Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attachment 12
TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 05/10/2017 DATE: MAY 5, 2017 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM NO: 2 SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-15-056, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION U-15-009, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-16-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY. PROPERTY OWNER: CWA REALTY. 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 applicant has provided a supplemental response letter (Exhibit 39) which includes a matrix summarizing public comments received, and letters from their geotechnical consultant (ENGEO Inc.) and transportation consultant (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.). The transportation consultant's letter has been peer reviewed by the Town's consultant (Exhibit 40) and the geotechnical consultant report peer review is in progress, and will be provided in an addendum report early next week. Staff in the Parks and Public Works Department also prepared a Project Information Sheet with responses to a number of the common questions asked about this project (Attachment 41). The attached public comments (Exhibit 44) were received after distribution of the staff report addendum for the April 12, 2017, meeting. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report 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.losgatosca.gov ATTACHMENT 12 PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001 MAY 5, 2017 Previously received with August 10, 2016 Staff Report: 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 4. Required CEQA 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: 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 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AlbertoWay401-409 05.10.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 5/5/2017 8:52 AM PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001 MAY 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 Previously received with April 12, 2017 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 Previously received with April 12, 2017 Addendum Report: 37. Communication from the applicant, received April 10, 2017 38. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday, April 6, 2017 and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 11, 2017 Received with this Staff Report: 39. Applicant's Supplemental Response Letter, received April 24, 2017 40. Town Consultant Peer Review of Transportation Report, received April 28, 2017 41. Project Information Sheet, prepared by the Parks and Public Works Department 42. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, April 11, 2017 and 11:00 a.m. Friday, May 5, 2017 Distribution: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AlbertoWay401-409 05.10.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 5/5/2017 8:52 AM This Page Intentionally Left Blank LP ACC�UIN I�.EAI. ESTATE DEVELOPMENISITEOST April 24, 2017 Ms. JenniferArmer, 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: Planning Commission Public Hearing of May 10, 2017 — Supplemental Responses 401-409 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application 5-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 APN 529-23-018 We have reviewed the April 6, 2017 Staff Report for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on May 10, 2017 for the 401-409 Alberto Way Protect. Based on our review of the comment letters included in the April 6, 2017 Staff Report, many of the comment letters continue to restate the comments offered at the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission public hearing. None of the comments raise new issues or new environmental impacts. We prepared the attached matrix containing the supplemental responses to the comments contained in Exhibit 30 to the Aprll 6`h Staff Report on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EUR") for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project ("Project ER") or new comments on the 401-409 Alberto Way Project applications referenced above that were not previously addressed In our comments at the August 10th or August 24th Planning Commission meetings because these comment letters were received after we submitted our responses to the Town for inclusion in the Staff Report. Our supplemental responses are set forth in the attached rnatrix found in AttachmentA to this letter. Again, none of the restated comments or new comments ralse new issues regarding the Project. Pl e I free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. Si ey, a dy Lamb 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650.326.1600 BN 28546208 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ATTACHMENT A 405 Alberto Way (Formerly 401-409) Alberto Way Project Comment and Response Matrix April 24, 2017 Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Aesthetics Revised project description (PD) fails to address size & mass of buildings (PLG, 8); revised building is nearly 2 / times sf of existing office buildings and should be reduced by 1/3 to 1. size and scale not suitable for surrounding neighborhood of mostly senior residents. PLG Basham Fowler Kemp LGC BVV, 1 August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting August I0, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24a' Applicant Response Letters Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and pages 1-7 of the Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). Also see Draft EIR Section 3.1 which concluded the project's aesthetic impacts were less than significant DEIR Section 3.1, page 3-11 addressed potential impacts of the larger project footprint. The Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016, Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hides) explains how the impacts were further reduced with project changes and smaller footprint. Revised PD Allows Tenants to look into Las Casitas windows (PLG, 8) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Not applicable (N/A) The revised project has relocated the building an additional 10 feet away from the north property line, thus affording the Las Casitas residents more privacy than did the previous design and further minimizing impacts as planned on page 2 of the Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017. In addition, the revised project eliminates the second floor exterior balcony on the north side of the Building. Generous landscape screening (trees and shrubs) has been added into this new setback area, further increasing the visible buffer between the two adjacent properties. Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (response to comment 1. ii. by Charles Erckson). DEIR page 3-11 addressed potential impacts of the larger project footprint and concluded the impacts were less than significant. The revised project further reduces the less- than -significant impacts. BN 28525816v6 Comments Commenter Blocks views of Santa Cruz Mountains (PLG, 8-9) Negative aesthetic impacts (contrary to kIR); concerned about glare and shadows and people being able to see into tenants' windows (PI,G, 33) I3N 28523816v6 PLG L(iC PLG Original Date Comment Submitted August 10, 2016 and August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 2016 and August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Original Date Comment Addressed August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Stan' Report; August 19 and 24, 2016 Applicant Response Letters Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by'1'homas O'Donnell and Matthew Eludes). August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24a' Applicant Response Letters 2 The revised project description relocated the building an additional 10 feet away from the north property Sine, and has eliminated the second story balcony on the north -side of the building, thus affording the Las Casitas residents more privacy than did the previous design. The redesign eliminates shadows on the property to the north, except during the extreme winter months when shadows would still be cast by the existing buildings and trees on the current property. Generous landscape screening (trees and shrubs) has been added into this new setback area, fluffier increasing the visible buffer between the two adjacent properties. Glare off -the north -facing windows of the new building is not possible as the sun does not strike the north side of the building. Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) DEIR page 3-10 addressed less - than -significant visual impacts of the original project. The Applicant Response 1.etter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Eludes) described the further reduction in visual impacts associated 'with the reduced project footprint --_ DIi.IR pages 3-10 through 3-13 addressed less-than-signilicant light and glar-c impacts of the original project. See also Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (response to comment 1. ii. by Charles lsrekson). Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Architecture should be in BVV, 2 August 10, 2016; August 10, 2016 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Page 3-10 through 3-13 of the keeping with existing residential August 24, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff dated August 18, 2016 and pages 1-3 of the DEIR addressed less -than - neighborhood, and lower building height, etc. Planning Commission Report; August 1411' and 24's Applicant Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes significant visual impacts of the original project Applicant Meeting Response Letters and responses to comments by Thomas Response Letter dated August O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew 18, 2016; Applicant Response Hades). Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Additional recommendations from the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Changes and responses to comments by Thomas Group, have been, incorporated into the most recent design submission as explained on pages 1 and 2 of the March 17, 2017 O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hades). Applicant's Response Letter including: • Providing additional visual variety and break up in scale on the front facade, including varying the heights of the mansard roofs, adding additional recesses and projections at the front facade, and providing more of a wall plane offset where the two-story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. • Reducing the mass of the central link of the setback portion of the building by lowering the height of the central parapet, adding a canopy element with supporting brackets to the center facade, varying the wall colors at the center facade and providing additional detail/architectural enhancement at the main entry feature, • Adding additional trellis features at the windows at the front facade. 3 BN 285238t45v6 Comments Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos (PLG, 47) Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted PLG August 24, 2016 Air 1 ualit Impacts are understated and mitigations inadequate (PLG, 33-34) • Furnace upgrade does not reduce vehicle emissions • Electric vehicle charging systems will not reduce emissions • Restniping Alberto Way will not reduce congestion • 'Trip reduction program is voluntary • Inconsistent with 2010 Clean Air Plan • Pollutant concentrations will affect sensitive receptors BSI 28523816v6 PI G Original Date Comment Addressed August 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters General air quality impact comments submitted for August 10, 2016 Planning Commission. Applicant R.esponse Letter dated August 24, 2016 4 Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Please refer to Applicant Response I,etter dated August 18, 2016 and pages 1-1 of the Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas ()'Donnell,1). Michael Kane and Matthew iiudes). The Project has incorporated recommendations from the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, including eliminating tower elements, eliminating the seccmd-floor exterior balcony on the north -side of the Building. The design retains its Mission -Style architecture which maintains the small town feel and resembles other nearby commercial developments inI.os Gatos. Please refer to the Hexagon 'Transportation Consultants, Inc. April 21, 2017 ltesponse to Traffic Comments on 401-409 Alberto Way Traffic Study ("Hexagon Supplemental Responses"), including the Hexagon April 5, 20171tesponse to Traffic Comments on 401- 409 Alberto Way Traffic Study ("Hexagon April 5th Responses"). As indicated in the "Overall Traffic Conditions" section of the Hexagon April 5th Responses, the re, striping of'southbound Alberto Way at the intersection would improve vehicular flow and reduce queuing on Alberto Way. With respect to 'TDM measures, please see response to Comment 2 in tlx: Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The TEA analyzed project impacts without taking into account further reductions due to TIDM measures. Nonetheless, '1'DM is a standard program for reducing vehicular trip generation. Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matritx _ Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response I.,etter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell,l). Michael Kane and Matthew Males). Draft pages 3-31 to 3-38 and Conditions of Approval 18-20 address the transportation control measures and air quality mitigation measures that would eliminate potential conflicts with the Clean Air Plan. The 'transportation Managernenl. Plan (which includes measures to reduce vehicular trips) is not voluntary; it is mandatory per Condition 99. All air quality impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level; Hexagon Response Letter. Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Hydrology and Water Quality Water table issues (PLG, 27) • Water Table is too shallow • Liquefaction issues • Risk of Existing Fill • Boring completed during drought • Possible shifting of foundations due to dewatering coffer dam and soil subsidence • underground water diversion for underground parking • Bottom of foundation of garage would be 10-12 feet below water table PLG Geissler New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A See Response to Comments 1-10 to the Geissler Letter and Response to Comment 14, including the Response to Comment 2 to the Geissler Engineering Letter and Alberto Way Citizens, Bob Burke and Pueblo de Los Gatos I etters in the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. Also see response to Comment if regarding the borings. DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and Soils and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015. ENGEO Supplemental Response to Public Comments dated April 19, 2017 in Exhibit 1 ("ENGEO April 191 Supplemental Responses"). Water table has risen significantly since June, 2015 borings (PLG, 28). No groundwater levels reported in Boring B i or B3. PLG Geissler, p. 5 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A See Response to 2C to the Las Casitas Letter in the ENGEO April 19`s Supplemental Responses. Also see response to Alberto Way Citizens Comments 11, 2C, 3C, 3D and the response to Geissler Engineering Comment 3. Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft FIR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015. ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. 5 BN 28523816v6 Comments Hydrology impacts not revealed in EIR (PLU, 29) • Adverse impacts on surrounding properties caused by underground parking • Water table was measured at lowest possible time • Water depth issues • Drought recovery issue • Sturm drainage system is overcapacity • Address impacts to sump pumps (also see, l3VV 4) Likelihood of flooding due to upstream dam failures. RN 28523816v6 Commenter PLG Geissler Kemp L(iC l3VV Geissler, pp. 2- 3, 8.9 Original Date Comment Submitted - Ncw comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff' Report Original Date Comment Addressed N/A New comment included iu April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report • Section 3.8 of the Draft l LR evaluated hydrology and water quality impacts. See Response to 16 to the AWLC letter in the ENGEO April 19`h Response to Public Comments. Construction of the parking garage would not result in any new significant geologic/gcotechnical, hydrology or health and safety impacts. • The Project will not burden the existing storm drainage system, because the Project's stonnwater will be collected and conveyed through a storm drain that runs along the western property line, near the Caltrans right of way, along the back of the neighboring parcel. Please see the attached civil drawings prepared by Kier 4 Wright (Exhibit 2), which specifically reference the upsire from an 8" to 18" storm drain pipe in the adjacent property. The larger pipe is sized to accommodate the flow from a 10-year rain event, which is the largest design rain event that the Town's City standards require pipe infrastructure to be designed to. • The two sump pumps that will convey the stone water on this Project are designed to convey the water of a 10-year storm. If fate pumps fail, the water will rise in the pump's manhole and will spill into an overflow pipe which ties into the 18' storm drainpipe; that drtins_offsitc. See Response to Comment in the ENGEO April 19's Supplemental Responses. The project site, the neighboring properties, and the majority of the Town of Los Gatos are all located in au inundationzone in the event of dam overflow or failure. 6 Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality in the Draft EIR and rNGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, 1.os Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report. dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality in Draft EIR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Cieotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April l9th Supplemental Responses __ _ Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Geology and Soils Soil subsidence caused by temporary dewatering during construction Geissler, p.2 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff` Report N/A See Response to Comment 2 in the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. The risk of settlement (subsidence) due to temporary dewatering is low for the reasons stated in ENGEO's Response to Comment 2. Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. 2 story underground garage in an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone Geissler, pp. 2- 3 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff' Report NIA See Response to Comment 8 in the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. The project site is not located within a State of California Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for the reasons stated in ENGEO's Response to Comment 8. Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015. ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. 2 story garage identified as an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard. Zone and combined effect of seismic activity, liquefaction potential make site unsuitable for underground garage (and underwater). Geissler, pp. 2- 4 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A See Response to Comment 9 in the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. The effects of liquefaction -induced settlement should be mitigated by designing the foundation in accordance with ENGEO's geotechnical recommendations set forth in its Geotechnical Exploration report. Also see letter from LARGO Concrete, Inc. in Exhibit 3. Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft ELR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015. ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. 7 BN 28523816v6 Comments Commenter In the event of an earthquake, soils under garage are likely to result in differential foundation settlement with cracking that would allow influx of groundwater ranging from 50 gallons per minute to 500 gallons per minute.:Setticment of 1 inch or more. Settlement near cofferdam. Reduced capacity of other drainage facilities. Geissler, pp. 2- 4,8 Long-term dewatering required to discharge groundwater seepage into garage and cracked slabs at houses in Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista Village, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas in vicinity of the garage. BN 28523R 16v6 Geissler, p. 2, 7-8 LOC, p. 2-3 Original Date Comment Submitted New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff' Report New comment included in April 6, 2017 Sluff Report Original Date Comment Addressed N/A N/A 8 Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report See Response to Comments 11 and 1E, and Responses to Geissler 1Sngineering Comments 4, 5, and 9 in the ENGEO April 196 Supplemental Responses. 1Iie Geotechnical Report recommends criteria for the design ()idle structural mat foundation to ensure that it is rigid enough to span localized irregularities without suffering from structural damage. The project site has been designed in accordance with Town requirements, including to the overland release generated by a 100-year flood, which will prevent water from entering the building and the underground parking garage. In addition, the Protect will drain storm water along the western property line through an 18" storm drain pipe, which accommodates a 10-year rain event. Please see the attached civil drawings prepared by Kier t Wright. Pursuant to Public Resources (;ode section 2693(c), the EIR indicates that the Project design has incorporated the ENGUO Geotechnical Report gcotechnical re,comrnendations in order to avoid and mitigate potential seismic hazards including measures that are consistent with established practice and that will reduce seismic risk to acceptable levels. See Response to Geissler Comments 2 and 15 in the ENGEO April19'h Supplemental Responses. Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR. and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and Soils and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Ias Gatos, California, Gcotechnieal Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015. ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report j Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm, Certain death for everyone in the garage. Chance of flooding during a 100-year period is 55%. Public safety at risk. Geissler, p. 2-4, 6, 8 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report NIA Pursuant to Town requirements, the site has been designed to handle the overland release generated by a 100-year flood, which will prevent water from entering the building and the underground parking garage. As shown in Exhibit 2, a ridge at the top of the ramp that descends into the parking garage will prevent any site water, including severe storm water and 100-year flood waters, from entering the underground parking garage as the ridge directs the water toward Alberto Kier + Wright civil plans on file with the Town of Los Gatos Way and away from the garage entrance. Likelihood of flooding of garage due to storm water runoff during heavy rains due to inadequate Geissler, pp. 2- 4, 9 LGC p. 2 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff N/A Per the Town's Requirements, the storm drain infrastructure on the site has been designed to accommodate a ]0-year storm ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report property drainage. Increase percentage of pervious landscape surface and conduct hydrology study of effect on neighboring properties. hLK fails to address possible damage to neighboring properties, Report and will release to Los Gatos Creek without affecting the neighboring property. Per the Town's requirements, the site also has been designed to the overland release a 100-year Hood into the Town's right of way to prevent any site water from entering the neighboring property, and the 100-year flood waters Will overland toward Alberto Way. dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses; See also, Responses to Geissler Engineering Comrnents 1-6 and Response to Comment 16 in the ENGEO April 19'a Supplemental Responses. The proposed office building will be supported on a structural mat foundation designed in accordance with the Geotechnical Report, which is rigid enough to span localized irregularities without suffering from structural damage. The Geotechnical Report recommends that waterproofing be conducted by a waterproofing consultant. The construction of the parking garage will not result in any new significant geologic/geotechnical, hydrology or health and safety impacts. 9 BN 2852381av6 Comments Construction of 22-fnot-deep underground garage may cause diversion of subsurface seepage pasterns which would cause a rise in groundwater levels in neighboring property and increased seepage flow rates leading to piping failures. Proposed dawatering and waterproofing mitigation measures are insufficient to protect adjacent properties. Commenter Geissler, pp. 6 Geissler, pp. 10 Re- quire that all parking remain Geissler, pp. 10 above grade and he designed a.r pervious paving to mitigate rides. - • Public Services There is no construction plan and no plan can avoid blocking residents and emergency vehicles for extended periods of time (PLG, 27) Negative impacts not identified (PLG, 35) RN 28523816vd PLG PLG Original Date Comment Submitted New comment included in April 6, 2017 Stair Report New comment included in April 6, 2017 Stair Report New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report August 10, 2016 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Stab Report Original Date Comment Addressed N/A N/A Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report See Response to Geissler Engineering Comment 4 in the L NG1(l April le Suppleanental Responses. N/A August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August I911' and 24''' Applicant Response Letters N YA 10 Project Document In which Comment Addressed (in addition to this malrtt) LTNGE(l, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Gcotcchnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. Auust 13, 2015; ENG1"3O April 19thSupplemental Responses See Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 4-6 and Response to Comment 16 in the EN(iECl April 14a' Supplemental Responses. The risk of cracking within the foundation mat due to earthquakes or expansive soils and the risk of associated groundwater intrusion are low; therefore, the Project does not require long-term dewate ring from a geotcchnical standpoint. The proper type of watrerprooting will be determined and specified by a waterproofing consultant per the Geotechnical Report As with other parking structures constructed in Los Gatos, any risks associated with the underground parking garage will be addressed by providing proper architectural, structural and civil deign that meets all codes and Town requirements. fiNG1 O, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Gcotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; P.NGEO April le Supplemental Responses N/A Conditions 106 through 111 require that the Applicant Response Letter dated developer submit a constriction management plan prior to issuance or any permit to emrnnence work. All construction traffic routes and controls are subject to Town review. August 18, 2016 and Planning Commission testimony. Draft EIR evaluatfxl potential impacts to public services and determined the impacts would be less than significant. DEIR, Section 3.10, Public Serviccs. Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Impact to area schools is not insignificant (PLG, 35) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A Page 3-140 in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR explains why the impacts to area schools would be less -than -significant. Draft Pam. Impact to fire and emergency medical services not insignificant (PLG, 36) PLG August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2017 Page 3-179 m Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR explains why the impacts to fire and emergency services would not be significant. Applicant Response Letter; Response #2 to Matthew Hudcs Transportation and Traffic Traffic has increased in past 6 months; need new traffic analysis. Basharn New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N!A See response to Comment 3 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The minimal fluctuation in traffic counts reported in the Hexagon Supplemental Responses did not alter any of the conclusions. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Revised project fails to address VTA funding Hwy 9 & 17 Interchange before Measure B (PLG, 8) PLG LGC p. 8 (C) Fowler New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A See response to Comment 4 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The TIA assumes worst case conditions without interchange improvements. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Revised project fails to address traffic on Hwy 9 and Alberto Way which will become congested (PLG, 16). Per Caltrans, project will add trips greater than 1% capacity; mitigation is required. EIR is inadequate. PLG LGC, p. 4 August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters See response to Comments 5 and 6 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The observed traffic conditions support the assumptions used for the TIA in accordance with Town policy and VTA TIA guidelines. The TIA acknowledges that the project would add trips equal to 1.18% of capacity to SI3 SR 17 between Lark Avenue and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. The Project traffic improvements would improve operations compared to existing conditions. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Project will increase traffic on Hwy 9, NB traffic on Hwy 17 exiting Es+st Los Gatos will add to traffic delays. Sprandel Kemp I.GC, p. 4 August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters Sec response to Comment 5 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4 The curve in front of the project is a sight problem for vehicles. (PLG, 42) PLO August 10 See response to Continent 8 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Hexagon recommends eliminating on -street parking along project frontage. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4 It BN 28523816..95 Comments Traffic congestion will impact Alberto Way and LG in a'/a-mile radius (PLO, 16); need reasonable ingress/egress on Albettt, Way (BVV, 3). Revised PD fails to straighten Alberto for safety & on -street parking (PLC, 15). Commenter PLO; Orve11 McGowan Kemp BVV PTXi Original Date Comment Submitted August 10, 2016 Staff Report; Letter #7, June 13, 2016; August 24, 2016 August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Fire department facilities will be affected by traffic (PLG, 35-37). F'aLse Traffic Report data (PLG, 38, 40). I3N 285238166 PIO PI Xi LGC, p. 3 Original Date Comment Addressed August 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24ih Applicant Response Letters August 10, 2016; New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Re ort August 10, 20 16; New comment included in April 6,2.017Staff Report March 17, 2017— March 17, 2017 August 24, 2016 Staff' Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters; NIA 12 Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed in addition to this matrix)_ - Final LIR, Response to Comment Letter 7; hexagon Response I.,etter dated. April 5, 2017 Section 3.11 Transportation and Traffic address traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project. Analysis indicates impacts will be less than significant. The Traffic Report considered the vehicle trips of surrounding uses in its analysis. In the "Overall Traffic Conditions" section of the Hexagon Response Letter indicates that office traffic to the project would mainly flow in the counter -commute direction on eastbound I.os Gatos- Saratoga Road, and would turn left into Alberto Way, avoiding adding traffic to the eastbound queue on Los Oatos-Saratga Rd at Los Gatos Blvd. See Applicant Response 112 to Matthew dudes in the Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017. The revised PD will implement the Town's Complete Street Program. The developer has proposed a land dedication along the Alberto Way frontage to facilitate the widening and straightening of Alberto Way by over 5 feet. The revised design moves a majority of the existing curb and gutter into the proposed laud dedications as well as the excess right of way in order to have a wider and straighter roadway. 'fhe street widening will allow for a bike lane and a longer right turn lace onto Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. See response to Comment 11 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. ()te or two fire hydrants would be relocated from back of curb. Emergency response times would not be impacted by the_prt►ject._ See `l'rip lieneration discussion in hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2017. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response 1 .etter dated March 17, 2017 (Response #2 to Matthew Nudes and Response #t-1. v. to Charles Erekson) Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4 Hexagon Response Letter dated Apri15, 2017. Comments Commenter Original Date Comment' Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Did not consider traffic from 475-485 Alberto Way project UGC, p. 4 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A See Response to Comment 13 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The 475-485 Alberto Way project had not submitted a planning application at the time the 401 Alberto Way Project TIA was prepared. . Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Trip Generation Sensitivity Study (PLG, 39) PLG August 10, 2016 August 24, 2016 August 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24'h Applicant Response Letters See Trip Generation discussion in Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2017. See Response to Comment 14 in 1-lexagon Supplemental Responses. The trip generation is based on net building size, not employment. The proposed building size has decreased compared to the original project. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Traffic fee calculation uses 700 additional trips ($615,800 /$879/ additional trip) which under states the fee that would be paid by tenants employing 735 people. (PLG, 39) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A See Response to Comment 14 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The final traffic impact fees will be calculated per the Town's requirements and Project conditions of approval. