the election shall be regulated and performed in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide election. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the returns of such VIA election shall be canvassed by the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara and the returns, when canvassed, shall he reported to the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board Secretary is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and to submit certified copies of this Resolution to the County Clerk and to the Registrar of Voters of the County 1)f Santa Clara no later than 88 days prior to the date of the election. PASSED ANI) AuopThz D by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors on June 2_4. 2016 by the following vote: ( 6.3.a AYES: DIRECTORS: Baker, Bruins, Carr, Chavez, Hendricks: Khamis Liccardo, Nguyen, O'Neill, Peralez, Yeager NOES: DIRECTORSz None ABSENT: DIRECTORS: Car rasco Al TEST: Elaine f3alta , Board Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT FABELA General Counsel Resolution No. 2016,06.17 Cindy Chavez, Clam:person Board of Directors 6 6.3.b ATTACHMENT A ENVISION SILICON VALLEY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CANDIDATE LIST Protect Implementation of Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan* Trails in Expressway Rights -of -Way Alum Rock Trail Coyote Creek Trail Completion Lions Creek Trail Lower Silver Creek Trail Miramonte Ave Bikeways Fremont Road Pathway Los Gatos Creek Trail Connector to SR 9 Berryessa Creek Trail West Llagas Creek Trail Gualadupe River Trail -Extension to Almaden Three Creeks Trail East from Guadalupe River to Coyote Creek Trail Five Wounds Trail from William Street to Mabury Road/Berryessa Hwy 237 Bike Trail: Great America Parkway to Zanker (Class I, II, and IV) Lower Gudalupe River Access Ramps Los Gatos Creek Trail Gap Closure Calabazas Creek Trail San Tomas Aquino Trail Extension to South & Campbell Portion Union Pacific Railroad Trail Stevens Creek Trail Extension Hamilton Avenue/Highway I 7 Bicycle Overcrossing Ped/Bike Bridge over SR 17 from Railway/Sunnyside to Campbell Technology Pkwy Mary Avenue Complete Streets Conversion UPRR Bike!Ped Bridge Crossing: Stevens Creek Boulevard to Snyder Hammond House/Rancho San Antonio Park A-1 6.3.b Montague Expwy Bike/Ped Overcrossing at Milpitas BART Station Shoreline/ 1 Q 1 Bike Ped Bridge Mayfield Tunnel Ped/Bike under Central Expressway connecting to San Antonio Caltrain station South Palo Alto Ca'train Bike/Ped Crossing Matadero Creek Trail Undercrossing Caltrain Capitol Undercrossing Phelan Avenue Pedestrian & Bike Bridge over Coyote Creek Newhall Street BikelPed Overcrossing over Caltrain Tracks Kiely Bicycle & Pedestrian Overcrossing Winchester Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Bernardo Caltrain Undercrossing San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Underpass at 49er Stadium Latimer Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Bike & ped safety education at approximately --200 schools Implementation of Pedestrian Access to Transit. Plan (VTA)* Bike amenities at transit stops and on transit vehicles Countywide Vision Zero Program (VTA)* Highway 9 Pedestrian Safety Improvements *These plans are currently being developed/updated and projects are being identified. A- 2 6.3.b ATTACHMENT B ENVISION HIGHWAY PROGRAM CANDIDATE LIST Praiect US 101 Improvements in the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View to address regional connectivity and circulation between San Antonio Road and Charleston Road at the US 101/San Antonio Road, US 101/Rengstorff/Charleston Road and US 101/Shoreline Boulevard interchanges. SR 85/SR 237 Area Improvements in Mountain View to address mainline congestion and regional connectivity through the SR 85/SR 237 connector, SR 85/E1 Camino Real interchange, and the SR 237/El Camino/Grant Road interchange. SR 237/US 101 /Mathilda Avenue Area Improvements in Sunnyvale to address local roadway congestion. SR 237 Corridor Improvements in the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara and Milpitas to address mainline congestion and regional connectivity by addition of SR 237 westbound/eastbound auxiliary lanes between Zanker Road and North First Street, improvements at the SR 237/Great America Parkway westbound off -ramp, and replacement/widening of the Calaveras Boulevard structures over the UPRR tracks. West County Improvements along 1-280 in Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and Sunnyvale to address mainline congestion with mainline and interchange improvements from Magdalena Avenue to the San Mateo County line. SR 85/1-280 Area Improvements in Cupertino, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale to address regional connectivity through a northbound I-280 braided ramp between SR 85 and Foothill Boulevard and improvements at the northbound 1-280 off -ramp to Foothill Boulevard. US 101/Trimble Road/De La Cruz Boulevard to Zanker Road Area Improvements to address local roadway connectivity and mainline congestion in San Jose and Santa Clara with US 101 /Trimble Road/De La Cruz Boulevard interchange improvements, southbound US 101 /SB 87 connector improvements, and a new US 101 /Zanker Road interchange. US 101/Old Oakland Road Improvements in San Jose to address local roadway congestion, access and connectivity. A new interchange at US 101/Mabury Road in San Jose to address regional access. 1-680 Corridor Improvements in San Jose to address mainline congestion and regional connectivity by improving the I-680/Alum Rock Avenue and I-680/McKee Road interchanges. I-280/Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard Interchange Improvements to address mainline and local roadway congestion. B-1 6.3.b I-280/Saratoga Avenue interchange Improvements to address local circulation and mainline congestion. I-280/Winchester Boulevard Area Improvements in Santa Clara and San Jose to address regional connectivity and local circulation. SR 87 Corridor Technology -based Improvements in San Jose to address mainline congestion and system reliability through the implementation of technology -based operational improvements to the freeway. Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief: Upgrade Highway 17/9 interchange to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, mobility, and roadway operations; deploy advanced transportation technology to reduce freeway cut thru traffic in Los Gatos, including traffic signal control system upgrades in Los Gatos, Traveler Information System, advanced ramp metering systems; support Multi -Modal Congestion Relief Solutions, including enhanced Highway 17 Express Bus service. implementing local bus system improvements that reduce auto trips to schools, work, and commercial areas in Los Gatos; and develop park and ride lots to serve as transit hubs for express bus, shuttles, local bus system connections. SR 17 Southbound/Hamilton Avenue Off -ramp Widening Improvements in Campbell to address mainline congestion and local circulation. SR 17/San Tomas Expressway Improvements in Campbell to address mainline congestion and local circulation. US 101/Blossom Hill Boulevard improvements in. San Jose to address local roadway congestion and connectivity including for bicyclists and pedestrians. US 101 Improvements in Gilroy to address mainline congestion and regional connectivity with a new US 101/Buena Vista Avenue interchange and US 101/SR 152 10th Street ramp and intersection improvements. SR 152 Corridor Improvements in Gilroy including US 101/SR 25 interchange improvements to address regional connectivity and goods movement network improvements. I-2801Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements in Cupertino to address mainline congestion and improve local traffic circulation. 1-880/Charcot Avenue Overcrossing in San Jose to address local relief circulation and adjacent I- 880 interchanges congestion relief. Noise Abatement Projects in Santa Clara County to implement treatments to address existing freeway noise levels throughout the county. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Projects in Santa Clara County such as integrated corridor management systems, traffic operations systems. ramp metering, managed lanes, and local traffic signal control systems to address freeway mainline congestion and local roadway congestion caused by cut -through traffic, B-2 6.3.b ATTACHMENT C SANTA CLARA COUNTY EXPRESSWAY IMPROVEMENTS (TIER 1) Pro►ect Almaden Expressway at SR-85 - Interim Improvements Almaden Expressway at Branham Lane Intersection Improvement Almaden Expressway at Camden Ave Intersection Improvements Capitol Expressway Widening and Interchange Modifications between I-680 and Capitol Avenue Central Expressway at Thompson Intersection Improvement Foothill Expressway Auxiliary Lanes between El Monte and San Antonio Lawrence Expressway at Homestead Road Interim Improvements Lawrence Expressway at Homestead Road Grade Separation Lawrence Expressway from Reed/Monroe to Argues Grade Separation Montague Expressway Complete 8-lane Widening including HOV lanes and Auxiliary Lanes between Great Mall and McCarthy/O'Toole Oregon -Page Mill Widening (possible HOV lanes) and Trail between 1-280 and Foothill Expressway Oregon -Page Mill Intersection Improvements between Porter and Hansen Oregon -Page Mill/El Camino Real Intersection Improvements San Tomas Expressway Widening and Trail between Homestead and Stevens Creek Santa Teresa -Hale Corridor Road and Trail between Dewitt and Main Santa Teresa -Hale Corridor Widening and Trail between Long Meadow and Fitzgerald SR 17/San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements I-280/Foothill Expressway Interchange Modifications and Auxiliary Lane to Homestead I-280/Oregon-Page Mill Road Interchange Reconfiguration Expressway ITS/Signal System Countywide C-1 6.3. b ATTACHMENT D TRANSIT OPERATIONS CANDIDATE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS LIST Expand mobility services and affordable fare programs for seniors, disabled, students and low-income riders. This project would provide funds to develop and expand senior and disabled transportation mobility programs and services. The proposed program would provide mobility options such as coordinated eligibility services and enhanced mobility options provided in a secure and safe manner for the most vulnerable and underserved residents in the County, such as seniors and persons with disabilities. It would support mobility options including maintaining the paratransit service coverage area and service expansion by extending hours of operation and weekend service. The funds would also establish permanent and augment discount fare programs to increase transit access for low-income, underserved and vulnerable populations unable to afford standard fares. • Enhance Frequent Core Bus Network. The project would upgrade service frequency on VTA's top core network routes to 15- minutes or faster. Some specific examples include expanding the number of high frequency core routes and expanding the schedule of existing services. This may also include enhancing frequency of services during early mornings, evenings and weekends in order to improve convenience, reliability, connectivity, ridership, farebox recovery and support local land use plans. The upgrade would improve the quality of service for vulnerable, underserved and transit dependent populations as well as existing riders and attract new riders which would decrease vehicle miles traveled, traffic congestion and pollution. • Improve amenities at bus stops to increase safety, security and access. The project would provide funds for system wide improvements to bus stops, transit centers and stations including new and replacement shelters, lighting, access improvements including safe sidewalk connections, passenger information signs and security. • Support new innovative transit service models to address first/last mile connections. The project would support affordable new innovative transit service models to address first/last mile connections including FLEX type services, dynamic on -demand subscription shuttles and partnerships with other demand responsive service providers serving vulnerable, underserved and transit dependent populations. D-1 To: Planning Comeveissioi , Boas Gatos From Neighbors of Alberto Way concerned about 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos. We present this petition in show of our solidarity. Alberto Way Neighborhood Petition of Agreements The neighbors of Alberto Way composed of Los Gatos Commons [110 units], Pueblo de Los Gatos [53 units], Bella Vista [47 units], and Las Casitas [17 units], strongly agree on the following three positions concerning the 401-409 Alberto Way Project: 1 ] We want the scale and design to "look and feel like Los Gatos", a small town with views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. 2] We want all the 401-409 Alberto Way Project parking to remain above ground thereby avoiding the water table seepage and the resulting broken pipes and cracked slab foundations. 3] We want significant analysis of the traffic impact of not only this 401-409 development but also of pending 201-225 Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and 475 and 485 Alberto Way projects. With the passage of Measure B, the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief must also be included to get a comprehensive plan. Paramount in planning is to remember that Alberto Way is a narrow dead end street where children and disabled seniors live. Unit Date Name and Signature -c ----.7/") r 117--- 12..-_:Y.----/ I;."7+ 7 `� ! -, /7 1 .3 1 .- i •'/ y lit 1 /'~ 1' 7 r 4` c V-e' V' 9 ooe ( ( 9 /zed ) 7 ✓ 'f.2L' ,l 4. ;,,,,.`;<,�)A i- r ,--7 r ..i/-1L.(-'( 11 7) L.1-i:; '1 1 -..: 77. S_IL, e i rtt.,,,__ .. , r - 7-7: , ram_ I 0 3/2 6/17 1,- ,..:-.),,,,,, . „,_..,,, ...„ -' `=-r 1 : ,.,...... „,..,.., . <J ;, -1 Y�y,r ::i.r .'r[;, ,. .„,.,,,2.r."7 �: ✓/ z of 7 ES. s r3, L.. „71 / 2 t i7L 1(-6<-6,1,71 Page 1 of 2 vo ea h ! t/t ! rs Cass as Opposet on Summary: Re: proposed devel+pcnent at 401-409 Albero Dear Planning Commission, The developer has returned with new revised plans. e These new plans do not follow the recommendations the Planning Commission expressed in Aug 24th meeting. They also do not address the needs of the residents. We are asking that the Planning Commission NOT to certify the EIR and REJECT this project. Please see additional reasons and lists of violations with Town policies below. Table of contents 1. The unaddressed issue is scale and bulk. la. List of violations of LG Commercial Design Guidelines 2 2 2. Flawed EIR and direct financial impact to Las Casitas 3 2a. Direct cost to Las Casitas 3 2b. Too narrow view of the EIR 3 2c. Additional reasons why EIR is flawed: 4 3. Traffic impacts 5 3a. VTA approved funding for Hwy9 & 17 interchange rebuild 5 3b. Existing traffic jams (without any additional traffic) 5 Evidence photos - Thursday, September 15th, 2016 @ 8:15am 5 Evidence photos - Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 @ 8:01 :10am 5 4. Conclusion 7 5. Appendices 7 5a. Appendix A: List of Attachments 7 5b. Appendix B: Conflicts with General Plan Policies 7 1 2. Flawed El and direct financial impact to Las Casitas There are 3 common concerns for all 4 associations to which Las Casitas association fully subscribes. They are all identified and spelled out in detail by an independent expert (see Geissler hydrology report in attachment). • Current plan to have 2-story underground parking will run into water issues. • Current mitigation plan is not sufficient. O Un-mitigated or overlooked issues dewatering, diversion and liquefaction. 2a. Direct cost to Las Casitas As indicated by an independent expert (see Geissler hydrology report in attachment) Las Casitas HOA should expect: Foundation/slab cracking and settling to Las Casita foundations due to proposed 2 story underground garage. 0 The estimated settlement is 1/2 to 3/8 inches • Geissler expects this will result in cracked foundations / slabs at Las Casitas. • Geissler expects this will cause pipes to burst at Las Casitas. Cracked foundations/slabs and/or burst pipes will cause un-estimated and unmitigated financial impact to Las Casitas. We ask you to REJECT the EIR based on the findings in the Geissler hydrology report. References to Geissler report: • Page 3 quote: "the combined effect of ..(ii) subgrade soils subject to liquefaction ... makes this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater) garatge" • Page 3 quote: "Geissler holds the opinion that construction of the 2 story underground parking ... shall cause ... foundation settlement and cracked slabs at nearby houses in ... Las Casitas". Page 7 quote: "50 feet from excavation ... 3/8" of soil subsidence" 2b. Too narrow view of the EIR The Developer took way too narrow and superficial approach to EIR. This is not the purpose of the EIR as explained below. Specifically: The E!R's conclusion that the Project will not result in hydrology, geology/soils/seismic, and health and safety impacts is not supported. Pursuant to the expert testimony of Dr. Peter Geissler, Geissler Engineering, the EIR is inadequate and incomplete and the Project's impacts have not been fully divulged. CEQA achieves its purpose of long-term protection of the environment by functioning as "an environmental full disclosure statute, and the EIR is the method ... [of] disclosure ..." Rural Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020. An EIR should not just generate paper, but should act as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. The EIR provides analysis to allow decision makers to make intelligent judgments. (Guideline §15151. " ... the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, ..." No Oil, inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 82; §21151.) Here, the EIR failed to act as a full disclosure document and must be rejected as inadequate. We ask you to REJECT the EIR based on the findings in the Geissler hydrology report. 