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for bikes, pedestrians, and transit (PLG, 40) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report June 13, 2016 See Response to Comment 15 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The Project voluntarily proposed to rebuild the sidewalk fronting the Project site along westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd to create a detached sidewalk for additional separation between the vehicles and pedestrians per the Town's Complete Streets Program. The Project also widens westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to accommodate a bike lane. Clurently, Alberto Way does not have bike lanes, but the Project proposes to install bike lanes and a bike box at the intersection of Alberto and Los Gatos -Saratoga to allow bicyclists to turn left safely. Final EIR; Comments 1-3 of Santa Clara VTA Comment Letter #9; Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2017. IVfM T1 and T2 cannot be implemented as proposed. Widen Alberto to 12-foot lane width. (.PLG, 41) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A See Response to Comment 16 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The resniping was designed based on input from the Town. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. 13 BN 285238 16v6 Comments MM Ti creates a new and unacceptable impact on 420 & 435 Alberto Way and fails to widen Alberto Way in front of project site. (PI.G, 41) The Revised Project driveway and parking areas are insufficient (PLG, 42) Project parking should not overflow to street parking on Alberto Way. (RVV, 5) Commenter PLO PLG HVV Kemp Revised Project appears to have PLO no tuna -around large enough for buses (PLG, 42). Revised PD Garage is blocked while trash and recycling is picked up, hacking up traffic on Alberto & Hwy-9 or in the PDs garage while they are present (PLCI, More jobs will create demand for more housing and secondary development. EIK must address all impacts including schools and project should contribute $50K to 70K per tenant employee to mitigate school impacts. 1'LO Original Date Comment Submitted New comment included in April fi, 2017 Staff Report August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting LGC, p. 7 RN 28523816v6 August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report New comment included in April 6, 2017 Stall' Report New comment included in April 6, 20I 7 Staff Report Original Date Comment Addressed N/A Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report See Response to Comment 17 in hexagon Supplemental Responses. See Response 2 to Matthew Nudes and .Response 1 to Charles Frekson in the Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017. The revised project widens and straightens Alberti Way by over 5 feet through a proposed laud dedication that will allow for greater visibility on Alberto Way, and bike lanes and a longer right turn lane. March 17, 2017 August 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 246 Applicant Response Letters N/A N/A N/A_-- 14 See Response to Comment 18 in. Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The revised site plan is adequate for bus and truck access and circulation. Buses and tracks would not need to enter the garage. See Response to Conanient 19 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Project Document in which CommAddressed (in additionent to this matrix) Applicant Response Letter elated March 17, 2017.(Response 2 to Matthew ITudes); hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Applicant Response Letter; Response #1. iv. to Charles .Erekson; Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth inExhibit 4. See Response to Comment 18 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. See response above. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Sae Response to Comment 20 in hexagon Supplemental Responses. Garbage trucks would not block access to the garage. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. The project involvees the redevelopment of a commercially zoned properly and not a residential project. The project is subject to the commercial developer impact fees imposed by l.os Gatos Union School District of $.54/square foot. Draft EIR Continents Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed in addition to this matrix) No construction plan can prevent complete shutdown of Alberto Way for extended periods (PLG, 42) PLG Final EIR, Letter #5, June 11, 2016 August 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24'h Applicant Response Letters Section 3.11 Transportation and Traffic, and Section 4 Cumulative Impacts address traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project (including access to Alberto Way during construction activities). Analysis in Draft EIR indicates impacts are less than significant. See Response to Comment 15 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Final EIR, Response to Comment Letter #5; Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. During construction, work crews of 50-100 will be present on the site at all times, each arriving in a separate vehicle: it is not possible for them to all park on the Project property (PLG, 42) PLG August 10, 2016 August 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters See Response to Comment 22 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. As a Mixed -Use development, the PD would, generate high levels of continuous traffic that are not disclosed in the DEIR or FEIR (PLG, 43) PLG Final E1R, Letter #2, June 8, 2016 Final FIR. Section 2 Project Description describes the proposed use of the site as commercial use and not residential use. See Response to Comment 23 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses Final EIR, Response #7 to Letter #2. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. 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 (PLG, 43) PLG 'New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report NIA See Response to Comment 24 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes along the project frontage. The project does not cause the need for further widening of the highway. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. 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 (PLG, 44) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff. Report N/A See Response to Comments 24 and 25 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes along the project frontage. The project does not cause the need for further widening of the • highway. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. 15 BN 28523816v6 Comments H 7R MISSING Mitigation 1'-6: Reduce PD Footprint by enough to enable the widening of liwyw9 by one lane each direction between the 1lwy-17 Overpass and the 2 lane sections on both sides (PLGL 45) No trip generating project should he approved before Los Gatos Blvd. is widened.(PLO, 26) Commenter PLG PI.G Utilities and Service Systems Project sewer crosses neighboring properties. TIN 28523816v6 Original Date Comment Submitted New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report New comment in April 6, 2017 Staff Report New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Original Date Comment Addressed N/A NIA N/A Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report 16 See Response to comments 24 and 25 in Hexagon. Supplemental Responses, Highway 9 has 2 lanes along the project frontage. The project does not cause the need for further widening of the highway. See Response to Comment 27 in 'Hexagon Supplemental. Responses. 'l'he Project would not cause significant impacts along Los Gatos Blvd. Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. The existing buildings drain the site sewage to a 6' VC 1.' which traverse through the neighboring property. The proposed building for the Project has capped the traversing 6' VCP ensile, and instead is draining the sewage of the proposed building directly into Alberto Way's 6' VCP sewer main, without traversing through a neighboring prmerty. Please see Exhibit 2. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 2 to this matrix. Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Existing square footage alternative is consistent with project objectives. (PLG 46) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Snmmwry of Architectural Changes and Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). 1-story garage has negative impacts (PLG 46). PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A The underground parking garage is two floors below grade, not one. The revised design reduces the footprint of the underground parldng garage, which decreases the required excavation and also allows for on -site staging of all construction vehicles, thus eliminating congestion on the street during construction. Furthermore, locating most parking below grade significantly reduces the visual impact of the surface parking lot and allows for additional surface landscaping and amenity areas. Any additional risks associated with the underground parking garage will be 100% mitigated thorough proper architectural, structural and civil design that meets all codes and Town requirements. N/A Growth -Inducing Impacts CEQA Section 21100(b)(5) specifies that growth iwlncing impacts must be addressed in EIR and they were not. (PLG, 36-37) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report NIA Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR contains a discussion of growth inducing impacts. As explained in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not be population -inducing and would be consistent with the General Draft EIR. Plan and zoning designations for the site; therefore the Project would not have growth inducing effects. No Significant Impacts EIR fails to describe why the possible significant effects were determined not to be significant. (PLG, 37) BN 28523816v6 PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A 17 The EIR describes the reasons that all of the impacts that were evaluated in this EIR were determined not to be significant. N/A Comments Commenter Original Date Cununent Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Project Description Revised PD Fails to Address Reviewability (P1.G, 7) Revised PI) Design Features in conflict with General Plan Policies (PLG, 46-49) Questions validity of Cannon report.. References reduction of only 700 st' l'LG PLO LGC, p. 2 I.GC, p. 2 Ensure that new development reinforces and suppcuts the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos (PLG, 47) PLG tiN 28523816v6 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Re ort N/A Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2017 New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting N/A August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response. betters The project is reviewable in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code and application review procedures just like any other dcvclotent project is reviewable. Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated. March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, 1). Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Additional recommendations were made by the'i'own's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, and have heart incorporated into the most recent design subntission as discussed above. The 700 sf reduction noted in the Cannon Design Group document is incorrect. The actual reduction in area betwexnt the original design (91,965 sf) mad the current proposal design (83,000 si) is 8,965 sL Cannon Design Group is the l'own's peer review consultant retained by the Town to provide an indcpunck at assessment of the 1'r ject. Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Sumntaary of Architectural Changes and response, to comments by'MMronne% O'Doi ne11, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Recommendations from Cannon Design C.iroup have been incorporated into the redesi 18 Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) N/A Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments is by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew nudes). N/A Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew 'hides). Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Northern portion of buildings should be reduced to 1 story. Buildings block views of mountains. LGC, p. 8 (D) New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report March 17, 2017 The revised PD has relocated the building an additional 10 feet away from the north property line, for a total of 25 feet of setback, including the Town -mandated 15- foot setback. For responses on blocking views, please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Revised PD Features in conflict with LG Commercial Design Guidelines (PLG, 47) PLG August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 2017 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Swnmary of Architectural responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission as discussed above. Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Provide more project review and approval predictability (PLG, 47) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A The project is reviewable in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code and application review procedures just as any development project is reviewable in such a manner. Numerous public meetings, hearings and community workshops have been conducted by the Town and the applicant as summarized in the April 6, 2017 Planning Commission staff report. NIA 19 AN 28523516v6 Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted New comment included in April 6, 2017 Stall: Report Plan Deficiency (Pi.G, 47) PLG Maintain a huilcting scale that is PLCi consistent with the Town's small scale image (PIG, 48) August 10, 2016; Reinforce the special qualities of PLG the Town's visual character (PLG, 48) BN 28523816v6 August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting Original Date Comment Addressed NIA August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24's Applicant Response Letters August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters 20 Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Please refer to Applicant Response ',otter dated Ault 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by'i'honnas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew nudes). Also, the Staff analysis contained in the various staff reports prepared for the Project de morearates that the Project complies with ' fown plans and policies. Please refer to Applicant Response [Amer dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March ➢ 7, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by 'Thomas O'Donnell, D. lvlichacl Kane and Matthew Hodes). 'there is no prevalent coxnnacrcial architecture style in the immediate surrounding area. so the revised project has been redesigned to complement the existing commercial centers, using mission -style architecture. The Town's Architectural Consultant has approved the proposed architectural style as in accordance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines. - Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response letter dated March 17, 2017 (Surntnary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Additional reconunendations made by the '1'own's consulting architect, Cannon 1)csign Group, have boon incorporated into the most recent design submission as discussed above. The design incorporates vauious design elements from the Hotel Los Gatos and Palo Alto Medical Foundation office building located on Los Gatos Blvd, Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) N/A __....._-- Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Ar hitectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas ()'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew nudes). Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2(116; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew nudes). Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Ad dressed (in addition to this matrix) Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate adjacent development (PLG, 48) PLG August 10; 2016 and August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting August 19 and 24t Applicant Response Letters Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Snmmary of Architectural responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission as discussed above. Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). To encourage signs which are in scale and harmony with the architecture and the character of the Town (PLG, 48) PLG August 10, 2016 and 24, 20I6 Staff Report August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters Once a tenant and/or tenants have been identified, the Owner will submit a Master Signage Program (MSP) that is consistent and complies with Town requirements for exterior building and site signage. N/A Maintenance of the existing small town feel (PLG, 48) PLG Wagner August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report August 19 and 24th Applicant. Response Letters Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes), which indicates that recommendations from Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission as discussed above. The Town's Architectural Consultant has approved the proposed style as in accordance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). 21 ON 285238 I6v6 Comments Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town's residential structures (PLG, 48) Small scale buildings with a strong pedestrians orientation (PL,Ci, 48) EN 28523816v6 Commenter PIA; PLG Kemp Original Date Comment Submitted August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 201.6; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting Original Date Comment Addressed August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24s' Applicant Response Letters 22 Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report 'Ilse architectural details and landscape design have been designed in strict compliance with the Town's zoning rexluiremcnts for the site. The revised design offers a generous landscape amenity area in front of the building, lacing onto Alberto Way. Adclitional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Croup, haw been incorporated into the most recent design submission which further address the request for similar architectural and landscape details by providing additional visual variety and breaking up the scale on the front facade, including varying the heights of the mansard roofs, adding additional recesses and projections at the front tayade, and providing more of a wall. plane offset where the two -story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. _ Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to continents by 'Thomas O'Donnell, 1). Michael Kane and Matthew Eludes). The additional reuom.mendatians made by the 1'own's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission as described above. Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix)_ Applicant Response Letters dated August 18, 2016 and March 17, 2017. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Lcttcr dated March 1.7, 2017 (Summary of .Architectural Changes and responses to comtnent.s by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew iludes). Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Stall' Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) The sensitive interface of PLG August 10, 2016; August 10, 2016 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Applicant Response Letter dated commercial development with adjacent residential neighborhoods (PLG, 48) August 24, 2016, Planning Commission and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 241 Applicant dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Meeting Response Letters responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Changes and responses to comments by Thomas 1 Hudes). The revised Project combines the two former buildings, and repositions it to the rear setback. The new building is over O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). 60 feet further away from Alberto Way than the former 401 building. In addition, the tower elements and balcony on the north side of the building have been eliminated, which allow for better views and more privacy to sunounding residential neighborhoods. Strong encouragement of a PLG August 10, 2016; August 10, 2016 Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated unique Los Gatos scale and character (PLOT, 48) August 24, 2016, Planning Commission and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to August 18, 2016;.Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Meeting Response Letters comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Changes and responses to comments by Thomas Additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission. The Project has been designed so that it preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance and design of a small-town Class A office center. 23 BN28523816v6 Comments Design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Los Gatos (PIG, 48) Break overall building masses into segments similar to those of nearby structures and parcels (PL('r, 48) Avoid design which consists largely of boxes with applied design elements (PI,G, 48) Commenter LIQ Pill Kemp PLG; Cannon Design Group 13N 2852.18 t6v6 Original Date Comment Submitted August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2017 Original Date Comment Addressed August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24s' Applicant Response Letters August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters March 16, 2017- Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 1.8, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kano and Matthew Mules). Additional recommendations made by the 'Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design. Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission to maintain and reinforce the scale and character of Los Gatos by providing visual variety reducing thc mass of the central Iink of the .setback portion of thc building and adding additional trellis features at the windows on the front facade. Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 201.7 (Summary of .Architectural Chances and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew fludes). See the discussion above regarding the applicant's efforts to break up the massing and scale in the revised project. Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas (YI)onnoll, Michael Kane and Matthew -nudes)_ The revised design incorporates visual variwty and break up in scale ou the front facade, including inereasing the mansard roof height on the left side of the building to create differential in the massing, while preventing adverse impacts to the views of the trees and hills in the distance. Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas ('Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Bodes). Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Arc:hiiecturd Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'l)onnelll, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1 in Arc -Ter. Response letter dated March 16, 2017. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated Mauch 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by'.1'homas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1 in Arc -Tee Response Letter dated March 16, 2017. Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (In addition to this matrix) Break facade segments into modules (PLG, 49) PLG; Cannon Design Group February 22, 2017 March 16, 2017 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The design includes additional visual variety and break up in scale on the front facade, including varying the heights of the mansard roofs, adding additional recesses and projections at the front facade, and providing more of a wall plane offset where the two-story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1 in Arc-Tec Response Letter dated March 16, 2017. Provide a unified design around all sides of buildings (PLG, 49) PLG; Cannon Design Group February 22, 2017 March 16, 2017 The project's design is consistent around all four sides of the building. Additional design enhancements and detailing are provided at the front facade of the building facing Alberto Way. Response 1 in Arc -Tee Response Letter dated March 16, 2017 Where continuity of design is difficult to achieve, provide substantial landscaping (PLG, 49) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A The architectural details and. landscape design are in strict compliance with the Town's zoning requirements for the site, The revised design offers a generous landscape amenity area in front of the building, facing onto Alberto Way. N/A Integrate the screening for all trash and service areas into the design of the buildings (PLG, 49) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A All trash and service areas on the site will be properly screened from view as is required by Town of Los Gatos zoning requirements. See e.g., Conditions 132-133 of Project Conditions of Approval. Operable windows (PLG, 49) Provide visual buffering of on- site utility elements (PLG, 49) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report NIA Operable windows are not practical due to code and Title 24 requirements which mandate an energy efficient HVAC system; the efficiency of which is compromised by the use of operable windows. See e.g., Condition 39 of the Project Conditions of Approval_ Locate transformers, valves and similar elements where they will be least visible (PLG, 49) PLG New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report NIA All service areas and on -site utility equipment (transformers, etc.) on the site will be properly screened from view per Town of Los Gatos zoning requirements. See e.g., Conditions 132-133 of Project Conditions of Approval. 25 BN 285238160 Comments Subordinate parking to the buildings. Avoid parking lots in locations that interrupt retail and/or structural continuity near fmnt proper i Beres. (PLG, 49) Projects with multiple tenants will be required to prepare a Master Signage Program (PLO, 49) Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted —� New comment included in April 6, 20l 7 Staff Report P1.0 Additional disclosures describing work to be performed. (IiVV 6) - Chc Pmjcct will depress Alberto Way Properly Values both during and after construction (PLG, 42) 13VV PI.0 N/A N/A Original Date Comment Addressed N/A N/A Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A Letter 112, .rune 6, 2016 Construction Traffic/Air O ia1i_ky Impacts If water is used to control I'I.Ci particulates during construction, trucks exiting the site will leave with mud on their tires, which will be deposited in Alberto Way and Hwy-9 Q LG, 43) During construction, the road beds of Alberto Way arid Hwy-9 will be destroyed or seriously damaged by the fully loaded concrete trucks r aG, 43 . MM T-2 calls for a construction contract with Los Gatos but, there is no mitigation for the construction contract with Caltrans (PUG, 43). IiN 265238I6vG PLG August 10, 2016 and 24, 2016 Staff Report; August 19 and 24th Applicant Response Letters New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A N/A Parking is "subordinated" to the buildings with the provision of an underground parking garage. No surface parking lots arc proposed that would interrupt retail or structural continuity near the frontage. Once a tenant and/or tenants have been identified, the Owner will submit a Master Signage Program (MSP) that is consistent and complies with Town requirements for exterior building and site si nage. This comment does not raise a CF QA issue; no further response is requiredl. This coiwnent does not raise an environmental issue; no further response is required. Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) N/A. Also sec revised project submittal dated March 2017. N/A N/A Final 11R, Response to Comment Letter #2, Response .16 DEW Section 3.2 evaluates construction- related air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 and Conditions 120 and 131 address measures to minimize potential for deposition of dust and mud at off -site locations. Conditions 106 through 11I require that the developer submit a construction inanag ctuent plan prior to issuance of any permits to commence work. N/A 1)EIR Per condition 105, the developer shall he responsible for obtaining Caltrans approval of a traffic control plan for work within the Caltrans right-of-way. 26 N/A Comments Commenter Original Date Comment Submitted Original Date Comment Addressed Response to New Comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) 200 diesel truck trips per day for 1 to 2 years; some days more with 6-7 trucks at a time. 174 round trips per day. address truck traffic impacts due to beach traffic. Constrnction traffic impacts to pedestrians. Basham McDonald Fowler New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A No construction would occur on weekends. The Project construction activities are designated for Monday through Friday from 9-4 in order to mitigate peak traffic concerns. N/A Other/Miscellaneous CEQA document needs to be revised and recirculated. BVV New comment included in April 6, 2017 Staff Report N/A The modifications described above are feasible and represent minor revisions and clarifications to the overall project that will not add significant new information to the Town of Los Gatos 401-409 Alberto Way Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Recirculation of the EIR is not required because the proposed modifications will further lessen impacts that the Town previously found to be less 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 this submittal indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the EIR. March 17, 2017 letter and Final EIR.. Project negatively impacts senior citizens who reside in the neighborhood (LGC, p. 5). Fails to compensate damaged sellers LGC PLG Letter #2, June 6, 2016 N/A This comment does not raise a CEQA issue; no further response is required. Final Ell, response to Comment Letter #2, Response #6 due to lower property values. (PLG, p. 42) 27 HN 28523816v6 Legend: PD = Proposed Development lopment PLG Pueblo de Los Gatos Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409) Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report HVV -- Bella Vista Villages Submitted to Los Gatos tor 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409) Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report LCiC Los Gatos Commons Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report 28 BN 285238I6v6 EXHIBIT 1 -- Expect Excellence April 19, 2017 Ms. Alicia Guerra Buchalter Nemer 55 Second Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way Los Gatos, California SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Dear Ms. Guerra: GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Project No. 12175.000.000 At your request, we prepared this supplemental response letter to public comments for your project at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos, California. Specifically, we are responding to comments presented in a letter prepared by Geissler Engineering (Reference 4) as well as comments from representatives of the Alberto Way Liaison Committee, Alberto Way Citizens, Pueblo De Los Gatos, Bob Burke, Las Casitas, Bella Vista Village, and Neighbors of Alberto Way included in the Town of Los Gatos April 7, 2017 Staff Report on the above -referenced project. We previously prepared a design -level geotechnical report for the project (Reference 2), which was peer reviewed by AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC). Our response letter to the AMEC peer review comments (Reference 3) was accepted by the Town of Los Gatos. Both our design -level geotechnical report and response to peer review letter were signed and stamped by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer. GEISSLER ENGINEERING COMMENTS Geissler Engineering provided the following comments in their Hydrology Report dated March 31, 2017 (Reference 4). Our responses to each of Geissler Engineering's comments are as follows: Geissler Engineering Comment 1 The likelihood of life -threatening flooding due to upstream dam failures. Page 8, Upstream Dam Failure Section, "A catastrophic failure of the 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." ENGEO Response to Comment 1 As shown on Plate 1 of the Inundation Map of Lexington Dam prepared by Santa Clara Valley Water District (Figure 1), the project site, the neighboring properties, as well as the majority of the Town of Los Gatos, are located within the inundation zone in the event of dam overflow or failure. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 6399 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 150 • San Jose, CA 95119 • (408) 574-4900 • Fax {888) 279-2698 www,engeo.com Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 2 It is the responsibility of the Santa Clara Water District (SCVWD) to perform surveillance, inspections and maintenance to reduce the risk of dam failure and overtopping. Moreover, SCVWD collaborates with local public agencies such as the Town of Los Gatos to provide warnings and emergency response. Figure 1: Plate 1 of the Inundation Map of Lexington Dam prepared by Santa Clara Valley Water District In December 2012, Terra/GeoPentech prepared a Seismic Stability Evaluation on Lenihan Dam for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. According to the report, the likelihood of significant cracks forming in the crest and other areas during the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) is considered very low, and no seismic remedial measures are deemed necessary at the Lenihan Dam. Additionally, the report indicates that the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) performed their own independent analyses and concurred that no seismic remedial measures were necessary. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 3 Based on the information ENGEO reviewed, the risk of inundation as well as the likelihood of life -threatening flood at the project site is low and the hazard to the project is no greater than that of any other parcel within the mapped inundation zone in the Town of Los Gatos. Comment 2: Soil subsidence caused by temporary dewatering during construction. Page 6, Dewatering Section: "First, there is likely to be slight soil subsidence in the near vicinity of the coffer dam due to dewatering. Second, the effluent from diesel -powered pumps must be discharged onto the street or other receiving drainage facility such as a storm drain...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... Geissler Engineering calculations suggest that all of the Las Casitas development and Pueblo de Los Gatos developments are likely to exhibit cracked slabs as a result of soil subsidence as a result of construction." ENGEO Response to Comment 2 Geissler Engineering did not provide its calculations to support its letter. Temporary dewatering during construction will drawdown groundwater in the vicinity of the excavation and result in an increase of vertical stresses in surrounding soils. When vertical stresses increase in soil, settlement may occur in soft compressible clayey deposits and loose sandy or gravelly deposits. Contrary to Dr. Geissler's comments. the soils encountered below the design groundwater level of 12 feet at the project site are medium dense to very dense clayey gravels. The risk of settlement (subsidence) in dense soil deposits as a result of temporary dewatering is low. Please see Chapter 3.5 of the Draft EIR for a description of the existing Project site soil characteristics. Additionally, groundwater was encountered at a depth of roughly 21 feet in June 2015, which is below the historic high groundwater level of 12 feet bgs. Based on this data, the project site and vicinity has already experienced the effects of a lowered groundwater level. We are not aware of signs of subsidence reported in the area as the groundwater level fluctuates. This also indicates that the soils in the project area are not prone to subsidence as a result of lowered groundwater levels. Comment 3: Long-term hydrologic effects caused by diversion of subsurface flow of groundwater following construction of the proposed 2-story underground garage. Page 5, Groundwater Hydrology Section: "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 subsurface seepage include a rise in groundwater levels in the neighboring properties and increased seepage flow rates which in tum may cause piping failures in adjacent soil strata. Geissler Engineering estimates that . _ _ the diversion of subsurface seepage is approximately 250 feet from the underground garage ... 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)." SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 4 ENGEO Response to Comment 3 Diversion of subsurface groundwater flow occurs when an impermeable structure, such as a slurry cut-off wall, is constructed across high groundwater flow gradients, such as along the center of a dam or levee, to increase flow paths and reduce the risk of piping. The groundwater level encountered at the project site is similar to nearby areas, indicating that the hydraulic gradient in the area is relatively flat. In the absence of steep hydraulic gradient in subsurface flow, diversion of groundwater is unlikely. The groundwater level surrounding the basement is expected to stabilize to a level similar to the surrounding area after dewatering wells are decommissioned. The dense to very dense sand and gravel deposits encountered at the project site are confined in a clay matrix. The clay matrix will reduce the permeability of site soils. Considering the density of the soil deposits, the low permeability as a result of the clay matrix and lack of hydraulic flow gradient, the risk of piping is very low. It is our expert opinion that the construction of a subsurface garage will not dramatically impede groundwater flow, and the risk of piping as described by Geissler Engineering is extremely unlikely. Comment 4: The likelihood of structural cracking (post -construction) of the proposed 2-story underground garage and subsequent seepage of groundwater into the garage. Page 3, Executive Summary Section: "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 that the rate of flow into the (cracked) underground (and underwater) garage structure could range from 50 gallons per minute (gpm) to 500 gpm." Page 4, Soil Conditions Section: "Appreciate that differential foundation settlement 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. Page 8, Dewatering Section: "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 variation in expansive subgrade soils." ENGEO Response to Comment 4 The proposed office structure should be supported on a structural mat foundation designed in accordance with recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report, summarized as follow: • Tolerate up to 1 inch of total liquefaction settlements • Tolerate up to 1l2 inch of differential liquefaction induced settlement • Withstand an edge cantilever distance of 8 feet • Withstand an interior 'span distance of 15 feet SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 5 When designed based on the above criteria, the foundation mat is rigid enough to span localized irregularities without suffering from structural damage. We do not anticipate severe cracking of the structure and associated water intrusion as described by Geissler Engineering on a foundation mat designed in accordance with the above criteria. We also note that the above mentioned foundation design criteria are not exceptional to projects constructed in the San Francisco Bay Area. Seasonal moisture fluctuation on expansive soil may impact surficial secondary slabs such as walkways, patio and driveway slabs. Since the foundation is below the water table, moisture variations which would cause shrink and swell of expansive clay cannot occur at the foundation subgrade level so expansive soil will have no long-term effect on the below -grade foundation. Additionally, the 8-inch-thick slab recommendation noted by Geissler Engineering is for concrete pavement design and is intended to provide support to traffic Toads. Geissler Engineering has misunderstood the purpose of the 8-inch-thick concrete pavement section referenced in the fast quoted statement in Comment 4 above. Comment 5: Long-term dewatering required to discharge the seepage of groundwater into the garage. Page 8, Dewatering Section: "Put simply, there is no waterproofing on the market that will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when differential foundation settlement due to seasonal groundwater variation cause differential foundation settlement of lc or more." ENGEO Response to Comment 5 As stated in our response to Comment 4 above, the risk of cracking within the foundation mat due to earthquakes or presence of expansive soils and the risk of associated groundwater intrusion are Tow. Thus, this project will not .require long-term dewatering from a geotechnical standpoint. The proper type of waterproofing will be determined and specified by a waterproofing consultant as recommended in our project geotechnical report. Examples of similar construction where ENGEO was the project geotechnical consultant include the Epic Apartment Homes in San Jose and the 201 Marshall Apartments in Redwood City. Comment 6: Problems associated with long-term dewatering in the vicinity of the proposed 2-story underground garage. Page 8, Dewatering Section: "Put simply, there is no waterproofing on the market that will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when differential foundation settlement due to seasonal groundwater variation cause differential foundation settlement of W or more." ENGEO Response to Comment 6 Please see our response to Comments 4 and 5 Comment 7: The likelihood of flooding due to a / 25-year storm. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 6 ENGEO Response to Comment 7 Comments regarding the likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm will be addressed by Kier & Wright. Comment 8: The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a previously mapped Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. Page 5, Earthquake Risk Section: The project location is located within an earthquake fault rupture hazard zone [Ref. California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation]" ENGEO Response to Comment 8 We disagree with Geissler Engineering on the statement quoted under Comment 8. The project site is not located within State of California Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (Los Gatos Quadrangle, 1991) as shown on Figure 2. Figure 2: State of California Special Studies Zone Map, Los Gatos Quadrangle, 1991 State of California Fault Rupture Hazard Zone SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 7 A further description of local faults in the project vicinity and the associated ground rupture hazards can be found in our project geotechnical report. We conclude the potential for surface fault rupture at the site is unlikely. Comment 9: The hazards associated with fhe location of the proposed garage located within a previously mapped Earthquake induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. Page 5, Earthquake Risk Section: The project 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) indicated 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... 26'r Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar] ENGEO Response to Comment 9 Publically available liquefaction hazard maps published by ABAG, Santa Clara County, CGS and others are intended for screening purposes_ Site -specific liquefaction exploration and analysis is always required to properly evaluate the site risk of liquefaction and resulting ground deformation_ ENGEO performed a thorough liquefaction evaluation, which was peer reviewed by AMEC Foster Wheeler and accepted by the Town of Los Gatos. Based on our engineering analyses, conservative estimates of liquefaction -induced settlement are presented. The effects of liquefaction should be mitigated by designing the building foundation as described in our report. ALBERTO WAY LIAISON COMMITTEE (AWLC) Representatives of the AWLC submitted comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on surrounding developments. Our responses to the geologicfgeotechnical comments from the AWLC are as follow: Comment 14: The Revised Project would result in hydrology impacts. Geissler Engineering considered the impact of the proposed construction of a 2-story underground garage included in the reduced Project on the existing residences 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; SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 8 (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 wrapped Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Zone; (x) The likelihood of flooding of the proposed 2-story underground garage due to storm water runoff. ENGEO Response to Comment 14 Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1 to 10 above concerning geotechnical and seismic -related comments. Comment 16: Replace the underground parking with surface parking. ENGEO identifies the risks of proposed mitigation measures but the proposed mitigations (e.g., dewatering and waterproofing) are riot sufficient to protect the neighboring properties according to Geissler Engineering. Geissler Engineering has identified a number of risks associated with the current design. Geissler recommends that al! of the parking remain above grade and be designed as pervious paving. The Los Gatos Commons Committee concurred with the comments. As a result of soil subsidence, Las Casitas and Pueblo de Los Gatos will likely experience cracked slabs, and would experience huge expense and disruption from the necessary repair work, if not cracks in their foundations. Construction of the underground garage will cause piping failures in the neighboring properties, very expensive end disruptive to repair. Reduced capacity of drainage facilities in the neighborhood will create many problems, including impediment to pedestrians. The EIR did not divulge geologic/geotechnical, hydrology or health and safety impacts caused by parking garage. The EIR should be revised and recirculated. ENGEO Response to Comment 16 Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1 to 6. Construction of the parking garage in accordance with our recommendations as forth in the ENGEO, Geotechnical Exploration for 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California dated July 17, 2015 and revised August 13, 2015 would not result in any new significant geologic/geotechnical, hydrology or health and safety impacts as explained above. Comment 22 The proposed building will impact Bella Vista Village, ENGEO Response to Comment 22 Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1 to 6. It is our opinion that the proposed building will riot impose impact to Bella Vista Village from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint. Our report recommends standard construction techniques and foundation design criteria that are commonly used in the San Francisco Bay Area. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ALBERTO WAY CITIZENS, MR. BOB BURKE AND PUEBLO DE LOS GATOS 12175.000,000 April 19, 2017 Page 9 Representatives of Alberto Way Citizens and Pueblo de Los Gatos, as well as Mr. Bob Burke, submitted comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on surrounding properties. Our responses to the geologic/geotechnical comments from Alberto Way Citizens and Pueblo de Los Gatos are as follow: Comment 2: Contains geotechnical and underground hydrologic assessments that bar the site from any buildings of the size of the Project based on liquefaction and settling as well as the revised project description's underground parking, the lower level of which would be underwater. ENGEO Response to Comment 2 Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1 to 6. Comment 11 Water table too shallow for a 2-level underground garage and requires boring at this time to confirm current wet period water table. Safeway underground garage has had flooding problems. Project technical report doesn't address potential impact to underground garage. Impacts are insurmountable. Los Gatos Creek rerouted. ENGEO Response to Comment 11 The design groundwater level recommended in the Geotechnical Report represent the historic high groundwater level depicted on maps published by the State of California. Peer reviewer AMEC Foster Wheeler and the neighbor's engineering representative, Geissler Engineering, concur with the recommended design groundwater level of 12 feet below existing grade. We are unable to comment on the performance of nearby structures, such as the Safeway grocery store noted in the comment, without understanding their design criteria and waterproofing system. ENGEO has worked on many projects in the San Francisco Bay Area with subsurface basements or garages located below the groundwater table. The risk of moisture intrusion and flooding generally is very low when the structural components are designed for the anticipated hydrostatic and earth pressures, and waterproofing products are applied properly_ Numerous buildings with basements below the groundwater that do not flood, indicating that those that do flood have this problem due to either design or construction and not because the basement or garage is located below the groundwater table. We reviewed aerial photographs of the subject site dating back to 1937 as part of our geotechnical study, Additionally, we recently reviewed historic topographic maps provided by www_historicaerials.com for the project area dating back to 1928. Based on our review of the aerial photographs and topographic maps, we observed that Los Gatos Creek has been rerouted in the past. However, we did not observe Los Gatos Creek to be formerly located within the limits of the site during our historic aerial photograph review. Therefore, the potential for undocumented fill within the site due to the past rerouting of Los Gatos Creek does not pose a geotechnical hazard to the project. Comment 1 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 SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 10 construction. Should the foundation crack below the waterline, no waterproofing can guarantee that leaks won't occur. No underground garage can remain dry with cracks. Safeway's single level underground garage, for example, has suffered rising water 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 it its fife, likely to crack the foundation of the underground parking structure, leading it to flood and need to continuous de -watering. The Revised PD does not address this risk. ENGEO Response to Comment 1 B Please see our responses to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 and Geissler Engineering Comments 4, 5, and 9. Comment 1C 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 PDS 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. ENGEO Response to Comment 1C Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11. Additionally, our review of aerial photographs does not depict fill being placed within the development area as a result of the construction of Highway 17. Should existing fills be encountered during grading, they will be removed and replaced as engineered fill as described in our geotechnical report. We also note that existing fells are not anticipated to be encountered at the foundation level, which is approximately 20 feet below existing grade. Comment 1 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. ENGEO Response to Comment 1 D Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11. The groundwater level considered in design was the historic high, not the level encountered during our exploration. Comment 1 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. ENGEO Response to Comment 1 E Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comments 11 and 1C as well as Geissler Engineering Comments 4, 5, and 9. Comment 1F 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 SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS was, at that time, 17.5 feet below the currently proposed was at a level that is 2.5 feet above the currently proposed ENGEO Response to Comment 1 F Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc, Engineering Comments 4, 5, and 9_ 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 11 ground level. This means that water P-2 (lower parking level) floor. Comment 11 as well as Geissler Comment 1G 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. ENGEO Response to Comment 1 G Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comment 2. Comment 1 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. ENGEO Response to Comment 1 H Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comment 3. Comment 28 ENGEO found water at 21 feet below the elevation of 82, 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 E(R's ENGEO report. ENGEO Response to Comment 28 Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 as well as Geissler Engineering Comments 4, 5, and 9. Comment 2C At the community outreach meeting, Applicant described... 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 represents 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 would cause the same land subsidence detailed in Dr. Geisier's report for construction de -watering. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 12 ENGEO Response to Comment 2C Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 as well as Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Although the comment above references a different groundwater map than the State map used in design, we note that the State map incorporates data provided by the SCVWD as well as additional sources. We also note that the structural engineer will design the structure to resist hydrostatic uplift, which is common practice for buildings constructed below the design groundwater table. Comment 2D 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. ENGEO Response to Comment 2D Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 as well as Geissler Engineering Comments 4, 5, and 9. Comment 2E The DEER 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 57and likely pipe breaks in water & sewer serving all communities and businesses along Alberto Way. ENGEO Response to Comment 2E Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Comment 2E There is no hydrology mitigation plan that can relieve the conditions mentioned in a) through e), nor are they acknowledged or addressed in the DER. ENGEO Response to Comment 2E Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Comment 3A 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 Revised PD'S de -watering (pumping from beneath its foundation required to drain P-1 & P-2 and ground movement caused by 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. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way. Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ENGEO Response to Comment 3A Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 3, 5 and 6. 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 13 Comment 38 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. ENGEO Response to Comment 3B Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 and 1 D_ Comment 3C 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 Hwy 9 & Alberto in the orange 10-20 feet zone...The water depth map illustrates why the PD's underground parking structure: in both the Original and Revised designs, would move water into the surrounding properties in which underground water is already so close to the surface. This would further elevate the surface water in surrounding properties. ENGEO Response to Comment 3C Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 2C as well as Geissler Engineering Comment 3. Comment 3D Water depth beneath Bella Vista Village (middle or the red 0-70 tt. depth to water zone) is a low lying area so close to the water table that ten townhome, 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. Bella Vista Village is at a 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 ERR as being in the 10-20 below ground to water zone. ENGEO Response to Comment 3D Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 2C as well as Geissler Engineering Comment 3. Comment 3E We note that the location of Boring B-3, shown below from the E1R, lies on the 0-10 feet depth to water zone on the map above. ENGEO did not indicate the water depth, nothing 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 therefore, the water depth would have been found. When we contacted ENGEO with questions, they refused to confirm anything. ENGEO Response to Comment 3E Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 2E. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 14 Water levels were measured at the site at the completion of drilling, after the augers were extracted and before the boring was backfilled. Caving of the borehole at depth during this time would have made obtaining a depth to groundwater measurement extremely unreliable. We also note that continuous, intact cores are not obtained when utilizing the hollow stem drilling method. Rather, 18-inch-long samples are obtained at discrete intervals that are specified in the field by the engineer during drilling. Comment 3F The PD is likely to cause foundation movement or over -run these Bella Vista sump pumps' capacities. ENGEO Response to Comment 3F Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comments 1E, 1 G, 1 H, 2E, and 3A as well as Geissler Engineering Comments 2, and 3. Comment 3G As further evidence of the drought recovery: the Santa Clara Plain water well depth has risen from 45 to 85 feet since the Summer of 2015... ENGEO Response to Comment 3G Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 and 2C. Comment 3H The storm drainage system in front of the PD is already at capacity... ENGEO Response to Comment 3H Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comment 2. LAS CASiTAS Representatives of Las Casitas submitted comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on surrounding developments. Our responses to the geologic/geotechnical comments from Las Casitas are as follow_ Comment 2A 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. o The estimated settlement is M to % inch. • 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 DR based on the findings in the Geissler hydrology report. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS References to Geissler report: 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 15 • Page 3 quote: "the combined effect of... (ii) subgrade soils subject to liquefaction...makes this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater) garage." • Page 3 quote: "Geissler holds the opinion that construction of the 2 story underground parking ...shall cause...fouundation settlement and cracked slabs at nearby houses in...Las Casitas." • Page 7 quote: "50 feet from excavation...3/8 inch of soil subsidence." ENGEO Response to Comment 2A Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, and 9. Comment 2C Additional reasons why E!R is flawed: • Water table for E!R was measured during 5-year drought in November 2014. • Since November 2014, the Santa Clara Water tests show that the underground water table has risen by 55 feet above MSL... • Water runoffs through Bella Vista are so strong that sump pumps had to be installed during project construction in several houses. ENGEO Response to Comment 2C While we did perform our exploration during a drought period, the groundwater used for design is the mapped historic high groundwater table, and not the significantly deeper groundwater observed in 2015. Please see our responses to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comments 11, 2C, 3C, 3D as well as Geissler Engineering Comment 3. BELLA VISTA VILLAGE Representatives of Bella Vista Village submitted comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on surrounding developments. Our responses to the geologic/geotechnical comments from Bella Vista are as follow: Comment A The existing plan: • Requires an extended period of time for underground and above ground construction which ultimately could cause structural damage to adjacent properties. ENGEO Response to Comment A Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comments 2. NEIGHBORS OF ALBERTO WAY Representatives of Neighbors of Alberto Way submitted comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on surrounding developments. Our responses to the geologiclgeotechnical comments from Neighbors of Alberto Way are as follow: SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 12175.000.000 April 19, 2017 Page 16 Comment 2: The draft E!R section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix C) fails to address the impact of the below -grade water table garage on neighboring properties, as required in the 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. ENGEO Response to Comment 2 Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 3, and 6. CLOSING We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently employed in the area. If you have any questions regardin us. Sincerely ENGEO 1 ncorporated Cubbon, CEG, PE obert H. Boeche, CEG gc/jk/rhb/bw * csc\at1AL the contents of this letter, please do not hesita to contact cQ9 Sjo 43- �� LAP, ! Ct RY efr0�o No. 2645 2 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST OF CNLiFv c oFESS1p' lwV cUg,:g�F K. {� r Lu▪ No. 87013 rn cIy 1'- 43- oF CA��F/ ,c:\ 1\IAL Gcksc©�O 4R- BOFc , • a No. 2318 * CERTIFIED u> ECLOLGRISTG lr dF CA00c * Attachments: List of Selected References et Kan, GE, CEG CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT LIST OF SELECTED REFERENCES A ' EOti + pecl EXc€llr]G'e--- 1. AMEC; Peer Review - Geotechnical Exploration Report; 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California; November 4, 2015. AMEC Project No. 0084491960. 2. ENGEO; Geotechnical Exploration; 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California; July 17, 2015 (Revised August 13, 2015), ENGEO Project No, 12175-000,000. 3. ENGEO; Response to AMEC Foster Wheeler Peer Review Comments; 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California; January 11, 2016. ENGEO Project No. 12175.000.000- 4. Geissler Engineering; Hydrology Report; 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, 95032; dated March 31, 2017. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT EXHIBIT 2 SURFACE FLOW EXHIBIT 401 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS CA DATE APRIL 2017 SCALE NTS DR. BY DStd KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 3350 5cctt Boulevard. 9ailding ZZ (408) 727 F555 Santa Clara, CaiIfDmia 95084 fax (408) 7Z7 5541 JOB A;5062-3 SHEET NO. OF 1 LOS GATOS SEWER CONNECTION EXHIBIT 401 ALBERTO WAY CA KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, 3350�Scott Boulevard. BWMFg 22 Clara, California95054 CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS. INC. 5aott Boulevard, Bundling (4081727 6665 Santa California 95054 fax (4081 727 5641 DATE APRIL 20t 7 SCALE NTS DR. BY JOB DSM Al S062-3 SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT 3 I1XMOM TANSIQTATIOM CONSULTANTS, INC. May 2, 2017 Mr. Randy Lamb Lamb Partners 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190 Menlo Park, CA 94025 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. The original TIA did not identify any significant impacts. The project analyzed in the TIA was 93,000 s.f. of office development. The project size has since been reduced to 83,000 s.f. Because the project size is less than originally analyzed, the TIA is considered to be conservative. Since no significant impacts were identified in the TIA, the currently proposed project would also not generate significant impacts. The public has provided comments on the Draft EIR, Final EIR, as well as the revised site plan. This letter provides Hexagon's responses to the most recent public comments. Hexagon previously prepared a response -to -comments letter, dated April 5, 2017, that responded to a previous set of public comments. Many of the comments in the most recent letters are repeats and are denoted as such. Comment #1: Comment: Restripinq Alberto Way will not reduce congestion. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 33-34) Hexagon Response: Currently, vehicles leaving Alberto Way and turning right onto westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road can often by-pass the vehicles waiting to go through or turn left. However, when a vehicle stops in the middle of the travel lane, right -turn vehicles do not have the space to by-pass the stopped vehicles. The proposed restriping would dedicate a right -turn lane to ensure right -turning vehicles can always by-pass the through and left -turning vehicles and tum. The TIA, as analyzed per Town requirements and VTA guidelines, did not identify significant intersection impacts. However, the striped right turn lane would reduce queuing and delay on Alberto Way. 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, Califorms 95113 • phone 408.971.6100 • fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 2 of 12 Comment #2: Comment: Trip reduction program is voluntary and probably unrealistic. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 33-34) Hexagon Response: The Town of Los Gatos does not have any adopted and active policies regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans. We understand that the project applicant has voluntarily offered to provide employees with commute options. The TIA analyzed project impacts without accounting for the potential trip reduction that could occur due to TDM measures. The TIA, per Town requirements and VTA guidelines, did not identify significant intersection impacts. The Town has required that TDM be implemented as a condition of project approval. Comment #3: Comment: Traffic has increased in the past 6 months. Need new traffic analysis (Repeat comment) Commenter: Basham Hexagon Response: Hexagon conducted new traffic counts at all five study intersections in October 2016, while schools were in session. As shown on Table 1, there were minimal fluctuations in traffic volumes between the 2015 counts used for the study and the 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 TIA and the EIR and so this fluctuation does not change any of the conclusions regarding the project's traffic impacts as reported in the TIA and the EIR•. Table 1 Intersection Volume Comparison Peak Intersection Volume Difference Intersection Hour 2015 Count 2016 Count Volume %of 2015 Count Santa CruzAve & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 3154 2862 PM 3291 2939 University Ave & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 3021 2920 PM 3102 3176 Alberto Way & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 1976 1910 PM 1863 1862 ,Los Gatos Blvd & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 2454 2380 PM 2351 2468 Los Gatos Blvd & Kennedy Rd/Caldwell Ave AM 1771 1669 PM 1860 1913 -292 -352 -101 74 -66 -1 -74 117 -102 53 1166.-.1111 Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 3 of 12 Comment #4: Comment: Revised project fails to address VTA funding of interchange improvement. (New commend Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 8), Los Gatos Commons (Pg 8), Fowler Hexagon Response: VTA has not released its design plans for the identified interchange improvement. The project TIA assumes worst case conditions without the interchange improvements in place. To the extent VTA proceeds with future improvements to the interchange, VTA would take into consideration the acquisition of any additional right-of- way needed to complete its interchange project. Comment #5: Comment: Revised protect fails to address traffic on Hwy 9 and Alberto Way will become severely congested. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 16), Los Gatos Commons (Pg 6) Hexagon Response: Hexagon conducted additional field observations during the AM (7:30 — 8:30) and PM (5:00 — 6:00) peak hours at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. During the AM peak hour, Hexagon observed congestion along eastbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road between 7:50 AM and 8:20 AM, during the peak school drop-off period. Due to downstream congestion in the eastbound direction at Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, the eastbound queue at the Alberto Way intersection frequently extended to the location of the SR 17 overpass. Vehicles sometimes required two to three signal cycles to clear the Alberto Way intersection. This congestion is caused by feedback queues created at the Los Gatos Boulevard and Kennedy Road intersection and at the Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road intersection. There were no observed traffic operational issues before 7:50 AM and after 8:20 AM. As required by Town policy and VTA TIA guidelines, intersection delay and LOS represents an average traffic condition during the peak hour. No congestion was observed during the PM peak hour. The field observations therefore support the assumptions used for the TIA in accordance with Town policy and VTA TIA guidelines. In addition, it should be noted that the observed congestion during the AM peak hour is in the eastbound through movement on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road at Alberto Way. Project traffic would add only to the eastbound left -turn movement turning into Alberto Way. The project would lengthen the eastbound left -turn pocket to 250 feet and would allow vehicles to tum out of the eastbound queue earlier, thereby improving operations compared to existing conditions. -111114 Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 4 of 12 Comment #6.: Comment: Per Caltrans, proiect will add trips greater than 1% capacity and mitigation is required. EIR is inadequate. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 16), Los Gatos Commons (Pg 4) Hexagon Response: According to VTA TIA freeway impact criteria, which is required to be followed per Town policy, "a project is said to impact a freeway segment determined to have been at LOS F under the without project analysis scenario if the number of new trips added by the project is more than one percent of the freeway capacity". The TIA acknowledges that the project would add trips equal to 1.18% of capacity to southbound SR 17 between Lark Avenue and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road during the AM peak hour. However, as discussed in the TIA, this freeway segment currently operates at LOS D during the AM peak hour. The addition of 52 project trips would not change the level of service on this freeway segment. According to VTA impact criteria, project trips added to a freeway segment operating at LOS D would not create a significant freeway impact. Comment #7: Comment: Project will increase traffic on Hwy 9, NB traffic on Hwy 17 exiting East Los Gatos will add to traffic delays. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Sprandel, Kemp, Los Gatos Commons (Pg 4) Hexagon Response: Please see above response to comment #5. Comment #8: Comment: The curve in front of the project is a sight problem for vehicles. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 42) Hexagon Response: Hexagon does not believe that the curve on Alberto Way creates a sight distance problem for vehicles traveling on Alberto Way, but it does limit sight distance at the existing and proposed site driveways. Therefore, Hexagon recommends that on -street parking be eliminated along the project frontage. With the implementation of the recommendation, the sight distance at the project driveways would be adequate with the existing roadway curve. 1 Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 5 of 12 Comment #9: Comment: Traffic congestion will impact Alberto Way and LG in a'/ -mile radius. Need reasonable ingress/egress on Alberto Way. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 16), Orvell, McGowan, Kemp, Bella Vista Village (Pg 3) Hexagon Response: Traffic impacts were analyzed per Town policy and VTA TIA guidelines. The TIA found that the project would not generate significant traffic impacts. Comment #10: Comment: Revised project fails to straighten Alberto for safety and on -street parking. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 15) Hexagon Response: The project proposes to eliminate on -street parking along the building frontage on southbound Alberto Way to address the sight distance issue. There is no need to straighten Alberto Way. Comment #1 1: Comment: Fire department facilities will be affected by traffic. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 35-37) Hexagon Response: Traffic impacts were analyzed per Town policy and VTA TIA guidelines. The TIA found that the project would not generate significant traffic impacts. Thus, emergency response times would not be affected. The project proposes minor widening of Alberto Way to provide a bike lane. One or two fire hydrants would need to be relocated back from the curb. Comment #12: Comment: The TIA under -estimated trip generation and trip generation sensitivity was not analyzed. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 38, 40), Los Gatos Commons (Pg 3) Hexagon Response; This is a repeated comment. Hexagon previously responded to this comment in our response letter dated April 5, 2017 (see attachment). Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 6 of 12 CoiT.nien#13: Comment: The TIA did not consider traffic from 475-485 Alberto Way project. (New comment) Commenter: Los Gatos Commons (Pg 4) Hexagon Response: The 475-485 Alberto Way project had not submitted a planning application at the time the traffic study was conducted and was thus not listed on the Pending Project list provided by Town staff. The 475-485 Alberto Way project will need to prepare its own environmental analysis, including a traffic study, and will need to include the 405 Alberto Way office as a pending project. Cornmant #1 •: Comment: Traffic fee calculation uses 700 additional trips which understates the fee that would be paid by tenants employing 735 people. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 39) Hexagon Response: The traffic impact fee calculation is based on the estimated net increase in daily trips. The calculation of daily trips is explained in the TIA. It is based on net building size, not employment. The impact fee calculation is presented in the TIA for informational purposes only. The building size has since decreased. The final traffic impact fee will be calculated by Town staff as part of the Conditions of Approval Cotrment #15: Comment: The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for bikes,. pedestrians, and transit during construction and demolition. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 40) Hexagon Response: Construction details are not known at this time. Prior to construction, the contractor will prepare and submit a detailed construction plan for Town approval. The construction plan will indicate the days and times of construction, where workers will park, the number and types of trucks that will access the site, whether the street or sidewalk will be affected, and other details. The Town will require that adequate access for all transportation modes be maintained during construction. /'NI Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 \. _AA Page 7 of 12 Comment #16: Comment: MM T1 and T2 cannot be implemented as proposed. Widen Alberto to 12-foot lane width. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 41) Hexagon Response: The restriping of Alberto Way was designed with inputs from Town staff. 10-foot lanes are adequate for low volume streets and are prevalent in the Bay Area. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)'s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition indicates that local streets may be designed with lane widths between 9 and 12 feet. Comment #17: Comment: Eliminating eight parking spaces causes a new and unacceptable environmental impact on 420 and 435 Alberto Way residents and visitors. (Repeat commend Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 41) Hexagon Response: The elimination of the on -street parking along southbound Alberto Way fronting the project site (5 spaces) is recommended to increase sight distance and to create room for a right turn lane. The elimination of the on -street parking along northbound Alberto Way fronting the Los Gatos Inn (3 spaces) is recommended also to create space for the right turn lane. No on -street parking fronting the residential neighborhood is proposed to be eliminated. It should be noted that elimination of on -street parking is not an impact under CEQA. Comment #I 8: Comment: The revised project driveway and parking areas are insufficient for buses and delivery trucks. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 41, 42), Bella Vista Village Hexagon Response: The revised site plan is adequate for bus and truck access and circulation. Buses and trucks would not need to enter the garage. Comment #19: Comment: Project parking should not overflow to street parking on Alberto Way. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Bella Vista Village (5) Hexagon Response: The project proposes parking in accordance with Town requirements. ' Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 8 of 12 Comment #20: Comment: Revisedproiect garage is blocked while trash and recycling is picked up, backing up traffic on Alberto & Hwy-9 or in the proiect's garage while they are present. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (42) Hexagon Response: Garbage trucks are expected to temporarily park just south of the driveway while the trash bins are pushed over to the trucks for trash pick up. Garbage trucks would not block access to the garage, and are not expected to be on -site for more than a minute. C omrrani< #21: Comment: No construction plan can prevent complete shutdown of Alberto Way for extended periods (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (42) Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comment 15. Comment. 422: Comment: During construction, work crews of 50-100 will be present on the site at all times. each arriving in a separate vehicle. It is not possible for them to all park on the PD property. (New comment Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (42) Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comment 15. Comment #23: Comment: As a Mixed -Use development, the project would generate high levels of continuous traffic that are not disclosed in the DEIR or FEIR. (Repeat comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (43) Hexagon Response: The project proposes only office land use and is not a mixed -use development. Peak -hour trip generation is estimated in accordance with Town policy and VTA guidelines and verified with local (Los Gatos) data (see attachment). `',! Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 9 of 12 Comment #24: Comment: 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. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (43) Hexagon Response: Highway 9 already has two lanes along the project frontage. There is no need for further widening. Comment #25: Comment: 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. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (44) Hexagon Response: There is no demonstrated need to widen Highway 9 over Highway 17. The project would be required to lengthen the eastbound left -turn pocket on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road turning into Alberto Way to 250 feet long. The lengthened left -turn pocket would contain the expected 95th percentile queue length under project conditions. Comment #26: Comment: FEIR missing Mitigation T-6: Reduce proiect 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. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (45) Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comments 24 & 25. Comment #27: Comment: No trip generating project should be approved before Los Gatos Boulevard is widened. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (26) Hexagon Response: The TIA analyzed intersections on Los Gatos Boulevard. No significant project impacts were identified along Los Gatos Boulevard. Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 10of12 Comment #28: Comment: 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, (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (43) Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comment 15. Comment #29: Comment: 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. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (43) Hexagon Response: The Town will require the project to repair/overlay the pavement following construction. Comr er t #30: Comment: MM T-2 calls for a construction contract with Los Gatos, however= there is no mitigation for the construction contract with Caltrans. (New comment) Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (43) Hexagon Response: The project will be required to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for any work in the State right-of-way. Caltrans will set the terms of the construction. Comment #31: Comment: Need to address truck traffic impacts due to beach traffic. Construction traffic impacts to pedestrians. (New comment) Commenter: Basham, McDonald, Fowler Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comment 15. /-41111 Mr. Randy Lamb May 2, 2017 Page 11 of 12 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Gary K. Black President Attachment Response to Traffic Comments on 401-409 Alberto Way Traffic Study, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, dated April 5, 2017. Attachment A Hexagon Response to Comment Letter, April 5, 2017 pir I -I[ XAOM TRANSPORTATION (ONSUITANTS. INC. April 5, 2017 Mr. Randy Lamb Lamb Partners 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190 Menlo Park, CA 94025 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 an 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: httr://www.vta.oro/cmp/tia-auidelines, Town of Los Gatos guidelines: htto://www.Iosoatosca.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. 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, California 95113 • phone 408.971.61Q0 • fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.corn Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page 2 of 8 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 less 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 I Skit Unit Trips In Out Trips Rate Trips In Out Taps Rate 475 Alberto Way 118796 Lark Avenue 975 Univers ity Avenue 30.22 ksf 37 3 40 22.40 ksf 19 12 31 15.00 ksf 16 2 18 Total 67.62 ksf 72 17 49 4 37 41 4 33 37 0 32 32 6 102 110 Average Surveyed Rates Average ITE Rates 2 1,32 1.56 1.93 1A9 ; 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. '4111 Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page 3of8 lbw Table 2 100-150 Winchester Cir Trip Generation Counts Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Total Peak Trips Total Peak Skit Unit Trips In Out Trips Rate Trips In OW Taps Rate 100-150 Winchester Cir 163.03 ksf 223 87 310 114 185 299 Surveyed Rates Rates Used in TIA 1.90 1.94 1113 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 95th 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. Compres.t Streets improvements on Aiberto 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. f'u:•tcing 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 tum 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 Lamb April 5, 2017 Page 5 of 8 At a community meeting for the proposed project, neighbors expressed concern about visibility and about difficulty tuming 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 light, 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. ir"li Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 1� Page6of8 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 gment Peak Entering Volume Ealing Volume - Difference Hour Location Volume Location Volume Volume %or Entering Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd EB AM Alberto 824 Los Gatos 841 17 2% PM Way 851 Blvd 854 3 0% Los Gabs -Saratoga Rd WB AM Los Gads 949 PJberto 963 PM Blvd 820 Way 825 14 5 1% 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 Peak Intersection Volume Difference Intersection Hour 2015 Count 2016 Count Volume %of 2015 Count Santa CruzAve & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 3154 2862 PM 3291 2939 UnivrlrsityP e & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 3021 2920 PM 3102 3176 Alberto Way& Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 1976 1910 PM 1863 1862 Los Gatos BItd & Loa Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 2454 2380 PM 2351 2468 Los Gatos Blvd & Kennedy Rd/Caldwell Ave AM 1771 1669 PM 1860 1913 -292 -352 -101 74 -66 -1 -74 117 -102 53 3% Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page 7 of 8 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. 1.1"11 Mr. Randy Lamb April 5, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Table 5 Study Freeway Ramp Count Comparison SR 171Los G tos-Saratoga Rd Ramps Ramp Volume Peak Hour CaltransHexagon P ra NB on -ramp from WB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd SB on -ramp from WB Los Gatos-Saratiga Rd NB off -ramp to EB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd SB off -ramp to EB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1153 1017 104 379 379 125 1103 758 502 409 120 172 217 126 432 337 -651 -608 16 -207 -162 1 -871 -421 Notes; 1. Caltrans ramp volumes were obtained from Caltrans staff on September 17, 2015. Ramp volumes were dated August2013. 2. Hexagon ramp volumes were obtained from tube counts conducted in October 2016. Table 6 Ramp Analysis with New Counts �i>6FI+rp hxaiegl m E I,1*eg- P 6j of ion rtlo+r� Fa ek rro)ac I am/tinge MINIType F1oeu Caxsee2y ' h�atu.nt' I. ar pa Van* VIC NB cr.-ramp from WB Lcs Gatos -Saratoga Rd Diagonal AM 900 502 0.56 3505 Se PM 900 439 0.45 32441 SR 17 &Los Gates- 3r' eBrn from Mg Los i Sa9 $ate*oge Rd g40 120013 1 I Saratoga R- PM 800 172 0 M1g 11 183 02 4 :\B o re? r. ;o En LOS 0 oS-Saremim Re Diagonal AAA 2000 217 0.11 13 230 0.12 PM 2000 126 0.06 0 126 C.C6 3R o'►.ra,ytp to D L0s Getaa-Se atotpt Rd Loon Al 1800 432 024 39 471 0 24 Pit 1400 337 01g 0 337 019 Notes 1. Ram p capacities ;•rare otta',re7 f- +e I1igh::a, Cacao:/ Mar.:;e. 2C.10, and considered the free -flow woad, and the number of la^es an the ramp. As a conservative ,approach, t^e :no cr.-names are assurnep tc se rneterec ct. ,r ccr peak `ic,:rs. 12. Ramr.._lLmes .se-e c uir,:e: `.•c^::uce counts conductec it Octppa72016. 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 EXHIBIT 4 LARGO CONCRETE, INC. i iLenNts ,� s To Whom it May Concern. I, Mark Carnathan have been asked to comment on the hydrology report prepared on the 31' March by Peter Geissler, consulting engineer. Please understand, i am not an engineer, soil expert or an architect and my comments are based on 36 years of my experience in con: rete construction. All those years spent has been with construction of ,.inderground sub -terrain parking structures and parking garages: My opinions are obtained from practical experiences of working with the following corepalies, Walker Concrete, .daho Del -Rey Concrete, Ray Wilson Concrete, Raisch Concrete and Largo Concrete. The last 31 years, i have been with largo concrete inc as the President Northern California. Having said that, my cernments are not to be interpreted as Largo concrete's opinions or reports. We have done projects in Los Gatos as well as many projects in the South flay with conditions similar to this project. All these structures have been designed to accommodate viability of movement associated with the expanse of soil found in the bay area, specillca!iy Los Gatos. The projects we have worked on in the past have similar conditions and include construction methods such as dewatering, shoring excavations and are next to adjacent structures. To m{ knowledge, these structures and many others with sirnilar conditions have not failed. if those structures had failed, I would have been notified either directly ar through the construction community. Also to my knowledge none these structures were repaired to any degree including minor structurai cracking, which s normal and definitely not any structural failures. This report in my opinion is one sided to the degree that it loses it's credibility altogether. its not fair to the public to subject them to this type of fear mongering. To say the least, this is ar unsubstantiated repo.1 that wili alarm people without reason. if this report is acknowledged and conceded to, it will have negative effect on future projects in this town. The new parking structure proposed for the town may be in jeopardy, Modern engineers utilise finite eiernent software that performs thousands of iterations is model the mat foundations then determine the mat thickness and reinforcing required to absorb the movements without damage. In addition, the waterproofing systems incorporated into below -grade structures are 'elastic enough and resilient enough to absorb these movements without failing. We have built numerous structures throughout Northern California that are below the water -table and have permanent waterproofing. Studies and reports should be given its due wherever required but it's also necessary to understand that the engineers and contractors who design and build these structures are qualified and proficient enough to execute the projects without damage to the people. or property. `,Mart: Carr n 4P. sfi ci ei re Corporate Headquarters:2741 Walnut Avenue, First Floor • Tustin, CA 92780 731-3600 • Fax: (714) 7314800 Northern CA: 891 W Hamilton Avenue • Campbell, CA 95008 • (408) 874 2500 • Fax: (408) 874-2595 TJKM April 27, 2017 Mr. Jessy Pu, TE, PE Town Traffic Engineer Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works 41 Miles Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Review of Traffic Responses to Comments for 405 Alberto Way Dear Mr. Pu: At your request, TJKM has reviewed the responses prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. related to comments received on the 405 Alberto Way proposed office development. Hexagon prepared the original traffic impact analysis (TIA) and has prepared various responses and updates to the report. TJKM was retained by the City to review the original report and subsequent updates and responses, including material contained in this letter. TJKM had several comments related to the original report, which were subsequently addressed by Hexagon. At the Planning Commission project hearings on August 10 and August 24, 2016, many traffic comments were offered, both by Commissioners and by the public during the public comment periods. Hexagon prepared a comprehensive summary of comments made, along with detailed responses, regarding traffic issues related to the project. The Hexagon responses are contained in an April 5, 2017 letter to Mr. Randy Hahn of Lamb Partners. TJKM has conducted a comprehensive review of the April 5, 2017 letter and concurs with the Hexagon responses. Subsequently, Hexagon prepared a letter dated April 21, 2017 also addressed to Mr. Randy Hahn. That letter addressed additional recent public comments regarding the traffic aspects of the 405 Alberto Way project. That letter noted that the project had been reduced in size from 93,000 square feet of office development to 83,000 square feet of office development. This resulted in the original TIA being conservative due to the decrease in the project's size and related transportation impacts. The letter prepared responses to 31 comments received from members of the public. TJKM has conducted a comprehensive review of the April 21, 2017 letter and concurs with the Hexagon responses. EXIIIBIT PLEASANTON • SAN JOSE • SANTA ROSA • SACRAMENTO • FRESNO Corporate Office: 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 • Phone: 925.463.0611 • www.TJKM.com DBE #40772 • SBE #38780 TJKM Mr. Jessy Pu April 27, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Please contact me if there are any questions or comments on our review of the two letters. Very truly yours, Chris D. Kinzel, P.E. Vice President TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Engineering Division April 10, 2017 ITEM: 401-409 Alberto Way; APN: 529-23-018 Architecture and Site Application S-15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions LLC Project Description: Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct a new, two-story office building with underground parking on property zoned CH. Q: Where is the development project? A: The proposed development project is located at the northwest corner of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road (California State Route 9) and Alberto Way. Q: What is the current use? A: The property currently features three two-story multi -tenant office buildings on the project site consisting of approximately 31,000 square feet of office space. Q: What is the proposed use? A: The development project proposes a new two-story office building featuring 83,000 square feet of office space and an accompanying two -level subterranean parking garage. Q: How much larger in size are the proposed buildings than the existing buildings? A: There would be a total net increase in office space of approximately 52,000 square feet. Q: Would there be any increase in traffic due to the proposed development project? A: Yes, there will be additional vehicle trips associated with the increased square footage; however, the increase in traffic would not result in a "significant" traffic impact based on the traffic analysis conducted according to the Town's Traffic Impact Policy and General Plan (GP). Q: How many additional vehicle trips created by a new development triggers the Town's requirement for a traffic impact analysis? A: In accordance with Town's Traffic Impact Policy, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) is required for any private development projects that are expected to add 20 or more vehicle trips in the AM or PM peak hours. EXHIBIT 4 1 Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.399.5771 • www,losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/lossatosca TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS Q: Does the proposed project trigger the Town's requirement for a traffic impact analysis? A: Yes. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the project and can be found at the following Zink: http://www.losgatosca.gov/2216/Pending-Planning-Projects. The TIA is available online via that link as well. The TIA found that the proposal would generate more vehicle trips than what currently occurs with the existing office spaces. The size of development has been reduced to 83,000 square feet since completion of the TIA. It is estimated the currently proposed development would result in an additional 123 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, and 90 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Q: How are AM and PM peak hours selected for any given development? A: Pursuant to the Town's Traffic Impact Policy, the AM and PM peak hours are determined during weekdays when schools are in session for studied intersections, with the AM peak hour occurring between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and, similarly, the PM peak period between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The 60-minute durations with the highest number of vehicle trips during each of these morning and evening periods are selected as the respective peak hour traffic times. These peak hour traffic times are used for the traffic analysis. Q: How is the number of vehicle trips calculated? A: The number of vehicle trips generated by a development project is determined by using the applicable trip generation rate from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual or alternative sources in accordance with the Town's Traffic Impact Policy. Use of the ITE trip generation rates for estimating the number of vehicle trips is a standard practice and is also consistent with the VTA's traffic impact analysis guidelines. Q: Is any increase in traffic from a new development considered a significant impact to the nearby traffic intersections and surrounding area? A: No. The Town's General Plan (GP) and Traffic Impact Policy define a significant traffic impact based on changes to the intersection's Level of Service (LOS). Q: What is LOS and how does it determine the impacts of project traffic on the Town? A: Traffic engineering standards use LOS (Level of Service) to determine project traffic impacts. LOS represents traffic intersection congestion by a letter scale that ranges from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing the least or no congestion. The Town's Traffic Impact Policy and General Plan (GP) do not allow for developments to drop the LOS at an intersection by more than one level or below LOS D without requiring the development to mitigate or provide a "fix" for the increased traffic delay. A project TIA analyzes LOS at impacted intersections as a function of the average vehicle delay and determines the impact significance and any required mitigation. The impacts are only considered significant if the LOS drops more than one level or below a LOS D. Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS Q: What are the TIA's findings of the LOS impact for this project? A: For the currently proposed project, the TIA concluded that the intersections would not drop more than one level or below a L05 D. Therefore, the project would not create a significant impact on traffic. The intersections that were included in the analysis are: North Santa Cruz Avenue and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, University Avenue and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, and Los Gatos Boulevard and Caldwell Avenue/Kennedy Road. Q: Would the proposed project create any unsafe conditions for Alberto Way? A: In its existing condition, Alberto Way is approximately 36 feet from curb -to -curb along the project frontage. This width is sufficient for on -street parking and one lane of traffic in each direction. The project has proposed dedication along the Alberto Way frontage to facilitate an exclusive right turn lane and bike lane. The TIA has evaluated the traffic conditions on Alberto Way and the access to the project site and has found no unsafe conditions Q: Would the proposed development result in difficulty or unsafe conditions for emergency services to access Alberto Way during construction? A: The project is conditioned to provide a Construction Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan prior to the issuance of any permit(s) for work within the public right-of-way. Furthermore, the project is also conditioned to provide advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services. Emergency services will have access at all times. Q: Did the TIA evaluate the project impact to the adjacent California State Route 17? A: Yes. The TIA analyzed the northbound and southbound segments of California State Route 17 (Highway 17) between Lark Avenue and Bear Creek Road. With the analysis, it was determined that the increase in segment trips would not significantly impact the freeway LOS. Furthermore, the TIA included a freeway ramp analysis for four affected ramps at the interchange of Highway 17 and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to verify that the ramps would have sufficient capacity to serve the expected traffic volumes with the project. Q: What is the proposed elimination of on -street parking with the proposed project? A: The project proposes to eliminate approximately 130 linear feet of on -street parking (5 parking spaces) along the project frontage (southbound Alberto Way), and 70 linear feet (3 parking spaces) along northbound Alberto Way in front of the Best Western. Q: Why is this elimination necessary? A: Eliminating on -street parking is necessary for improving both visibility and traffic flow. Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.399.5771 • www.Iosgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losaatosca TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS Q: With the elimination of on -street parking in front of the restaurant/motel complex across from the proposed project, would the street width accommodate a left turn lane into the proposed project as well as the standard lane going north on Alberto Way? A: With the location of the project's main entrance being situated near the northern property line, a left turn lane into the project would require elimination of on -street parking in front of the Pueblo De Los Gatos residences (420 Alberto Way), which may not be desirable. In addition, the TIA has evaluated and found there would be sufficient gaps in traffic for vehicles to make a left into the project site without creating significant delays to northbound traffic. Q: What can be done to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the project? A: The currently proposed Conditions of Approval require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the development. The TDM plan will include a list of measures for reducing single -occupant vehicle trips and encourage alternative transportation modes such as riding bicycles, carpooling, and riding transit. Q: What improvements have been proposed to encourage pedestrian and bike to downtown? A: The project has proposed to install a detached sidewalk on both Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road along the project's frontage to enhance the pedestrian experience. The project has also proposed the installation of a bike lane and bike box on Alberto Way, widen Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd to accommodate a future bike lane, and implement a TDM program to encourage multi -modal transportation. The project, as conditioned, will provide crosswalk improvements for pedestrians crossing the California State Route 17 northbound on -ramp, such as high -visibility crosswalk stripes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, a yield line and/or appropriate signage. Q: Would the proposed project construct any off -site improvements? A: The currently proposed Conditions of Approval require the following off -site improvements: • Alberto Way o Installation of new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip, street lights, signing, and striping. o Removal and replacement of the existing pavement section along the project frontage with a traffic -appropriate engineered structural pavement section from the centerline of Alberto Way to its western lip of gutter. o A 2-inch grind and overlay from centerline of Alberto Way to its eastern lip of gutter. o Two travel lanes exiting Alberto Way: an exclusive right -turn lane and a shared left- thru lane. o A bike lane on southbound Alberto Way at the project frontage. Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS o A bike box on southbound Alberto Way at its intersection with Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. o installation of ADA-compliant curb ramps at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. • Los Gatos -Saratoga Road o Installation of new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip, street lights, signing, and striping. o Installation of ADA-compliant curb ramps on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road at the California State Route 17 northbound ramp. o A 2-inch grind and overlay from the northern extent of the median island to the new lip of gutter along the project frontage. o Widening of the north side of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road; removal and replacement of the existing median island along eastbound 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. o Provide crosswalk improvements for pedestrians crossing the California State Route 17 northbound on -ramp, such as high -visibility crosswalk stripes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, a yield line and/or appropriate signage, etc. Q: Is there a map or site plan that shows the proposed off -site improvements? A: Yes. Please see Exhibit 1, attached. Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.399.5771 - www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.cor/losgatosca This Page Intentionally* Left Blank LEGEND: sidewalk. 9 left turn pocket. conduit and cable. section. Add high -visibility rapid flashing signage, etc., W • _ — — _�,,.,ip —no _ _--- — — �,� -- - \' -it \ - \ PAINT CURB RED (135' ±) \ \ .. \ \ 00Remove - \ \ o1 "I \ \ — - \ • 210' RIGHT TURN LANE y - - ,�� s fir- PROJECT PROPERTY LINE (TYP•) 12 Yam°-'G: :E vS - '� ` -y .. ~'`"", -y— ti •' 0--, ±-._+-_: .� - �_ a .r: Il il V yyyy,,,, ''" — .. A �._. 1` co m O `) I 11 0 0 New curb, gutter & detached O2 Widening for future bike lane. 3 New dedicated right turn lane.7 ® New green bike box. ® Upgrade traffic signal. © Lengthen eastbound Hwy 07 Provide new signal interconnect ® New green bike lane. ONew ADA curb ramps. and replace pavement 0 2" grind and overlay. 0Relocate pedestrian crosswalk. crosswalk stripes, rectangular beacons, yield line or appropriate with approval from Caltrans. •,m y _ ,- PAINT CURB RED (80' .w� '- - 1-y LOS GATOS - SARATOGA 0 E ..., ," .air RD INIPISIN, �' - 250' LEFT TURN LANE -'_ ig- — 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, California 95113 Phone: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com CONCEPTUAL OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS 401 TO 409 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA DESIGNED BY: M. POWELL DATE: 4/6/2017 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 60 80 100 120 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 1 INCH = 60 FEET This Page Intentionally Left Blank Jennifer Arrner From: Joseph Gemignani <josephtheweatherman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:07 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Alberto way continuance Hi Jennifer. I won't be in town for the May 10 Planning Commission meeting. Could you please convey at the meeting that I am in favor of this project. If appropriate let them know that I prefer if they could have kept the tower elements. It gave the building some additional pizzazz. Thanks, Joseph Sent from my iPhone iT Jennifer Armer From: Lindsay Catterton <katte5850@aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 8:21 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Alberto Way Once again!! We do not need that development !!!! Lindsay Catterton 439 Alberto Way. #105A Sent from my 'Phone To: Planning Commission Date: May 3, 2017 RECENED MAY 03 Z017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION From: Loretta Fowler, Chair, Committee on Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos Commons Subject: Response on behalf of Los Gatos Commons to Mr. Lamb's Supplemental Response, April 24, 2017 to "Comment Letters" submitted in The Commons's 4/6 letter (Staff report, April 6, 2017) Mr. Lamb asserts that "none of the comments raise new issues or new environmental impacts." In The Commons's April 6, 2017 letter we addressed the environmental impact of one 83,000 sf building at 405 Alberto Way and argued that there would be a negative impact, and we gave supporting arguments. In August 2016 Mr. Lamb was proposing to build a 93,000 sf building, which was a different issue. In our April 6 letter we introduced for the first time an environmental impact that would result from a two-story underground garage, namely damage to neighboring properties. In the attachments Mr. Lamb responds to specific comments that he asserts are fromThe Commons. Many are from our August 18, 2016 letter, not our April 6, 2017 letter in which we added new research and revised earlier comments. We take issue with many of his remarks. Some comments he erroneously attributes to us. AESTHETICS Page 1 Our Comment: Size and scale of proposed building not suitable for surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Lamb disagrees. He argues that the DEIR (3.1) concluded the project's aesthetic impacts were less than significant at the August hearing. Yet the Planning Commission on 8/24 asked him to reduce the square footage to between 43,000 and 61,000 sf. Page 2 Not Our Comment: Proposed building blocks views of mountains. Mr. Lamb states that the LGC asserted that the views of the Santa Cruz Mountains would be blocked; actually, he is wrong in that our letter of 4/6 does not mention the view issue. The comment comes from another development. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Pages 6 & 9 Our Comments: Hydrology impacts not reviewed in DEIR; adverse impacts on surrounding properties (other issues were from PLG and BVV). Mr. Lamb and ENGEO cannot claim that the ENGEO report in the DEIR assessed the impact of the garage on neighboring properties. In the ENGEO Supplement of 4/19, in comments 2 and 3, ENGEO admits (pp. 3-4) 1 that there would be "low risk" (not no risk) of cracking slabs and "very low risk" (not no risk) of broken pipes. Low risk is not no risk, so we would be at risk—ENGEO cannot predict accurately what would happen to our properties, and our expert has argued that there would be damage. Page 8 Not Our Comment: Cracked slabs at houses in LGC, etc. Mr. Lamb claims that LGC stated that the underground garage would result in cracked slabs at the LGC. This is not true. The LGC argued that the repair of cracked slabs at PLG and LC would be very disruptive for the residents of The Commons. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 11 Not Our Comment: Project fails to address VTA funding Hwy 9 and 17 interchange. Actually, our letter of April 6 does not make this assertion; there is no p. 8 in our letter. Page 11 Our Comment: Caltrans concluded the project will add trips greater than 1% capacity; EIR mitigations are inadequate (LGC, 4/6, p. 4). The Hexagon Supplement concluded that the added traffic from the project would not be significant. It seems that Caltrans and Hexagon disagree. Mr. Lamb argued that the "improvements" would improve existing conditions. We are not experts but think fewer cars associated with a project at 405 Alberto Way would mitigate effects from traffic. Page 11 Not Our Comment: Project will increase traffic on Hwy 9, NB traffic on Hwy 17 and increase delays. Actually, our April 6 letter does not make this statement; there is no p. 6 to that letter. Page 12 Our Comment: False Traffic Report data. We questioned the ITE manual's use of very old data in computing traffic patterns. Hexagon's 4/5 letter does not refute our argument that the data in the ITE 2012 manual is very old. Hexagon also used trip generation counts at three existing office buildings in Los Gatos, one of which is 475 Alberto Way. The count there was 37 (AM in, PM out). Hexagon asserts that trips are determined by square footage of a building. After the 475 building was renovated the square footage did not change but over 100 cars now come and go. We continue to be unconvinced that a project with 330 cars will not create a negative impact for us. Page 13 Our Comment: Did not consider traffic from 475-485 Alberto Way project. Mr. Lamb writes that a pending application for this project had not been submitted at the time the TIA was completed. This is not the point. The two existing buildings 475 and 478 (not the proposed new building, which is on Pine) were remodeled to Class A status (tripling occupancy) after Hexagon did its study. The remodeled buildings have over 100 associated cars that go up and 2 down, entering and leaving Alberto Way. We ask the Planning Commission to take into consideration this new traffic. Page 14 Not Our Comment: More jobs will create new housing demands. Actually, Mr. Lamb is incorrect that we made this comment, and there is no p. 7 in our letter of April 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 18 Our Comment: Revised design features in conflict with General Plan. We cited several General Plan policies with which we argue the 83,000 sf project is out of compliance (LU1.8, LU6.8, LU6.2, LU1.2, LU6.4, LU6.5, VIS3, CD1.2 and CD1.4). The defense Mr. Lamb offers is the review of the new features on the building by Cannon Design Group (Feb. 22 and March 17, 2017). Contrary to Mr. Lamb's representations, Mr. Cannon wrote that it was difficult to achieve the small town scale and appearance as directed by the Planning Commission "when starting with a large building and making small changes to it." The building still reads as "one large office building without a breakdown in scale related to the neighborhood or the Los Gatos existing small town scale." Mr. Lamb avoids mentioning these remarks. Page 18 Our Comment: Questions of validity of Cannon report; references reduction of only 700 sf. We did not have access to the Cannon letters of 2/22 and 3/17/2017 until the staff report was posted April 6. In these letters Cannon discusses the 83,000 sf building, reduced by 8965 sf from the original 93,000. Our criticism referred to the letter of 3/18/16, in which Mr. Cannon reviewed a reduction of 700 sf in the 93,000 sf building. OTHER Page 27 Our Comment: Project negatively impacts senior citizens in the neighborhood. Mr. Lamb asserts that LGC's comment that the project would have a negative impact on the seniors in the neighborhood does not require a response because it does not raise a CEQA issue. The Aesthetics section of the DEIR considered the "visual impact" of the proposed project but this was too narrow a view. The General Plan calls for protection of the character and sense of place of a neighborhood and for preservation of small town feel. These features are what attracted the senior community to Alberto Way. To negatively impact such things should not be dismissed as Mr. Lamb does. Senior quality of life is a high priority of the Town, and The Commons is unique in its independent living focus and in that its condos can be purchased. We are disappointed that Mr. Lamb was so dismissive of our concerns that he carelessly attributed comments to us that we did not make. And we are exceedingly disappointed that he does not give serious consideration to our heartfelt concerns about his proposed project. 3 Jennifer Armer From: Marilyn Basham <marilynbasham@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 5:28 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way Commercial Development Dear Planning Commission , i liy name is Marilyn Basham. I am a resident of Los Gatos Commons. I have been working with the 401-409 committee at the Commons. I have also had the opportunity to work with other Alberto Way residents to research all the implications f the proposed Alberto Way commercial development. As a result of this study, I have gained a grease appreciation for the challenge of appropriate land use. in she spirit of being a responsible citizen, I would like to offer a differs=alit alternative to the use of the land at 401-409 Alberto Way. As I talk to friends and neighbors in Los Gatos about the 401-409 property, the recurring comment 1 receive iso " What we really need is more housing like the one you are in, Marilyn. Then we also could retire close to our family and grandchildren with less burden of house and yard management." 1 am the first edge of the baby boomers which as a demographic group would not make any impact on the schools. Also as a group we tend to be active, environmentally conscious, and civic minded. The traffic impact would be significantly less than the current proposal. I think there would be great interest in a 55 and over condo community especially so close to town, the walking trail, and downtown shopping. Thank you, MroLyn Basham Alberto Way Citizens Rebuttal to Lamb Partners April 19, 2017 Comments on the Expert Peter Geissler & Bob Burke Reports on 405 (aka 401-409) Alberto Way Submitted by Bob Burke on behalf of the Residents of Alberto Way Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 2 ENGEOs Responses to Peter Geissler 3 Geissler Comment 1 3 Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 1 4 Geissler Comment 2• 4 Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 2 5 Geissler Comment 3 • 5 Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 3: 6 Geissler Comments 4 & 8• 7 Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 4 & 8• 9 ENGEO Response to BOB BURKE Comment 11 10 Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on BOB BURKE 11: 11 Traffic 21 Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 1, 9 & 10 21 Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 1, 9 & 10 21 Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 5 & 6 22 Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 5 & 6 23 Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response PDLG 5 & 6 - ITE Outdated Studies & Evidence of higher Trip Generation 24 Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 14 31 Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 14 31 Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 27 31 Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 27 32 Hexagon Response to Construction Comments 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31 32 Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on Construction Comments 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31 33 1IPa e Traffic Engineers know they're guessing "new trips generated" 34 Los Gatos has a History of denying developments that generate more traffic than its roads can support 34 Conclusion 35 INTRODUCTION In enacting the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.) in 1970, the California Legislature declared the maintenance of a quality environment to be a matter of ongoing statewide concern. §21000(a). Public agencies considering approval of both public and private projects must therefore give "major consideration ... to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian." §21000(g). Under CEQA, public agencies cannot "approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the environmental effects of such projects." §21002 The Legislature designed CEQA's review processes to publicly disclose environmental effects and identify feasible project alternatives and mitigations. The goal is to protect California's environment by informing the discretionary land use decisions of elected officials. §21002. CEQA furthers California's environmental policies through its procedural mandates, requiring agencies to prepare and consider environmental documents within prescribed public review processes, and substantive mandates, requiring agencies to impose feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to projects that might otherwise cause significant adverse environmental effects. Hundreds of published cases now interpret CEQA. Its overarching edict, as expressed by the California Supreme Court in Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 105, 124, is that "[u]nder CEQA, a public agency must ... consider measures that might mitigate a project's adverse environmental impact and adopt them if feasible. (§§21002, 21081.)" The Court has repeatedly underscored "CEQA's substantive mandate that public agencies refrain from approving projects for which there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures." Id. at 134; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Ca1.3d 247, 264; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Ca1.4th 341, 350; Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 434. 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 Ca1.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 2IPa e reached the ecological points of no return." County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Ca1.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. Response to Suggestions. An EIR must respond to specific suggestions for mitigating a significant impact unless the suggested mitigation is "facially infeasible." Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Ca1.App.4th 1019, 1029 (EIR was required to discuss suggestion that installation of air conditioning and filtering at two schools might prove feasible means of mitigating significant air pollution impacts identified in the EIR); see Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (2011) 197 Ca1.App.4th 1042 (EIR contained adequate responses to measures suggested to address GHG emissions.) In our past submissions to this Application, we've (PDLG, Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista Village & Las Casitas collectively) identified both feasible Mitigations in addition to what was identified in the FEIR, Missing Environmental Impacts and Feasible Mitigations to them. This document rebuts materially false or misleading assertions made in the Supplemental April 24, 2017 submission by Lamb Partners & its contractors ENGEO and Hexagon with fact based sources and illustrations. We find the bulk of the remaining comments from April 24 to be without merit, or duplicitous, needing no rebuttal. ENGEOs Responses to Peter Geissler Geissler Comment 1 9U1b\ e2 (\16 U2\( Oy c\ OM111Ua 1.13 (\J6 6(\6U( O't 9 g9W o1\C116. „ Morin C9f126 1,\000\ua 9(. (\J6 1.)1_O16C( \OC9(IOU MI(\11U 1U\Uh(62 nugGvalosruq b91.\(\1)8 b986 g' N32(1.69U1 ¶911.1 E9i\('11.6 26C(\OU' „`�j C9(92(�Ob\11C v91\t11.6 O4 4.16 `6U1*,J911 D9111 i\J6 \1\(6\1\.1OOg \1‘6-(R11.69(6UIUa v\OOg1Ua gne (O (1b2(1.69U1 g9U1 �91\51162 C61.22\el. Eut \U661.\Ud COU1U36l4 To Geissler 1, ENGEO responds MGL6 UeC62290‘' bei4oLweq fIJ61L OMU iugebeugeuf 9u9I7262 9Uq COUCfLL6q 4IJ9f IJO 2612w!c LeW6g19I UJ692f1L62 r6U!IJ9u D9W Vc1c1IPOP911k fps L6boLf IUgic a62 fps; fps DIN2!ou of 29I6fA of D9W2 (D20D) 12 cou2igeLeq AGL1\ IOM' 91.10 UO 261211J1C L61116019I W692(11.62 9L6 g66UJ6q U6C6229L7\ 9f fps CL9CK2 OLLUIUa IU fjJ6 CL62j 91.1q o peL 9L692 gfiuua {IJ6 Nj9XILJf1UJ COU2Ig6L6q E9LfPdf19K6 (INCE) ICI fps 29U1r9 CIaL9 A9II61\ M9f6L DI2ILICU VccOLgiUa 1;O fps L6bOLj' ;{J6 IIK6Iipooq of 21auitic of IU D6CGLUp6L 50.15' 16L19\eG0b6Uf6CP bieb91.6q 9 2612WIC 2T9p!Il()\ En9If19fIOU Oii reuiIJsu D9UJ 3 I P of 9U7 ojpel b9Lce MIjl1lU 4N6 w9bbeq Iunug9pou SOU6 !U 4N6 IOMU Ot roe e9j02' His-4IJL69j6U U jooq 9j j1J6 bio1eci age l2 IOM 9uq j11e u9S9Lq t0 j1J6 blolec4 l2 uo 8Le9j61 41J9u 8926q OU 4JJ6 !utouusji0U EVIeEO 1.6/46M6q' IIJ6 LI21C 0/ !unugapou 92 M6ll 92 fp6 I!K6llpooq o} Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 1: Irrespective of the 2012 Terra/GeoPentech report, the following Santa Clara County illustration showing the Lenihan Dam's East side ending at a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone and surrounded to the West by another Fault Rupture Hazard Zone is found from this URL: https://www. sccgov.org/sites/dpd/PlansOrdinances/GeoHazards/Pages/GeoMaps. aspx Where a click on the Fault Rupture Hazard Zones KMZ Files hyperlink: https://www. sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Faults.kmz will download this Google Earth GIS start link (install Google Earth for PC, Mac or Linux first). https://www. sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Faults.kmz (URL opens Google Earth, then you may guide it to the Lenihan Dam South of LG) shows in pink the Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone that abuts the Lenihan Dam and another that overlays portions of Lexington Reservoir. The 2012 Terra-Geo Pentech Lenihan Report fails to mention the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone or what the consequence to Lenihan Dam would be should the fault rupture immediately beside the Dam during an earthquake. p od eu' • p0g6u' D1 Po!M ID ttnit HfilaP°' D180031 • 010 2 COIQ6u gtgfi +t 1-19PfotA ecf ° V.a .3, 3)d0)33a' ISS'I0),P3 . 26stcp I 7 ®I *alfWtitzkle inn ®�1it 1®i ripouesit tzt Hlc E44 A16 bolt tlgq 1RIb cooalc E°up 0 u blycfia • o 3o1 D9!6. 11 S\\3ore 33o13 52 21 H 151,2a,13 62,. M 616/. P32 if 6A6 9p INN 33 O ° ®DOJa coda "' eooais E9LW X w Furthermore, in 2007, Oroville's 50 year (1957) license to operate was renewed. Documentation for Oroville's Renewal show that the renewal failed to address any Dam Safety issues at all nor any protocol to ID and correct known or latent defects. Both its primary and emergency spillway surfaces failed in 2017, and a large evacuation ensued. Geissler Comment 2: 4IPa e Iens12' jiJ9111J6 20112 IU 1p6 blol6C1 9L69 9L6 UOl bLoue 10 2np21g6UC6 92 9 L62n11 Ot l0M6L6q aionugM9jel 2IaU2 Ot 2np21g6uc6 Leboljeq !Li fps 9L69 92 j1J6 aLonUgM9j6L lens! tinCjn9162' 11J12 9120 IUgiC9j62 AICIUIIA ii9e siLe9gA exbeueuceq 41Je 6tt6C12 Ot 9 IOM818q aLonUgM9j6L 16A61' M6 9l6 UOj 9M9L6 of mom 11J6 1JI24OLIC 1JIa1J a&onugM9jel lens! Ot 45 t66j pa2' 13926q ou fIJi2 g9j9' 11J6 blol6Cj 2116 9uq yggljlou9lIA' aL0f1U0M9j6L M92 6UCOnUj6L6q 9j 9 gebjjl Ot LOna1JIA 5,1 t661 IU 'pus 5042' M1JICp 12 cp9L9C16LI211C2' b1692s 266 CIJ9bjeL 3.2 of fps pistl Elb tol 9 gs2cubjlou of fps ex1211ua bLolscj 21j6 2011 26f16W6U1 (2np21gsuce) lu glues eoij gsb021j2 92 9 malt Ot j6wb019LA geM9jeuua 12 IOM' Ot J5 test 91 fps blolsel 21js 9l6 w6Qlnw g6U26 10 A6L7 g6U26 CI9A&A ak9A612' 11J6 yet( Ot C0U4L9LA 10 DL' ee!eele1,2 cowweuj2' fps 20112 suconujsLsq mom fps gs2lau aLonugM9leL lens! 2641e1116U1 w9A occnL w 2o4 cowb16221p1s clsAsA gsbo21j2 9uq loone9ug1 OL al9n6IIA gebo2112" IUC16926 Ot A61.11C91 2462262 IU enuenucilua 20112' MIJeu neLj1CSI 21162262 IUCL6926 !U 2011' qnpua COU21LnC4IOIJ Mill gL9Mg0MU aLonugM9tei Iu 11J6 Apt* Ot fps 6xC9n94oU suq 162n11 Iu 9U ee122161 Eualussuua q!q uoj blonlge 112 cslcnl911ou2 jo 2nbbol4 i12 leffel- l6wboL9LA g6M9jsuua EV1GEO b62b0U2610 COww6Uj 5 92 9 Leaf% O); 2011 ecrp21g6UCe 92 9 1.62Mt COU2SU'lg1O13' „ g6A610bW6uj 9Ug bnBp10 qe TO2 e902 061\6‘01 U36Up2 916 ‘1‘(6\7\ j0 6X131p1p ct.scimq 219p2 U61ak3p01�300g'"' e6122161 EUal.U66llUa C9ICr 9p1OU2 211aa62, %9j 9‘k O] p13e 1"92 C921p92 9 GCj' 160t1062 j‘.16 C9b9C10\ Op\.161 gL91U9a6 1r9C1,1j162 (6"a" epv.u..1 g191112) 41% 261n6 p136 2pO1.113 g191U • dj 9 1331U1133(1113' p1312 M9p6L 12 9ggsq ,0 6X12p1ua q.91U9a6 l9C111j162 9Ug' lU bcwwb2 LUTV4. pe q ecpsta6g Ouj0 4116 2p1664 01. °wel 1ece\mua g.91U9a6 ><9C1`10\ 211C13 92 9 IL1C1uljX o, jW6 C01<}6l g9u3 cos j0 g6M9p6Uua' 26COUg' p136 ekveUp >LOUS g16261-boweleg bsea Q p6M9j6L1Ua 26Cp.ou'. „UL2j' j1,16L9 12 14j(61A jO p6 211auj 2011 2tvp21geuce lu ju6 1.1691, 20112C1p21g6UCe C9f1260 p1. j6133bOL91X g6M9j6L1Ua gt1UUa COu2plicplOU' C013w361.)j Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 2: There is a substantial difference in the forces exerted on the surrounding structures between: - groundwater level rise & fall where all structures sit on the same surface that rises to or subsides from a similar level, driven by the water below it like boats on calm water vs. - dewatering, where ground subsides where it's being dewatered and does not subside by the same amount in ground that surrounds the dewatered coffer dam. This differential in ground level is what causes cracks. ENGEO fails to mention the differential. The bottom line is this: the longer or wider the existing building is, the greater the difference between the - "before dewatering" ground level vs. the - "after dewatering" ground level is and - the more likely damage to our foundations will occur from the differential settling and - the costlier the damage repair to the foundations and shifted interior walls & floors will be since settling is increasingly pronounced with length. Geissler Comment 3: 5IPa e nu1IKsIA. aL0nUgM916L tIOM' suq fps LI2K of blblua 92 gsecgpeq pA e612216L EuaIu66LIUa I2 6X116w61A I1 !2 Onl 6XbeLf obiuiou 11J911pe COU21LnCf!Ou 0} 9 2np2nL}9C6 a919as Mill Uo1 giswspC9lIA Iwbsge pAglsnilc tIoM aLsq!eul' fps u21( of blblua I2 AsLA !ow geu21jA ot 1pe 2011 gebo2112' fps IOM bs1I.ussp!!! X 92 9 L62n11 O4, fps CI9A wsfgX suq I9CK o, IU 9 CI9A Lu9111X" 11J6 CI9A 1U911!X MITI L6gnC6 f1J6 beuussp!!!fA 04, 2116 20II2' Cou21geLiva 11.16 11Js glues to nst\ geues 2suq suq awns! gebo211e euconuleieq s11ps blolscl ells 9l6 cout!usq gecowwI22IoU6q' sxbeclsq 10 21sp!Ils6 10 9 !ens! 21W119L 10 fps 2nllonugiva 9169 91161 06M916LIUa M6Il2 9L6 11OM' q!A612IOU 04, alonugM9161 12 numcs!A' 11J6 aLOnUgM916i lens! 2n110nUgIUa 1116 pseewsU1 12 alsglsul Iu fps sirs 12 L61s11AsIA pi* 1u fpe 9p2suce of a eeb pAgLsnllc alsq!su1 !u 2npenI}sce !ens! euconu1si q s1 fps blolecf 2116 12 e!w!is1 10 U69LpA 91692' luglc911ua 1p91 fps p?gi9nIIC CGU16L 04, 9 q9W 01 leA66' l0 IUCL6926 1l0M bsfp2 suq LGgnce 11J6 112K o1; blblua' 11Js aLonugM91e1 2lnl1A Cn1-04t M911' l2 COU21LfC18q 9CL022 1JIa1J ai0nugM9161 1l0M a19gieu12' 2nC1J 92 9IOUa fps DIA612!OU of 2npen1.19Ce alonugM91eL 11oM OCCfL2 M1J6U 9U Iwbelwesple 211nC1n16' encp 92 9 EVIeEO b62boU26 10 COUJ W6U1 3 a1.9n6\ 419V9 A0.2 C \26C (net.X 1.013)-„ 62\11119(.60 (O pe OU !r\16 Olg6l Of; .ko.s C1.1.1\26C ('61.1\ ‘OM) M\J61692 \\16 bet.UJ69pt.g.X ov \u6 lz6% !z1.01.31 Ii\36 C1ug61.ay.001uq a949a6 "' 196 b61.+1169p►11ch srue 2ntkel9\ C\91\61‘ 201\2 EUd1U6611Ua 62\1U19\62 419\ j\16 g1n6L210U 0 2rip2(1q9C6 2eeb9a6 12 9bblOX11J191.6\l‘ Sa() \OM L9\62 1 11C\1 113 jt'11.0 U19\ C9i126 b11)1138 010t.62 tU 9q\9C6u\ 201\ 2fr1.9\9' e6122\61, 1UC\ngs 9 1.126 113 alOC1UgM9!<61. \61\6\2 tU L%36 U61a\1p04.1Ua bl.0b61.4162 suck 1UC1.6926q 2eebsde 2eeb9a6 139461112' Die \013a-G61U1' sweep OIz 211C\.1 g1n61210U O] 2C1p2111.1t9C6 266b9a6 COU2L1S1Ct1.013 Olr 9 SS-I;oo\ gesb nugel&otw q a91.986 W91\ C9n26 O 6%210U O\ 2np2n1.U9C6 b9a6 p' eLOnUgm9GGL \41A10\OeN 26C(1oU'. „e6122\61. EUalU66U 3a 12 coucetU6g \\J9, (u6 cou2Glnc(lou olr,1N6 b►.obo26q S-21zoll\ nucAstbonUq a9.9a6' `Oua-\61u1 1.0\g10\Oa1C 6)J<6CIr2 C9n26q p>\ ggne 210U O!; 2npam.vsc6 v on,n ov alorwgms et. v0\\OMmud cowussUt. 3*. Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 3: water travels beneath the Planned Development and surrounding properties where we live as drainage travels from uphill of our properties after storms and as water is pushed uphill from the underground water table in the liquefaction zone beneath the LG Creek bed upon which the Planned Development is placed through fractured rock in the Rupture Hazard Zone below the Planned Development. The most pronounced effect from its blockage is already known to be beneath the Bella Vista Village homes on Cuesta De Los Gatos that have sump pumps in their crawl spaces. The reduced permeability that ENGEO notes in its response already retards water flow, and the underground parking structure will further retard water flow, forcing it to back up beneath neighboring properties. 6IPa e ENGEO fails to recognize this predictable consequence and is incorrect in its response and conclusion. If underground parking is allowed, which it should not be, then we see every reason that a presently unidentified and reasonable Mitigation to address the risk to our properties would be to require Lamb Partners to post a Bond in the amount of about $10M that is guaranteed until after both the next major earthquake occurs (similar to Lorna Prieta) and the next major drought recovery (similar to the current water year recovery after the 2010-2016 drought) have passed without damages to our residences. Geissler Comments 4 & 8: • Mltp2t9Uq 9U IU46LIOL 2b9U g12Asuc6 Ot J2 t66j • Mmpetsuq su egos csUmsnsL gi2t9uc6 of g tssl • joI6L9j6 rib to loop of glttsLsupsi Iidnstscflou iugncsq 26jI6u16U • 10I6L9j6 rib fO j IUCl Ot f0r9l IIdn6t9C410U 26jjI6LU6Uf2 scowLgsuce Mifp LscowwsuospoU2 bionigeq Iu tp6 e6o 9cpulc9I bebot4 2nwwsuS6q 92 t011OM: 1ps bloboesq ott!cs 24LnC r1L6 2poniq be 2nbboLFeq ou 9 2ILnctnL9I UJsf tonugspou gsa!0usq !u EVICEO g62nou26 fO COIWW6Uf d 6X1'391.121n6 211pal9g6 201\2 „ 911b16C19462 4116 b046u419\ 1Ol CA9C\(6q 2\9p2 qn6 pO 2692O139\ alonucv9\61. A9U941OU lu 2\9p2 p6 g 1UC\162 4\AC\( 94 4\!6 bl.Ob02eq gen6\Obuw6U4' 11194 4101%2 41Jg4 EtACEO b9a6 $' D6M9461Wa 26C41Oti „\p 12 21811111.C9U\ p\194 EV\eEO 1.6COUJU1613geq 44194 COUC1.%6 2np249u419\ 1<\OM okekorwgM9G6l' 241.11C(n1_6' \U 9U nug6lalOnUq (9Uq nug61M9461) a919a6' 41112 12 \1\46\A \O 91\0M 1<\.16 1UWnX O� 4\1e Olgel o 9U 1uc 01. u101.6 2\191\ C9n26 21a131‘1C914 Cl9C\(11.1a 1u 4u6 1.61U1<oLceq couct.se b9a6 d 2oy Couq\41ou2 2ecp\ou'. nybblsc�946 41194 q1 616u419\ tOnug94\ou 264416U161A OU 241.11c4n1.6 COn\g 1.9Ua6 I.lou1 20 a9\\Ou2 be . u1\un46 (at 4o 200 abut „ ezp1u19462 4N94 4116 194e Op 4\OM \u40 p\16 (cl9C\(6q) nugelalonuq (9Uq nug61M9461.) a919ae couct.ete 2pinC4nl6 9\\0111‘2 215.1.11 .C9Up 1U41nX O!< alOnug19p61: e6122\61. Eua\u661\u8 241nC4n19\ cl9c\yua O)< 4W6 1ewov.c6q COUCl66 241nc4n16' Cl9c\(►ua O>< 4u6 161U401.C6q p69UUa C9b9C14X 12 \I1(6\A 40 162N lu g1ik616Up19\ 1Lontg9410u 264\61-U61A Mlp\1 162n\p9Up $-2401.X C113qe%.dt.ocluq a919a6 91.6 \1\(6\ \ p0 6X\11p14 21a1A1C9u4 \022 Ok. peeuua c9b9CI0\' `O22 b9a6 3' Execnp\n6 2nuJu191A 26cp\0Uy. „\u we 6n6up O)t 9U 691411d119\(6' p\.16 201\2 p6\OM 4416 a919ae 9Uq 2np2edneu4 2eebeae o alonugM94611u4o 4116 assae. 1116 \I\(6\I\1O0q 04 241nC4n19\ cl9c\(lua (bon-COu24lnC410u) O); 4N6 blobo26q 5-24011' nuget&onuq C0uuu16u4 t. 7IPa e CiflOfeg 219f6UJGUf IU COUJIJJGU4 4 9pOA6' UJ12f1Ug6L2fOOq fps brab026 Oj fps 8-IUCp-jp!CK COUCL6j6 b9AeweUf 26C4I0U L6j6LGUC6q IU we 1921 b9A61UGUf g6201 91Jq 12 IUj6Ugcq j0 bLOAlg6 2nbbOLf j0 fl9 lC 109g2 e6122IGL Euahu66UUa p92 yggi4i0U911)\' 4J6 8-IUcp-fPICK 219p LGCOWWGIJg94IOU UOfeq pA e612216L EUa1U66LIUa 12 }OL COUCL6f6 2flpalsg6 IGAGI 20 6Xb9U2IA6 2011 M111 p9A6 UO I0Ua-f6LW Gt.feCf OIJ fjJ6 p610M-ai9g6 1O11Ug94IoU A9L19f1OU2 Mp!Cp MOfllq C9f126 24JLIUK suq 2M611 Oj 6Xb9U21A6 CISN CSUUOf OCCfl.9f fps tonugsf10U M911<M91\2' b3f10 suq g11AeM9& 219p2. 21UC6 fps tonugs4Iou 12 p6I0/A fps M9f6L f9p'6' UJ012fr1L6 2692OU91 UJ012jfl16 4IflCjfl9jl0U OU 6Xb9U2IA6 201I LU9?\ IUJb9Cj 2f11J0C191 26COUg9L1\ 21902 2r1Cp 92 29U ELSUCI2CO B&A'L69. 9pOA6 UJ6140U6q jO11ug94IoU g621aU CLIf6149 9LG UOf 6XC6b4I0U9I f0 b1016c12 COU24Lf1cfGg IU fps OU 9 4Oflug9f10U LJJ9f g621aU6q IU 9CCOLg9UC6 /AIfjJ fps 9POA6 CLIf6119. MG 9120 UOf6 fpsf fps CL9CKIUa 01 fps 24flCjfll6 91Jq 9220Ci9jGg /A9j6L IUfL112!OU 92 g62CLlp6q pA e612216L EUa!U66LIUa IOC9IIS6q ILL6afl19LIf162 MIfjJOflf 2fl}{6LIUa ILOLU 2fL(1Cff1L91 g9UJ9a6 M6 qo UOf 9UfiClb9f6 2GAGLG MPGU g621aueq p926q OU fps 9p0A6 CLIj6Ll9' fps tonugspou UJ9f 12 Lialq 6UOflap f0 2b9U 8 bnblnL6 Hssslq Sous 2isis Ot C9IIt0LUt9 E9nR1 roe ewe Qn9glsuaI6' iaai Harms S: 2f9f6 01 C91I4O1019 2b6C19I 2fng162 Sous W9b' lea') 92 21JOMu ou EOOnls S. 21l6 12 UOl locs eq mop 2j9i6 of C9lftolu19 E9nij bnbinle H9S9Lq SOU6 (roe e9io2 Onsq M6 g129a166 MIj1J e6122161 EuaIu6suua ou fps 2isieweuj dnoi6q nuclei COwweuf $' 1ii6 EV1cEO b62b0U26 iO COUJUJGU1 g O6b91..w16uoft COu261- \9pul 1,9N 1511An16 419S91g SOu6 C9%01119 C9O\Oa1C 2St J\6N 'Z01i6 O! C911az0' b96 E9411df191(9 26CV1013: 11J6 b1o'6q. `OC9pu 12 \OC9(6q (MU 91.1 69gydtl u39bbsq E91wdn9tic6 >`gn14 N9S91g Sous' 11.16 1.19S91g2 922oCwq ntgw \OC9‘.10u O>r 4,16 b1Ob026q a919a6 10C9t6q M1 km.t3 9 ble CouJu.leut Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 4 & 8: ENGEO is incorrect. The Planned Development is situated on both a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, shown in pink below and a Liquefaction Zone, shown in blue and may be found at this Santa 9IPa e Clara County URL: https://www. sccgov.org/sites/dpd/PlansOrdinances/GeoHazards/Pages/GeoMaps. aspx Where a click on the Liquifaction Faults hyperlink will download this Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones Google Earth GIS start link (download & install Google Earth for PC, Mac or Linux first) which shows all Fault Rupture and Liquefaction zones in the County: https://www. sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Faults.kmz https://www. sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Liquifaction.kmz (opens Google Earth, then you guide it to the Los Gatos intersection of Hwys 9 & 17 to see both zones) ENGEO used a 1991 State Map in its response and Santa Clara County published the new one, shown below, in 2002. ENGEO neglected to find the latest map (pink Fault Rupture Hazard Zone overlays the blue Liquefaction zone beneath the LG Creek bed where they are both present). https://www. sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Faults.kmz 6 401 VIp6U0 M9A cx e.; C9.4.06i 0010�A 9 uc51 pgAnyc' KA 143, 9puw M9A F9 09m: o ♦ 26910p 2c91ry Eq9 Eq9 Nam Loop tlgq -,oib eo0Hic E94P a ® p 1111vW I3, 32' OI!N 131.2es0'aa. M sr. .l004 oh,4 9u 2QA00 — O X Two of the 3 buildings presently on the PD's property are shown to be located within the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. We easily found this site and the failure to disclose it by ENGEO, in our opinion, calls into question both the veracity of the EIR and the quality of ENGEOs work products. ENGEO and Lamb Partners have economic incentives to get the project done. We have only unacceptable Environmental Impacts and Economic Risks that have not been fully disclosed. ENGEO Response to BOB BURKE Comment 11 10IPa e 9 aeojecpuic91 pgsslq j0 jpe blolecj" tot. nugocnwsujsq till MijlJlu fps 2ijs qns jo j e b92j 1e1onjiva ot r02 e9jo2 C16eK close uoj bogs MIjpiu fps llwlj2 ot fps 246 gnuua onl IJl2Iouc 96LI91 bpojoaisbp LSAI6M' 1IJ616tOL6' fIJ6 bojsup9l Lslonjsq !u jpe b92j HoM6n6L' Ms q!q U01 Op26LA6 r02 ewe C166K jO pe tolw60 loc9jeq 96LI91 bpojoal9bp2 suq joboalwbp!c w9b2' M6 op26lAsq wsj roe ewe CLssK p92 pssu MMM'pi2f0LICs6UsI2'COw tOl fps bLo16cj 9L69 gsjlua p9CK jo Ja5g. B926q OU OnL LGAI6M ot fps asojecpuicsl 2jngk yggijious1jA' M6 L6ceufA LeAleMeq ple ouc joboaisbpic wsb2 blonlgsq pA M6 LsAIeMeq seLl9I bpojoaLsbp2 ot jpe 2nplecj e!fe gsgua pscK jo J a3 j 92 b91j Ot OnL p6C9n26 jjJ6 p926w6Uj 01. aSLSas 12 locsjeq pGIOM fps aLonugMsjeL jspje tugicspua jpsj jIJO26 jlJsj qo tlooq psns jp 2 bloplew qns jo e!fpsl gseiau of cou2jLncjIou suq uoj sbblisq bkobskik frinw61on2 pnygIua2 MIjlJ p92GWGUj2 p6IOM fps aLonugMsj6L fps' qo uoj gooq' g62iaueq toi fps sujiclbsjeq pAgL02j9jic 9uq esup bLe22nkee' 9uq M9jelbLOOtlua bLogngj2 916 wol2jn16 IUjt.n2IOU suq tloogiva a6U6190 !2 A6LA IOM MIJ6U fps 2t(riCjnl9l COwbOUGUj2 916 MIjp 2npenit9C6 p92sw6Uj2 OL a919a62 locsjeq p6IOM fps aLOnugM9jel jsp's' 1p6 L12K ot M9j6LblOOtlUa 2A2IGw' EI'IeEO p92 MOLK6q OU w9UA b1016C42 !Li fIJ6 29U ELSUCI2cO BSA VL69 a&Oc6LA 2j016 UOjGq IU fps COww6Uj' MijlJOnj nugskeisugiva jlJGIL g621aU CUj6Li9 suq M6 9L6 nU9p16 j0 C0ww6U1 OU fps b6Lt0lw9uc6 ot U69LpA 2jLnCjn162' 2nCIJ s2 jlJe 29t6MsA COUcnL MIjlJ fps L6COww6Ug6q gee!aU a&onugM9j6L lens! of J5 t66j pelOM ex!2jiva a19g6' VVIEC Eo2j6L MIJs6IsI suq jpJ6 usiappoL,2 euaiueeiiva L6b1626Uj9j!A6' e6122161 EUaIU66LIUa' p!ap aLonugM94sl IGAGI gebiejeq ou wsb2 bnpliepeq pA jpe 2j9je of C9Iltowl9" best. 16A16M61 11J6 qe iau alonUgM9j6L 16A61 16COww6Ug6q IU j116 e60j6cIJUIC9I bebolj 16b1626uj jlJ6 weloLIC EvleEO b62tDoues j0 COww6Uj J J \UJ39Ct2 9l6 1u2n1.U1on111i9p‘6' rO2 e9j02 C166‘( lslontsq bloplsu32' bkolsct t6CtiU%C9\ LebOlt go82u,t 9gg1622 bOt61Jt19\ \ ubset t0 nug6kaLOtluq a9k9a6' C014.1.13 cr .eut we beuoq M9tsl twig' 2916MSX nug6kakontg a9k9a6 1192 N9q sioogiva m9tBk t9p1,6 too epsiioM tOk 9 5-16n6\ nug6kak0nuq a9k9a6 suq Lednik62 pouua 91 tine tiwe to COu1UJ6ut A . Citizen's Rebuttal to ENGEO on BOB BURKE 11: There has been no submission of evidence that the present Depth to Water has been discovered through another set of borings. This exposes us to heightened risks of Environmental Impact from: - diversion of underground water from the area to be occupied by proposed underground parking to beneath our properties, thereby damaging us - extended construction interval as Lamb Partners are forced to deal with the results of the water - potential abandonment of the development mid -project should the cost be too high for Lamb's financing sources or too costly to otherwise complete ENGEO's comment appears to say that it's OK for either one or both levels of the proposed underground parking to be underwater. And then if it's not, that the depth to underground water can't possibly be less than 12 feet since they can't find an aerial photo of the LG Creek bed on one specific web site. Au contraire. 