3 3. Traffic impact There have been many points raised to the Planning Commission during the initial hearing. Specifically: e Safety impact to all children walking or biking to or from the school a Additional air pollution impacting quality of life and health o Loss of street parking • Additional congestion on Hwy9 The revised plans do not fully address these concerns. Without rehashing previous arguments, Las Casitas HOA would like to bring two facts to your attention: 3a. VTA approved funding for Hwy9 & 17 interchange rebuild In November 2016 election CA public voted for 1/2-cent sales tax measure to generate $6 billion to $6.5 billion in 2017-year dollars for infrastructure projects. Rebuild of Hwy9 & 17 interchange was added to the VTA approved list to utilize these approved funds. Going forward with proposed construction at 401-409 Alberto Way will make it impossible (or too costly to taxpayers) to rebuild the interchange m We are asking to not certify EIR until after Hwy9 and Hwy 17 interchange is rebuilt. ® A new EIR is needed and a new traffic study is needed after interchange is rebuilt to address new impacts. Please see VTA July Resolution in Appendix 5a on page 7. 3b. Existing traffic jams (without any additional traffic) While developer's traffic study did not find any significant impact, we conclude otherwise. Here are pictures of how traffic looks today without additional traffic. e It looks terrible already • It is clear that adding another 300+ cars will make the situation even worse • We are asking you to reject the proposed construction based on the evidence presented Evidence photos - Thursday, September 15th, 2016 © 8:15am First set of four pictures: We observed the AM rush hour multiple times. Eastbound Hwy-9 traffic takes several cycles and 6-8 minutes over 2-3 cycles for vehicles to get through the Tight at Alberto Way. • Please see lines of cars outlined by red lines. o They are queued from the Hwy17 Los Gatos East off -ramp onto Hwy 9 all the way up to Los Gatos Blvd. • This means the intersection is failing and the Level of Service (LOS) is an F today. o Applicant's traffic study does not reveal this observation. o This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation. Evidence photos - Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 @ 8:01:10am Second set of four pictures: different day but situation is the same. Eastbound traffic queued all the way along Hwy 9 from Hwy17 to Los Gatos Blvd. 5 • Thursday, September 15th, 2016 @ 8:15am 0 it f EB traffic queued in turn lane going to Alberto way EB tra� fic queued or intersection with`Alberto w fay W B.traffic.from Alberto way to Los Gatos'BIVd. I; Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 @ 8:01:10am EB traffic queued from Hwy17 to stoplight with Alberto way 4. Conclusion We are asking you to NOT certify the EIR and REJECT this project due to: Q Multiple direct violations with LG Commercial Design Guidelines (listed in section 1 and la) e Unmitigated financial impact to Las Casitas due to 2-story deep excavation (section 2 and 2a) e Traffic impact and additional congestion (section 3 and 3a) 5. Appendices 5a. Appendix A: List of Attachments • Geissler hydrology report (March 2017) a. Please see last attachment to this document c VTA Resolution attachment B (July 2016) a. https:/fdrive.google.com%open?id=0B8UvZbAzgZQUZ1 FoiV11 BgTVZUX1IzNThPNVNfZ0hndXF4b3o4 • Santa Clara Test Well data (Jan 2017) a. http:/lwww.valleywater.org/uploadedlmages/Services/CleanReliableWater/WaterSuppivPlannino/WaterTrack er documents and images/1-Final Does and Images/7.%20Aug 2013 SantaClara.ipq 5b. Appendix B: Conflicts with General Plan Policies Located at https://www.losgatosca.gov/27/General-Plan LU-12: "Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance of a small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image." LU-1.8: "Commercial development of any type (office retail, research and development, etc.) shall be designed in keeping with the small-town character of Los Gatos." LU-6.3: "Protect existing residential areas from adjacent non-residential uses by assuring that buffers are developed and maintained. FP Lit-9.1: "Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance of a small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image." LU-9.6: "Encourage development that maintains and expands resident -oriented service and/or creates employment opportunities for local residents consistent with overall land use policies of the Town." LU-9.9: "Buffers shall be required as conditions of approval for non-residential projects that are adjacent to residential areas and may consist of landscaping, sound barriers, building setbacks, or open space." 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 with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area." TRA-9.5: "Alternative transportation means shalt be required whenever the traffic generated by a development would result in a significant increase in . it pollution, traffic congestion, or noise." 7 Peter Geissler, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Civil Engineer HYDROLOGY REPORT 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 31' March 2017 Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner ,4,7,2 Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos CA 95030 And Los Gatos Commons Homeowners Association 445 Alberto Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Project: Hydrology Report re 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Project Location: 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Affected Properties: Los Gatos Commons, Los Gatos Bella Vista Village, Los Gatos Pueblo de Los Gatos, Los Gatos Las Casitas, Los Gatos Ref: Ref: Ref: Ref: ENGEO Report dated July 17, 2015, revised August 13, 2015 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration, Appendix C, DEJR Architectural Technologies Plans for Project 153948 revised 19 February 2016 Civil Engineering Plans by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 Geissler Engineering Project No. E 16 — 2402 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Geissler Engineering has been asked to review hydrological and geotechnical data presented in the ENGEO Report referenced above. In addition, Geissler Engineering has been asked to review civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017. Therefore, the bottom of the foundation of the proposed 2-story underground garage is to be constructed 10 to 12 feet below the water table. The proposed 2-story underground garage is located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. [Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation] The location of the 2-story underground garage has been identified as an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. [Ref Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012] The combined effect of: (i) the likelihood of seismic activity; and (ii) subgrade soils subject to liquefaction (i.e., sudden loss of strength and bearing capacity in the event of strong vibration), make this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater) garage. In the event of an earthquake, the soils below the 2-story underground garage are likely to exhibit significant loss of bearing capacity. Loss of bearing capacity is likely to result in differential foundation settlement with resultant structural cracking of the reinforced concrete structure. Cracking of the reinforced concrete structure allows significant influx of groundwater. Geissler Engineering estimates the rate of flow into the (cracked) underground (and underwater) garage structure could range from 50 gallons per minute to 500 gallons per minute, or more, depending on the severity of the cracks. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that construction of a 2-story underground parking structure shall cause soil subsidence, differential foundation settlement and cracked slabs at nearby houses in Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista Village, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas developments. Even in the absence of earthquake activity, ENGEO has admitted that differential foundation movement is likely due to seasonal shrink -swell activity of expansive sub grade soils. Such movement can cause leakage at cold joints in underground concrete walls and floors. Thus even in the absence of earthquake activity, leakage of groundwater into the underground garage is likely. The leakage of groundwater through cold joints has been estimated by Geissler Engineering to be on the order of 50 gallons per minute. Obviously, seepage as small as 50 gallons per minute could be collected in a drainage sump located within the interior of the garage and pumped out by means of submersible sump pumps. However, it is not practical to attempt to collect and discharge 500 gallons per minute or more. The underground garage is to be constructed at a location subject to significant sheet flow of storm water runoff during heavy rains. Thus, surface drainage may also result in flooding of the underground garage unless the surface drainage facilities are substantially improved. The proposed 2-story underground garage is located at a site that has been identified as one that is subject to flooding in the event of an upstream dam failure. [Ref: Section 14.4.2.2.6, Santa Page 3 differential settlement associated with liquefaction -induced settlement. [Ref: Section 5.7.1 ENGEO REPORT, page 15] Aside from an apparent inconsistency in the ENGEO report as regards to the magnitude of expected settlements, the message is clear. We should expect settlements on the order of 1 inch or more. Appreciate that differential foundation settieinents on the order of an inch or more shall cause significant cracking in the reinforced concrete structure. In an underground (and underwater) garage, this is likely to allow the influx of substantial flow of groundwater. EARTHQUAKE RISK The project location is located within an earthquake fault rupture hazard zone. [Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation] The project location is located within an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The risk of earthquake induced liquefaction hazard has been determined to be high by the Santa Clara Planning Department. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012] Plate 1.2 of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Gatos Quadrangle (2002) indicates a likelihood of liquefaction that requires mitigation measures are required as per Public Resources Code Section 2693(c). The ENGEO Report admits that the strata of clayey gravels soils at the subject property (specifically, soils at the location of Boring B3) are subject to liquefaction according to criteria described in an authoritative research paper. [Ref: Seed, R. B., Cetin K. O., Moss R. E. S., Kammerer A. M., Wu J., Pestana J. M., Riemer M. F., Sancio, R. B., Bray J. D., Kayen R. E., Faris A., 2003, Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A unified and Consistent Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar] GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY In 2008, Earth Systems Geotechnologies (ESG) reported encountering groundwater at a depth of approximately 18 feet at a nearby site located at 55 Los Gatos Saratoga Road. This is approximately 200 feet away from the proposed construction site. The groundwater is likely to be 5 or 6 feet higher following the end of the record drought. ENGEO did not record the groundwater level in boring B 1 or boring B3. The ENGEO Report recommends using a design value of 12 feet for the depth of the groundwater at the project location. Geissler Engineering concurs. Geissler Engineering is concerned that the construction of a 22-foot deep underground garage may cause diversion of subsurface seepage patterns. The long-term effects of such diversion of Page 5 Second, the effluent from diesel -powered pumps must be discharged onto the street or other receiving drainage facility such as a storm drain. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that the discharge of 250 gallons per minute (minimum) to 500 gallons per minute (maximum) on a continuous basis will negatively impact existing property drainage facilities. At a minimum, this water is added to existing drainage facilities and, in effect, reduces the capacity of other drainage facilities (e.g., storm drains) that serve the neighborhood. Based on proximity to the proposed excavation, Geissler Engineering calculations suggest that all of the Las Casitas development and Pueblo de Los Gatos development are likely to exhibit cracked slabs as a result of soil subsidence during construction. ENGEO advises against permanent dewatering. Instead, ENGEO recommends the use of waterproofing to prevent the influx of groundwater. Specifically, ENGEO advises: Permanent dewatering is not recommended and the mat foundation or concrete slabs and basement walls should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic and/or uplift pressures. [Ref: Section 5.9 ENGEO Report, page 18] Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that it is impossible to prevent the influx of groundwater into an underground garage by means of waterproofing alone where, as here, ground settlements up to 1 inch (vertical) are expected. Put simply, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure that is badly cracked in the aftermath of an earthquake with earthquake -induced liquefaction settlements. Like -wise, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when differential foundation settlements due to seasonal groundwater variations cause differential foundation settlements of 1/2" or more. It is significant that ENGEO recommended that concrete slabs be 8 inches thick at the proposed development. That shows that ENGEO appreciates the potential for cracked slabs due to seasonal groundwater variations in expansive subgrade soils. Sadly, this level of protection against cracking is not afforded neighboring properties' existing slabs. Geissler Engineering warns that the public safety is at risk. UPSTREAM DAM FAIiLIJRE The most significant hazard is posed by the possibility of an upstream dam failure. Built in 1952, the Lenihan Dam (Lexington Reservoir) is an earthen dam and is maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It holds 19,000 acre-feet of water and is just minutes upstream from the project location. Page 8 A catastrophic failure of Lenihan Dam would cause flooding at the project location within minutes. Underground parking amplifies the risk of drowning in the event of a dam failure. PROPERTY DRAINAGE The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because there is inadequate property drainage. Me existing and proposed grade elevations are as follows. • The existing grade on the property at 405 Alberto Way ranges from +338.84 (near Las Casitas) feet to +341.31 feet (near Saratoga -- Los Gatos Road). 6 The proposed finish grade is +336.63 feet (varies). • The proposed first floor elevation is +336.50 feet. ▪ The street elevation at Alberto Way is 339.02 feet (varies). Put simply, the proposed development is not well draining and is likely to serve as a temporary storm water retention basin (i.e., ponding water) after heavy rains. The primary storm water drainage facility shown on the plans Kier & Wright revised 8 February 2017 is a proposed 8" diameter storm drain running towards the northwest corner of the property but which traverses the southwest comer of the neighboring development, Las Casitas. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that the proposed storm drain facility is inadequate to drain the storm water runoff. Geissler Engineering recommends that the storm water drainage must be redesigned so as to avoid traversing neighboring properties. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that there is inadequate pervious landscape to absorb a significant fraction of the storm water runoff. The likely result is ponding on the patio areas and parking areas and pedestrian areas of 405 Alberto Way. Geissler Engineering also holds the opinion that storm water surface runoff from 405 Alberto Way towards the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property is likely since the northwest comer of 405 Alberto Way is at a slightly higher elevation than is the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property. Geissler Engineering recommends that the percentage of pervious landscape surface should be increased and a hydrology study be undertaken to evaluate the effect of increased storm water runoff on neighboring properties. SANITARY SEWER Page 9 SAa r r ! t# /� 1' 2J' XIIIi8 erwis� v? Gi' t /i tIiu iiy Date: July 27, 2016 Current Meeting: August 4, 2016 Board Meeting: August 4. 2016 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Santa. Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria 1. Fernandez FROM: Director of Government Affairs, Jim Lawson SUBJECT: Append Project Lists to Resolution No. 2016.06.17 (Ballot Measure) Policy -Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Formally append to Resolution 2016.06.17 the candidate project lists previously approved by the Santa Clara Valley (VTA) Board of Directors on June 2, 2016 as part of the adoption of the framework and funding amounts for the V2 cent 30-year sales tax measure. BACKGROUND: At the June 2, 2016 Board of Directors meeting, the Board of Directors unanimously approved a Resolution attaching candidate project lists, and introduced an Ordinance placing before the voters the question of a'/z cent Sales Tax to fund various transportation projects and services. Subsequent to this action, the State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) recommended more precise language to describe the projects proposed for the SR 85 Corridor. As a result of this recommended language change to the adopted Resolution. the Board unanimously agreed to revise only this language in the previously approved Resolution at its June 24t'' meeting. At the June 24, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting, the Board voted unanimously to rescind Resolution No. 20 1 6.06.12 and adopt Resolution No. 2016.06.17, which revised only the language describing the State Route 85 Corridor -related projects. 3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300 � T OAJ S io f71 - c11-773 5 Corn/mmvs 0 5 cern 5 0 4ZJ174 ttoi To: Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: Neighbors of Alberto Way concerned about 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos. We present this petition in show of our solidarity. The neighbors of Alberto Way composed of Los Gatos Commons [110 units], Pueblo de Los Gatos [53 units], Bella Vista [47 units], and Las Casitas [17 units] ask that you not certify the EIR and that you not approve the project. We strongly agree on the following three positions concerning the 401-409 Alberto Way Project: 1] We want the scale and design to look and feel like Los Gatos, a small town with views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The new plan (for an 83,000 sf building) violates General Plan guidelines and policies on these points (LU-6, LU-6.2 and CD 1.2, e.g.). 