11IPa e We searched for and easily found several Historic Photos & Maps showing that Los Gatos Creek has both flooded and had multiple channels, including beneath the Proposed Development. They have over the years shifted all over the flood plain that the Proposed Development lies within. Including one we found in https://www.historicaerials.com/ which ENGEO didn't look hard enough to find. We didn't purchase and download the photo, which can be found and viewed on- line (after you set up a no cost account) with the company's prominent watermark. The Historic Aerials photo shows the dry LG Creek bed and several channels, some recent and deeper than the old and shallow channels. The flood plain was uncontrolled and flooded annually (droughts excepted), which formed the many channels by greatly varied flows. Annual flooding ended in 1955 when Hwy-17 & the Lenihan Dam were both constructed. But first, we present this current Google Earth aerial photo that clearly identifies the low-lying area that confines the LG Creek bed, whose low-lying area of interest is outlined in white. The still existing first building of LGHS is noted by the white line in the foreground as is the Proposed Development's property. p4a 6 rc, egr, ec. •zsa,°N _1 ® 1•a®.l.2:lt,ILG,. I®I 1 ®Li [IrisI� k!I' EqV A loon tl99 E ib CooaIK E941, — 0 X This next Aerial Photo shows what it looked like in 1939: LGHS is in the middle foreground and the LG Creek Bed is dry and streaked all over by its meandering channels, which occurred annually before the Lenihan Dam and the LG Creek re-route to its present day concrete swale on the West side of Hwy-17 were completed in 1955. The Planned development clearly lies within the LG Creek bed's former flood plain. 12 su iMSZI imprA. R Kieft tiompqagla This next illustration, from a May 3,1955 LG Times article, clearly shows the eastern channel of LG Creek at the time the map was drawn located beneath the western side of the proposed location for the Applicant's 405 Alberto Way building. In 1955, LG Saratoga Rd was connected to Charles Street, the lblock street between Bella Vista and LG Blvd to the east of the PD. Comparing this map to the 1930 First National Bank map tracks how much the Eastern LG Creek channel shifted from beneath the East side of the Proposed Development to 1955. 13 I r. r+� Mil la $i FON 164 Vim rusib .S Is, = a waar arr PM — anon + P. wart yliorow sib wear Qi =sUll�.9. — -.arc• r� as: arr..� Immv; s s a as. re +�...q TA,— ss P�lR- -rP4 2 +Ps : =go tome oar mt — mow mof srO � CIMIIIMME ate. — =MOt 'fir r Row an sow ��P• yaw- ressp limck gpor Sat ► ..qprinss aa! 1. R. RRSa - f sib T r g� —.r..= Vas= sz� s=VIVRE — 71.k"VW amts. sari. a.olbs of maim west mos two* `= =WC i T $ Ti®[ iej — P - j- — — anowner ._[ lc - — u oft sari.: - /or. ws memos • immilummir dl i —; 4. .24s�a some meats .lanai — VOW/ �r.rsr srrs.� ANIMIRMIRr R. ARNO WI PIP. Row Rai- 1 R mg wars smait ■+c ffi.yia. sit .ice' men NOW 11. row ! r rugs ai- s i +..• ..P .a gi Ou6-MOX OU kO9. Ouy ni��Ode tOue2 Dula (Owl ciscoel fleafps =CV spa tango -- vz 1t» as 137a) by cfsvpaq Oat rota poet: Pa preta V 3212 cr mric esrr m gra Barr; mesa qL e tail MAN 16 SDs acrr,7 Ufa' s t2 spy Papyri pay • rug toms. o B rt tpsacl is.igaa- Pgyeb .pa .../iP 2.577? a Par), PI 303a Rai u tog z. to z-4-F... I6L6,? HOM sot! 24gcJ nb ou jou!udi bLOtG2 I Hjsgi r sq *o cpc-:4 O CO4 KS99x E L dbb9 esrt pu 5opp6L? cgi LOrniqJu AL=7 tO2 CYSA2 NY" -%: r rT 2 HY:.O"Y (Pump rnirD mrtittn 14I Pa e This next aerial photo, from 1957, shows the same area after Hwy 17 & its Hwy 9 interchange were built in the LG Creek bed and the LG Creek channel confined to the present concrete culvert in 1955. The 405 Alberto (aka 401-409) property clearly lies in the old creek bed and the 3 present buildings are shown in pink. Next is a USGS topographical map that shows the same area years after Hwy 17 & its Hwy 9 interchange were built in the LG Creek bed and the LG Creek channel confined to the present concrete culvert in 1955. The 405 Alberto (aka 401-409) property clearly lies in the LG Creek bed, being situated at the lowest elevation presently within the creek bed at 339 -340 feet AMSL as seen on Google Earth with its proposed foundation is at 336 feet in elevation. The only lower area within LG Creek near the 9 & 17 interchange is the bottom of the culvert into which the creek is diverted at 329 feet AMSL per Google Earth. This confirms its location to be within not only the former LG Creek bed but within the former channel shown on the historic maps. The 3 present buildings are shown in pink in the former LG Creek bed immediately northeast of the Highways 17 & 9 interchange. 15 Next, we present several historic maps that verify the location of 401-409 Alberto Way on the widest area of the LG Creek Flood Plain, in which the Proposed Development lies: 1895 The area of the Proposed Development is near the lower LG Creek island in this map. 16 I r 1910 Assessor's Map 17 1 In this map, the PD lies in the LG Creek bed at the end of BL Bartletts' property. 1t tl "r Bn i - c 1( Sag E•A g%OE ro ' ash eM fwNcn Zt% �•gy^aa.tn 3t_ M•y�ota{ 5O - o VE•(‘trtcu :e•Ml re Olt VOI I• V MtCaw eo 1• t(INO •0 wt.kotatr) CW'pacwt o• WE(seO Bc 4A 2t•o+ate 18E 2YN1VCrvgV yrrEA �IT+o n'i Cl Nil /� i 02 CY102 le CI(go wN;o.k x evt �nEOl. rtr Ki'c.-Haul to M...atk". C'H'Qtlarwvl. + l¢ (oert(1 MVrwce 1930 First National Bank Map The PD is below the shaded area of the LG Creek bed showing the channels and islands of the day and across from LG Saratoga Rd, which is above the LG Creek bed in which the PD lies. In 18 I P a e 1955, LG Saratoga Rd was connected to Charles Street, the 1 block street between Bella Vista and LG Blvd. wse 11111.11. NWl • V ! • r' ivmw. n ,: roz cL.oz ilk 1944 Assessor's Map The Proposed Development is in the LG Creek bed between LG Saratoga Rd and Charles St. 19 I In conclusion, the PD is in the historic LG Creek bed and on top of both Fault Rupture and Liquefaction Zones. This would not have been difficult for ENGEO to discover and in our 20I Pa e opinion, would have changed the prior EIR conclusion, requiring earthquake mitigation by constructing several much smaller buildings, and without belowground parking. Traffic Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 1, 9 & 10 Llapj jnLU j9U6 Monjq L6gnC6 dn6n!Ua suq gej9A oU VIp640 M9A- 9Uq nl`d anlgej!ue2' qlq UPI Igeu4ItA 21auijic9Uj IUj6L26Cfl0U IWb9Cj2' HOMGAGl' jjJ6 2jllbsq jj.JLOndp suq jetj-jnw1Ua AGPICj62 suq jnLUr 1j16 _IV' 92 9U9j7S6q b6L 10/AU L6dnhleweuj2 MOnjq gsgic9j6 9 UajJ4-jnLU j9U6 j0 6U2n16 llap4-jnLU!ua AGPICj62 C9U 9jM9A2 pA-b922 jjJ6 AepicIe2 qo uoj p9n6 4p6 2b9C6 j0 pA-b922 fps 2jobbsq AepicI62 ipe blobo2sq L62jubiva Ol jfLU 16tj H-10M6n61' Mj16U 9 n6wCI6 2j0b2 IU fps UJIggl6 Oj jj16 1L9n6) I9U6' LlajJ4-jfLU Me2jponuq ro2 e9j02-29L9j0a9 bo9q C9U OU6U pA-b922 j4J6 AGP!CI62 M91jlUa j0 ao jjJLOnajJ H6x9aou gs2bou2s: CnuGujlA' AGp1Cj62 j69AIUa yjp6Lj0 M9A suq jnwiva Uapj 0U(O C0ww6utsL: bnspjo q6 ro2 094o2 (ba 33-3t) COW W6u4: b624Ub11Jd djpSljo M9A min 110j Legnce COUd624IOU (MGM c0wweu4) COWW6Uf #J: anigellue2' 1ji6 ljd torluq jjJ9j fps bLo scf MOnjq UOj a6U619j6 21au1{ICgu4 4L9wC !Wb9Cj2- H6x9aou B62b0u26: i'. wC ILUb9Cj2 M6le susiAssq bet. IOMU bolicA 9Uq Al`d lj'd (bd 3) C0WWGU461: bfGpj0 q6 ro2 e9j02 (ba Jg)' (1.n611' WCC0M9U' KGWb' B6jj9 N249 /\IIj9ae L6920U9pj6 IUdL622\6dL622 oU yjp61-10 M9A (jj6b69j COWUJ6Uj) COWWGUF: 1L9 IC COUd62j10U min IUJb9Cj yjpGljo MSA suq re lu 9 \v UJ1�6 L9gln2' j/j66q COWWeIJf #a. uo ueeq j0 24L91dIJj6U yjp6140 M9A pnllgiva tLOUj9a6 oU 20njjJp0nUq yjp64o M9A j0 9ggL622 fps 2I 4Jj g12j9UC6 122n6• 1jJ616 12 H6x9aou b62b0u26: J jJ6 bL01eci bLobo262 j0 6tIWiu9j6 0U-24L66j b9L10ua 9I0Ud fps COW WGU46L: bn6pjo q6 ro2 e9j02 (ba J 2) (bsbe9j c0ww6Uj) COWW6U4: Ej6nl26q bLOI6Cj j;91j2 j0 2j191dpj6U VIp640 tOL 29j:6jA suq oU-2466j bsq !Ud' COWW6U4JO: Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 1, 9 & 10 There is nothing to be gained by cherry picking partial statements. Hexagon failed to show PDLGs entire Comment 1, which is: "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 21IPa e gap in traffic [on Hwy 9]. 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." Furthermore, Hexagon fails to identify and Mitigate the Environmental Impact to Alberto Way Residents from the loss of On -Street Parking to make room for the PD. What is really needed for all three commented situations is a widened Alberto Way to accommodate the increased traffic generated by the PD, the bike box, and on -street parking for Residents. Lamb Partners intend to replace the curb anyway and thus far refuse to widen Alberto enough to conform to existing LG design widths, including two northbound lanes and the one entrance lane, a needed left turn lane into the PD, the bike box and on -street parking where it exists today a few car lengths before the intersection in front of the PD. There are today very few left turners that block the right turn lane. Lamb Partners wants to remove 8-11 on -street parking spaces we have today so they can avoid widening Alberto Way and will not allow us to use their parking, all to our loss. Lamb offers damage and daily inconvenience to Alberto Way residents. Widening Alberto Way to preserve existing on -street parking as well as improving sight is a Reasonable Mitigation to the Unidentified Environmental Impact to Alberto Way Residents from the proposed loss of on -street parking. Further, the use of on -street parking is likely by tenant employees in, and visitors to, the PD after it is occupied, as was commented on by the Planning Commission in the August 24, 2015 Hearing. The absence of congested weekday on -street parking is not a reason to remove it. The presence of congested on -street parking after tenant occupation is the reason to keep on -street parking by significantly widening Alberto Way in front of the Applicant's property or for the PD to dedicate as many spaces on the PD to Alberto Way residents as are removed from Residents' use to make room for the PD. Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 5 & 6 22IPa e Of 21aU1}IC9tJC6 IOL j4J6 gej6Lw us{Iou of bojeupsiiA 21auipcsUj 4L9jjIC IUJb9Cj2. a6U61916 9 21aUIJ:IC9Uj 1L66M&A IUJb9Cj 9j j4J12 1L66M9A 26aUJ6Uj 1121Ua fps 10MU,2 jp162polg2 b6L W1Unj6 OU 9A6L9a6) gnlrLa fps dw be9K 4JOnl OUf0 fp12 1L66M9A 26aUJ6uj Monlq UOj r02 D gnuua 1pe VIAl besK Porn: 14J6 blolscj pA sqqiva 25 AspicnI9L jL1b2 (1622 j4J9U .J ILO bGsK ponL HOM6A6L' 92 g12Cn226q lU j4J6 IIV' j1J12 j166M9A 26aW6Uj CnlLGUjlA Ob6L9j62 94 2onjpponuq 2b 4 j p6jM66U r911< yAGUn6 suq r02 e9j02-29L9joa9 Hogg gnuua j1J6 vim 1P6 11V 9CKUOMI6ga62 j4J9j fps blolscj MonJq 9qq jL1b2 6dn91 j0 ,J' J80 of C9b9CIjA j0 9Cs\t6Cs pl\ Gs)6 bL0\6Cs 12 11.101.6 W9U 0U6 b6LC6U( O> s>t.16 v\66M91\ C9b9C\(1\,' \J9A6 p66U 9(CO2 L U061. s\SG M1410111<b10\ec 9U9s1\212 2C6U91.10 1! (s16 UC1UJp61.0)<U6M tube pe oiloM6q bel ±OMU bolicA' „9 b1016Cj 12 29 q to \UJb9C1 9 v!..seM91\ 26aW6Us CJ16s61.w use to H6X9aou 4S62boU26: vCCOLg1Ua j0 AIV lld tL66M9A ILJJb9Cj CLIj6LI9' Mp!Cp 12 l6dnll6q 10 COLULU6Uj6L: bn6pIo q6 [02 e9j02 (ba ,Je)' r02 e9j02 COUJUJOU2 (ba �) l6dnlL6q' EIb 12 IU9g6dn9j6- (b6b69j COLUUJ6Uj) COWWGL14: b6L C91j19U2' blo16cj M!II sqq 40b2 dL69j6L j1J9U .1 o\a csbsc!4A suq UJIj!d9ji0U 12 COUJUJ6Lfl 6XI24!Ua c0ug14I0u2' j0 jnLU Onj of j4J6 6924)011Uq dnen6 69111GL' j4JGL6pA IUJblOAlUd Obel9j10U2 COUJb9l6q j0 blol6cj Mon4q 16Uaj4J6U j4J6 692jp0nUq I6J4-jnLU boCKej j0 520 166j 9Uq Moniq 9110M A64JICI62 4L9J;UIC Monlg 9qq ouiA j0 j4J6 6921p0nUq 1614-jfLU wonswSU4 jnLUlua IU(O VIp6L4O M9A 14J6 j4J6 692jp0nUq j4JLOna4J UJOA61JJGUj OU [02 e9102-29L940a9 Hogg 94 V1p640 M9A. bLOl6Cj �U 9ggijiou' ij 2poniq p6 uojeq j4J9j j4J6 op26LA6q couae2j!ou gnL!Ua j4J6 vie besK ponL i2 IU 922nWb4!0U2 n26g tot j4J6 lld IU 9CCOLg9UC6 MIj4J ±OMU boiicA suq Ai ' lid anIgeIIUs2' op26LA6g gnuua j4J6 bn b69K pony 1pe pen Op26LA91toU2 j1J6161ol6 2nbbolj j4J6 r02 L6bLe26Uj2 9U 9A6L9a6 4L94 IC cougippou gnuua fps besK ponl' 4/J0 COUa62PPOU M92 9jj61 9:30 VW V2 lednlL6q pA l0Mu bolicA suq Alb ll`d anig61iu62' IUj6126C4IOU g619A 9Uq Hogg !UfG12GC11011 14J6L6 M616 UO Op26LA6q 4L9jjiC obels4iousl 122n62 p61Ol6 j:2t) VIN suq 4t6UU6gA Hogg IUj6L26Cj1OIJ 9Uq Slips [02 e9102 BOnI6A9lq suq r02 esj02-2919j0a9 COUa62POU 12 C9n26q pA j66gp9CK dn61162 CL69j6q 9j j4J6 r02 e9j02 BOnIGA9Lq 9Uq 201U641W62 l6dnlL6q 4M0 10 j4JL66 20U9I CAC162 10 C169L j4J6 yip6L40 M9A IUj6L26C4I0U• 11JI2 IUj6L26C4IOU tl6dn6U4IA ex eugeq j0 j4J6 10C9j!OU Of t416 2H ,J j 0A6Lb922 A64JICI62 09j02 BonIGA9lq suq [02 e9j02-29L94009 Hogg' fps 692jp0nUq dnens 9j fps Vlp61.j0 MsA 2CP001 glob -oft belloq Dn6 10 gOMU24L691U COUae24I0U IU j4J6 692jp0nug gllecjlou 9j r02 692jpOfUq r02 e9j02-29L940a9 4jO9q p6jM66U ,:pt VW 914 8:50 yW gnuua j4J6 besK e9102-29L910d9 Ijo9q' gnllUa fps vipj be9K ponl' H6X9a0u op26LA6q COUa624IOU 91oUa (\:30 — 8:30) 91-q bVJ (2:00 — 2-oo) b69K JOnl2 9j fps IUj6l26C1I0U O1 V1106140 M9A 9Uq r02 H6X9aOU K62boU26: HeX9a01J cougncjeq sggljiousl j1eiq Op2e1A94I0U2 gnLiva fps dW COWWGUj6L: bn6pIo qe [02 e9j02 (ba lg)' [02 e9j02 COUJWOU2 (ba Q) 2GAGLGIA COUd62j6q• (b6b69j COUJUJGU4) Col1JUU6u4: b6AJ2eq blol6cj 19112 10 9gg1622 4L94IC OU Him a 9Uq y1p6lj0 M9A Mi11 pecows COUJUJ614 #2: Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 5 & 6 23IPa e Hexagon offset its Observation time to miss 15 minutes of each AM & PM peak hour and therefore undercounts traffic. It furthermore did not publish the date upon which it made the October 2016 observations. The AM Rush can be impacted by delayed openings and road or work on buildings such as the demolition of Double D's at Hwy-9 & Santa Cruz. We observed four distinct rush periods on many occasions: AM, Lunch, School Ends and PM. The actual AM rush is from 7:45AM — 8:45AM. This is driven by the start of LGHS (8:10AM & Fisher Middle (8:30AM) classes, as is the School Ends (2:10PM LGHS & 2:30PM Fisher) rush which peaks between 2:OOPM — 3:OOPM. The actual PM rush is 5:15PM — 6:15PM and on many days extends to 6:30PM. It is driven by the end of the business day. Businesses drive the 12:15PM — 1:15PM Lunch rush. Hwy 9 has 4 weekday rush hours, which are at 7:45 — 8:45AM, 12:15 — 1:15PM, 2:00 — 3:OOPM (Schools end) and 5:15 — 6:15PM. In addition to AM & PM Rush, office buildings generate significant traffic at lunch, which does not appear in the Applicant's traffic studies. Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response PDLG 5 & 6 - ITE Outdated Studies & Evidence of higher Trip Generation ITE Trip Generation computations use Outdated Studies, Hexagon fails to acknowledge the wide range of Trips generated based on the study results and ignores evidence of increased trip generation we submitted to the Planning Commission for this Application We visited Mr. Jessy Pu, the Town's traffic engineer, to look at the ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th edition. We left with a copy of the Manual's 5 pages for the 401-409 Alberto Way "ITE 710 Land Use," which Mr. Pu said is for Office Buildings like 405 (aka 401-409) Alberto Way. What follows on the next five pages from the 9th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual define the methodology used by the ITE for trip generation. - The first page, ITE 1250, is a high level description. - The second page, ITE 1251, clearly states that the projected trips generated by new developments are based on studies from the 1960's to the 2000's. This literally means the average date of studies used in the calculation method is 37 years old! Office building occupancy and therefore trip generation has changed a lot since then, as we presented in our two earlier reports, which included both new trip generation sensitivity studies and photographic evidence showing the current congestion that Los Gatos residents & visitors experience on Hwy 9. Hwy 9 has 4 weekday rush hours, which are at 7:45 — 8:45AM, 12:15— 1:15PM, 2:00 — 3:OOPM (Schools end) and 5:15 — 6:15PM. In addition to AM & PM Rush, office buildings generate significant traffic at lunch, which does not appear in the Applicant's traffic studies. Bob- you said this on the prior page This further understates trips generated. 24IPa e - The last three pages contain the ITE Charts & Formulas used to compute the Total Day, AM Rush & PM Rush trips generated. 1320 n,p ec s,s?o." NI- ECIt0I1 • LoJunrp ql V.iL?DCIlarr II LLJIUeeLe eCL3eV401: lAss0pooy: geoouq EgItIoL !uI0LLU fl!oL' brs02C LelsL;0 Cllsb{6L 3' ,O l!g6IIuS2 40L Eetlu•OAub Lub CCueLn3J al rpe Lie yub p3CIII1A brpp2oeq !L Jp!e LebuL{ corrlou aponlq pe nesq ,/.I eau SbbIAwB rp6=s 21sPar!ca t0. WOL8 ew911clpce P71Iglu3a' ,VLlJSL rus bu]boeea ells 2!sc ra 2 au!PCSUIIA e!..s;IOL !IJSLI 4J0 stoitsaG-2!SCO 20,Se ul qls LedL622!00 cnLnsa blorrsq }uL lute mug :las L6J91 bLognco .poalc9; run-suq Genulgrse go. suss ;.tea gg bsicour MCLo bLonqaq EoL pllll!ud2 muu OCCf Awes isrea Leb0IJEq' guG °J' An sa6 occnb!sq dLoee Insespls DJG sre.sds pn!lq ud OCC hst.O. t.sLsq rxJU2 (1GL0F1A nvIL1!u lue aing!se l0L ntp!CI o0:nusJa gsrs sgg!o0J91 !u4oLW9noL ou JlJla job!c q e pm! jub esu6LSjlou of Y ells' ge,E IJs LIE 1L5b esoots.:rJ 'A9tlgpcxm' 2ecouq Egll!oJ 4CL alLatsalee. IJ.oLLusnou use u0r peso 9usIhseq l0 gorrwsuJ gpo iwbacte o1 I nog wosenLse cu :po bLeesLC0 0l brtr:'IIC f.sueq' c0Lb0Die 91:q olppeL lLe'Jan0Lrya,ou qou suq W0Ls88wbuj (1D4'J) luLq n2nfj2612 LIIsh hkgap go IutxlLLA. gur,, beusLSp0IJ I9ree bLueolireq IU :I la IsU4' nee jA LCUCCi gysueq eGogce moa 61rpeL uousx!erflul OL use1'8!ple aJ:Pe wsl0u{?. of rp6 24e2 ?nLA6llsq !u jpl? yAeLu3e tnoelrc&A 4Lwue!: {L b cuge— dgq!41ou91 D949 2eb5_,L9CEIr 9uu 4JBu enwwiG. ouq Igo: L619jsq {D JUs 9U0'lJIL !r I2 enB86araq CIJ91 PO asuoLenou p6 ccic,la;sq lot ascp pngg!u8 gm ongglubs pe n20q IoL mcnlsr!Ld 44JG gut' dIIU La10IJ rV/peu n e n1q!n!gnol pn!Iq!ua2 otc !aolstsq ppjN,e6u pngglu8a) oL pones Ous 10UOur 6J !a anB5B2{6o 4IJ 1 rlls top stem CA GWb10M-19u4 04. 911 pos.:u UJO pn!!q!u82 9LEi !uL u 018jeq (gsllueq p•A er,91.0q CsLlnua lsc!p}!s2 0, rpe !7pII0. jc ese! A m9 K !a nesq' !u;w9I rube 8L6 9!Lasq?. lcl!CCreq Iu IIJG gsrs uuq qo .In{ ussq go cis wu2!geL6q• rie gsasloblusul ?porn Pt JLs9teq sea wnlpnee bLolccr ou tps owe!. p9uq' A rlis L)lgca bsij cal630Li. ouq Ii sgq!l!ou91 pn!Iq!u82' encp 22 pSure LLiat9ntsiJra' DL Lst9?) eroL62 0tc !uc,ngeq rJ Fps LlstvalohuLeur 9 pls9lcgatw ol!uq!nlgnal 01. q!,InLSLq nese le .JDI Kuohut 11 tue L3sueLsl Dl{106 pn!Iq!u8 cojcao). !a nasc pnllglJa%' IL 9 2IUSI6 gsA6los:weul' 1Jo Cl{os bow C9rsd0Lr. !e L.u)L6 agues! mug 2IJ01Iq P6 nesq A1peu cs{BaoL%, pe rlasq LSAJe• bJau owlce S5LI<2 rtipeu Beg LuoquB {L!l, asuoLsnou pi D.10 CL WOLG ou!ce Il !uloLwar!0J !a I<uo!nu 9pon{ !uq!AIGn91pn!!L!uaa' !J le an0llsa_eC leaf {pC Beu&t9! o,LjC9 pn!Igwb guns cbureu{ csuJSL :riuli flan \P) euq pnalJea2 balk (fnuq flan 110) 91.G IA!y{sq nese' 1g4) a!uaIG 10U914 ull ce pnllt:!L8 (rsuq flws 142). owes boi)( (rauq fl?c 120)' Lsiv^9Lcp yuq L6el9nL9ur DL L .,sjcus suq a€LA s Lsls!, lec!l'nee' CCLbo;LLls Jcoodnsllsla pi!Iq!ua (r0.tq Des o0ulbsu!se. WAO2IWCU4 plo!es.e uq (Cusul a6LAI062' 2ncp 92 9 osule OL 2sn!u3a suq losu !u2nlnnou pn!!q!ue o1 pn!Iq!J62 W&A ::0U19IU 9 Ls xrnLG 04 few:ure Iugngiva bLopee!au9I a0Ln!r.62' !U21WWucs COLstseLc!9! OL ILJgns4091 OLS9up.9t!OUe' oL bw4see!0I19I b6L2oUe aL ULw2 oLn c iugncjsq. >;; u u41Os aCueLsl olgiC6 ongq!ua penase Lunl1JbIG lsusllra: g !2 9 IocyrCu Atpete s4a!L2 0l pne!usa2c2' psacgbrlou 25IPa e CGUGL9I p}}ics gnmq!ua r-suq n G: S40 lub eeuemou' alp Eg"Rou • Iu2lgnle of 1L9u2bou9Pou Eua,u66 2 353' 334' 351' 104' doff' 109' 1 J 8' 4 J a' 153' 2es' 134 4a3' 501' 515' 5J1' 5/1' 523' 521' se0' ses' spa' sat' sad' sag' 300' 301' 305' 303' 304' 351' 355' s' 2' S0' 5.1' 2J' 23' 24' 15' 88' 8a' as' a2' a8' J00' J2a' JeJ' Jos' J12' 118' 483' J84' J82' J8a' 2ofLcs (^nwp6L2 9L6 2pOMU tOL a6u6L91 owes pnllgluaz- mulch LebLs2suf pop ip6 best( pone of tps asu6LstoL suq fps bssK ponL of fps sglscsut 2lLsef Ilsttic' bssK ponle of fpe sglscsut 2tlsst fL9kc' fpslstols' oui? ous b W best( pone suq ous btry, bssK pony 1pe tub a6U6L9pOU toL fps tf W suq byy' bssK pont2 of ips asu6L9tol iNtlqcsilX coluclgeq mite fps lllb Cp9L9Ct6L12JIC2 1ps 21t62 msl6 2nLne)%sq pefmseu tps Jae02 suq fps 50002 Iplonaponf fps null6q 219f62 tLsgipousl 1 00 9'w to a 00 9 w suq 4:00 b'w fo e:0o b w• bssK beuoq pws tlswee lu 2oWe Lsalou2' b6sKlua wsa own. 69Lil61 oL I9fsl suq wsA I921 2owsmp9t Iou86l Ipsu fps 26IPa e 1321 iub caue,.9001/43ani ECUiou • ',mole ol11su2bou9Pou Eu8144e812 ) Elll6q Crum) Ednnou: ru(y = ru(X)3'e8 VCh11 D819 b0luh 0 S' 000 3'000 t•000 2 000 8'000 1'000 8'000 - a'000 40'000 11'000 1s000 13'000 - 14'000 ,sr000 100 S00 300 EINOG Cane X = 1000 2d E661 el022 EIo01 VL69 /00 200 800 /00 800 300 1000 1100 1500 1300 kBS=0'81 vn«.6s u.$ Dsts blot suG E dnst!0u 11'03 yne►98e Elate 3'29 - S8'80 e12 'putts o1 uslea 2tsugslq Den!9t!ou ILO esueL9S!ou bet. J000 ad. keel ewes woo'. visa D!l.ect!ous! D!2 L!pngou: 200\0 euteuu8' 200\0 exit!u8 VA6Lsas 1000 2d' gest aev: 18� k!nwp6L 01 2inq!s2: �8 ou s: MssKgsA dneLa8e AeN(cie lyb Euga na: 4000 2d' Esst el022 E!00L VL89 27IPa e (J 0) esUsl9I Oti!cs gniIgiva 1S2a Jbeo Sub esueLskiou' alp Eggiou • Iu2Mls o! lisu2b01494i0u Eua!uGeie abna cliff slsirleV sgs7svA = T E!11s9 CnLns Edns!!ou: rua) = 0'80 ru(X) + J'21 x yc{nsl psis bo!uiz 1'000 5'000 3'000 4'000 0 b!usq corns X = 1000 2d* Esei emu EIooL vLes 1000 5000 x ki5 = 0'83 VAGL936 1016 x 3000 D94s b104 suq Ednsl!ou !.2e oreo - 2'88 1'10 ynGL9ae !isle ejsuas of Bs162 21sugsLq Dsn!sl!ou l�lb eeusi.sijlou bsi. .1000 2d• E6e4 O!.022 Eloon. Vise D!LeciiousI DI2fLIpniiou: ggo\o su(suua' )50\0 exliiud VAeLsas 4000 2d' EesI GEV: 555 mnwpel o} 2Tngis2: 5,18 d w bs9K HOM pu s: meeppA' yAGLsae AGIJ!C161Llb Euge ne: 4000 2d' Leaf emu E1001. bass (110) GOUGLSI p4tics gnijgiva 28'Page lub esus.sgou' a1N Egiliou • IuswnUs of 1Lsu2bous;IOU EuaiussL2 blusq Cm -AG Ednsilou: 1= J'J 5(X) + 18'12 X Vsals1 Ds{a boiula 0 zbn3 gihT sloirisV sesievA = T 6!Jlsq cnlAs X = 1000 2d' E66i e1022 glom vies l000 S000 83 = 0'85 ynsLsaa H9IG 3000 Ds�s blot suq Edns;lou J.da 0'10 - e'3a J'31 VA6L8ae Us18 bsuae o} y91e2 2igugsLq Dsnisi!ou 1►!b esusLsilou bei. J000 2d• bssf GL022 EIOOL Vise D!Lec;lousI Dl2}upn}iou: a to\\ eu}euua' 830\° exi}iva yneLsas 1000 2d. Eeel GeV: 54 2 fnwp6L o} 2}ngie2: 33e !YIN' best( Horn ou s: mest(gsA' vAeLsae AGIJICI6ILlb Eug2 A2: J000 2d• bsei gLo22 ElooL yLes (110) oeu6LsI 044!CG BnhIgiva 29IPage Jse The ITE trip generation charts above all illustrate huge ranges in the number of trips generated that were identified by the Studies. This wide range in trips generated is what we addressed in both of our earlier trip generation sensitivity studies. ITE notes these ranges for Office Buildings for trips generated: Total Day: 3.58 — 28.8 Trips / 1,000 sq. ft. At the original 92,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 332 to 2,648 new trips / weekday. At 83,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 297 to 2,390 new trips / weekday. AM Rush: 0.60 — 5.98 Trips / 1,000 sq. ft. At the original 92,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 197 to 520 new trips / AM Rush Hour. (vs: 181 trips (159 in and 22 out) Applicant Submits for the AM peak hour) At 83,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 178 to 496 new trips / AM Rush Hour. PM Rush: 0.49 — 6.39 Trips / 1,000 sq. ft. At the original 92,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 41 to 530 trips / PM Rush Hour. (vs: 183 trips (31 in and 152 out) Applicant Submits for the PM peak hour) At 83,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 45 to 587 new trips / PM Rush Hour. Applicant's AM & PM Peak Hour figures are a small fraction of the max possible Peak hour trip count. We submitted this AM & PM rush hour sensitivity study for 92K sq. ft. at 370 to 735 tenant employees: 401-409 Albeito Daily Trip Count Sensitivi 2 hours as filed (Least Possible Traffic) 1 hour Rush 30 minute Rush 2 1 0.75 0.5 Tot PM Tot AM in 370 AM out 370 PM in 370 PM out 370 ntly as Presently as employees employees employees employees AM in 735 AM out 735 PM in 735 PM out 735 FileFF� as filed— _ as Filedn as File as Filed Employees We submitted this AM & PM rush hour sensitivity study for 83K sq. ft. at 340 to 663 tenant employees: Rush Period Trip Rate „_ r 405 Alberto Revised PD Daily ID Rush 2 presently p Filed i0 42 ployees Presently as yemployeesemployeesememployees Filed a as Revise as Revise as Revisr0 as Revise AM In 663 Employees 257 AM out 663 Employees 38 PM in 663 Employee 56 PM out 663 Employees 302 Trip Count .Sensitivity .Study 2 hours as filed (Least Possible Traffic) 8 143 19 28 152 IMEMIMI 1111iriaME 570 75 111 604 0.75 0.5 383 51 75 405 760 1140 100 151 148 222 805 1208 30 minute Rush 574 76 112 60: 30I Page Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 14 t66 Mlll p6 c9lcnlsteq pA _LOMU 2t9tt 92 beg Ot qJ6 Cougipoua of ybbLOAsI Iutolwspousl bnlbo262 oulA' _LIJ6 pnllq!ua 21se IJ92 2IUCs g6c16926q• _LIJS psi fl9WC Iwbscq Lief pnllglua 2Iss' UOt ewbloAwsut Ipe Iwbsct tee c91cnl9;lou 12 bLs2su‘6q lu Ipe _Litt tot IUC16926 Iu gsllA fLIb2. 1IJ6 C9ICnI9{IOU Ot g911A tLIbe 12 exblslusq Iu iIJ6 _Litt. Il 12 pseeq ou Hsxgaou K62bouae: _LIJe t1.911lc IwbsCf 166 cslcfI9l;lou 12 ps2sq ou fps eal;Iwstsq usl; Cowwsuiec view qe r02 esf02 (ba 3e) Monlg p6 bsiq pA f6U9U42 6WbI0A!Ud 32 b60b16' (MGM COww6u0 COww6Uf: _Ll9tuc t66 C91CnI9jI0U n262 joo 9gq!j10U9I 4L0b2 MIJICp nUg612fst62 ipe t66 fp9j Cowwsut #4V: Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 14 The notion that trips are based on Building Size and not tenant employees and their visitor traffic is patently ridiculous. ITE just simply doesn't perform the studies down to the root cause in the case of General Office Buildings while it does take into account the traffic from visitors to the tenant employees for other Land Use types that recognize the nature of the tenant employee densities and the frequency of trips generated by various types of businesses. Hexagon would have the Town believe that an 83K sq. ft. office building that's occupied by 100 tenant employees generates the same number of trips that a similar office building with 700 employees would just because it's the same size. People generate trips, not buildings. ITE's methodology does not go to this Root Cause for trip generation. If there is an approval for the PD, whether this Plan or another, it should limit Occupancy by limiting the number of Tenant Employees to about 300 and be accompanied by a change in the parcel's Conditional Use Permit from Mixed Use to "Commercial Office Use." Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 27 2!au1tic9uj blo)scr: Iwb9cte mew lgeufItIeq 91oua r02 es;o2 gonleAslq• Hsxgaou geebou2s: _LPG _Litt sU9lAs6q IUl;6L26cplou2 OU ro2 e9f02 Bon'sA9tq* 1,40 Cowweuga: bnsplo qe roe esio2 (Sg) Migeueq. MeM COww6U() COwweul: 1/l0 1LIb CJeUoL9plud bioieq eponlq p6 sbbLOA6q p6t016 r02 0%02 eOnl6A9Lq I2 COww6UI #51: 31IPage Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 27 Hexagon completely misses the point of our comment. The congested 2 lane section of Los Gatos Blvd from Main Street in front of the Town Hall to Van Meter Elementary where it transitions to 4 lanes is the root cause of the Eastbound congestion on Hwy-9. We view this "oversight" as a disingenuous attempt to help its client, Lamb Partners, gain approval with a truth -free distraction. Only widening of Los Gatos Blvd between Van Meter and Main Street can relieve the traffic. We spent several weekdays during the four rush hours on Hwy-9 at Alberto Way. It became clear that no rearrangement or coordination of signal lights can relieve the Hwy-9 peak congestion. Hexagon Response to Construction Comments 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31 H6x9aou bj62b0u26: b16926 266 162b0U26 t0 cowwsU1 J 2' COW1116Uj61: bnspIo q6 r02 e91o2 (I5) blobel;A (m6M COWW614) PILU62' 69Cp 9LLIAIUd IU 9 26b91916 Aspic's' R 12 UOt bo22Ip16 10l jpsw t0 911 bat( OU 1P6 bD COUJU161.1f: pnliud cou2{LnCtloU' MOLK C16M2 Of 20-J 00 p6 bL626u1 OU 11J6 2116 91 911 CowuMut # 55: H6x9aou K62bou26: b16926 266 162b0u26 to CowUJeU1 J 2 Coww6Ur61: bn6pIo qe ro2 esto2 (15) ex16ugeq beliog2 (vi6tA COWLUGut) COUJUJ61.1j: AO c0U211nc110U bl9U C9U b16A6u1 cOUJbI616 2pn1gocu yIpslto MsA 1Ol Coww6ut #54: 1L9u2boL191!OU UJOg62 p6 wsiu 91ueq gnllua C0U2jLnCPIOU• p6 9ftscf6q' 9Uq 01p61 g619112 14J6 IOMU M111 L6dn116 fp91 sgedn916 9CC622 fol. 911 fps Un1UpGL suq tAb62 of 1LnCK2 1P91 9CC622 (p6 2116' mpelpGL 11J6 21L661 OL 21g6M9fK MITI c0U21LnC110u b19u MIll iuqicsfs tub g9A2 suq pUJ62 Ot COU21LnC1i0U' MpGL6 MOLK6L2 MIll b9LK' 1�J6 COU119CtOL Mill b16b9L6 9Uq 2np1U11 9 g6191l6q cou21LnCpou bisu 10L jomu sbbloAs[• 1ps H6x9ao1.1 K62bou26: COu2fLncf!ou g6(9Ij2 916 'JOT KuoMu 911JI2 11W6' bL10110 COU21LrCp0U' COww6U461: bnGpto qG ro2 e9102 (ba 1.0) bGg621119U29Uq 119U211 gnhiUd cou21LnCpou suq gswoopoU' (V/j6M cowwsu1) cowwcut: 1116 bLo16C1 conjq b016u11911A IUC16926 p9S91g2 qn6 10 g621du 1691n162 IOL pIK62' COWWGUf #42: 32'Page H6x9a0u b62boU2s: b16926 266 L62b0U26 j0 COWW614 Jp' COWWG1461.: B92I19W' vicDousiq' LOMI6l Iwb9C12 j0 b6g624149U2(MGM cowweujj COWWGU4: Li66q j0 9ggL622 lLnCK 4L9tLIC IWb9Cj2 qn6 j0 p69C$J 4L9tt!C• Cou2jlnCjl0U j19tt!C COWW6u4 *34 cou2jlnCj!OU• C9I4L9u2 IOL 9UA MOLT( IU We 2t9t6 LIapj-Ot-M9A• C91119U2 MITI 26j fps 161W2 Ot We H6x9aoU issaboues: ljJs blolscj MITI ps Lsdnu.eq j0 Opj91U 9u sucL09cpw6Uj b6LWij tLOW CoWWsujsl: bnspl0 qs roe ewe (43) Wljld9jiOu tot. j}J6 COU2(LnC(IOU COU4L9Cj imp C9l4L9U2• (V6M COwW6Uj) COW WGU4: INJJ 1-5 C91I2 4OL 9 COU24LnC4IOU COU5L9Cj AMP r02 e9j02' IJOM6A6L' was 12 UO CoWWSUi ##30: Lsbsll\onsg9A fps b9n6w6uj IoIIoMiva COU24Lncjiou' Hsx9aou Ksabou26: 1pe loMu p92 iugicsjsq 4IJ9j jlJs bLolscj MITI ps LedntLsq jo Cowwsujsl: bnsplo qe r02 e9%02 (43) 4OU2' (MGM COwUJ6U1) g62j1OA6q OL 26Lion21A g9wsdeq pA fps tnliA losgsq COUCL6j6 4LnCK2 MIJICIJ M61djJ nb to 80 Cowwsuj: pnuud cou24Lncjiou' jus Lo9q pege otylpsljo M9A suq HMA-a M!II p6 COWW6Uj Itsa: Hsx9aou Ks2boues: bis926 2ss Lsebou2s t0 COWW614 J� CowwsulsL: bnsplo qs roe ewe (43) suq HMA-a. (m6M Cowwsuj) fps 2!fe MijI I69A6 Mijp csl(6q-ou wnq ou well 0.62' Mp!CIJ Mill P6 gebo24sq iU ylpsljo MsA cowweut: It M9j6L l2 n26q 10 COU4LOI b914ICn19j62 gnLlud COU24L cflou' jus 4LncK2 sxijiud COWWGU4 ##5S: Citizen's Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on Construction Comments 15, 21, 22, 28,29,30,31 We expect significant lengthening of any construction schedule stated by Applicant and Hexagon at this time due to the high ground water level requiring the building to need the foundation to be poured into a de -watered coffer darn during construction. This will have a prolonged impact on us. It is our conclusion that Lamb or Hexagon don't share any detail from any past Construction Plans or offer references because they know how much impact the Construction will have on us and do not want to address these issues at all since they know how significant it is and would otherwise try to minimize the disclosed impact magnitude. 33 I P a e Traffic Engineers know they're guessing "new trips generated" The subject of trips generated is known by the industry not to be an exact science. For example, this article explains the study ageing and acknowledges the trip generation is a guess at best: http://www.mikeontraffic.com/local_trip_generation_data/ This one discusses the ITE data set sample sizes and questions the validity of its use when there is not large enough sample for the data upon which it's built to be statistically valid: https: //www.linkedin. com/pulse/ite-trip-generation-manual-understanding-its-limitations- gordon-meth Attached is a scholarly paper titled: Truth in Transportation Planning by DONALD C. SHOUP, of University of California, Los Angeles published in 2003 in which the ITE limitations are outed. There are dozens of similar publications. The bottom line is: ITE methodology is not strictly reliable. We proposed instead a sensitivity study methodology for "new trips generated" and that the Traffic Conclusion is based on the "top of the trip generation range." This prevents Los Gatos from accepting lowballed new trips generated from Applicants and their consultants who have economic incentives to under -state traffic generation by their projects and then leave the Town to fund the infrastructure, and the citizens to suffer the consequences. Los Gatos has a History of denying developments that generate more traffic than its roads can support The notable recent denial is the North 40. This old article from the SJ Mercury illustrates the point: this development was at first denied due to traffic impact and later approved. 34IPa e • 66UGL9(6q p? (pG ynpgin!2!ou' 9120 2s!q WOL6 (LsF1!c Monlq p6 9691U2(1p6 bw)6c(' Coww72210U612 yp6 COWW!2210u Ao(6q 8-3 sbbLonsl of (p6 bco)scr p6G9126 132 2916 M92 000(W66U( ou uom ry6 went W9? DO( psbb6u 119A6 p66u N61q 006E fps a69L2' Bn( 19166 GIAIG suq 0p9u1? p6u61112' R191 6916L1 Mp6L6 M6ggw62' suq m9u(6q 10 L61!L6 suq clone 1p6 bob !c6 L621917L9U( (oC 30 ?69L2' p92 rnp!cp p92 ob6Ls(6g (p6 A1119 h61- yp6 1;IGp9Lq BGL29uo (9W11?' bLob6L(?' c1-o/q nog:spice of (pc A!119 h6116.6 9L69yomupon26 g6A610b36Ut2 !u10 su s1L69q? 0AGL-g6n61ob6q M92 (L?!u6 to cc9w (00 Wsu?, nun zoos to wing 2!u616-(sung? po1u62' !R PLG91p(sy!u6 A16M 01 (`91(6 A9- g6Wopzinu6 1116 A!119 h6:66 M!tp 791.1162 H' 212K' Mpo psq bcoboz6q COWW!22!ou612 29!q g6A61ob6c A!I19 h611G6 1.62190L9U1 UOM 2(9Ug2' (OM 9GL62 Mp6L6 176 M611-KU0MU 54-130w6 2npg1612102 10 p6 pnpt 011 Cow61221ou p92 gew6q bjsu2 pm. s Bon16A9Lq' cps 1'02 C91o2 b190111116 (191110 ou s1L69q? p32? M!U0p6216L C!t!u6 p!6p g6u2!1? suq WOL6 him.. 218i1 M12 BA CouulG gy!b!(sL62 Bar cps 1not61 OMU61. z919.12 1V , plq - !u pscK of (ix bcolsc(„ 0.I'9nl3ppu 2s!q' It,2 pn16q ms?. !( (p!2 bLol60( M6L6 mom L6w9!u 6cou0w!cs11? A!9p16 I csuuo( p6116A6 [Nr2 u1o(61 1p6 Mp016 A!(19 h61!G6 bLob614?' Monlq law (oo wsu? pow62 01110 pn!Im work po12!u6 n41112' mplcp suq 92y (116 (OMU (OL b6LU1221011 (0 W!6p( g6c!g6 10 6o on( of prtz!u622 yUq ()16 W0163 2 OMU612' p6 291g' p92.6 9 p16 bLOp16w ou 1p6!L p9Ug2' 61162(2' 9Uq IOMU 011161912 mom n.s((!c' g61!A6L? C1.1161(2 suq mnn11. p66!u cowbls!uiu6 spool (p6 Wo(61 1.62!g6ury o1 1p6 2npq!n12!ou Monlq I!u 291q p6 1pon6pl fps(' 0A6L Pw6' COWW12210u6L 1,91L161( O.r9n6P- 2npq!A!21ou- j'66 C(1926' Mp0 AO16g (0 L61661 1p6 ccss?'„ 2s!q counin22!ou cp9!LW9u (116 W0(61 m111 gLIA6 (p6 L624161 2 ,.1 [piny 6n6z(2 6o!u6 [0 suq (Low o1 p0I1262 (O 661 11.16L6' mluglu6 tpcon8p tp6 u6!6ppoLpooq W91u !u ob6Ls1!ou' M!1p (Ls11!c 116x[ 10 tp6 L621901.914 tempi L6- (116 (9c( cps( Cp6 A!II9 h6pc6 ('og6c V120 0( 600061.13 10 1116 b91161 61,92 Io[ 1u MAW 12 8'000 2d09L6 1661. yp6 9063.966 2111616-19111!1? 31011J6 p6 paw ou d'000-2dnsL6-(oo1 lore 62 OI 1'300 [0 3'800 2d091.6 1661 (0 nillg FIGITCG s � OIJJG2 Jf L6I6Cp *in iot mamatm; -71 bgae a - L1B01n\2% 301, 011 0 ] Mp�U H�97 6bGu2'i. At 9cq buwo 62t ^ (PG to bOL9t6 p(21- M4/cp_ conbdA.Nlga Mtn' _a�a•L.o•. - - qsu u9(ms rz s E94t� �s =• camp w. ...same u R 22 Conclusion A valid decision under law is not made if any entity makes decisions based on invalid methodology that leaves Environmental Impacts unidentified or unmitigated. In conclusion, it is prudent to deny the planned development based on the magnitude of existing traffic (as illustrated by the photos of Peak Traffic we submitted on April 6, 2017) plus the traffic 35IPa e generated by the Proposed Development. The dated studies used by ITE and the reduction in square feet occupied by each tenant employee in multi -tenant Silicon Valley offices today (as illustrated by our August 18, 2016 submission) will create inexorable congestion for all Los Gatos residents and visitors to suffer. The EIR failed to identify the magnitude of the existing traffic as well as the maximum magnitude and impact of the added traffic. 36IPa e Truth in Transportation Planning DONALD C. SHOUP University of California, Los Angeles ABSTRACT Transportation engineers and urban planners often report uncertain estimates as precise numbers, and unwarranted trust in the accuracy of these precise numbers can lead to bad transportation and land - use policies. This paper presents data on parking and trip generation rates to illustrate the misuse of precise numbers to report statistically insignificant estimates. Beyond the problem of statistical insignif- icance, parking and trip generation rates typically report the parking demand and vehicle trips observed at suburban sites with ample free parking and no public transit. When decisionmakers use these parking and trip generation rates for city plan- ning, they create a city where everyone drives to their destinations and parks free when they get there. Beware of certainty where none exists. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN INTRODUCTION How far is it from San Diego to San Francisco? An estimate of 632.125 miles is precise but not accu- rate. An estimate of somewhere between 400 and 500 miles is less precise but more accurate, because KEYWORDS: parking, regression analysis, urban planning. 1 the correct answer is 460 miles.' Nevertheless, if you did not know the distance from San Diego to San Francisco, whom would you believe: someone who confidently says 632.125 miles or someone who tentatively says somewhere between 400 and 500 miles? You would probably believe the one who says 632.125 miles, because precision creates the impression of accuracy. Although reporting estimates with extreme preci- sion suggests confidence in their accuracy, transpor- tation engineers and urban planners often use precise numbers to report uncertain estimates. As examples of this practice, I will use two manuals published by the Institute of Transportation Engi- neers (ITE): Parking Generation (ITE 1987a) and Trip Generation (ITE 1987b, 1991, 1997). These manuals have enormous practical consequences for transportation and land use. Urban planners rely on parking generation rates to establish off-street park- ing requirements, and transportation planners rely on trip generation rates to predict the traffic impacts of development proposals. Yet a close look at the parking and trip generation data shows that placing unwarranted trust in these precise but uncertain estimates of travel behavior leads to bad transporta- tion and land -use policies. TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation reports the number of vehicle trips as a function of land use. Transportation engineers survey the number of vehicle trips to and from a variety of locations, and for each land use the ITE reports a trip generation rate that relates the number of vehicle trips to a characteristic of the land use, such as the floor area or number of employees at a site. The sixth (and most recent) edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1997, vol. 3, pp. ix and 1) describes the data used to estimate trip generation rates as follows: This document is based on more than 3,750 trip generation studies submitted to the Institute by public agencies, developers, consulting firms, and associations.... Data were primarily col - The airline distance between San Diego and San Fran- cisco is calculated from the latitudes and longitudes of the two cities. See "How far is it?" at http://www.indo.com/ distance/. "Accurate" implies fidelity to fact and freedom from error, while "precise" implies exactness. lected at suburban localities with little or no transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities, or travel demand management programs. ITE says nothing about the price of parking at the study sites, but since parking is free for 99% of vehicle trips in the United States, most of the study sites probably offer free parking.' Trip Generation uses these 3,750 studies to estimate 1,515 trip gen- eration rates, one for each type of land use. Half the 1,515 reported trip generation rates are based on five or fewer studies, and 23 % are based on a single study.3 The trip generation rates thus typically mea- sure the number of vehicle trips observed at a few suburban sites with free parking but little or no pub- lic transit service, pedestrian amenities, or travel demand management (TDM) programs. Urban planners who rely on these trip generation rates as guides to design the transportation system are there- fore planning an automobile -dependent city. Figure 1 shows a typical page from the fourth edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1987b).4 It reports the number of vehicle trips to and from fast food restaurants on a weekday. Each point in the figure represents one of the eight studies and shows the number of vehicle trips per day and the floor area at a restaurant. Dividing the number of vehicle trips by the floor area at that restaurant gives the trip genera- tion rate at that restaurant. A glance at the figure suggests that vehicle trips are unrelated to floor area in this sample. The extremely low R2 of 0.069 for the fitted curve (regression) equation confirms this 2 The U.S. Department of Transportation's 1990 Nation- wide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) asked respondents, "Did you pay for parking during any part of this trip?" for all automobile trips made on the previous day. Of the responses to this question, 99% were "no." The NPTS asked the "did you pay for parking" question for all vehicle trips except trips that ended at the respon- dents' homes, thus free parking at home does not explain this high percentage. 3 This refers to the sixth edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1997). The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (ITE 2001, p. 10) notes that the warning "Caution —Use Carefully — Small Sample Size" is placed on each trip generation report if the sample includes five or fewer sites. At most sites, vehicle trips are observed during the course of only one day. 4 The fourth edition (ITE 1987b) is shown because this is the date of the most recent edition of Parking Generation, to which Trip Generation will be compared. Vehicle trips were surveyed at McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, Burger Chef, and similar fast food restaurants. 2 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003 FIGURE 1 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window (Land Use 834) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area On a: weekday TRIP GENERATION RATES Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Average Trip Rate Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 Rates Deviation Studies Square Feet GFA 632.125 284.00-1,359.00 8 3.0 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION T - AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP ENDS 2,800 2,600 2,400 2.200 2.000 1,800 1.600 1,400 1.200 1.000 800 CAUTION —USE CAREFULLY —LOW R2. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 X = 1,000 SQUARE FEET GFA ❑ ACTUAL DATA POINTS — FITTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: T = 242.75 (X) + 1,168.0 R2 = 0.069 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Not available. 4 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 4th edition (Washington, DC: 1987), p. 1,199. impression.' Nevertheless, ITE reports the sample's average trip generation rate —which urban planners normally interpret as the significant relationship between floor area and vehicle trips —as precisely 632.125 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area.' The trip generation rate looks accurate because it is so precise, but the precision is mislead- s "The coefficient of determination [R2] is defined as the percent of the variance in the number of trips associated with the variance in the size of the independent variable" (ITE 1997, vol. 3, p. 19). An R2 of zero shows complete lack of correlation between the two variables, and one would expect some correlation in a sample by chance. The significance test for the regression equation shows there is a 53% chance of getting an R2 of 0.069 or higher even if there were no relationship between floor area and vehicle trips. ing. Few transportation or land -use decisions would be changed if the ITE reported the trip generation rate as 632 rather than 632.125 trips per 1,000 square feet, so the three -decimal -point precision serves no purpose other than to give the impression of accuracy. The equation at the bottom of figure 1 suggests that a fast food restaurant generates 1,168 trips (the intercept) plus 242.75 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area (the coefficient), but the 95% confidence interval around the floor area coefficient ranges from —650 to +1,141 trips per 1,000 square feet.' Since this confidence interval contains zero, the data 6 ITE (1987b, p. 9) divides the sum of all vehicle trips by the sum of all floor areas to calculate the weighted aver- age trip generation rate. SHOUP 3 do not show that vehicle trips are related to floor area. Reporting the average trip generation rate implies that larger restaurants generate more vehicle trips, but the figure shows that the smallest restau- rant generated the most trips, and a mid -sized res- taurant generated the fewest. The data plot contains the warning "Caution —Use Carefully —Low R2," which is good advice, but how can we carefully use a trip generation rate derived from data that show no relationship between vehicle trips and floor area? Despite its precision, the average trip generation rate (623.125 vehicle trips per day per 1,000 square feet) is far too uncertain to use for transportation planning. PARKING GENERATION Parking generation rates, which report peak park- ing occupancy as a function of land use, suffer from similar uncertainty. ITE's second, and most recent, edition of Parking Generation (ITE 1987a, p. vii—xv8) describes the data used to esti- mate parking generation rates. A vast majority of the data ... is derived from suburban developments with little or no signifi- cant transit ridership. . . The ideal site for obtaining reliable parking generation data would ... contain ample, convenient parking facilities for the exclusive use of the traffic gen- erated by the site.... The objective of the survey is to count the number of vehicles parked at the time of peak parking demand. Half the 101 parking generation rates are based on 4 or fewer studies, and 22% are based on 1 study. The parking generation rates thus typically measure the peak parking demand observed at a few subur- ban sites with ample free parking but little or no transit ridership. Urban planners who use these parking generation rates to set minimum parking requirements therefore shape a city where everyone will drive wherever they go and park free when they get there. Figure 2 shows the page for fast food restaurants from the most recent edition of Parking Generation The confidence interval around the coefficient of floor area was calculated by re -estimating the regression equa- tion from the eight observations in the data plot. $ ITE expects to publish a new edition of Parking Genera- tion in 2003. (ITE 1987a). Each point in the plot represents one study (based on the observations at one site on one day). For example, if parking occupancy was observed at one restaurant for five days, this was counted as five studies.' Dividing the peak parking occupancy observed in a study by the floor area at the restaurant gives the parking generation rate for the study. The parking generation rates in the 18 studies range between 3.55 and 15.92 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable floor area. The largest restaurant in the sample generated one of the lowest peak parking occupancies, while a mid -sized restau- rant generated the highest. The R2 of 0.038 for the equation at the bottom of the figure confirms the visual impression that parking demand is unrelated to floor area in this sample. Nevertheless, ITE reports the average parking generation rate for a fast food restaurant as precisely 9.95 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area.10 Again, the precision is misleading. The fitted curve equation at the bottom of figure 2 suggests that a fast food restaurant generates a peak parking demand of 20 spaces plus 1.95 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, but the 95% confidence interval around the floor area coefficient ranges from —3 to +7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Since this confidence interval contains zero, the data do 9 It appears that eight restaurants were observed for one day, one restaurant was observed for two days, and two restaurants were observed for four days. We are not told the hour(s), the weekday, or the month when parking occupancy was observed. The 18 studies of parking occu- pancy at fast food restaurants are an unusually large sam- ple. In contrast, consider the report on Technical Colleges (Land Use 541). Parking occupancy was observed for one hour on one day at one site, and on this basis the parking generation rate for a technical college is reported as 0.82 parking spaces per student (ITE 1987a, p. 88). Parking occupancy was observed for only one or two hours for many of the studies in Parking Generation. Because only the peak occupancy at a site is needed to calculate a park- ing generation rate, the observer's main concern is to report the peak number of cars parked during the hour(s) of expected peak demand. 1° The significance test for the regression equation shows there is a 42% chance of getting an R2 of 0.038 or higher even if there were no relationship between floor area and parking occupancy. ITE (1987a, p. viii) divides the sum of all parking generation rates by the number of studies to calculate the unweighted average parking generation rate. 4 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003 FIGURE 2 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -In Window (Land Use 836) Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: 1,000 Gross Square Feet Leasable Area On a: weekday PARKING GENERATION RATES Average Rate Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 GSF Rates Deviation Studies Leasable Area 9.95 3.55-15.92 3.41 18 3 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION P = PEAK PARKING SPACES OCCUPIED 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 CAUTION —USE CAREFULLY —LOW R2. ❑ ❑❑ oo 1 i 1 1 i 2 3 4 5 X = 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET LEASABLE AREA 6 ❑ACTUAL DATA POINTS — FITTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.95(X) + 20.0 R2= 0.038 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 2nd edition (Washington, DC: 1987), p. 146. not show that parking demand is related to floor area." The average parking generation rate of 9.95 spaces per 1,000 square feet is due mainly to the intercept, which is independent of floor area.' Predicting a parking demand of 26 spaces for every restaurant in this sample —regardless of restaurant size —produces about the same average error as 11 The confidence interval around the coefficient of floor area was calculated by re -estimating the regression equa- tion from the 18 observations in the data plot. 12 Because the intercept is 20 spaces and the average floor area is 3,000 square feet, the average parking generation rate would be 6.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet even if the coefficient of floor area were 0. predicting a parking demand of 9.95 spaces per 1,000 square feet.'' We cannot say much about how floor area affects either vehicle trips or parking demand, because the 95% confidence interval around the floor area coefficient includes zero in both cases.14 This is not to say that vehicle trips and parking demand are unre- lated to a restaurant's size, because common sense suggests some correlation. Nevertheless, factors other 13 The average peak parking occupancy for the 8 studies was 26 spaces. 14 Statistical insignificance does not imply that floor area has no effect on parking demand or vehicle trips; rather, it means that floor area does not reliably predict either vari- able. SHOUP 5 than the floor area explain most of the variation in vehicle trips and peak parking occupancy at these res- taurants. Size does not matter much in these two samples of parking and trip generation, and it is mis- leading to publish precise average parking and trip generation rates based on floor area. Parking generation rates are hardly scientific, but the authority inherent in ITE publications often means that planners automatically regard I1'E rates as scientifically valid and do not examine them fur- ther. ITE offers a precise number without raising difficult public policy questions, although it does warn, "Users of this report should exercise extreme caution when utilizing data that is based on a small number of studies" (ITE 1987a, p. vii). Neverthe- less, many planners recommend parking generation rates as minimum parking requirements. For exam- ple, the median parking requirement for fast food restaurants in the United States is 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet —almost identical to I'1'E's reported parking generation rate.15 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE The combination of extreme precision and statisti- cal insignificance for the parking and trip genera- tion rates for a fast food restaurant raises an important question: how many of the parking and trip generation rates for other land uses are statisti- cally significant? The fourth edition of Trip Gener- ation (ITE 1987b) does not state a policy on statistical significance, but it does show the plots and equations for most land uses with more than two data points. Nevertheless, it fails to show the plots and equations for some land uses with more than 10 data points. For example, consider the report of trip generation at recreational land uses. ITE presents 14 studies of trip generation at recre- ational land uses but says "No Plot or Equation Available —Insufficient Data." The trip generation rates in the 14 studies range from a high of 296 to a low of 0.066 trips per acre on a weekday: a ratio of 4,500 to 1. Given this wide range, reporting the 15 The Planning Advisory Service (1991) surveyed the park- ing requirements in 127 cities. The median of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet applies to cities that base their require- ments for fast food restaurants on gross floor area. Peak Parking Occupancy vs. Parking Demand A big difference exists between "parking occupancy" and "parking demand." Transportation engineers define the former as the number of parked cars. Economists define the latter as the functional relationship between the price of parking and the number of parked cars, and they define the actual number of parked cars at any time as the quantity of parking demanded at a specific price. Economists call the peak parking occupancy observed at a site that offers free parking the quantity of parking demanded at a zero price at the time of peak parking demand. These differing definitions show the confusion that can result when ITE's parking generation rates are loosely referred to as parking demand. average trip generation rate as precisely 3.635 trips per acre is clearly misleading.16 ITE first stated a policy regarding statistical sig- nificance in the fifth edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1991, p. I-8): Best fit curves are shown in this report only when each of the following three conditions are met: • The R2 is greater than or equal to 0.25. • The sample size is greater than or equal to 4. • The number of trips increases as the size of the independent variable increases." The third criterion is notably unscientific. For exam- ple, suppose the R2 is greater than 0.25 and the sam- ple size is greater than four, but vehicle trips decrease as floor area increases (i.e., the first two criteria are met but the third is not). In this case, ITE would report the average trip generation rate (which implies that vehicle trips increase as floor area increases), but not the regression equation that would cast doubt on this rate. The stated policy, therefore, omits evidence that would contradict the presumed relationship. Figure 3 from the fifth edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1991) shows how these three criteria affect the report of trip generation at a fast food restaurant. It shows the same eight data points from the fourth edi- tion, but it omits the regression equation, the R2, and the warning "Caution —Use Carefully —Low R2." The omitted R2 remains 0.069 because the data are 16 In the fourth edition of Trip Generation, Land Use 400 (Recreational) includes bowling alleys, zoos, sea worlds, lakes, pools, and regional parks (ITE 1987b, p. 537). 17 ITE gives no explanation for showing the regression equation and the R2 only when all three criteria are met. 6 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003 FIGURE 3 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window (Land Use 834) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area On a: weekday Number of Studies: 8 Average 1,000 Sq. Feet GFA: 3 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 632.12 284.00-1,359.50 266.29 Data Plot and Equation T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends 2,800 2,700 X 2,600 — 2,500 — 2,400 2,300 — 2,200 — 2,100 — 2,000 — 1,900 1,800 1,700 — 1,600 1,500 x x 1,400 1,300 -X.. • 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 x 2 3 4 X = 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area x Actual Data Points Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2= "`" Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th edition (Washington, DC: 1991), p. 1,308. unchanged from the fourth edition, but the fifth edition is more cautious about needless precision; it truncates the average trip generation rate from 632.125 to 632.12 trips per 1,000 square feet.18 ITE revised its reporting policy in the sixth (most recent) edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1997, p. 19). Regression equations are shown only if the R2 is greater than or equal to 0.5, while the other two 18 Figure 3 (from the fifth edition) also differs from figure 1 (from the fourth edition) in two other respects. First, the directional distribution of vehicle trips was "not available" in 1987, but for the same data became "50% entering, 50% exiting" in 1991. Second, the standard deviation was not reported in 1987 but was reported as 266.29 in 1991. criteria remain the same (the sample size is four or more, and vehicle trips increase as the independent variable increases). Figure 4 shows the sixth edi- tion's report of trip generation at a fast food restau- rant. The number of studies increased to 21, and the average trip generation rate fell to 496.12 trips per 1,000 square feet. The R2 is below 0.5, but we are not told what it is. Since the fifth edition's rate was 632.12 trips per 1,000 square feet, anyone compar- ing the two editions might conclude that vehicle trips at fast food restaurants declined 22% between 1991 and 1997. But since both the previous rate (632.12) and the new one (496.12) were derived from data SHOUP 7 FIGURE 4 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window (Land Use 834) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area On a: weekday Number of Studies: 21 Average 1,000 Sq. Feet GFA: 3 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 496.12 195.98-1,132.92 242.52 Data Plot and Equation T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends 5,000 4,000 3,000 — 2,000 1,000 0 x x x x X. x x 1 3 4 5 6 7 X = 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area x Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given Average Rate 9 nstitute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th edition (Washington, DC: 1997), p. 1,401. that show almost no relationship between floor area and vehicle trips, this decline seems unlikely.19 The 1997 edition shows regression equations for only 34% of the trip generation rates, which means that 66% of the 1,515 trip generation rates fail to meet at least one of the three criteria. This statistical 19 If the 8 studies from the fourth (ITE 1987b) and fifth (ITE 1991) editions are included among the 21 studies reported in the sixth (ITE 1997) edition, the average trip generation rate for the 13 new studies must be well below 496.12 in order to reduce the average rate for the 21 stud- ies to 496.12. All of the 8 study sites in the fourth and fifth editions were exactly 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 square feet, but none of the 21 study sites in the sixth edition matched these sizes. insignificance is not surprising given that circum- stances vary enormously among different sites for the same land use (e.g., a fast food restaurant). Floor area is only one among many factors that influence vehicle trips at a site, and we should not expect floor area or any other single variable to accurately predict the number of vehicle trips at any site or land use 2° 20 Trip generation rates are a stripped -down version of the gravity model for travel forecasting. The gravity model predicts aggregate traffic between origin and desti- nation zones as a function of zone sizes and generalized travel cost, while trip generation rates predict traffic to and from one site as a function of floor area (or another variable) at that site, without reference to cost. 8 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003 Although 66% of the trip generation rates fail to meet 11'h's significance criteria, ITE nevertheless publishes a precise trip generation rate for every land use. For example, a report of trip generation at truck terminals (figure 5) presents two sites, with the larger site generating fewer vehicle trips. Nevertheless, ITE reports the average trip generation rate as precisely 81.90 vehicle trips per acre on a weekday and plots a line that suggests larger sites generate more vehicle trips. Reporting statistically insignificant estimates with misleading precision creates serious problems, because many people rely on the ITE manuals to predict how urban development will affect parking and traffic. When estimating the traffic impacts of development, for example, developers and cities often debate over whether a precise trip generation rate is correct. Some cities even base zoning catego- ries on trip generation rates. Consider this zoning ordinance in Beverly Hills, California: The intensity of use shall not exceed either six- teen (16) vehicle trips per hour, or 200 vehicle trips per day for each 1,000 gross square feet of floor area for uses as specified in the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers' pub- lication entitled Trip Generation.21 The precise but uncertain ITE data thus govern which land uses the city will allow. Parking and trip generation rates are difficult to challenge once they are incorporated into municipal codes. Planning is an inherently uncertain activity, but the legal system of land -use regulation makes it difficult to acknowledge uncertainty in planning regulations. Calling attention to the flaws in the reporting of the parking and trip generation rates would expose land -use decisions to countless law- suits from developers, neighborhood groups, and property rights advocates, all of whom could rightly question the legitimacy of the reasoning used to establish off-street parking requirements and to argue for either more or less parking. This desire for the appearance of certainty explains why transpor- 21 Section 10-3.162(5) of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. (ITE changed its name from the Institute of Traffic Engineers to the Institute of Transportation Engineers in 1976.) tation engineers, urban planners, developers, and elected officials rely on precise point estimates — rather than ranges —to report the highly uncertain parking and trip generation rates. PLANNING FOR FREE PARKING ITE's parking and trip generation rates can create serious problems when they are used for urban planning. Most ITE samples are too small to draw statistically significant conclusions, and ITE's method of collecting data skews observations toward sites with high parking and trip generation rates. Larger samples might solve the problem of statistical insig- nificance, but a basic problem with parking and trip generation rates would remain: they measure the peak parking demand and the number of vehicle trips at suburban sites with ample free parking. This situ- ation is troubling, because 11'h rates greatly influence the outcome of transportation and land -use planning, ultimately contributing to decisions that result in more traffic, lower density, and more urban sprawl. To explain how ITE's parking and trip generation rates influence transportation and land -use plan- ning, consider what appears in practice to be the six -step process of planning for free parking in the United States. • Step 1. Transportation engineers survey the peak parking demand at a few suburban sites with ample free parking but no transit service, and ITE publishes the results in Parking Generation with misleading precision. • Step 2. Urban planners consult Parking Genera- tion to set minimum parking requirements. The maximum observed parking demand thus becomes the minimum required parking supply. • Step 3. Developers provide all the parking that planners require, and the ample supply of park- ing drives the price of most parking to zero, which increases vehicle travel. • Step 4. Transportation engineers survey vehicle trips to and from suburban sites with ample free parking but no transit service, and ITE publishes the results in Trip Generation with misleading precision. SHOUP 9 FIGURE 5 Truck Terminal (Land Use 030) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Acres On a: weekday Number of Studies: 2 Average Number of Acres: 14 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Acre Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 81.90 66.27-100.08 Data Plot and Equation Caution —Use Carefully —Small Sample Size 1,300 1,200 - co a c w c) 1,100 - LE 5 ii 1,000 - F-- 900 12 00 13.00 14.00 X = Number of Acres x Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given 15 00 Average Rate R2= .«< Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th edition (Washington, DC: 1997), p. 66. • Step 5. Transportation planners consult Trip Generation as a guide to design the transporta- tion system with adequate capacity to bring cars to the free parking.22 • Step 6. Urban planners limit density so that development with ample free parking will not 22 Transportation planners often use the Urban Transpor- tation Modeling System (UTMS) to predict modal flows on links between zones in a network, and the first of the four major steps in the UTMS model is "trip generation." The four -step UTMS model is thus used to carry out step 5 of the six -step process of planning for free parking. Meyer and Miller (2001) explain the UTMS model. generate more vehicle trips than nearby roads can carry. This lower density spreads activities farther apart, further increasing both vehicle travel and parking demand. We come full circle when transportation engi- neers again survey peak parking demand at subur- ban sites that offer free parking but no transit service and find that more parking spaces are "needed." Misusing precise numbers to report uncertain data gives a veneer of rigor to this elabo- rate but unscientific practice, and the circular logic explains why planning for transportation and land use has contributed to increased traffic and sprawl. 