21 The draft EIR section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix C) fails to address the impact of the below - water table garage on neighboring properties, as required in General Plan policy (SAF 1.11). Moreover, since measurements were taken during the ENGEO study, the water table has risen significantly due to the recent drought recovery. Any excavation would require wholesale dewatering, making the construction phase extremely disruptive for us. We are concerned about negative effects of the underground garage on our properties during and post -construction and, therefore, we want all the 401-409 Alberto Way Project parking to remain above ground. 3] We want significant analysis of the traffic impact of not only this 401-409 development but also of pending 201-225 Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and 475 and 485 projects. With the passage of Measure 8, the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief must also be included to provide a comprehensive plan. Critical in planning is to remember that Alberto Way is a narrow dead end street where children and disabled seniors live. Additional traffic congestion violates General Plan guidelines and policies (TRA 1.1 and 2.5, e.g.). LOS GATOS COMMONS 4 PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date Name Signature iiRta Unit # Address � ), / J j - .A 'vaca41., / °'W % 1 'FA 4+4r,-1 , Alf , t tr) t „_,...._, A . iril • (6774(66Q-5-„,.-14p-i 3 1 , ' cam- r / A-,-e7)-- ' 0? A ESJ),AA 1,41--x (Jzz 'ec,i,J1 h , rr'©I 1,137 --0 WALL 3/T.2 (�✓1_ t J- 4 16 to T(3_ ,MI6,, 3 23 iaaMMMt g Iva_ Cr, 4 /4- 20 ,.o' 41 ILI ... %.' / , �� d--hid r 706(+ •I,. / ./' C.A /// Oil i 6 #*3 _ 1-1-6(41 t4). \ ,., - ( e_. A to q (1 - , 6 J ;>1 Au © R -Cy 8H 4 ' rr (_„ " id -',' '- 46/ ZP ,5 - J 3 l,.)il e L /+t- ' 4 v /o l/ .‘7 �dig,v, G' 47/ ;41,,,L - ki— 7.6-/ /2LJl 1fr G le, V -- J a �'✓C/ a j 2 r a'/ «'9 q��«'a C.ca cry r %:7 .Try, rrfh"?.a ( Ad?; - " A' act) 2/37 4/ tb , V2-C ( 1 i et7 jar 7),9.. -y),/ xt 20: irg 9 ii.e4 i2.-z(, f 27 &4 A 7,i S cI ! Az i e21, 4-x'' ---- -r An iXLr 3 / dkA.rrifheLga+ -Le G' - A 116 q39 A Ibe l o ka /2.() Jor9e Felon. 7..,AZOQ 439 AI berms Vt.aec -5/-2_‘: v r r .) C ,ice Z.,„ A `- C 3' Lo 97L'G,--7; u), , 7 3 - i' i 74m..0 !'4,4,14 OW- jleid.t. 'ht (el 411 4uSaga6 041 ! J LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date Name Signature Unit # Address 3 /j, I &0 liale. r'fL7,141,124: ao, /1 / qz// ' a � 1 i 0 0,4r- .e 5_Dettie � 6V11-"ef:A.--/tl I i ` / qi(�t. t s al pago- %VI - G/Is ! 17 � � AAO #€-Scaf ` 3tideiteiVr`dme Z '','Sa✓ 3 2'�Z 439O' Cif if L g C 3124/( Ali e i, F rvitefA. 2.49: 4?9 ader2`a 4.716 c7r4 '/mot L1 ,. f3fyijet62.46vkv 6 f AP -I, M1 3/-7% b%51/44 Cfit' ? / / 113l LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT illir c ,t7 /Li Date vz- Name Signature Unit # I Address 3//6:41* Octadiet. Jo Abef hisadui- B.2a/ -510 agi4e,.16 3 ilk in V‘ei 4 . tito r r i *evN ,ellikhu --1A.,..,....6k .10‘1%-cr, B )--;- I 443 Ark‘a cd+u Wan .1/017 fle .g. 1441-3 #4:1-69re-72) l'?-11 ..3fr61)-7 lit.alaii--ci;r,i,f9e.i g.-( - s,„. 6 I i 7 PI f-te- lel-4 br-7.-0-- AL12-y , rri e ,3/ A 07 Siiittey Kfy.4-....1 /,4 L b.. i . /6 ..,/-4-5- q V3 4-1_6e7e_iv iiy 4447 ,Tio7ti 09ciiao1_upo iden ,/ . 1:62,,, hdejj„..,.,_ I 2.0-___ Bailz, 14 liz 0 BIre / 'Y k2-1*Cg".e, nfle.b 61"4 ' 7" 1 '1 Li 4a /qt ber±0 1,3 013 - 2 .' 7/./ 7 iIs c 51//4 hi 0 0 5 _._---,--.-e ._.e,,,,i,,,, cb--, -,i i__ // 3--- 9 I/3 A 1 loc. tic te-31/ 3-17- J.) 1- rW fod 1,e t'i-1 L6 ice,dp' ic,,A S) 26 T/3/4-ib c i i 49 311710 3-eqn ratrerl111,5 11,. ,1-4)Lcri.. Bq 167 .1-b- /3 4.1 ber4 itiat_. „.- 3 17 1(1 /t79 E,Z" A --/:-7/9 i,4; 4 a. \ %, ck 2-oks A-Q-eux,iab ;fr 5_,p7 il ‘Rtrkk J-Wilsoei Zatit H le)" qv 3 4/ Zyti-dyof /1911-7 410) u rei 69/4 ens;\ g2T-7 VY-3 Atork- killy 4 Pliii Asik 1 K. 7.141166-77- 1. -1? 1.291 17Aq3 AL6a.-ro kJ A- y / ° 2 q 3,1 Li-fa-Ivo 6u41 11 LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT 1 Date Name Signature Unit # Lde Address q6f2x3 2- 3,f ? /la r i t Hq )? At 4. .' (/FC f 4a rraA f 3� 44,a _4 0 3/r 510 -r A( (o, S G 4-e s (i'l. - i.,-, h,.0 ., C" Z 3 F 9 f- q A 16 e t-1'6, 14/A , g y 0).- 3/ 16/1 ' rr , � e_ g 0r J (2c7 3 / g d IIo ev crEo 1 (0.1° cueg - ,..0 I 9 Ufts c_l Od32( 4, ..# IrS etkr- ,.) sci -jti9 RI iDk r+c7 1,t)w) ,J317 3 6 /) F • 9 Ill IN PN aitt €) - 1 A 3 l / J iYl Q.Q f `Y r�7 1. live-z.fet. ,r,h C I� j �� eV14-'‹�--�-/ , i'aea i &xckJOhnon 997A` 0y #1z, jib-i� j 6,1 qq7+ -D -A Li_iiki.brirocupeirt--5--) Lte.d/ awn/et r:\a,wor Id.i- ow (,z 2:7 5 C c 2 52- LIDO aib a 23L f LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date Name Signature Unit # Address ten, /, V, ` f,,� WICW c JCtOY r / / / ` '3 / 3r 0(5-3 i 0/A,,,,,,6 As-fd_ j-// i 24,,re%-, f vi) _er :,�,r4,: 2 V 1 (/ SJ ,J L. e,4 '"`J 2_, 1 L,„,,,e -.r. ntd. 4e'k -X-c--%x,,,,, e-- k-i - : 5,)1 CN-Q.a--2't-4'17 /S f /i41,rzrp to A `( %,i 'i {l %�lr)ww, 4 Iv ' (,i„6;:6 10 ;1) 1- CIHL--i-- Co 0Q. 4 s- /LY5) �1i, La Id/ 7 4f A it -5S 1(4(0 us-1 iaek-46 c� 36-dit , 1 ) , _W) --1111 6 rc, 4 ri 4141°,64 Odn- /'7 j 1. F1oreinc � .1 p, t`l ae- n 3/2o0 ' f T-c R A- gowv&A T' ra,vv-,- 2 y,6 Li6 r ,41 Woud 3 12 0 (q i1afru ocz cn t& , 2il 4 6-7 ilLc r/ W' -1 I/ ;an ?o5S C.a),--1416Q`f 9 45(,QI(oeth ` 5 / I+L13 cy wai �- ZrL./:);A y C , G L I, TAR i r = / &sae 0, ID l ii 9, 1J ' S _Skr10 i'Y}L C\Vc 16 b 451 1/63 Abed- 6jbQviovial 0 Ih 379i,(0 Pcti-fy L e v 13 p ) i� J 1-/ LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date Name Signature Unit # Address ( (S' )0cAA./4,, 0,L, \-Iri kdct_.,- 10 c, iv 0.P-1/ 0 1,/, WA; ik/out 4///c r e� _ / +. i ci,-T C v fi ki S A f 2 ! 5 /7L(/ ' v f 3 l / f /'' eci n i t7 `ooL'A k ,001/60-. J .Sg AkiZah-Qa- a ,T3 P-10'iekit) OP ie.=,,--, c) —7-i; iu y Qi -2- V I D t-t 3 :5-e ,�-ictr r ,l' ? 4/he, 6datt /1,5' .27.1--- of �f I 1:57/4aLe1/46 0,) 6 '7 t-f d/ 4/ 6'� _ _ J / 1 C Ae\\ \ `W, u�1 ', 3131 J ODD. ,1 alexsz_ .. . lq liCj eitio-) 7 %- -_,. /57 6 r To: Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: Neighbors of Alberto Way concerned about 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos. We present this petition in show of our solidarity. The neighbors of Alberto Way composed of Los Gatos Commons [110 units], Pueblo de Los Gatos [53 units], Bella Vista [47 units], and Las Casitas [17 units] ask that you not certify the EIR and that you not approve the project. We strongly agree on the following three positions concerning the 401-409 Alberto Way Project: 1 ] We want the scale and design to look and feel like Los Gatos, a small town with views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The new plan (for an 83,000 sf building) violates General Plan guidelines and policies on these points (LU-6, LU-6.2 and CD 1.2, e.g.). 2] The draft EIR section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix C) fails to address the impact of the below -water table garage on neighboring properties, as required in General Plan policy (SAF 1.11). Moreover, since measurements were taken during the ENGEO study, the water table has risen significantly due to the recent drought recovery. Any excavation would require wholesale dewatering, making the construction phase extremely disruptive for us. We are concerned about negative effects of the underground garage on our properties during and post - construction and, therefore, we want all the 401-409 Alberto Way Project parking to remain above ground. 3] We want significant analysis of the traffic impact of not only this 401-409 development but also of pending 201-225 Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and 475 and 485 projects. With the passage of Measure B, the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief must also be included to provide a comprehensive plan. Critical in planning is to remember that Alberto Way is a narrow dead end street where children and disabled seniors live. Additional traffic congestion violates General Plan guidelines and policies (TRA 1.1 and 2.5, e.g.). oZik2 77770ki r041 Pfrt66LO 1)•- /los -24-7-05 Petition to the Town of Los Gatos: Revised 405 Alberto Way Development: please DENY the Application for the proposed, do not CERTIFY the FIR and teclare a moratorium on development. Petition summary and background To: Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: Neighbors of Alberto Way concerned about 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos. We present this petition in show of our solidarity. The neighbors of Alberto Way composed of Los Gatos Commons [110 units], Pueblo de Los Gatos [53 units], Bella Vista [47 units], and Las Casitas [17 units] ask that you not certify the EIR and that you not approve the project. We strongly agree on the following three positions concerning the 401-409 Alberto Way Project: 1] We want the scale and design to look and feel like Los Gatos, a small town with views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The new plan (for an 83,000 sf building) violates General Plan guidelines and policies on these points (LU-6, LU-6.2 and CD 1.2, e.g.). 2] The draft EIR section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix C) fails to address the impact of the below -water table garage on neighboring properties, as required in General Plan policy (SAF 1.11). Moreover, since measurements were taken during the ENGEO study, the water table has risen significantly due to the recent drought recovery. Any excavation would require wholescale dewatering, making the construction phase extremely disruptive for us. We are concerned about negative effects of the underground garage on our properties during and post -construction and, therefore, we want all the 401-409 Alberto Way Project parking to remain above ground. 3] We want significant analysis of the traffic impact of not only this 401-409 development but also of pending 201-225 Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and 475 and 485 projects. With the passage of Measure B, the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief must also be included to provide a comprehensive plan. Critical in planning is to remember that Alberto Way is a narrow dead end street where children and disabled seniors live. Additional traffic congestion violates General Plan guidelines and policies (TRA 1.1 and 2.5, e.g.). Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to DENY the Application. Printed Marne Signature Address Comment • ate \,. . SVv-\ ZAPV,i L Al b,, 2 ,11 � - hAtNA ':Thill,-141Ct / 412-e, AL --Kr) k,),\IN/-434- 3 i ( 7-Q--;:e74-1P/4&-`--- f---t---:;'z_c7 Y-'2-67 le--- ('V 4.3 /-7 .6010 r - . 1111° f do kilt, ti-0--- n Printed Name Signature _ Address Comment Date 4% !--i(-44 4w pi-tie...will Val It3y Vr f,1- \;, �,Wi,� -k //:Vo II 1 I5c -u itati 4 Li 3,4 (9-- ` ""z Y CAic I a 0 A cie- Y a c a I I C% I I7 D f cot V oi1(c r ► °� '1.Z 0 Atbligku IA,1 c c -Alp) 3/1 V , 7 141/ .vrki I n 1 B& ((-1 #/ f / e7 ' lr-u. \( ZAP, 4Ay`X',?/;'i- , ' /0 /.1:1.N , -L.. 214-„, ' 4j: 47 g.v ,Qc.I a-ro dify 447 I CQ/! C•/— ..3r / _ L , ^ p')., .4 ii v it „i .a.) id 3 j 3/r 10 riaC"A/ 'PI' S' 1 A*III- 434 60fic„ct zU4.1 . mac, 3/00 Z d net Pe.t rs nei y.,.,14) a-e-S. 7., le-.:.2 a 3 -// -f 7 1 ' 1 , 120 4C ra CdrU w g y ige r5- i 1- ! 7 �ni�1 fi I= :, AA/TEL. Qottt9 X (9 ,, )r er-10 ai i`f 3-1I-17 Printed Name S7gnature Address Comment Date ..r ,Z.IZO 0 76Pinlv 1-)eey 01 °-`) il 2o 3rtr/.7, ciai-E i \ 114 lizo CFL,f iic.__ tf-20 /4-rb.,4-/eu t-----, 3 ,; ...74, Multel/j-,i9Vt;tiq A `2 '/; j_ fl i). i i 2. ' 1 / 2,1 . ' I) I /u c / ` 1 1 , -L.c_' r / f'� � -/z z -7"� 7 r Aftel".: 1 ff':� C A /Z o tki-c� 434- / Ai? t j vz,,,! /.4 e,/. 6-'07 4 / `j Zch #4,-z,t_e(L_ Li/2e) /11 AQi&ila L.9" 24t) /47- .1Q1,f.,2 �'�'dM, k J Q0A&Sv ( trio 3 ;r h-viz) l-rt, wi)u1)- /t-'; i ri1 v (j . ,A — ,tacit ) .'21j G Lf7c) /4/4d4 l) c r i N Via e-1,--ktxt C1 i vi-g� i1,1/44, M ` � N___ i A- mil.`-h LA-i -a # 6 s�/, E / i 7 Printed Name Signature Address comment Date I ai-2/7QS;Xerfhti 00 ifeserib #40 3/42/4 l �7 3/ /1 -Je9-ni-t-oie See) 4 „24- zigo.nroep,A) c,(..14-/5)5_ Yank t;. (w + is 40,`A . , 40 A166, 45 Rk )•5 i c (6, - s _f , 12 0 AU:., A w y # 13 3/(z / ile-. -/P441w-5 J011 ofDRd., orn 5r= A20 Albariu U3 4 27 34 l.Z _ Op ,,, 1-gd1A1 13e -51I T ' MO 5 (P-ovi 6 -4Y4a0 4 20 VedItA 2Z 71 / ikr} l 11 tv tvae & iqC1141.) (r1),0 M/6,Lf4D ),)/(ti-Pr v ff r "'F3 J1. \,.,\C e t v_umr lei '' ' N1 vit) wom ti4v Lt&A'e - 4'2.0 /1( 4 26 43(1. Arn,e. 1`� tun ; er�� ` ...� .��� �2 � Z � �lh� � 0 3/13,%/7- -_ X1',,,k ,10,,.... k-Le.c`iQ-1, a%i) f-1i.IAAJ u...a4.1 ik _l{ ' it�i -t`] Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date 1 VW1. - (JAL 496 ill- ' - h, -- l) 37i Sir) WI) lqii e 0 ti by --LIA, 4,-)6 Pbn4-0 lAjf,0 1,/e)-4 a)gtZV 410 4.6-i<Ei 49- __Slis R-- dttc4.47-1 _gdtj 1:16--(Vaq-MYY\ ‘—\-11') LI;Lb Abs\co L,N)k.- --r,-) 311 i /7 Sh'ey L WCt,Ari i LI2b Al bah I/Oc . 31 I5 r t, 1 4r 4 SU5ct .-7 L av . -. Lt Li2 c) at - Wry' t 7)11(.1'- \\ WANs C' �" t z-,2-c, , 3 .-* 1 2- . 3)1 (0f (- .. an 0,) o ri a0 — 47 iliberly 14414r57 IA*7 9roanito(Irvellih k2G Ibeet.t)0 1/4\)4151 3/1'°l1-7- 1- er u r c'_ .,, - 1 b, c, A L b .e rA z, J A-c,. 'ic-\ -1 i q in c.:e ,7--, r c r'ezx,4..j_, C,z, .- !..... `f Ze 4 ! b 4 eta 3.1 l' - 17 �3ella Vista Vj/JE Resident Name Resident Address Email Address Signature Date Send Email Update? (Y/Nj (28 homes} T: 100 Cuesta de Los Gatos /� 4/4/2017 T: De/ QL__ 101 Cuesta de Los Gatos ,Sk5e,Q pre/ 4 yep,,,h ,,, ,4 y,_, 4/4/2017 _Sono Ail Self � 104 Cuesta de Los Gatos _X 4/4/2017 T: 108 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017 -ChlTSMcCarter C"vina, 112 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017 -.5 T: John Meehan 116 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/201LAW 4/4/2017 Amber Reynolds 120 Cuesta de Las Gatos Aysen ilkbahar 124 Cuesta de Los Gatos j jyly j _ _ 4/4/2017 T: greys s !#rah 128 CuestA de ins Gatos 4/4/2017 — k Borrlson 129 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017 d' T: 132 Cuesta de Los Gatos s ti 4/4/2017 Alexandra & Sven Mevlssen 134 Cuesta de Los Gatos /�r_$�r%Q�r+\Z_, u '~ 4/4/2017 >' ,/• Anne Hughes 136 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017 _ Jennifer and John Bryan 138 Cuesta de Los Gatos }( 4/4/2017 T. 166 Cuesta de Los Gatos 1..j Q-ly - } i 4/4/2017 Julia and E. kim 168 Cuesta de Los Gatos _ F 4/4/2017 — Robin Lutgert _ _170.CuestadeLas- Gatos ----- --- --.. - .-- - — -- ------- -- -4/4/2017 Melanie Kemp 174 Cuesta de Los Gatos �p F Ct,kC Cb tOLTO L COID 4/4/2017 Judi and Oavd Stegner 175 Cuesta de Los Gatos ' 4/4/2017 Glgl Matacca 176 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017 Jute Dal Porto 178 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017 GrrBetsy Hung 179 Cuesta de Los Gatosz4L 4/4/2017 s/ T: Anne and Paul Kerr 182 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017 Ed Parson 185 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017 yffy�i �r�_ _Zer 190 Cuesta de Los Gatos X 1 4/4/2017 .S.Mary Parfltt 194 Cuesta de Los Gatos {- / &) tg+ 6 4/4/2017 Sharon Hart 195 Cuesta de Los Gatos -r Re�„� 4/4/2017 Stephanie Moon 198 Cuesta de Los Gatos A , �. / �1 7/9/190S ' .- (4 homes) : 113 Treseder Court 4/4/2017 Shelly Franklin 117 Treseder Court . 4/4/2017 Colleen Thomas 121 Treseder Court 4/4/2017 Wes Yemoto 125 Treseder Court -_L —1 4/4/2017 (13 homes) Marian & Hedeyat Sarnia 140 Maggi Court 4/4/2017 T: 142 Maggi Court .�,, 4/4/2017 Renee 5tratulate & Bill Schweikert 144 Maggi Court 1 f .± I � „'4 4/4/2017 Forrest Straight 146 Maggl Court ^ i /4/2017 Laura and Hick Williamson 148 Maggl Court / 4/4/2017 Mary Barlow (REMISED) 150 Maggl Court ''"'"Barlow4/4/2017 Natallia and Vitals Stuisky 152 Maggl Court 4/4/2017 T: 154 Maggl Court � NM-'t * — -J 4/4/2017 Mary Mn and Ken Lown 156 Mae Court 4/4/2017 T: 158 Maggl Court 4/4/2017 Janet Corral 160 Maggl Court 4/4/2017 Minal Singh 162 Maggl Court t 4/4/2017 Paul Murphy 164 Maggl Court � J .IA.#— i'\ 6 ryr•.---- .------- 4/4/2017 :z9 Iec p AA 0.,115 ado Pvell , Cormie )) To: Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: Neighbors of Alberto Way concerned about 401-4D9 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos. We present this petition in show of our solidarity. The neighbors of Alberto Way composed of Los Gatos Commons [110 units], Pueblo de Los Gatos [53 units], Bella Vista [47 units], and Las Casitas [17 units] ask that you not certify the EIR and that you not approve the project. We strongly agree on the following three positions concerning the 401-409 Alberto Way Project: 1] We want the scale and design to look and feel like Los Gatos, a small town with views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The new plan (for an 83,000 sf building) violates General Plan guidelines and policies on these points (LU-6, LU-6.2 and CD 1.2, e.g.). 2] The draft EIR section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix C) fails to address the impact of the below - water table garage on neighboring properties, as required in General Plan policy (SAF 1.11). Moreover, since measurements were taken during the ENGEO study, the water table has risen significantly due to the recent drought recovery. Any excavation would require wholesale dewatering, making the construction phase extremely disruptive for us. We are concerned about negative effects of the underground garage on our properties during and post -construction and, therefore, we want all the 401-409 Alberto Way Project parking to remain above ground. 3] We want significant analysis of the traffic impact of not only this 401-409 development but also of pending 201-225 Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and 475 and 485 projects. With the passage of Measure B, the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief must also be included to provide a comprehensive plan. Critical in planning is to remember that Alberto Way is a narrow dead end street where children and disabled seniors live. Additional traffic congestion violates General Plan guidelines and policies (TRA 1.1 and 2.5, e.g.). 401_ zige-ezA)4)/ /LA Z#h171 .45 ‘421-os 413 zoidr476 4i;W7 5,4_C4 'aLCo?,E5 02-,Ageg Arid 0 6 2011 TOM! OF LOS GATOS THIS IS A PERSPECTIVE OF THE IMPACT OF THE 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT ON SENIORS LIVING IN THE 110 UNITS OF LOS GATOS COMMONS (90% OF LOS GATOS "COMMONS" RESIDENTS ARE SENIORS). LOS GATOS COMMONS IS LOCATED AT 439-453 ALBERTO WAY, LOS GATOS, CA Seniors living at Los Gatos Commons are stressing over their quality of life as they contemplate living for months and months on a dead-end street in a construction zone. In the past the dead- end street has kept traffic to a low impact and contributed to our quiet, pedestrian friendly lifestyle. Now with construction and excavation looming, our dead-end street will trap us in our homes. There is no other exit except through Alberto Way and the construction zone. Seniors who are cautious drivers wonder how will they even get out of the "Commons" parking lot with the 200 plus diesel truck trips per day dominating Alberto Way. "HOW WILL I GET MY GROCERIES? HOW WILL I GET TO MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS ON TIME? HOW WILL I BE ABLE TO FILL AN EMERGENCY PHARMACY REFILL DODGING ALL THAT TRAFFIC?" Stress levels have started to rise as residents who are thinking of selling their condos are facing full disclosure of the story poles to potential buyers and even further disclosure if they have knowledge of the 475-485 Alberto Oaks project. The stress level is even higher for residents who are already house bound and bed bound for medical reasons. "HOW WILL MY FAMILY OR CAREGIVERS GET THROUGH THE TRAFFIC LET ALONE FIND A PLACE TO PARK WITH ALL THE DISRUPTION? WHAT IF I NEED AN EMR TEAM? HOW WILL THEY GET THROUGH TO ME? WHAT IF IT HAPPENS ON A DAY WITH BEACH TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK AND 200 PLUS DIESEL TRUCKS TRIPS DOMINATING ALBERTO WAY?" For safety reasons and for the potential diminished quality of life issues including social isolation that the 401-409 Project poses, we are asking the Planning Commission to deny the EIR and the project because of the impact on the lives of the seniors already living on Alberto Way. We are asking the Planning Commission to insist that any development on 401-409 honor the request of the Planning Commissioners to reduce the size of the project one third to one half. We ask that the project keep the 120 above ground parking spaces. Please do not excavate 20 feet down on Alberto Way, which is the old streambed of Los Gatos Creek. Once water is hit, construction will stop and we seniors will be trapped even longer on our dead- end street. We are asking that the Planning Commission live up to its vision statements and policies to support a Senior Friendly Community. We are asking you to protect the Los Gatos Commons community as a valuable senior housing asset as touted in the Senior Housing section of the 2020 General Plan. Please allow seniors who have contributed their time, talent, and tax dollars to retire without isolation and stress in the town they helped to build. Respectfully Submitted after interviews with my neighbors at Los Gatos Commons, Marilyn Basham, Retired Physical Therapist Resident of Los Gatos since 1983 Partner in Basham Eye Associates, 212 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos, CA Resident of Los Gatos Commons at 439 Alberto Way, A207 Los Gatos, CA REFER TO "From Pueblo de Los Gatos" SECTION OF THIS EXHIBIT Alberto Way Citizens' Opposition to the Revised Plan filed March 9, 2017 by Lamb Partners for 405 Alberto Way (formerly 401-409 Alberto Way) Jennifer Armer From: Marilyn Basham <marilynbasham@me.com> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 10:25 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: A perspective on the traffic analysis for 401-409 Alberto Way proposed project Dear Planning Commissioners, As a member of a group of seniors living at the "Commons", we have met weekly since the story poles went up on Alberto Way to understand the proposed development and to get correct information to and from our neighbors. When one member completes research on a particular topic that detailed information is shared with the rest of the group. A very detailed report showing the flaws and under estimated facts in the traffic analysis for the 401-409 project is part of a packet for your review. I want to highlight four of those flaws so they don't get overlooked: 1 The traffic analysis for the 401-409 proposed development did not address the impact on Highway #17. A recent CAL TRANS reports indicates that Highway # 17 is already overcapacity and needs further mitigation. 2 The traffic study submitted was not done during a time when school as in session and thus does not reflect the true impact on the residents and the community. 3 The traffic analysis does not include the impact of 475-485 Albert Oaks proposed project. This is even though there is a letter from the 475-485 developer to the city indicating his desired to develop Alberto Oaks as of 11/2015. 4 The traffic analysis does not include the implications of the passage of MEASURE B. It is possible that the highway ramps and interchanges scheduled for improvement under MEASURE B will be impeded by the 401-409 development. This will then impede use of public funds for improvement. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Basham Resident of 439 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, CA This Page Intentionally Left Blank PACC UISITIONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT March 17, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: (408) 354-6872 Email: jarmer@Iosgatosca.gov RE: Response Letter to Planning Commission from Public Hearing on August 24, 2016. 405 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 APN 529-23-018 Thank you for recommending approval of LP Acquisition's above -referenced project to the Planning Commission at its hearing on August 24, 2016. In anticipation of the continued Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 22nd, this response letter describes the architectural changes between the Original Plan Set (a/k/a 401-405 Alberto Way) submitted on July 13, 2016 and the Revised Plan Set (a/k/a 405 Alberto Way) submitted on March 9, 2017, and responds to the Planning Commissioner's direction from the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing. SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES: Since the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, LP Acquisitions has been meeting with the neighbors and interested parties, and we initiated a comprehensive effort to redesign our Project in response to both the Town and neighborhood comments and concerns. Based on the feedback we received from the Planning Commission and the neighborhood, we revised the architecture to incorporate the following key design modifications: We combined the former two (2), two-story buildings into a single, two-story building thereby resulting in a 9,000 square foot reduction in floor area, and a reduction in overall heights by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side of the new building when compared to the previous two buildings. Other changes include: • To illustrate the reduction in the building massing and size, the original design was 1,614,290 cubic feet ("cf") and the proposed redesign is 1,207,665 cf. Therefore, we reduced the building size by 25%. 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650.326.1600 EXI' B1T 3 1 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER • We relocated the office building to the rear of the site, against the setback lines on Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. (Route 9) and the on -ramp to Highway 17. This accomplishes two very important goals: 1) allows for significantly more open space on the Alberto Way frontage to the building, which is utilized for additional surface parking and amenity space, and 2) enhance the views of the existing trees and mountains behind the building, when viewed from the properties on the other side of Alberto Way. • We shifted the building by an additional 10 feet away from the north property line, in response to concerns from the Las Casitas neighbors which borders the Applicant's property to the north. The reduced building size, along with a reduced parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, results in a 58-space reduction in the overall parking count from 390 parking spaces to 332 parking spaces. In response to the Town and neighborhood concerns regarding the former design's lack of surface parking, we increased the surface parking count from 7 to 42 parking spaces. The overall parking reduction also results in a significant reduction in size of the underground parking garage (which we retained) thereby accommodating all construction staging on site, instead of in the street. We replaced the proposed building foundation with a concrete superstructure in order to significantly reduce the building height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side. Consequently, the revised building footprint preserves the views of the existing trees and mountains behind the building, when viewed from the properties on the other side of Alberto Way. We also eliminated the tower elements in response to the Planning Commission and neighbors' concerns that the elements were too prominent, and we eliminated the second -floor exterior balcony on the north (Las Casitas) side of the building. All second -floor exterior balconies now face Alberto Way thereby enhancing the design hierarchy of the building to create more definition between the ground and second floor design elements. LP Acquisitions retained the Mission style architecture which maintains the small-town flavor of other, nearby commercial developments in Los Gatos and resembles the massing and scale of the other existing buildings in the immediate neighborhood. Lastly, and in response to both the Town and neighbor concerns with respect to traffic and safety on Alberto Way, and consistent with the Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are proposing to dedicate a portion of the site for the purpose of widening and straightening Alberto Way, allowing for the addition of both a bike lane in front of the property and an extended right turn lane onto Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9). We have identified locations for detached sidewalk improvements on both the Alberto Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9) street frontages, and are proposing to install new curb, ramps and crosswalk at the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9) to the Highway 17 on ramp. We have addressed the Town's and neighbors' concerns regarding the project through the design modifications summarized above and further discussed in ARC TEC's letter dated March 2 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER 16, 2017. The proposed modifications described above are feasible and represent minor revisions and clarifications to the overall project description that will not add significant new information to the Town of Los Gatos 401-409 Alberto Way Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This information will not require recirculation of the EIR because the proposed modifications will further lessen impacts that the Town previously found to be Tess than -significant. Further the changes incorporated into the Project would not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a prior environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that we declined to adopt and that will clearly lessen any project impacts. No information provided in our submittal indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conciusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the EIR. SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER DIRECTIONS TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE AUGUST 24, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING: The following summarizes key comments from the Planning Commission followed by our response to the comment referred to as, the "Applicant Response." Thomas O'Donnell (Chair) 1. Requested a 1/3 reduction in the size of the building. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Applicant's proposed redesign of the office project reduces the size and mass of the building by combining the two former buildings into a single building (a/k/a 405 Alberto Way). The smaller single building redesign provides less floor area and would result in further setting back the building to the rear setback allowed by the Town. Also, we reduced the building's overall heights by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side, and we eliminated the tower elements. Consequently, the overall size of the building expressed in cubic feet has resulted in a 25% reduction. Additionally, the following facts support our redesigned office project: 1) the current Class A office vacancy rate in Los Gatos is at or near 0% (see attached exhibit "Colliers Los Gatos Office Class A Snapshot"); therefore, there is an enormous demand for more Class A office in Los Gatos; 2) Due to the high price of land and construction costs, it is not financially feasible for LP Acquisitions to develop an office project of Tess than 83,000 square feet on this site. For example, the parking structure costs alone exceed $12 million dollars. When coupled with the land price, the land acquisition cost and the parking structure together result in a development cost of $615 per square foot. This cost does not include other development costs associated with grading and excavation, and on -site and off -site infrastructure. Lenders typically expect a 12% annual lease payment on total costs for the lender's own risk calculations in order to decide whether to invest in a commercial office project. With a 12% annual lease payment, the rent would need to be $6.15 triple net lease (NNN). In the Los Gatos office market, rents are closer to $4.50 NNN which would result in a return below 9%. With a return below 9% and the development costs associated 3 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER with this project for an 83,000 square foot building the revised Project is barely at the threshold of feasibility. Any further reductions in project size compromise the likelihood that LP Acquisitions will be able to secure a lender for this project. Accordingly, LP Acquisitions found that the 83,000 square foot building is the smallest sized building that feasibly could be developed and still meet the basic project objectives, while incorporating the design changes requested by the Planning Commission and the public. D. Michael Kane (Vice Chair) 1. The new office project should be similar (in architectural style) with surrounding neighborhood per Community Design Element ("CD"), Section 1.4 APPLICANT RESPONSE: As there is no prevalent commercial architectural style in the immediate surrounding neighborhood as discussed at the August 24' Planning Commission meeting, we redesigned the proposed project to promote the small-town atmosphere "feel and image", and so that the building complements the existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance and design of a small-town Class A office center. Specifically, the project vernacular is of a mission -style architecture and the building incorporates various design elements of the Hotel Los Gatos and Palo Alto Medical Foundation building located on Los Gatos Boulevard. The Town's Architectural Consultant approved the proposed architectural style as in keeping with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines. 2. Develop traffic safety measures: a. For vehicles turning from Alberto Way onto Saratoga- Los Gatos Road (Route 9) westbound — cars are driving too fast down the hill under existing conditions. APPLICANT RESPONSE: LP Acquisitions is proposing to incorporate the Town's Complete Street Program into the Project circulation system. For example, the Project includes detached sidewalk along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9) in order to create a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles exiting onto the Hwy 17 onramp. The sidewalk will lead to an ADA compliant ramp that will allow pedestrians to cross the Hwy 17 onramp with the use of a striped crosswalk as shown on Sheets A1.01 and C2.0 of the March 9, 2017 Revised Plan Set submittal package. To address the existing conditions, the Town could consider installing a speed feedback sign on the hill. b. Look into installing traffic calming measures on Alberto Way. APPLCIANT RESPONSE: After the August 24, 2010 Planning Commission Hearing, the LP Acquisitions project team met with Public Works and Planning on September 2, 2016 to explore various options for traffic calming measures on Alberto Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9). Per the Town's Public Works Department, LP Acquisitions would need to comply with the Town's Traffic Calming Policy. Traffic calming is 4 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER initiated by submitting a petition signed by 50% of the Alberto Way Residences in accordance with the Town's Traffic Calming Policy. Further discussion with the Town's Public Works would be required if the neighborhood were to request further traffic calming improvements in the area. Kendra Burch (Commissioner) 1. Reduce the size of the building. APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant Response under Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes, Matthew Hudes (Commissioner) 1. Explore a more visible pedestrian crossing at the Hwy 17 Northbound on -ramp working with Staff and CalTrans. APPLICANT RESPONSE: LP Acquisitions will implement the Town's Complete Street Program as summarized above. The Applicant will install a detached sidewalk along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9) in order to create a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles entering onto the Hwy 17 onramp. The sidewalk will lead to an ADA compliant ramp that will allow pedestrians to cross the Hwy 17 onramp with the use of a striped crosswalk. To address existing pedestrian safety concerns, the Town could consider installing flashing beacons at the cross walk to make it more visible, which would be consistent with CalTrans' suggestion in its June 13, 2016 letter that beacons be installed at this location. Presumably, then, CalTrans would be inclined to approve the beacons and the Applicant would be happy to install these flashing beacons as part of its offsite improvement plan at this cross walk. 2. Explore with Staff the possibility of straightening and widening Alberto Way to allow ingress/egress of emergency vehicles and a bike lane, as well as implement the Town's Complete Street Program. APPLICANT RESPONSE: LP Acquisitions will implement the Town's Complete Street Program. The Applicant has proposed a land dedication along the Alberto Way frontage in order to facilitate this request. The revised design has moved a majority of the existing curb and gutter into the proposed land dedication as well as the excess ROW (back 5 feet) in order to have a wider and straighter roadway section. This widening will allow Alberto Way to incorporate a bicycle lane and a longer right turn lane which leads onto Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9). Additionally, the wider road will improve the visibility between pedestrians and vehicles. 3. Reduce the massing and size of Building 401 (Eastern facade) and articulate the top floor in a way similar to the existing buildings and move Building 401 more to the rear of the property. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The revised design combines the two former buildings into a single building (a/k/a 405 Alberto Way). The new building is entirely 5 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER repositioned to the rear setback and the southern end of the new building is over 60 feet further away from Alberto Way than the former 401 building. We eliminated the second -floor exterior balcony on the north (Las Casitas) side of the building. As a result, a!I second -floor exterior balconies now face Alberto Way which breaks up the building massing by accentuating the first floor and moves the second floor further away from Alberto Way. Furthermore, through the use of a concrete structure, LP Acquisitions reduced the floor -to -floor heights and we reduced the mansard roof height thereby resulting in an overall building height reduction of 5.5 feet on the north side and by 6.0 feet on the south side of the property. We eliminated both tower elements which has significantly reduced the height in these specific roof areas by 13.6 feet on the north side and 12 feet on the south side. This allows for views of the existing trees in the CalTrans right-of-way and distant mountains to be visible from the properties across Alberto Way. Melanie Hanssen (Commissioner) 1. Reduce the size of the buildings. APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant Response above under Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes. 2. Requests that the Residents and Applicant work together. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Alberto Way residents, as part of the various Homeowner Associations appointed John Mittelstet to be our Point of Contact ("POC"). LP Acquisitions initiated contact with Mr. Mittelstet and has been providing him regular updates. The first set of new drawings was delivered to him on January 18, 2017 and two Neighborhood Outreach meetings were held on January 30, 2017. See attached exhibit "Summary of January 30, 2017 Neighborhood Outreach Meetings". Additionally, Mr. Mittelstet has arranged a following -up Neighborhood Outreach Meeting with LP Acquisitions and the neighbors for March 20, 2017 in order to educate the neighbors on the latest revisions in the March 9, 2017 Revised Plan Set. 3. Preserve the Small -Town Character per CD Introduction and General Plan LU 1.2. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed project has been designed so that it complements the small-town atmosphere and image; and it preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance and design of a small-town Class A office center. Specifically, this project incorporated various design elements from the Hotel Los Gatos and Palo Alto Medical Foundation office building located on Los Gatos Boulevard. 4. Ensure the land use is consistent with the neighborhood per General Plan LU1.4 and LU1.8. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed project has been designed in conformance with the Town of Los Gatos Zoning requirements. Proposed site coverage, height limitations and parking requirements all meet the Town zoning requirements. LP Acquisitions proposed a project that complies with the applicable General Plan and Zoning requirements. We have not requested any 6 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER special considerations, variances, exceptions or amendments as part of this application. The overall building size expressed in cubic feet is now 25% small which promotes the design of a small-town scale. Charles Erekson (Former Commissioner) 1. Wants a new proposal that addresses the following: i. Significant reduction in scale and size of the building. Applicant to decide what is appropriate. APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant Response above under Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes. ii. Move Building 405 further away from the Las Casitas HOA neighborhood which borders the Applicant's property on the north. ARCHITECT RESPONSE: The northern side of the redesigned building has been repositioned to be 10 feet further away from the Las Casitas property line. Per the revised design, the northern side of the building will now sit more than 25 feet from the property boundary (15 feet setback + the additional 10 feet recently incorporated into the Revised Plan Set). As noted above, the Applicant also removed the second -floor exterior balcony on this side per the neighbor's request. iii. Maintain underground parking structure. iv. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The underground parking structure has been retained. The reduced building size, along with a reduced parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, allows the OVERALL parking count to be reduced from 390 parking spaces down to 332 parking spaces (a reduction of 58 OVERALL parking spaces). As a result, the footprint of the underground parking structure has been dramatically reduced in size and its overall parking count has been significantly decreased by a total of 93 parking spaces from the former 383 garage parking spaces down to 290 garage parking spaces. In response to the Town and neighborhood concerns regarding the former design's lack of surface parking, the Applicant increased the surface parking count from 7 to 42 parking spaces. Additionally, the parking reduction creates a significant reduction in size of the underground parking garage, which will now allow for all construction staging to occur on site and it reduces the amount of export off -haul during excavation. See attached exhibits "Revised Project Construction Details for 405 Alberto Way" and "Revised Project Construction Export Details for 405 Alberto Way". v. Re-examine safety measures and widen the street. Work with Staff to implement traffic calming measures on Alberto Way. APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant response above under D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes. The Applicant has straightened and widened Alberto Way by over 5 feet. The Applicant will continue to work with the Town on potential traffic calming measures. Further discussion with the Town's Public Works is required. 7 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER vi. Incorporate architectural styles that are consistent with the Neighborhood. Mediterranean architecture doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant Response above under D. Michael Kane. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Shane Arters Principal & COO 8 MONTHLY SNAPSHOT Los Gatos Office Class A Available Space Total 'Total Direct Sublease Direct Sublease Available Available Building Quarter Date Vacant Vacant Occupied Occupied Space Space Rate Base 04-16 Jan-17 0 0 0 0 0 0.09% 655,340 Dec-16 0 0 0 2,137 2,137 0.33% 655,340 Nov-16 0 0 0 2,137 2.137 0.33% 655.340 03-16 0c1-16 0 0 0 2,137 2,137 0.33% 655,340 Sep-16 0 0 0 0 0 0,00:! 655,340 1.50% Aug-16 2.298 0 15.000 0 17,298 2-64% 655,340 02-16 Jul-16 2,298 0 15.000 0 17,298 2.64% 655,340 Jun-16 2.298 0 15,000 0 17,298 2.64% 655,340 M0y-16 2,298 0 15,000 0 17,298 2.64% 655.340 01-16 Apr-16 2298 0 0 0 2.298 0.3514 655,340 Mar-16 2,496 0 0 0 2,496 0.38% 655.340 Feb-16 5,892 0 0 0 5,892 0.90% 655,340 04.15 Jan-16 9,339 0 0 0 9,339 1.43% 655,340 3.I Los Gatos Office Class A. Absorption Gross Net Gross Net Absorption Absorption Quarter Date Date Range Absorption Absorption Quarter Quarter 04.16 J2n-17 1211/16 to 1/1 /17 2,557 0 2.557 0 Dec-16 11/1/16 to 1211116 0 0 Nov-16 10/1/16 to 11/1/16 0 0 03-16 0c1-16 9/1116 to 1011116 0 0 17,298 2,298 Sep-16 8/1/16 to 9/1/16 17.298 2,298 Aug-16 7/1/16 to 8/1116 0 0 02-16 Jul-16 6/1/16 to 7/1116 0 0 0 0 Jun-16 5/1/16 to 6/1/16 0 0 May-16 4/1/16 to 5/1/16 0 0 01-16 Apr-16 3/1/16 to 411116 239 198 3,635 3,594 Mar-16 2/1/16 to 3/1/16 3,396 3,396 Feb-16 1/1/16 to2/1/16 0 0 04-15 Jan-16 12/1115101/1/16 6.813 6.813 6.813 6,813 Colliers Yartvw+nr+5 un[ Lot Gatos Office Class A '4leichted Average Asking Rents welghteri Quarter Date Rent in FS 04-16 Jan-17 80.00 Dec-16 $3.95 Nov-16 $3.95 03-16 Oct-16 $3.95 Sep-16 $0.00 Aug-16 $3.60 02-16 Jul-1S $3.60 Jun-16 $3.60 May-16 $3.60 01-16 Apr-16 $3.95 Mar-16 $3.95 Feb-16 $3.95 Q4-15 Jan-16 $3.59 2.50% i 2.00% 0.50% 20,000 18,000 16.000 14,000 12,000 13.000 6.000 6,000 - 4,000 2,000 L?' -, 0 1' Total Available Space Rate Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May.t8 Jun-16 Jut-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 0ct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan•17 eGross Absorption -Net Absorption $4.50 54.00 53.50 53.00 52.50 52.00 51.50 51.00 50.50 50.00 Jan.16 Feb•16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug•16 Sep-16 Oet-16 Weighted Average Asking Rents Nou-16 cec-16 Jan-17 Jan.16 Feka16 Mar.16 Apr-16 May -it Jun-16 Ju.16 Aup-16 Scp16 O t-16 Nov-16 Deo16 Jan-17 Colliers International Is pleased le be able t0 provide the above Iniermation and In so doing believes Its validity. However, ve tannotguarantee Its accuracy or take responsibility for Its use. L ACQ[JISITIONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Summary of January 30, 2017 Neighborhood Outreach Meetings Neighborhood outreach Table of Contents 1. January 30, 2017, 4:30 pm, Open House outreach at Los Gatos Commons 2. January 30, 2017, 6 pm, Open House outreach at Los Gatos Commons *The above Community Outreach Meetings are in addition to 14 other Neighborhood Meetings we held with Alberto Way residents since September 2015. In total, LP Acquisitions has held 16 Neighborhood Meetings which Planning has received copies of such with every resubmittal. Please see the July 13, 2016 resubmittal for documentation of the other 14 meetings. 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 650.326.1600 Questions and Feedback from the January 30, 2017, 4:30 pm Open House: Question or Comment: • What is the new size of the project? • Why didn't we reduce the size by 33% as requested by the Planning Commission on August 24th, 2016? • How many parking spaces were removed • How many more parking spaces are at -grade a How many parking spaces are in the garage • How many parking spaces is the Project removing from Alberto Way • Is the Project frontage now straighter • Are there three dedicated lanes for traffic • Is there now a bike lane • Do we now meet the Complete Streets Guidelines • Are we improving the frontage to Alberto and LG/S • Can we build a bridge over the 17 North onramp • Can you provide traffic safety ideas on Alberto • How much did the left turn lane from LG/S extend • Are the buildings as high now as prior Applicant Response: 83,000 sf Class A vacancy is at or near 0% and economically unfeasible 60 spaces 40 spaces now (7 spaces in the prior design) 290 spaces 8 spaces Yes Yes, at the intersection, 1 lane inbound, two lanes out Yes, dedicated and striped Yes Yes No Yes, but public works owns the road and solutions 100 feet No, the height was reduced by 6.5 feet on the north side and 7.5 feet on the south side 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650.326,1600 • Is the building leased yet • What type of tenant will we look for • Is the building further back on the site • Did we move the building back from Las Casitas • How did we reduce building massing • How does this help • Was more stone added to the ground floor • Are the windows different now • Are the Western foothill views better now • Concern about emergency access during construction • Is the parking garage smaller now than prior • Will this lead to faster excavation and off -haul • WilI we have flag -men in the streets coordinating traffic No, but several parties are interested in leasing Various class "A" tenants which are allowed within the current zoning code Yes, substantially, 60 feet further away from Alberto Way Yes, another 10 feet. We also removed the 2nd floor deck area We added balconies in the front fagade of the building The massing is now on the ground floor Yes, substantially more stone Yes, the redesign has the ground floor windows inset by 24 to 36 inches to emphasize the massing Yes, in addition to the height reduction mentioned above we eliminated the tower elements too Our redesign now allows full access to the site for all Construction deliveries and concrete pouring Yes, quite a bit Yes, approximately 2 calendar weeks faster than prior Yes 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 E 650.326.1600 Questions and Feedback from the January 30, 2017, 6 pm Open House Question or Comment: • Did you consider reducing the project size • Is there open space now for the project • Is it available to the public • Is there a path around the building • Is parking allowed in the at -grade spaces by neighbors • Will the employees arrive at the site at the same time • Will the employees leave the site at the same time • How do we know this about traffic patterns • Is the bike lane safe for bikes • Are the three new lanes for traffic marked in paint Applicant Response: Yes, we ran the financial pro -forma and the current. size of 83,000 square feet is what works Yes, on the north side, there is a large green space Not at this time, it is part of the Project set -back Yes Not at this time No, they are scattered throughout the day No, they leave at varying times The Town traffic consultant report in the EIR The bike lane was designed using the Town code Yes 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I 650.326.1600 PL Ef-$E p'ef/v a './3e f)7 Los Ca 2 Name Address cJA'IT" AP Email Phone SterveLey p p-A 4 <A-r shrrIeyry moo( f a 3_.W I/ 3 I L- EEL 3 z-g y,,/,00,(1,0),,„/ L4o - g--i l - 00x-0 .ssi 4,4sA A Ak 2 kJ ,24,3 8-..-4=1,4t9-//e iff61 ftr . 24�.3 . di Quiz./ CJ31-} % Kra tAe Ge©r ;4.3I -.ttz a VI VI e,/ 0/0 {P 13 S wi 50c.1.r ca / 5 _ 3 8 _act \--7.1--,7..1 / IL 5 0- J / / li -71_ / 2 if 41 2 KOC i` E•v'isr,V A .cg _i/t'�� -\\-\\-c. \\)\,)\-\-\\,,, ts\-).-- \wc\\-4.' ) \ --\\`(\.\-, \\;\\1-- c‘L-- , \., *XN\-\\\\--\-- \\\\\\c\\\rN Lc. \S,,c.\\\-- \ °M.":1 /bri,-er 7-e. r rr to,e r _____i_LE /S �� _ ... _ r - 40g- `) z- 0 qv, i1JI Yam° c am` ' E #-ter. E f 13� i7 a 5 .4r-6.5 CO 4l,i9DN S (2 .2 Name Address (/ >r Email Phone I 4/4 1Zo L D �I ri-(LCJ� /-( .-i_,(4(c e-::) 7 P Fri;i 44 ,,, l4,1 ax-i--rn1.7 c, 4 rA'E°c) /1,714 P. IA— _ c., J �� a �ol)MHCJ(/2�Qf 4J� C(/QL "f05-4,427c1 ,(�),ri .JI M voL k (.(441 ( (4 fit''.-, , 0.4, ,/rnawJk�-rw im.-4.r-6...1.-c.•- .-r {,)O-LLI -44;74 jea_Ja e2 rYiG1 d1 .F3Q a-Eco4d a' s-asp7 obi rLa `f cY H C6n(aA L 3r,,,..1; , � t\ —Nom . c.c)t:e. - LJcas 1 kell if. 11-2.1 A A*(79 e Q I 17- - /- or ©r? ,36 0 tjOrge p x G9&- 403-4(00--9&4 :)L,G /LC [ • ! - Name: "ZeTtrIttl,c24-e t4 exthro.ix....ttpAtrna; 1•Covn Address:4'24 A-ibeR4rf-tsc Natne: 1:6'4-1 de (4,L Address: e IT 6 cv iko Name: cc.c.A.A Address: 't -1--‘'• A Name: Address: Email: Email: Email: Phone: Phone: Phone: Email: 1 c_ Email: Address: LI'? 1--) A L f41.) 4- 11 44" Nome: C7-51-Nde.)(• Lk Name: 44/,1+, Address: /V- Nome: Address: 15-1 Name: 159i b Address: (-1( -z-c Email: Phone: • t { * Phone: `J‘ Phone: Email: ,c174'- iY(Ti Jer Cf S-Q. Phone: (41,---() 7--4ZA(3c3 Email: Name: Email: Address: Name: 44! r Cr-L104._ Phone: elfc)‘_( --„? Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Phone: Phone: L p ACC UISITIONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Agenda for March 20, 2017 Neighborhood Outreach Meetings Neighborhood Outreach Table of Contents 1. March 20, 2017, 4:30 pm, Open House outreach at Los Gatos Commons 2. March 20, 2017, 6:30 pm, Open House outreach at Los Gatos Commons *The above Community Outreach Meetings are in addition. to 16 other Neighborhood Meetings we held with Alberto Way residents since September 2015. In total, LP Acquisitions has held 18 Neighborhood Meetings which Planning has received copies of such with every resubrnittal. Please see the July 13, 2016 resubmittal for documentation of the other 14 meetings. 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 G 650.326.1600 405 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Ca. Updated & Revised Site and Building Plans - March 9, 2t11 Summary of Nanning Commission & Neighbor Comments to Applicant on August 24, 2016 PC & Neighbor Comments Buildings are too large Buildings are too massive South building too close to Alberto Way North building too close to residential neighbor Buildings are too tall north side Buildings lack neighborhood style and "small town" feel Building massing is inappropriate Western foothill view corridor blocked Tower roof elements too tall 7 surface parking stalls are inappropriate Revision in New Plans Building size reduced from 92,000 sf to 83,000 sf Buildings combined into one building and moved to rear setback Building pushed back an additional 60 feet from Alberto Way Building repositioned 10 feet further away from Las Casitas neighbor Building reduced in height by 5.5 feet on south side and the 6.0 feet on the Building redesigned to articulate neighborhood roof -lines and to emulate prominent architectural character in buildings like Palo Alto Medical, Hotel Los Gatos, 100 LG Sar Rd Building & Entry redesigned to showcase first floor massing in both coloring and materials Redesigned the building by moving the building back on the site, reduced the height by 6.0 feet, decreasing the foothill view areas blocked in the prior design Tower roof elements eliminated and provided visual prominence to the building entry Site redesigned to allow for 42 surface parking spaces 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.160 Parking should be reduced New on -site parking supply reduced by 58 spaces from 390 stalls to 332 stalls Concern with construction staging in street Reduced parking garage footprint below ground allows all staging to be on site. This is a benefit for pedestrians, automobiles and emergency vehicle access and safety Traffic safety measures on Alberto Way & Rt. 9 North facing balcony was intrusive to neighbor Reduced off -haul trips during excavation timeline Widened and straightened Alberto Way to provide easier access for emergency vehicles and a new bike lane. Both streets to comply with the Complete Street Ordinance Removed the balcony facing north toward Las Casitas neighbor. All balconies are facing only east towards Alberto Way Building repositioned to allow construction staging on site as well as a reduction in the off - haul from 8 weeks down to 6 weeks 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.1600 L1LP ACQU I S 1TION S REAL_ ESTATE DFVF1.OPMENT Revised Project Construction Details for 405 Alberto Way Updated and Revised February 27, 2017 General Construction Timeline: • Project construction will occur in a single phase with construction commencing in early spring 2018. • All construction staging to occur on site. • The construction timefrarne is 14-16 months including all phases from the start of demolition to the completion of all site work. • Strict Safety measures will be implemented (i.e. minimum of 2 flagmen positioned on Alberto Way during grading and construction, and weekly Community Meetings open to all residents) will ensure rapid ingress/egress of emergency vehicles on Alberto Way and open communication of all Construction processes to residents, Site Grading: • The project will require excavation and shoring to accommodate a 2-story underground parking structure. • See attached export details and route map of dump -truck travel, • The General Contractor will implement Dust Control Measures which meet the Town standards. • Estimated timeline for excavation, grading and shoring is 3 months. Underground Garage Construction: • This phase will include digging footings, preparing the pad, installing drainage and undergrounding, and waterproofing. • This phase will also include installation of rebar and structural materials to accommodate the concrete floors and sides of the parking structure. • The top of the parking structure will be the foundation of the building. • Our General Contractor will work closely with our Structural, Civil and Geotechnical engineers to incorporate the highest construction standards to meet building codes. • Estimated timeline for this phase is 4 months. Core & Shell Building Construction: • This phase will include structural, flooring, skin and roof. • All connections to public utilities. • Estimated timeline for this phase is 6-8 months. Site Work: • On -site finished hardscape, concrete sidewalks and paving. • Landscape including all trees and plants. • Outside meeting area arbors. • Estimated timeline is 1 month. Offsite Work: • This work will be done during the Core & Shell work noted above. • Estimated timeline for completion is concurrent with Core & Shell. Completion of Construction • This project is estimated to be completed by Spring/ Summer 2019. ACQUISITIONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Updated: February 27, 2017 Revised Project Construction Export Details for 405 Alberto Way: Based on the original design submitted to the Town on July 13, 2016, this project required a total of 69,700 cubic yards of cut; thus, resulting in 6,970 truck trips or 8 weeks of off haul. With the new design of this project, this project will now require a total of 53,451 cubic yards of cut and all construction staging can occur on site. One large dump truck can carry 10 cubic yards or 11 cubic yards (with a small diaper trailer); therefore, 4,859 to 5,345 truck trips would be generated. Based on construction industry standards, 200 loads a day would take 24-27 work days plus a few more days for the potential of slow production. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the total export of 53,451 cubic yards would take 27-30 work days, M-F or 5.5 to 6 weeks. This results in a reduction of over 2 weeks of off haul. See attached haul routes. 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 650.326.1600 ,e0f•,',(` Haul Route into the Sitel, a I glc • . • s viett4t Haul Route out of the Site 47. • .1 Go glr ,-.F.: rf, -, I ,t rto lot This Page Intentionally Left Blank ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN February 22, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 405 Alberto Way Dear Jennifer: I reviewed the new drawings, and have previously visited the site. My comments are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located at the corner of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, and is currently occupied by three office. buildings with office space located both below and above grade level. Photographs of the site and surrounding build- ings are shown on the following page. EXHIBIT 32 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 TEL: 415.331.3795 CDCPLAN@PACHELL,NET 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments February 22, 2017 Page 2 Existing site building at the Wdy r„ New one-story retail building across Alberto Way Adjacent resid&orUaldevelul,riu:rot rf+�rneci,uciy north of the site Adjacent residential development immediately north of the site Existing buiklir Corner at new one-story retail building across Alberto Way Existing landscaping along the north edge of the site Adjacent resiclential development immediately across Alberto Way CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments February 22, 2017 Page 3 CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant has revised their design approach following direction from the Planning Commission at its public heat- ing on August 246 of last year. The Planning Commission direction included increasing the project's conformance with General Nan Policy LU-1.8 (designing in keeping with the small-town character of Los Gatos), lessening the impact on the adjacent neighborhood and increasing the design's conformance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines, especially Section 1.4 Community Expectations. The applicant's proposed changes include the following: • A reduction in the overall gross building area. • A consolidation of the original two buildings into a single structure. • A reduction in the structure's overall building height by five feet. • Elimination of the tower elements. • A decrease in the size of second story windows. • An increased setback from the north property line. • An increased setback of the building from Alberto Way near the Los Gatos -Saratoga Road intersection. • An increase of surface parking spaces along the full length of the Alberto Way frontage. A comparison of the previous and current site plans and Alberto Way elevations are shown below, Previous Site Plan Previous Alberto Way Elevation 814011'II �uI �aliq Ali * l�n IWO III IIE Currently Proposed Alberto Way Elevation Currently Proposed Site Plan 1.; i ILL J 1fJI illl CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments February 22, 2017 Page 4 In preparing the current design approach, the applicant has largely retained many of the previous elevation forms and details while incorporating the changes outlined above. I do believe it is rather difficult to achieve a desired small-town Los Gatos scale and appearance when starting with a large building and making small changes to it. A satisfactory solu- tion might be more easily achievable by starting the design with the goal of creating multiple structures with small scale modules and details set within a landscaped site framework. While the changes noted above have reduced several aspects of the project's perceived size, it is still in many ways reads as a single large building. These include the following. 1. The project seems to read as one large office building without a breakdown in scale related to the neighborhood or the Los Gatos existing small town scale. 2. The building elements appear very much as boxes with some mansard roof attachments - an approach specifically discouraged on page 8 of the guidelines within the Community Expectations section (next to last bullet point). 3. The design does not have the "Careful attention to architectural ... detail similar to the Town's residential architec- ture" (Community Expectations page 7). Reads as boxes with add -on elements which is not consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines Flat wall taller than side masses is not working well as a linking feature That said, I understand the applicant's desire to provide Class A office space with large floor plates to accommodate a range of tenant size. Should staff and the Planning Commission choose to accept the applicant's chosen site plan and floor plate direction, I do have a few recommendations, as shown below and on the following page, to assist in reducing the visual mass and scale of the building. Larger, partial elevations are shown on the following page for more detail. Type 2 Trellis canopies maybe melal JTaller roof element alelrilLa�ral � arstimilkauc 1st and 2nd floor building Cooler stucco color to contrast with side forward warm elements C,,,ently proQosed psrspsr rap Increasing amount of projection More wall plane offset Isere would be desirable would be desirable Type 1 trellis canopies 1 maybe wood RECOMMENDED ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION CHANGES Significant projecting cornice canopy with brackets.: _ _= • reiIous 5 ff. roof eight CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments February 22, 2017 Page 5 Major change elements shown on the elevation recommendations include the following: 1. Providing more visual variety and break up in scale for the building located closest to Alberto Way. • Providing first and second floor recesses and roof breaks to reduce the boxiness of the structure and break up the current single bulk mass of the structure. • Increasing the mansard roof height for the portion of the building closest to the intersection. • Increasing the amount of projection for the elevation pop outs at the first floor. • Providing more of a wail plane offset where the two-story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. 2. Reducing the visual mass of the central link of the setback portion of the building. • Lowering the height of the current 5'- 6" parapet. • Adding a significant projecting cornice canopy to match the adjacent mansard roof cave lines. • Adding brackets at the cornice canopy to add architectural detail. • Utilizing a cooler wall color for the set back wall to distinguish it from the other walls and reduce the feeling of one large building. • Providing some subtle enhancement to the visual prominence of the main building entry. 3. Adding more architectural detail. Shown on the study are two different types of trellis canopies. There is always a tendency to do uniform trellises, but in seeking a less formal approach to relate to the smaller scale of the residen- tial development, I believe that increased variety would be more successful. Type 2 trellis canopies I Use for smaller __ ___. +-+ --2nd floor building recesses2nd windows and roof breaks Currently parapet top maybe metal F Previous 35 ft. roof helgh Tall alai ,IT,I."IrT,411111111Mill1M111111111 III PON10101 PO ■i . ■=1 ° Increasing amount of projection would be desirable More wall plane offset here would be desirable ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: LEFT HALF 1111111111111111111131111111111111 I>Pljfilre,. Type 1 trellis canopies I maybe wood u Cr Cooler stucco color to contrast with side forward warm elements Currently proposed parapet top Significant projecting cornice canopy with brackets ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: RIGHT HALF Previous 35 ft. roof height CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments February 22, 2017 Page 6 I would also note that the placement of surface parking along the entire Alberto Way frontage is not consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines. However, given the concerns expressed about the Toss of available multi -use parking at this site, I do believe that surface parking in this location could be useful and acceptable. Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 March 16, 2017 Ms. Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street. Los Gatos CA 95030 Phone- (4O8)399-5706 Email farmer(a�losgatosca.ciov Reference: LP Acquisitions ARC TEC Inc. Job No. 153948.02 405 Alberto Way — Project Redesign Architecture and Site Application 5-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-1 5-009 APN 529-23-018 Cannon Design Group Comments on Redesign, 02-22-17 Dear Jennifer, Attached please find revised plans which address Cannon Design Group's comments dated February 22, 2017. on the redesign package for 405 Alberto Way, referenced above. In addition to the attached revised plans, we have prepared the following responses to CDG's specific comments, starting on page 5 of the comment letter Mr. Canon's comments are noted regarding the challenges of designing a Class A office building with a small-town Los Gatos scale and appearance. In order to achieve the applicant's objectives in a manner consistent with the Town of Los Gatos General Plan policies and the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines, the revised project incorporates many design elements to further reduce the Project's massing, scale and elevation compared to the surrounding neighborhood as further discussed in the Applicant responses, below. Major change elements shown on the elevation recommendations include the following: Providing more visual variety and break up in scale for the building located closest to Alberto Way. Providing first and second floor recesses and roof breaks to reduce the boxiness of the structure and break up the current single bulk mass of the structure. Applicant response: While we agree with and have implemented CDG's suggested design revisions, breaking up the facade at this location would be inconsistent with the 11th bullet in Community Expectations Design Guideline 1.4 because it would not maintain a "unity of design treatment with all sides of the structure related to the design of the primary facade." Further, it would disrupt the continuous balcony at the second floor and make the facade look too busy. In addition, the suggested recess in the building will compete with, and thus diminish, the effect of the other recessed areas, especially those at either side of the revised main entry feature. ARC TEC Arizona 2960 E. Northern Avenue Building C Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355 t 602.953.2988 f California 99 Almaden Boulevard Suite 840 San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.0676 t 408.496.1121 f www. arctecinc, com Ms. Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP March 16, 2017 ARC TEC Inc. Job No. 153948.02 Increasing the mansard roof height for the portion of the building closest to the intersection. Applicant response: ARC TEC increased the mansard roof height on the left side of the building closest to the intersection by 1'-6", from 29'-0" to 30'-6". We agree that CDG's recommendation helps create more differential in the massing of the building. Furthermore, increasing the height of the mansard at this location does not adversely impact the views of the trees and hills in the distance for the residential neighbors, as this occurs at only the far left side of the building, across the street from non-residential commercial development. • Increasing the amount of projection for the elevation pop outs at the first floor. Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated CDG's recommendation into the first floor elevation and increased the elevation pop outs at the first floor by 8". The amount of increase is the maximum we can achieve without impacting the zoning and code required widths of the pedestrian walkway and parking lot. The revision is consistent with Section 1.5.2 of the Commercial Design Guidelines which encourage a richness of architectural facade depth and style. • Providing more of a wall plane offset where the two-story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated CDG's recommendation into the revised design and increased the wall plane offset by 8 inches. The revision is consistent with Section 1.5.2 of the Commercial Design Guidelines which encourage a richness of architectural facade depth and style. 2. Reducing the visual mass of the central link of the setback portion of the building. • Lowering the height of the current 5'- 6" parapet. Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated CDG's recommendation and reduced the parapet height at the flat center portion of the front facade by 2'-6", from 30'-0" to 27'-6". We may require a roof screen located back from this facade in order to conceal roof mounted mechanical equipment, but this screen will be located away from the front face. The actual design of the roof screen will be finalized during the detailed design phase of the project, once the mechanical system for the building is determined. • Adding a significant projecting cornice canopy to match the adjacent mansard roof eave lines. Applicant response: ARC TEC added the recommended projecting cornice canopy to the flat center portion of the front facade and at the raised main entry feature. • Adding brackets at the cornice canopy to add architectural detail. Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated CDG's recommendation and added the suggested support brackets to the new projecting cornice canopy that has been added to the flat center portion of the front facade. • Utilizing a cooler wall color for the set back wail to distinguish it from the other walls and reduce the feeling of one large building. Applicant response: In response to this comment, ARC TEC is proposing to use slightly cooler warm colors at the recessed wall areas in order to help distinguish the different planes on the front facade. In addition, we propose adding limestone trim to further distinguish and dress up the front facade of the building. • Providing some subtle enhancement to the visual prominence of the main building entry. Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated CDG's recommendation and increased the height of the main entry feature from one-story to two -stories and also made it taller than the adjacent flat center portion of the front facade (29'-0" Ms. Jennifer T.G. Armer, AICP March 16, 2017 ARC TEC Inc. Job No. 153948.02 verses 27'-6" at the adjacent flat center portion of the front facade). The entry feature now includes a prominent canopy over the main entry doors. 3. Adding more architectural detail. Shown on the study are two different types of trellis canopies. There is always a tendency to do uniform trellises, but in seeking a less formai approach to relate to the smaller scale of the residential development, I believe that increased variety would be more successful. Applicant response: To address CDG's recommendation to increase trellis variety, ARC TEC added solar shades at the second story punched window openings on the far left and far right sides of the front facade. We also added bronze colored metal trellises to the recessed window openings at the first floor, as CDG suggested to add articulation at the windows thereby improving visual interest and further differentiating among the various elements of the front facade. Please feel free to contact me with any additional comments or questions you may have. Sincerely, ARC TEC Inc. CiSPOJ 4111 Daniel S. Kirby, AIA, LEER GA Principal This Page Intentionally Left Blank CDG CANNON DESIGN... GROUP March 17, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 405 Alberto Way Dear Jennifer: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the revised project about a month ago and made a number of recommendations. The applicant has imple- mented some of the recommendations, but not all. My comments on the new drawings provided last week are as fol- lows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located at the corner of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, and is currently occupied by three office buildings with office space located both below and above grade level. Photographs of the site and surrounding build- ings are shown on the following page. EXHIBIT 3 4 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 TEL: 415.331.3795 CDGPLAN@PACBELL.NET 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments Much 17, 2017 Page 2 Imstirlgsite building at the Alberto 1bd) c. uarft.! New one-story retail building across Alberto Adjat t°rat reside'rAial development immediately north of the site .Adjar t ru residential developrnen1 immediately north of the site Existing building at the center of in >sN c wrier at new oru,-story retail building across Alberto Way Existing landscaping along the north edge of the site Adjacent residential development immediately across Alberto Way CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments Match 17,2017 Page 3 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES MADE TO THE PREVIOUS DESIGN APPROACH REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The applicant has revised their design approach following direction from the Planning Commission at its public hear- ing on August 24`F' of last year. The Planning Commission direction included increasing the project's conformance with General Plan Policy LU-1.8 (designing in keeping with the small-town character of Los Gatos), lessening the impact on the adjacent neighborhood and increasing the design's conformance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines, especially Section 1.4 Community Expectations, The applicant's proposed changes reviewed in February included the following: • A reduction in the overall gross building area. • A consolidation of the original two buildings into a single structure. • A reduction in the structure's overall building height by five feet. • Elimination of the tower dements. • A decrease in the size of second story windows. • An increased setback from the north property line. • An increased setback of the building from Alberto Way near the Los Gatos -Saratoga Road intersection. • An increase of surface parking spaces along the full length of the Alberto Way frontage. A comparison of the previous and current site plans is shown below. Previous Site Plan Currently Proposed Site Plan FEBRUARY CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In preparing the current design approach, the applicant has largely retained many of the previous elevation forms and details while incorporating the changes outlined above. I stated in the February review letter that I believed it may be rather difficult to achieve a desired small-town Los Gatos scale and appearance when starting with a large building and making small changes to it. A satisfactory solution might be more easily achievable by starting the design with the goal of creating multiple structures with smaller scale modules and details set within a landscaped site framework. While the changes noted above have reduced several aspects of the project's perceived size, the project that I reviewed in February still in many ways read as a single large building. Concerns included the following. 1. The project seemed to read as one large office building without a breakdown in scale related to the neighborhood or the Los Gatos existing small town scale. 2. The building elements appeared very much as boxes with some mansard roof attachments - an approach specifi- cally discouraged on page 8 of the guidelines within the Community Expectations section (next to last bullet point). 3. The design did not have the "Careful attention to architectural ... detail similar to the Town's residential architec- ture" (Community Expectations page 7). CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 4 Reads as boxes with add -on elements which is not consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines Identified February ConceiN That said, I did acknowledge that I understood the applicant's desire to provide Class A office space with large floor plates to accommodate a range of tenant size. I noted that should staff and the Planning Commission choose to accept the applicant's chosen site plan and floor plate direction, I did have a few recommendations, as shown below and on the following page, to assist in reducing the visual mass and scale of the building. Larger, partial elevations are shown on the following page for more detail. Flat wall taller than side masses is not working well as a linking feature Major change elements shown on the elevation recommendations included the following: 1. Providing more visual variety and break up in scale for the building located closest to Alberto Way. • Providing first and second floor recesses and roof breaks to reduce the boxiness of the structure and break up the current single bulk mass of the structure. • Increasing the mansard roof height for the portion of the building closest to the intersection. • Increasing the amount of projection for the elevation pop outs at the first floor. • Providing more of a wall plane offset where the two-story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. 2. Reducing the visual mass of the central link of the setback portion of the building. • Lowering the height of the current 5'- G" parapet. • Adding a significant projecting cornice canopy to match the adjacent mansard roof eave lines. • Adding brackets at the cornice canopy to add architectural detail., • Utilizing a cooler wall color for the set back wall to distinguish it from the other walls and reduce the feeling of one large building. • Providing some subtle enhancement to the visual prominence of the main building entry. 3. Adding more architectural detail. Shown on the study are two different types of trellis canopies. There is always a tendency to do uniform trellises, but in seeking a less formal approach to relate to the smaller scale of the residen- tial development, I believe that increased variety would be more successful. Type 2 trellis canopies 1 maybe metal Taller root element 1st and 2nd floor building �`111 !ICIi>�1 f pii111711�If lair: Cooler stucco color to contrast with side forward warm elements Currently proyaseel parapet lop MMVFOUS 5 fr. tool -Significant projecting Cornice fight canopy with brackets sm�r Increasing amount of projection More wall plane offset here Type 1 trellis canopies 1 maybe wood would be desirable would be desirable bse for io•ger l.l„l,'end r.=a= r+==odows Climbing rinea would be desineh,e ELGRLIARY RECOMMENDED ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION CHANGES CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR , CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 5 I did also note that the placement of surface parking along the entire Alberto Way frontage was not consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines. However, given the concerns expressed about the loss of available multi -use parking at this site, I stated that I believed that surface parking in this location could be useful and acceptable. Type 2 trellis canopies 1 maybe metal smaller HPrevious 35 ft. roof heielhf Taller roof 1st and 2nd floor building element recesses and roof breaks Increas ng amount of projection would be desirable Currently proposed parapet top i Type 1 trellis canopies I maybe wood Use for larger 1st and 2nd floor windows Climbing vines would be desirable FEBRUARYALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: LEFT HALF More wall plane offset here would be desirable Cooler stucco color to contrast with side forward warm elements Currently proposed parapet top Significant projecting cornice canopy with brackets FEBRUARY ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: RIGHT HALF OPrevious 35 ft. roof height CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE i99 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 6 REVISED CURRENT DESIGN CONCERNS AND ISSUES The original design reviewed by the Planning Commission in August, the previous design that 1 reviewed in February and the currently proposed design are shown in the Alberto Way sketches and elevations below. Reviewed by the Planning Commission in August Reviewed by CDG in February Currently Proposed Design Previous Alberto Way Elevation: Reviewed by the Planning Commission Previous Proposed Alberto Way Elevation: Reviewed by CDG in February fir . " _ ,,ri ART,RO9 001•In f ki 1 !! _III t3 Cm!! ,Rid Ind Currently Proposed Alberto Way Elevation riMarin CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 7 The additional changes to the design in response to the recommendations contained in the February review and recom- mendations letter include the following: • The mansard roof height at the portion of the building closest to the Alberto Way/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road inter- section was increased in height, but not as much as shown on the recommendations illustration. • The ground floor pop outs and wall plane offset adjacent to Alberto Way were both increased 8 inches in depth. • Some trellis and sunshade elements were added, but only on the Alberto Way elevation. • The central building link parapet was lowered. • The color of the central building link was modified. • A projecting cornice canopy with brackets was added to the central building link. One change made that I feel was counter productive to a decrease in the building scale is the increased height of the building entry element. I feel that the lower entry originally proposed with the minor changes recommended in the Feb- ruary review letter would be more in the spirit of the Planning Commission's direction to the applicant. I am also unsure whether the trellises and canopies that have been added will be significant enough to add sufficient smaller scale detail elements to the facade. It would be helpful for the applicant to provide photo examples showing the proposed materials and construction of these elements. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission will need to determine if the changes summarized above are sufficient to satisfy their direc- tion to the applicant which I understood to include the following: • The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to significantly reduce the size of the building in height, mass and floor area. • The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to revise the proposed design to be more in keeping with the neighbor- hood and small town character. Specific suggestions included. 1. Moving proposed 405 building away from the residential neighbors 2. Reducing the scale (height, mays and length) of the Alberto IF/ay fafade of the 401 building, with additional second floor articula- tion 3. Not blocking the view of mountains from neighbors 4. Change stele of proposed buildings to be more similar to neighborhood architectural sjde 5. Increased conformance with Commercial Design Guidelines, spetifically Section 1.4 Community Expectations: a. Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Tower residential structures b. The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential neighborhoods c. Scale and character appropriate to the setting. 6. Increased conformance with General Plan Policies: a. Policy LU-1.8: Commercial development of any tSPe (office, retail, research and development, etc.) shall be designed in keeping with the small-town character of .Los Gatos. b. Policy LU-6.5: The Ape, density, and intensity of nen' land use shall he consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. Should the Planning Commission conclude that the changes meet their concerns, I would suggest that they consider the following changes made in the February review letter. • Increase the roof height more at the building portion closet to the Alberto Way/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road intersec- tion. • Add additional building articulation to the wall and roof articulation as or similar to the recommendation made in February. • Lower the height of the entry element and conform to the height and continuous cornice canopy recommendations in the February review letter. • Direct staff to review the material and scale of the proposed trellis and sunshade canopy elements. • Withhold approval for the color of the central link until staff has viewed and evaluated the color choices as painted as sample swatches on the completed building walls. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 8 Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 I1[XAON TANFOTATIOM CONSULTANTS, INC. April 5, 2017 Mr. Randy Lamb Lamb Partners 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190 Menlo Park, CA 94025 QED 4rf? 06 ?nal TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Response to Traffic Comments on 401-409 Alberto Way Traffic Study Dear Mr. Lamb, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. completed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed office development project located at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos, California. During the August 10th and 24th Planning Commission hearings, the Planning Commissioners and the public provided comments on the final TIA dated August 2, 2016. This letter provides Hexagon's responses to the Commissioners and public comments. Response to Planning Commissioner Comments Trip Generation The Planning Commission asked about the source of trip generation estimates and was interested to hear whether trends in office employee density might render the nationwide ITE estimates inaccurate for Los Gatos and/or Silicon Valley. Commissioners stated hearing anecdotal stories about Silicon Valley employers filling buildings with more people than in the past. Hexagon has heard such stories, but we are not aware of any published studies of employee densities in office buildings or any other technical data prepared by traffic engineers that lend support to such anecdotal information. Traffic engineers complete trip generation studies by counting vehicles in and out of driveways at peak times and comparing the counts to the office building size in square feet. Scores of such studies are aggregated to develop a mathematical relationship between the building size and the trip generation. It has been Hexagon's observation that the number of employees in a building is rarely known so this information is not used as a measurement. Also, while an employee census might be determined (the number of employees assigned to work in the building), the actual number of employees working on any given day is typically difficult to determine. Moreover, the mode of transportation in and out of the site (e.g., number of vehicles versus pedestrians) may be unknown for any given day. The ITE data reveal that there is a very strong correlation between the size of an office building, in square feet, and the number of trips generated. Trip generation research is published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual. Per the Town and VTA guidelines (VTA guidelines: http://www.vta.org/cmp/tia-guidelines, Town of Los Gatos guidelines: http:/Iwww.losgatosca.qov/DocumentCenterNiew/857), project trip generation estimates should use either trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or rates developed from local data. The project TIA used ITE rates in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos guidelines. £XH1BLT 3 5 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, California 95113 • phone 408.971.6100 • fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com "41111 V Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page2of8 For an office project of 92,000 s.f., ITE's fitted curve equation calculates trip generation rates of 1.94 and 1.96 trips per 1,000 s.f. during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Hexagon also conducted trip generation counts at three existing office buildings in Los Gatos in 2016. The resulting rates were found to be 1.32 and 1,63 trips per 1,000 s.f. during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (see Table 1). This indicates that office buildings in Los Gatos generate trips about at the same rate as, or Tess than, other office buildings included in the ITE Trip Generation manual. Table 1 Los Gatos Office Trip Generation Counts AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Total Peak Trips Total Peak Surveyed Sites T Size Unit Trips In Out Trips Rate Trips In Out Trips Rate 475 Alberto Way 30.22 ksf 37 3 40 4 37 41 16795 Lark Avenue 22.40 ksf 19 12 31 4 33 37 975 UniversityAvenue 15.00 ksf 16 2 18 0 32 32 Total 67.62 ksf 72 17 89 8 102 110 Average Surveyed Rates Average ITE Rates 2 1.32 1.56 1.63 1.49 Notes: 1. Trip generation surveys were conducted in March 2016. 2. Average ITE trip rates for general office building based on ITE's Trip Generation, 9th Edition for land use code 710. The Planning Commission also asked about trip generation comparisons to the Netflix campus. At the time of this letter, the new Netflix campus at Albright Way is not fully constructed or fully occupied, and it would be difficult to determine the trip generation rates until the project is completed and occupied. The original Netflix campus at 100 Winchester Circle is still fully occupied. Hexagon conducted trip generation counts at 100-150 Winchester Circle (Netflix and Roku buildings) in February 2017. The resulting rates were found to be 1.9 and 1.83 trips per 1,000 s.f. during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (see Table 2). The trip rates counted at the Netflix offices are almost identical to the ITE rates, which were used in the Alberto Way traffic study. Thus, the counted rates in Los Gatos were lower than the ITE rates used in the traffic study. The rates used to estimate the project trip generation for 401-409 Alberto Way are the trip rates calculated using ITE's fitted curve equation. Another question was how ITE office trip generation rates have changed over the years. The current version of the manual is dated 2012. Hexagon consults the ITE manuals dating to 1997. During that 15-year time span, the office trip generation rates have not changed. Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page 3of8 Table 2 100-150 Winchester Cir Trip Generation Counts Location 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Total Peak Trips Total Peak Size Unit Trips In Out Trips Rate Trips In Out Trips Rate 100-150 Winchester Cir 163.03 ksf 223 87 310 114 185 299 Surveyed Rates Rates Used in TIA 1.90 1.94 1.83 1.96 Notes: 1. Trip generation counts were conducted in February 2017. Overall Traffic Conditions The TIA studied five signalized intersections, two of which are Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections. The traffic analysis at the two CMP intersections used the CMP database per VTA guidelines. Results show that all intersections operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios, which is considered "acceptable" by Town and VTA standards. The analysis showed that the project would not cause a degradation of LOS from base conditions and would generate an insignificant intersection impact per Town LOS criteria. During the AM peak hour, westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road experiences congestion mainly because of the lane drop from two to one lane west of Santa Cruz Avenue. Resulting queues do not extend to Alberto Way. During the peak 15-minute school drop-off period, eastbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road also experiences congestion between Los Gatos Boulevard and Alberto Way, but queues rarely extend westward past Alberto Way. Project traffic mainly would flow in the counter -commute direction on eastbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and would not add to the congestion on westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. Project traffic on eastbound Los Gatos - Saratoga Road would turn left into Alberto Way and would not add to the eastbound queue on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road at Los Gatos Boulevard. The proposed project would lengthen the left -turn pocket on eastbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road turning into Alberto Way from 150 feet to 250 feet. As indicated in the traffic study, the 95th percentile queue at the eastbound left -turn pocket on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road turning into Alberto Way would be 200 feet with the addition of project traffic. The lengthened turn -pocket would accommodate the 95'h percentile queue with the addition of project traffic and allow project traffic to turn out of the eastbound through lane earlier. The proposed project would also re -stripe southbound Alberto Way at the intersection to improve vehicular flow and reduce queuing on Alberto Way. In addition, the project would install signal interconnect between the Alberto Way intersection and the Los Gatos Blvd intersection to improve vehicular flow along Los -Gatos Saratoga Road. These improvements (which were not needed as mitigation for the project less - than -significant traffic impacts), would themselves not result in any new significant secondary traffic impacts. Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Pedestrians and Bikes at the Highway 17 interchange The Planning Commission expressed concern about the comfort and safety of pedestrians that would walk from the site to downtown Los Gatos. They were particularly concerned about the crosswalk across the Highway 17 northbound on -ramp. Commissioners asked whether an enhanced crosswalk with flashing beacon could be added there. The project voluntarily proposes to rebuild the sidewalk fronting the project site along westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to create a detached sidewalk that complies with the Town's Complete Streets Program. The detached sidewalk would provide additional separation between vehicles and pedestrians. Subject to Caltrans approval, the project also could install flashing beacons at the crosswalk, as requested by the Planning Commission which was consistent with Caltrans' suggestion in its comment letter dated June 13, 2016. The project voluntarily proposes to widen westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road between Alberto Way and the Highway 17 northbound on -ramp, which would provide room for the installation of a future bike lane on westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. Complete Streets improvements on Alberto Way Commissioners asked for the Town's complete streets improvements on Alberto Way, "Complete Streets" refers to the accommodation of all travel modes. Alberto Way already has sidewalks. The project proposes to rebuild the sidewalk along its frontage in order to provide a detached sidewalk, which minimizes pedestrian exposure to traffic and enhances pedestrian safety. The detached sidewalk would improve pedestrian comfort by moving pedestrians farther from traffic. Alberto Way currently lacks bike lanes. At a community meeting for the proposed project, neighbors expressed interest in installing bike lanes along Alberto Way. In response to the Commissioners' request for complete streets improvements and neighbor interests, the proposed project voluntarily proposes to widen Alberto Way along the proposed project frontage and install a bike lane on southbound Alberto Way approximately 210 feet long. In addition, there currently is no safe place for bikes wishing to turn left from Alberto Way to eastbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to position themselves. The proposed project voluntarily proposes the installation of a bike box at the intersection. The proposed bicycle improvements along Alberto Way and the proposed street widening along Los Gatos -Saratoga Road fronting the project site are all in conformance with the Town's complete streets improvements. Parking on Alberto Way Commissioners were concerned about the removal of parking on Alberto Way. Eight on -street parking spaces are proposed to be removed as part of the project: five on the project side of the street and three on the opposite side of the street. The five spaces on the project side of the street would be removed to provide room for a striped right turn lane at the Alberto Way/Los Gatos - Saratoga Road intersection and to provide adequate sight distance at the southern driveway. Under existing conditions there is a driveway at that location, and its sight distance is restricted because of the on -street parking. Removing the on -street parking at that location as part of the project would provide improved sight distance. Some residents in the neighborhood requested that these spaces be removed to increase sight distance. Mr. Randy Larnb April 5, 2017 Page 5 of 8 At a community meeting for the proposed project, neighbors expressed concern about visibility and about difficulty turning right at the signal from Alberto Way to Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. Under current conditions cars turning right from Alberto Way on to Los Gatos -Saratoga Road must wait for a green light if there is a car in front waiting to turn left. The project voluntarily proposes to restripe Alberto Way which would provide one outbound left -turn (and through) lane and one dedicated right turn lane. Cars would then be able to turn right on a red Tight, which would improve vehicular flow and reduce queuing along Alberto Way. With the proposed development the southerly driveway is proposed to be placed at approximately 220 feet from the intersection. With the proposed dedication and widening, additional right turn lane and bike lane, the on -street parking along the project frontage would have to be modified or removed. The distance between the two proposed project driveways is approximately 100 feet. This segment of 100-foot roadway is within the area of centerline transition from one lane to two lanes in the southbound direction. With the transition and to improve visibility, it is recommended parking be restricted between the two driveways. Hexagon studied the use of the on -street parking spaces and found that they were almost fully utilized at night but not during the day. It appears that the spaces are being used by patrons of the Grill 57 restaurant. According to Town staff, the restaurant has sufficient parking spaces on -site to meet the Town requirements. Speed on Highway 9 Commissioners were concerned about the speed of traffic traveling westbound on Los Gatos - Saratoga Road, downhill toward the Highway 17 northbound on -ramp under existing conditions. Speed measurements on that portion of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road are not available. However, field observations indicate that under existing conditions motorists wishing to go north on Highway 17 and seeing a green light at Alberto Way are rushing down the hill. Motorists are able to clearly see the signal at Alberto Way from the top of the hill. Hexagon did not observe any vehicles running through a red light at Alberto Way. As a speed control measure to address existing traffic speeds, a speed feedback sign could be added halfway between Los Gatos Boulevard and Alberto Way. From the existing stop bar location, it is difficult for motorists to see up the hill on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. They must proceed with caution forward to see enough to make a right turn on red. To address the existing conditions, the Town could consider moving the stop bar on Alberto Way farther out to improve visibility. Response to Public Comments Mr. Bob Burke submitted a comment letter regarding the traffic study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Mr. Burke raised many of the same issues he previously raised prior to the August 10th and August 24th Planning Commission meetings. Below are Hexagon's responses to the main issues raised by Mr. Burke. Trip Generation Please see above response to the same comment raised by the Planning Commission. Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Intersection Traffic Counts Intersection traffic counts were collected in 2015 while schools were in session at all five study intersections during the AM peak hour, and at three intersections (Alberto Way and Los Gatos - Saratoga Road, Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, and Los Gatos Boulevard and Kennedy Road/Caldwell Avenue) during the PM peak hour. The intersections on Los Gatos - Saratoga Road at University Avenue and at Santa Cruz Avenue are designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections by VTA and are required to use counts in the CMP database. Intersection counts were all counted at the intersections as vehicles advance past the stop bars. On roadway segments where intersection counts are collected at both ends of the segments and there are minimal mid -segment driveways, the total inbound volumes derived from the intersection counts at one end of the segment are very similar to the total inbound volumes derived from the intersection counts at the other end of the segment (see Table 3). Table 3 Existing Intersection Volume Checks Segment Peak Entering Volume Exiting Volume Difference Hour Location Volume Location Volume Volume %of Entering Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd EB AM Alberto 824 Los Gatos 841 17 2% PM Way 851 Blvd 854 3 0% Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd WB AM Los Gatos 949 Alberto 963 14 1 % PM Blvd 820 Way 825 5 1% Hexagon conducted new traffic counts at all five study intersections in October 2016, while schools were in session. As shown on Table 4, there were minimal fluctuations in traffic volumes between the 2015 counts used for the study and the newly collected 2016 counts. The only intersection that had relatively larger fluctuations was the Santa Cruz Avenue and Los Gatos - Saratoga Road intersection, but the 2016 volumes were lower than the 2015 volumes used in the study and so this fluctuation does not change any of the conclusions regarding the project's traffic impacts. Table 4 Intersection Volume Comparison Intersection Peak lntersection Volume Difference Hour 2015 Count 2016 Count Volume %of 2015 Count Santa Cruz Ave & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 3154 2862 -292 -9% PM 3291 2939 -352 -11% UniversityAve & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 3021 2920 -101 -3% PM 3102 3176 74 2% Alberto Way & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 1976 1910 -66 -3% PM 1863 1862 -1 0% Los Gatos Blvd & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 2454 2380 -74 -3% PM 2351 2468 117 5% Los Gatos Blvd & Kennedy Rd/Caldwell Ave AM 1771 1669 -102 -6% PM 1860 1913 53 3% Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page7of8 Freeway Ramp Analysis The traffic study analyzed four ramps at the SR 17/SR 9 interchange. The studied ramps are listed below: • Northbound SR 17 on -ramp from westbound SR 9 • Southbound SR 17 on -ramp from westbound SR 9 • Northbound SR 17 off -ramp to eastbound SR 9 ® Southbound SR 17 off -ramp to eastbound SR 9 There are eight ramps at the SR 17/SR 9 interchange. The four ramps identified above were studied because the project is expected to generate traffic on these ramps. The remaining four ramps at this interchange were not studied because they do not provide access to the project site and are not expected to receive project generated traffic. Freeway ramp volumes typically are obtained from Caltrans. These volumes are used for the purpose of conducting freeway ramp analysis. Since none of the study ramps were metered at the time of the study, the ramp volumes were used to conduct a volume -to -capacity analysis to determine the ramps" ability to accommodate the traffic demand. The traffic study determined that with the project traffic, all ramps would continue to operate with sufficient capacity. Additional peak -hour freeway ramp counts were conducted in October 2016, while schools were in session. These counts were shown to be significantly lower than the counts Hexagon previously received from Caltrans (see Table 5). The new counts indicate that the ramp analysis done in the project TIA was conservative in that it was based on higher volume. These new counts show continuity in the volume along Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, which was a concern in Mr. Burke°s analysis. As shown in Table 6, all ramps would continue to operate with sufficient capacity with the addition of project traffic. During field observations, Hexagon observed that only the southbound off -ramp from Highway 17 onto westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road experienced congestion during the AM peak hour. The congestion is due to downstream merging on westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road west of Santa Cruz Avenue. The project would not add traffic to this ramp. Other ramps operated well during both the AM and PM peak hours. Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page8of8 1116-411 Table 5 Study Freeway Ramp Count Comparison SR 17/Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd Ramps Ramp Volume Peak Hour Caltrans 1 Hexagon 2 Difference NB on -ramp from WB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM PM SB on -ramp from WB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM PM NB off -ramp to EB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM PM SB off -ramp to EB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM PM 1153 1017 104 379 379 125 1103 758 502 -651 409 -608 120 16 172 -207 217 -162 126 432 337 -671 -421 Notes: 1. Caltrans ramp volumes were obtained from Caltrans staff on September 17, 2015. Ramp volumes were dated August 2013. 2. Hexagon ramp volumes were obtained from tube counts conducted in October2016. Table 6 Ramp Analysis with New Counts Interchange Ramp Type Peak Hour Capacity' Volume 2 Existing Conditions Existing + Project Conditions Project V/C Trips Volume V/C SR 17 8 Los Gatos - Saratoga Rd NB on -ramp from WB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd SB on -ramp from WB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd NB off -ramp to EB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd SB off -ramp to EB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd Diagonal AM PM Loop AM PM Diagonal AM PM Loop AM PM 900 900 900 900 2000 2000 1800 1800 502 409 120 172 217 126 432 337 0.56 0.45 0.13 0,19 0.11 0.06 0.24 0.19 3 505 32 441 1 121 11 183 13 230 0 126 39 471 0 337 0.56 0.49 0.13 0.2 0.12 0.06 0.26 0.19 Notes: 1. Ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, and considered the free -flow speed, and the number of lanes or the ramp. As a conservatNe approach, the two on -ramps are assumed to be metered during both peak hours. 2. Ramp volumes were obtained from tube counts conducted in October 2016. All of this data further confirms the TIA conclusions and the analysis contained in the Final EIR. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Gary K. Black President