10 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003 The ITE manuals do not cause this circular pro- cess, which started long before ITE began collecting data on parking and trip generation. In 1965, economist Edgar M. Hoover described the circular planning process in words that still apply today: In practice, the separation of highway -building programs from parking programs (they are in different and quite independent bureaucracies or authorities) introduces a still further pernicious element. We know the story of the man who took another piece of bread in order to finish his butter, then another piece of butter in order to finish his bread, and so on till he burst. Simi- larly, every provision of new freeways into a congested area heightens the observed demand and the public pressure for more parking facili- ties; every additional downtown parking garage heightens the demand for more new freeways to bring people to it; and so on back and forth indefinitely. Each of the two independent public authorities involved can argue persuasively that it is merely trying to keep up with an undeniably strong and growing demand. (Hoover 1965, pp. 188-189) The main change that has occurred since 1965 is that engineers and planners now have precise parking and trip generation data to quantify the "undeniably strong and growing demand" for parking and high- ways. The interaction between transportation engi- neers and urban planners in gathering and interpreting these data helps to explain why planning for parking in the United States is essentially planning for free parking. Urban planners set parking require- ments without taking into account the price of park- ing, the cost of parking spaces, the local context, or the wider consequences for transportation, land use, the economy, and the environment. ITE warns users to be careful when the RZ is low (although it removed this warning from the plots of trip generation rates in the two most recent editions of Trip Generation). ITE also advises users to modify trip generation rates in response to spe- cial circumstances. At specific sites, the user may want to modify the trip generation rates presented in this docu- ment to reflect the presence of public transpor- tation service, ridesharing or other TDM measures, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle trip - making opportunities, or other special charac- teristics of the site or surrounding area. (ITE 1997, vol. 3, p. 1) Nevertheless, ITE does not suggest how a user might modify the rates in response to any special characteristics of a site or its surrounding area, and the price of parking is prominently not on the list of special characteristics that might affect trip generation. Data users should always ask themselves whether the data are appropriate for the intended purpose. Only users can misuse data, but ITE invites misuse when it reports statistically insignificant estimates as precise numbers. This spurious precision has helped to establish ITE parking requirements and trip gen- eration rates as unquestionably authoritative in the planning profession. CONCLUSION: LESS PRECISION AND MORE TRUTH Estimates of parking and trip generation respond to a real demand for essential information. Citizens want to know how development will affect parking demand and traffic congestion in their neighborhood. Developers want to know how many parking spaces they should provide for employees and customers. Planners want to regulate development to prevent problems with parking and traffic. Politicians want to avoid complaints from unhappy parkers. These are all valid concerns, but reporting parking and trip generation rates with needless precision creates false confidence in the data. To unsophisticated users, these precise rates appear to carry the rigor of scien- tific constants. When planners set parking requirements and design the transportation system, they treat parking and trip generation like established laws and ITE estimates like scientific observations. But parking and trip generation are poorly understood phenom- ena, and they both depend on the price of parking, an element not addressed by ITE in the two reports discussed. Demand is a function of price, not a fixed number, and this does not cease to be true merely because transportation engineers and urban planners ignore it. Most cities are planned on the unstated assumption that parking should be free —no matter how high the cost or how small the benefit. SHOUP 11 American motor vehicles consume one -eighth of the world's total oil production, and ubiquitous free parking contributes to our automobile dependency.23 What can be done to improve this situation? Here are four recommendations: 1. ITE should state in the report for each park- ing and trip generation rate that this rate refers only to suburban sites with ample free parking but no public transit, pedestrian amenities, or TDM programs. 2. ITE should show the regression equation and the R2 for each parking and trip genera- tion report and state whether the coefficient of floor area (or other independent variable) in the equation is significantly different from zero. 3. ITE should report the parking and trip gen- eration rates as ranges, not as precise point estimates. 4. Urban planners should recognize that even if the ITE data were accurate, using them to set parking requirements would dictate an automobile -dependent urban form with free parking everywhere. Both transportation engineers and urban plan- ners should ponder this warning from Lewis Mum - ford: "The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar, in an age when every- one possesses such a vehicle, is actually the right to destroy the city." (Mumford 1981) Parking and trip generation rates illustrate a famil- iar problem with statistics used in transportation planning, and placing unwarranted trust in the accu- racy of these precise but uncertain data leads to bad transportation and land -use policies. Being roughly right is better than being precisely wrong. We need less precision —and more truth —in transportation planning. 23 Transportation accounted for 66.4% of U.S. oil con- sumption in 1996, and highway transportation accounted for 78.3% of U.S. oil consumption for transportation. Therefore, highway transportation accounted for 52.0% of U.S. oil consumption (66.4% x 78.3%). The United States also consumed 25.7% of the world's oil production in 1996. Thus, U.S. highway transportation consumed 13.4% (slightly more than one -eighth) of the world's total oil pro- duction (52.0% x 25.7%). Highway transportation refers to travel by cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses. See Davis (2000, tables 1.3, 2.10, and 2.7) for the data on energy consumption for transportation in the United States. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the University of California Trans- portation Center for financial support. Douglas Kolozsvari provided superb research assistance. I am also grateful for excellent advice from Jeffrey Brown, Leland Burns, Daniel Chatman, Randall Crane, Melanie Curry, T.H. Culhane, Simon Fraser, Daniel Hess, Mimi Holt, Hiro Iseki, Joshua Kirshner, Robin Liggett, Bravishwar Mallavarapu, Jeremy Nelson, Don Pickrell, Thomas Rice, Michael Sabel, Lisa Schweitzer, Charles Sciammas, Patricia Shoup, Charanjeet Singh, Alexander Smith, Manual Soto, Brian Taylor, Florian Urban, Melvin Webber, Richard Willson, and two anonymous reviewers. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC, the 2001 World Parking Symposium in St. Andrews, Scotland, and the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Western Regional Science Association in Monterey, California. REFERENCES Davis, S. 2000. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 20, ORNL-6959. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Hoover, E. 1965. Motor Metropolis: Some Observations on Urban Transportation in America. Journal of Industrial Eco- nomics 13(3):17-192. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 1987a. Parking Generation, 2nd edition. Washington, DC. . 1987b. Trip Generation, 4th edition. Washington, DC. .1991. Trip Generation, 5th edition. Washington, DC. . 1997. Trip Generation, 6th edition. Washington, DC. 2001. Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recom- mended Practice. Washington, DC. Meyer, M. and E. Miller. 2001. Urban Transportation Planning, 2nd edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Mumford, L. 1981. The Highway and the City. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Planning Advisory Service. 1991. Off -Street Parking Require- ments: A National Review of Standards, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 432. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Author address: Department of Urban Planning, Univer- sity of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656. Email: shoup@ucla.edu. 12 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003 Discussion CARL H. BUTTKE Consulting Transportation Engineer EUGENE D. ARNOLD, JR. Virginia Transportation Research Council Mr. Shoup's article, "Truth in Transportation Plan- ning," tends to view the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 6th edition and Parking Generation, 2nd edition reports as manuals to be followed step by step rather than as informa- tional reports to be used to help guide transporta- tion planning and development decisions. The intended purpose of the documents is stated in the reports. For example, page ix of the Trip Genera- tion User's Guide contains the following: ITE Informational Reports are prepared for informational purposes only and do not include ITE recommendations on the best course of action or the preferred application of the data. It is important to note that Trip Generation does not represent a quick fix for transportation prob- lems or a shortcut to planning procedures; rather, it serves as a foundation on which the professional engineer can build his or her own knowledge and experience and apply this knowledge to any given transportation -related situation. The intended users who estimate vehicle trip generation or parking demand are transportation professionals trained in mathematics, statistics, traffic engineering, and plan- ning fundamentals and who possess engineering judgment. I1'h's reports provide a compilation of available data collected from numerous sources. In the sixth edition of Trip Generation, data are combined from more than 3,750 individual trip generation studies. This information is by no means all inclusive; how- ever, it represents the best information available at the time of publication. 1TE's Trip Generation report is updated regularly to include supplemental informa- tion as it becomes available. Some of Shoup's commentary, examples, and assertions are directed to the fourth and fifth editions of Trip Generation. While many of these references are used to make a point, some of the discussion is not relevant as the data, assumptions, and reporting techniques are updated and improved from edition to edition. Further, we expect that transportation professionals will use the latest edition to obtain the most recent knowledge and data available. In his article, Shoup correctly points out that reporting statistics with "extreme precision may sug- gest confidence in their accuracy." He also rightfully acknowledges that generation rates such as 623.12 could be reported as 623 and not affect the accuracy of the calculation. However, there are also many instances in Trip Generation where rates presented with two decimal places are appropriate at that level of precision (e.g., as a rate of 0.57 pm peak -hour trips per occupied room of a business hotel, or 7.27 week- day trips per occupied room). When developing the first edition of Trip Generation, the Trip Generation Committee wrestled with this issue of decimal place- ment and decided to be consistent in reporting all rates with two decimal places. Shoup also notes that, from a statistical stand- point, some of the independent variables used are simply not related to trips (e.g., he points to an extremely low RZ value). This may be a valid point; however, in many instances the particular indepen- dent variable is chosen because it is the only infor- mation available in the early stages of development when these analyses are often undertaken. To that end, the Trip Generation User's Guide (vol. 3, p. 21) notes that: "Selecting an appropriate method for estimating trips requires use of engineering judg- ment and a thorough understanding of the three methodologies...." In reference to Shoup's remarks regarding figure 4, the only independent variables available for this land use for measuring weekday trips were gross square feet and seats. We acknowledge that it is the custom- ers and employees who make the trips, but these data were not available when the measurements were SHOUP 13 made and are rarely known when estimating pro- posed traffic impacts. Page 14 of the User's Guide addresses the variation in the statistics: These variations may be due to the small sample size, the individual marketing of the site, eco- nomic conditions of the business market, the geographic location of sites studied, or the unique character of the specific site. Accord- ingly, judgment must be exercised in the use of the statistics in this report. Shoup continues with a dialogue regarding ITE's advice to users to modify trip rates in response to special situations, such as the presence of public transportation service, ridesharing, and enhanced pedestrian facilities. We feel it is appropriate for ITE to point out potential cautions with the use of data without necessarily providing a solution if it cannot be supported by current research. In Shoup's conclusion, he recommends that Trip Generation data be reported as ranges and not as precise point estimates. Current editions of Trip Generation and Parking Generation do provide ranges, average rates, and a data plot. This diversity in data presentation provides the user with a more comprehensive look at the data. Additionally, page 18 of the User's Guide provides a detailed descrip- tion of a sample data page. To produce resources supporting Trip Genera- tion, ITE relies on the voluntary submittal of data from the transportation community. Calls for the submission of data have been ongoing over the years, with the intent to provide additional data to assist transportation professionals. ITE's openness about the availability of data can be seen on page one of the User's Guide: In some cases, limited data were available; thus, the statistics presented may not be truly repre- sentative of the trip generation characteristics of a particular land use. Such cautionary statements run throughout both the Trip Generation and the Parking Generation informational reports. Trip Generation, 7th edition, and Parking Gener- ation, 3rd edition, are slated for release in 2003. Data collected from various sources, as well as com- ments, including those provided by Shoup, are reviewed and taken into consideration during the revision process. ITE's intent is to provide a helpful resource that will guide transportation professionals in their decisionmaking. Editor-in-Chief's Note: The discussants were chosen by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Author Addresses: Corresponding author —Eugene Arnold, Senior Research Scientist, Virginia Transportation Research Council, 530 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903. Email: Gene.Arnold@VirginiaDOT.org. Carl Buttke, Consulting Transportation Engineer, PO Box 2740, Hailey, ID 83333. Email• buttke@tripgeneration. com. 14 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003 DONALD C. SHOUP Carl Buttke and Eugene Arnold argue that nothing is wrong with the Institute of Transportation Engi- neers' (ITE) Trip Generation and Parking Genera- tion. In part, their confidence may derive from their assumption that "the intended users ... are trans- portation professionals trained in mathematics, statistics, traffic engineering, and planning funda- mentals and who possess engineering judgment." But the actual users are a much broader and more diverse group. The I I'h itself says, "Trip Generation is an educational tool for planners, transportation professionals, zoning boards, and others who are interested in estimating the number of vehicle trips generated by a proposed development" (ITE 1997, vol. 3, p. ix). Many of these people are not trained in mathematics, statistics, and traffic engineering. Zoning boards are rarely trained in anything —they are elected or appointed to their positions, perform their duties as volunteers, and rely heavily on references such as Parking Generation and Trip Generation. They will not realize that the reported rates are often statistically insignificant and refer only to suburban sites with ample free parking and no public transit. I would like to address three issues that Buttke and Arnold raise, and make a recommendation. SIGNIFICANT DIGITS 11 E's convention of rounding every parking and trip generation rate to two digits after the decimal point blurs the distinction between precision and accuracy. Buttke and Arnold agree that the two -digits -after -the - decimal -point convention leads to inappropriate pre- cision in some instances, but then say, There are also many instances in Trip Genera- tion where rates presented with two decimal places are appropriate at that level of precision (e.g., as a rate of 0.57 pm peak -hour trips per occupied room of a business hotel, or 7.27 weekday trips per occupied room). Rejoinder But Trip Generation's estimate of 7.27 weekday trips per occupied room of a business hotel is based on only one observation.' It illustrates perfectly the statistical insignificance and inappropriate preci- sion of many parking and trip generation rates. An estimate always has some associated uncer- tainty. The number of significant digits used to express an estimate should reflect this uncertainty. The least significant digit in a number is the one far- thest to the right, and the accuracy of any number is usually assumed to be ±1 of the least significant digit, unless stated otherwise. In a typical engineering con- text, one would assume that an estimate expressed with five significant digits had been measured more accurately than an estimate expressed with only two significant digits. Because the number of significant digits used to express an estimate should be related to the uncertainty surrounding the estimate, the 1TE's automatic two -digits -after -the -decimal -point conven- tion is inappropriate and unscientific. Buttke and Arnold note that the Trip Generation Committee wrestled with the issue of decimal place- ment in preparing the first edition of Trip Genera- tion in 1976, and decided to be consistent in reporting all rates with two digits after the decimal point.2 Accuracy is more important than digits - after -the -decimal -point consistency, however, and one should not use more (or less) precision than is warranted simply for the sake of uniformity. Precision refers to the number of significant digits, not to the number of digits after the decimal point. 1 ITE (1997, vol. 1, p. 543). The estimate of 0.57 pm peak -hour trips per occupied room is based on only four studies. 2 The first (1976), second (1979), and third (1983) edi- tions of Trip Generation report some rates with no digits after the decimal point and other rates with one or two digits after the decimal point. The fourth (1987) edition reports all rates with three digits after the decimal point. The fifth (1991) and sixth (1997) editions report all rates with two digits after the decimal point. SHOUP 15 MISUSE Statistically sophisticated users understand the extreme uncertainty of trip generation rates and can ignore the false precision. But many users are not sta- tistically sophisticated. To them, ITE's trip generation rates are the relationship between transportation and land use. Some zoning codes explicitly specify ITE's trip generation rates as the basis for making land -use decisions and as the basis for assessing traffic impact fees, regardless of the sample size or statistical signifi- cance of the rates. In Signal Hill, California, for example, the traffic impact fee is $66 per daily vehicle trip generated by a development project. The number of trips is calcu- lated by multiplying the size of the project times its trip generation rate "as set forth in the most recent edition of the Traffic [sic] Generation manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers."' The sixth edition's trip generation rate for a fast food restau- rant is 496.12 trips per 1,000 square feet, so Signal Hill's traffic impact fee is $32.74 per square foot of restaurant space. The uncertain trip generation rates thus determine cities' tax rates. FREE PARKING Buttke and Arnold conclude that "ITE's intent is to provide a helpful resource that will guide transporta- tion professionals in their decisionmaking." Spurious precision is not a real impediment for this purpose, although it is misleading.4 The real problem with Parking Generation and Trip Generation is that they measure the peak parking demand and the number of vehicle trips at suburban sites with ample free parking and no public transit. Using these precise but poorly understood parking and trip generation rates as a guide to planning leads to bad transportation 3 Section 21.48.020 of the Signal Hill Municipal Code. The code is available online at http://www.ci.signal-hill.ca.us/ homepage.php. " Even if everyone who refers to Parking Generation and Trip Generation were an engineer or statistician, that does not excuse unjustified precision. Journalists do not casu- ally break grammar and spelling rules just because intelli- gent readers might be able to figure out what they mean anyway. The burden of clarity and accuracy falls on the writer —it cannot be shifted to the reader, no matter who one supposes the reader to be. and land -use decisions. Parking Generation and Trip Generation are helpful resources in designing cities where everyone will drive everywhere they go and park free when they get there. RECOMMENDATION What can be done to make the ITE reports more reliable? The British counterpart to Trip Generation suggests some possible improvements. The "Trip Rate Information Computer System" (TRIOS) gives full information about the characteristics of every surveyed site and its surroundings.' Users can thus estimate a trip generation rate based on sites compa- rable to the one under consideration. In addition to counts of vehicles, TRIOS also includes counts of all the people (pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, and car occupants) who arrive at and depart from a site. By including more than vehicle trips, TRICS takes a broader view of transportation. When all modes are included, the person trip rates are often much higher than the vehicle trip rates. With its narrow focus on counting cars at subur- ban sites with free parking, Trip Generation pre- sents a precise but uncertain, skewed, and incomplete measure of the relationship between transportation and land use in the United States. Fortunately, the ITE's Parking and Trip Generation Committees seek to improve each successive edition of Parking Generation and Trip Generation. In future editions, they should settle for less precision, and strive for more accuracy. 5 The TRICS database is available online at http:// www.trics.org/. 16 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003 Jennifer Armer From: Rachel Mansfield -Howlett <rhowlettlaw@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 10:49 AM To: Jennifer Armer; Planning Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way Project Attachments: Alberto Way letter 5-4-17-signed.pdf Dear Jennifer, Please accept these comments on behalf of the Alberto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas and Bella Vista Village regarding the 410-409 Alberto Way Project and its environmental review. Please confirm receipt. Thank you, Rachel Rachel Mansfield -Howlett Provencher & Flatt, LLP 823 Sonoma Ave. Santa Rosa CA 95404 Phone: 707/284.2378 Fax: 707/284.2387 Cell: 707/291.6585 Rhowlettlawugmail.corn PROVENCHER & FLATT, LLP 823 Sonoma Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Phone: 707-284.2380 Fax: 707-284.2387 Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner Los Gatos Planning Commission Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos CA 95030 planning@losgatosca.gov jarmer@losgatosca.gov May 4, 2017 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Douglas B. Provencher Gail F. Flatt OF COUNSEL Janis H. Grattan Rachel Mansfield -Howlett Roz Bateman Smith Via Electronic Delivery RE: Comments on the EIR prepared for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project Dear Ms. Armer and Planning Commissioners: On behalf of the Alberto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas and Bella Vista Village, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the EIR prepared for the above named Project. I have reviewed the EIR and the associated reports prepared for the Project, including engineering expert Peter Geissler's March 31, 2017 report and the addendum to his report that will be submitted to you today, that detailed the numerous and grave errors and omissions in the analysis of the Project's direct and indirect impacts. In my professional opinion, having successfully litigated similar cases, the EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project's direct and indirect impacts related to traffic, hydrology, flooding, run off, seismic / liquefaction, and health and safety and fails to propose adequate mitigation or consider alternatives to the Project that would substantially reduce or avoid these impacts. The EIR must evaluate a project's likely secondary or indirect impacts along with its direct impacts. (El Dorado Union High School District v. City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692.) Analysis should include social and economic effects that could lead to physical environmental impacts. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Ca1.App.3d 433.) The amount of discussion and analysis for an environmental impact evaluated in an EIR should be proportional Page 1 of 6 to its severity and the probability of occurrence and correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the project being evaluated. (Guideline §15146.) Mr. Geissler's reports provide ample foundation for the Planning Commission to find that the analysis conducted for the Project is inadequate and incomplete and fails to divulge the severity of the Project's direct and indirect impacts such that the EIR's conclusions and the reports it relies upon are not supported by substantial evidence. The EIR fails to conform to CEQA's requirement to function as a full disclosure document and an environmental alarm bell that puts the public and decision -makers on notice regarding the Project's environmental effects so that adequate mitigation and alternatives may be fairly considered prior to the Project's adoption. (Rural Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Ca1.App.3d 1013, 1020; County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Ca1.App.3d 795, 810; 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.) Mr. Geissler demonstrates that the Project's impacts are substantially more severe than have been acknowledged and the feasibility of important mitigation measures and alternatives that have not been considered as required by CEQA. (Public Resources Code §21166(c); Guideline §15162(a)(3.) An EIR's analysis of environmental impacts must be sufficient to provide lead agencies with information that will enable them to make a decision that "intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Ca1.App.3d 584; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692.) Here, the EIR fails to provide the information needed to account for the environmental consequences of the Project, including the foreseeable indirect impacts to neighboring properties. The EIR therefore cannot be certified as proposed and should be revised and re -circulated for comment prior to further consideration of the Project. Abuse of discretion in certifying an EIR is assessed in two separate prongs, each of which presents an issue of law based on the administrative record. The sufficiency of EIR content is reviewed as to whether it was prepared "in the manner required by law" within statutory and regulatory requirements. The sufficiency of the EIR's conclusions is then reviewed for substantial evidence. Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 427, 435 ("A Court's task is to determine 'whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error ... and whether it contains substantial evidence" supporting the agency's findings; Association of Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Ca1.App.4th 1383, 1391; Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Ca1.4th 1215. Page 2 of 6 Here, the EIR is insufficient under both prongs; it neither provides the required content and its conclusions of no impact are not supported. Mr. Geissler's expert analyses and determinations provide, inter alia, the following. 0o The ground floor to groundwater elevation provides unsafe conditions, therefore the Project's impacts have not fully acknowledged and adequate mitigation has not been proposed. 00 There is no logical basis for the claim that the site is not susceptible to liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake and therefore the Project's impacts have not been fully acknowledged and adequate mitigation has not been proposed. 0o ENGEO's assertion that seasonal fluctuations in groundwater mimic the effects of construction dewatering is false. Seasonal fluctuations in the depth of groundwater can cause foundation settlement but not differential foundation settlement. By contrast, construction dewatering induces differential foundation settlement. Cracked slabs are associated with differential foundation settlement not uniform settlement. 00 ENGEO's analysis of health and safety impacts is incorrect; ENGEO used an outdated map dated 1991. The more recent 2002 map shows that the proposed development is located within the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone and the Liquefaction Zone. 0o Due to Differential Foundation Settlement a mat slab foundation cannot be uniformly supported by subgrade soils subject to liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake unless the mat foundation exceeds 4' in thickness. Subsequent structural cracks allow massive influx of groundwater. 0o Percolation analysis was based on the performance of a 1' thick garage slab floor subject to liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake which would allow the influx of approximately 500 gallons per minute into the underground garage. This amount of water leakage cannot be controlled by the use of the Project's proposed sump pumps and is inadequate to ensure the public's safety. 00 The permitting of an underground garage in an area that is subject to the inundation of floodwaters in the event of an upstream dam failure Page 3 of 6 represents unnecessary and unreasonable risk to health and safety. 00 Leniham Dam is located adjacent to the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. Strong shaking in the Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone is likely to cause the earthen dam to fail. The 2012 Terra / GeoPentech report does not take into account the close proximity between Leniham Dam and the Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. Therefore, ENGEO's unfounded reliance upon the findings and conclusions of the 2012 Terra /GeoPentech Leniham report represents a failure to comply with the standard of care of the engineering profession. 00 ENGEO stated,"... the construction of a subsurface garage will not dramatically impede groundwater flow." Geissler Engineering pointed out that the construction of a subsurface garage necessarily impedes groundwater flow; the flow of groundwater is diverted around the underground parking garage. There is an increased level of groundwater on the upstream side of the underground parking garage and a decreased level of groundwater on the downstream side of the underground parking garage which leads to cracked slabs in neighboring building. This is an indirect impact that must be analyzed in the EIR. 0o A 12-inch thick slab floor is too flexible to span over areas of soil subsidence caused by liquefaction and too weak to prevent cracking. In comparable situations in San Francisco where liquefaction causes soil subsidence, 48-inch thick mat slabs are proposed. If the top of slab of the underground garage is located below the groundwater then the influx of groundwater into the cracked underground parking structure, water floods the damaged and submerged underground garage leading to health and safety impacts. Alternatives The EIR also failed to: consider a reasonable range of alternatives that would significantly reduce or avoid the Project's impacts; identify an environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project alternative, and; identify alternatives considered and excluded from EIR analysis or to provide the reasons for their rejection. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 569; Guideline §15126.6(b). Where no alternatives are deemed feasible, the EIR is required to disclose the reasons why possible alternatives were found infeasible and did not do so. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. UC Regents (Laurel Heights I) (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 405.) The EIR failed to consider alternate sites as required by both public and private development projects. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 574-575; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta I) (1988) 197 Page 4 of 6 Ca1.App.3d 1167, 1179-1180. EIRs "must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project.") An EIR must consider a "range of reasonable alternatives." Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553; Residents AdHoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Ca1.App.3d 274; Guideline §15126.6(c). The range must be sufficient "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned"; San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino, supra, 155 Ca1.App.3d at 750-751; Guideline §§15126.6(c), (f). Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (Public Resources Code §21061.1; Guideline §15364.) 0o Increased costs of an alternative do not equate to economic infeasibility: "[t]he fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta I) (1988) 197 Ca1.App.3d 1167, 1181; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 736.) Here, considering the Project's unacknowledged impacts in the issue areas described herein, the EIR did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives that took into account these impacts and there is no information in the record that could credibly provide the basis for finding that such alternatives are infeasible based upon economic infeasibility. Since the EIR found that the Reduced Project Alternative meets most Project objectives and should be considered as a feasible Project alternative, it is clear that a range of alternatives that would meet most objectives could easily be configured to reduce or completely avoid the Project's impacts related to the hydrology and seismic issues that have been raised by Mr. Geissler and concerned area residents. The EIR should be revised and re- circulated to provide an adequate alternatives analysis and to identify an environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project alternative. Traffic The EIR failed to adequately respond to and incorporate mitigation measures proposed by the Santa Clara Transportation Authority. "[C]omments from responsible experts or sister agencies ... that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project" may not be ignored. (Berkeley Keep Jets over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Cmr's. (2001) 91 Ca1.App.4th 1344, 1367 quoting Cleary v. County of Stanislaus, (1981) 118 Ca1.App.3d 348, 357.) Page 5 of 6 For the foregoing reasons, and as articulated in the reports of Mr. Geissler, incorporated herein by reference, the EIR should not be certified as complete. Thank you for your consideration, Rachel Mansfield -Howlett Page 6 of 6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank