Seminar on Traffic Reports Presented by Town Traffic Engineer, Mark WesselTOWN OF LOS GATOS
TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
110 EAST MAIN STREET
COUNCIL CHAMBERS (DOWNSTAIRS)
SEPTEMBER 28,1998
7:30-9:30 PM
Linda Lubeck Mayor
Jan Hutchins, Vice Mayor
Randy Attaway, Council Member
Joanne Benjamin, Council Member
Steven Blanton, Council Member
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Five-minute time limit per subject not scheduled for discussion on
tonight's agenda.)
1. Seminar on Traffic Reports Presented by Town Traffic Engineer, Mark Wessel
2. Commissioners' Meeting with Applicants Outside Planning Commission Hearing
3. Discuss Process for Council Actions on Appeals from Planning Commission Decisions
and Remands
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If You Need Special Assistance to
Participate in this Meeting, Please Contact Patsy Garcia, (408) 354-6832. Notification 48 Hours
Before the Meeting Will Enable the Town to Make Reasonable Arrangements to Ensure
Accessibility to this Meeting. [28 CFR §35.102-35.104]
ADJOURNMENT
MGR I34\A: \TCAGENDA\9-28SS.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 24, 1998
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCJL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
MEETING DATE: 9/28/98
SEMINAR ON TRAFFIC REPORTS PRESENTED BY TOWN TRAFFIC ENGINEER,
MARK WESSEL
The purpose of this item is to provide an opportunity to have a relatively informal dialog between members of the Town
Council and Planning Commission and the Town Traffic Engineer. Although any traffic engineering topics can be
discussed, the primary goal is to provide a summary of the traffic impact study (TIS) process, the purpose of traffic
impact studies, what they are and are not, and the basic methodology used in preparing the studies.
DISCUSSION:
Project Review Process
When a project is first submitted to the Planning Department, various staff members review the conceptual plans and
any other documents submitted for compliance with the General Plan, Town Code, Zoning Ordinance and the various
specific plans, along with any adopted Town policies. The General Plan includes issues, goals and policies that relate
to the type of development that can occur in Town.
The following items from the Circulation Element of the General Plan are referenced when reviewing the traffic impacts
of a project:
4.3 ISSUES
1. Does the street system provide sufficient capacity to safely meet traffic demand?
6. Should development be constrained by existing traffic capacities or should the circulation system be
improved to accommodate development?
8. What are the trade offs between improvements in the circulation system and the environment, energy
consumption, land use, air and noise pollution?
9. Will street improvements increase traffic?
10. Do inadequacies in the street system encourage shortcutting through residential neighborhoods?
(Continued on Page 2
PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN
eJS—
PLANNING DIRTOR
Reviewed by:
Attorney Finance
Revised: 9/24/98 3:43 pm
Reformatted: 10/23/95
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
September 24, 1998
4.4 GOALS
1. Transportation systems, including transportation demand management and non -vehicular modes of
circulation, shall be capable of meeting current and future needs of residents and businesses.
2. Circulation and transportation planning must provide safe and efficient movement within the Town and
to adjoining regions, while minimizing unnecessary traffic movement and noise through residential
neighborhoods.
3. Circulation and transportation planning for the local community must be integrated into regional
transportation planning.
6. Reduce peak -hour traffic in the downtown area.
4.5 POLICIES
1. Freeways, Arterial, Collector and Local Streets:
a. Design and implement the circulation system to be consistent with environmental goals and
policies, energy conservation and land use. Ensure that land uses that are located adjacent to
transportation facilities expose as few sensitive receptors as possible and ensure that transportation control
measures are instituted to the maximum extent feasible.
b. Adopt measures to inhibit the flow of through traffic in established neighborhoods to the extent
feasible without impacting the freedom of movement of residents.
e. The impact that future land use patterns will have on the circulation system shall be established.
g. Evaluate all circulation improvements and traffic controls prior to the issuance of any zoning
approval as to their effect on air pollution, noise and use of energy.
3. Parking:
b. Require all new development to provide adequate parking spaces.
To implement the General Plans issues, goals and policies, the Town has established the following significance
thresholds that relate to Traffic and Circulation:
Preliminary Project Traffic Trip Generation Rate Analysis
The Planning Department Engineering Section uses a spreadsheet (Attachment 1) which compares
existing uses on -site with those proposed by the project, and assigns "trip credits" and "new trips"
based on the uses and rates noted in the Institute for Traffic Engineering (ITE) Manual or San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) database. Whether or not trip credits can be given
is determined after a review of the Planning Department Policy on trip credits (Attachment 2). The
result of this preliminary analysis will determine estimated net traffic impacts (an approximate total
of average daily vehicle trips and both morning and evening -peak hour trips) and will be used to
determine whether an additional traffic impact study is warranted or whether special findings are
required to approve the project.
N \DEV\CNCLRPTS\TRAFFIC,928
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
September 24, 1998
Traffic Impact Policy, Resolution 1991-174 (Attachment 3)
O Projects with one (1) or more and less than twenty (20) a.m. or p.m. -peak hour trips are classified
as having a Minor Traffic Impact.
0 Projects with twenty (20) or more a.m. or p.m. -peak hour trips are classified as having a Major
Traffic Impact.
p Projects that create more than five (5) a.m. or p.m. -peak hour trips are required to cite a community
benefit that outweighs the traffic impacts associated with the project and the decision making body
must make a finding of community benefit as part of the public record to approve the project.
o Projects that create more than twenty (20) a.m. or p.m. -peak hour trips are required have a traffic
impact study prepared and to also cite a community benefit that outweighs the traffic impacts
associated with the project, and the decision making body must make a finding of community
benefit as part of the public record to approve the project.
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
0 Projects that generate more than 100 a.m. or p.m. -peak hour trips are required to be referred to the
Santa Clara County Transportation Authority, CALTRANS, and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
Administrative Policies
O The Town Council adopted several development guidelines on June 5, 1995. In the section on
traffic, the following statement was adopted: "Level of Service. The LOS of critical intersections
should not be allowed to drop more than one level if it is at Level A, B or C, and not allowed to
drop at all if it is at D or below.
Town Code
Restaurants - Section 29.10.020
0 Since diferent types of restaurants have widely differing traffic generating rates, the Town Code
definations for three different types of restaurant (fast food, high -turnover sitdown and quality)
were added to the Town Code. Those definations were derived from the definitions given for these
types of restaurant in the Institute of Transportation Engineers book Trip Generation.
Parking - Section 29.10.145-160
O A project that does not meet the parking standards and required parking ratios in the ordinance
would be considered a significant impact.
Traffic Impact Study Purpose
The primary purpose of a TIS is to assess the incremental offsite impacts of a proposed development on a planning level
(see "Planning Versus Operations" later in this report). Secondary functions can be to review other issues, where
applicable, such as site access, safety, sight distance, and onsite design (circulation, parking, pedestrian traffic,
landscaping, etc.).
Traffic Impact Study Scope
When developing the scope of work for a TIS, a number of factors are considered:
1. Keeping in mind that the purpose of the TIS is to evaluate the potential impacts of a proposed development on
a planning level, the first step is to select specific intersections for analysis. Based on the magnitude of the
N ADE V\CNCLRPTS\TRAFF IC.928
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
September 24, 1998
development and characteristics of the local circulation system, major (signalized) intersections are selected that
could potentially experience significant'project impacts.
Although offsite impacts could occur at unsignalized intersections, on midblock road segments, and within
residential neighborhoods, most traffic impact studies focus on signalized intersections for several reasons. In
an urbanized area, intersections typically control the level of service of the entire circulation system (delays
usually occur at intersections rather than at midblock points). Although the level of service of roadway segments
may be evaluated in rural areas, urban traffic impact studies therefore focus on intersections.
Another reason that studies emphasize signalized intersections is that they are likely to have higher traffic
volumes than unsignalized intersections. The more a TIS attempts to quantitatively study low -volume streets or
intersections, the more false precision results. For instance, an effort could be made to evaluate a development's
impact on intersections such as University Avenue - Miles Avenue or University Avenue - Bentley Avenue, but
the traffic volumes on Miles and Bentley are so low that the resulting numeric answers would appear to be more
precise than they would actually be. Additional examples of potential false precision are described in the
"Planning Versus Operations" section of this report.
2. Other issues are occasionally added, such as Congestion Management Program (CMP) network intersections and
freeway segments, driveway signalization, and unsignalized intersection signalization (signal warrants).
3. The methodology to be used in the study is defined. For instance, the scenarios to be analyzed (Existing, Existing
plus Project, etc.) are defined. Of the various LOS analysis methods currently in use, the one to be used in the
study is also defined (the Town has historically elected to use the method used by the Santa Clara County CMP).
4. The need for any new traffic counts is determined by considering the extent to which conditions have changed
since the last counts were conducted. Depending on the level of development activity in the community, the
threshold could range from six months to three years or more.
5. The list of approved/likely developments must also be correlated to the traffic counts. For instance, if two -year -
old counts are to be used, the future traffic resulting from developments on the approved/pending list at that time
must be projected and added, even if some of the developments have since been constructed. The intent is to
account for all existing and future traffic, so if a development's traffic is not reflected in the traffic counts, it must
be added as a traffic projection.
6. When the TIS is to support the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR), there is another opportunity
to identify issues to be addressed. As part of the EIR procedure, it is required that a notice of preparation (NOP)
be published, so that interested parties can suggest issues to be addressed in the EIR.
Traffic Impact Study Procedure
The TIS procedure, although not necessarily followed in the order shown, is described below.
I. Project Definition. The first step is to resolve any questions regarding the study scope and make sure that the
project definition and site plan is current and accurate. Building floor area, number of dwelling units, type of
proposed use, etc. will all be needed to complete the study. It is also worth noting that development proposals
frequently change during or following preparation of the TIS. This does not invalidate the TIS as long as the
development size has stayed constant or decreased, since the TIS may still be considered a "worst case" analysis
if it evaluated a project slightly larger than that being proposed at the time of public hearings. A TIS addendum
may be necessary if the project increased significantly in size, however.
N.\DE'ACNCLRPTS\TRAFF IC 928
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
September 24, 1998
2. Approved/Pending List. The appropriate list of approved/pending developments must be obtained. This list
identifies those developments that have been approved but not yet constructed, as well as those that are still
pending. The approve/pending projects list (Attachment 4) is prepared by the Planning Department staff and
provided to the traffic engineer.
3. Field Data Collection. Depending on the scope of work, various types of field data may need to be collected.
This could include data such as intersection peak hour turning movement counts, machine counts (conducted by
placing tubes on the street) for background information and/or signal warrant studies, lane configurations (how
many left turn, right turn, and through lanes on each approach to an intersection), signal phasing, and geometrics.
The geometrics data could include vehicle storage capacity, visibility, driveways, transitions, lane widths, etc.
that could significantly affect the validity of the LOS calculations. The intent is not to collect a lot of operational
data, but normally just the data that relates directly to the LOS calculations.
4. Trip Generation. In this step, an effort is• made to quantify the peak hour and daily traffic that will be generated
by the proposed development. Fortunately, most developments fall into a common category, such as single-
family residential, retail, restaurant, office, etc. For these projects, trip generation can be based on information
contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication entitled Trip Generation. This two -
volume publication contains the statistically analyzed results of trip generation studies conducted nationwide.
For instance, the publication provides the summary of nearly 300 studies that actually measured the traffic going
to and from single-family residential developments of various sizes. The average trip generation rates, calculated
based on observed traffic volumes and development sizes, can be used to estimate the traffic likely to be
generated by a proposed development. Although the results do not always match the expectations of the general
public, they are usually fairly reliable because they are based on objective data rather than perception.
Occasionally, the development being studied does not fit into a category for which the ITE publication has useful
information. Trip generation rates may then be drawn from a regional database compiled by the San Diego
Association of Governments. On relatively rare occasions, trip generation rates may be developed based on
project -specific studies conducted at similar sites. The advantage of this alternative is that the studies can be
more similar to the specific project being analyzed, and the disadvantages include cost, time, and the lack of a
statistically significant sample size.
5. Trip Distribution. Developments are categorized as either trip generators (residential land uses) or trip attractors
(all other land uses). By considering the area in which the proposed development is located, generator trips are
distributed to attractors and vice versa. To avoid false precision, this process is usually general in nature and is
applied identically to peak hour volumes, daily volumes, and in/out splits.
6. Traffic Assignment. Based on the general trip distribution estimates developed in the previous step, project traffic
is assigned to specific routes. For instance 25% of a residential development's traffic may be distributed to the
downtown area, but it is also necessary to determine how much of that 25% will use each specific alternative
route to get downtown. These estimates are based on characteristics of the local circulation system and a review
of current turning movement counts.
7. Level of Service Analysis. In this step, intersection LOS calculations are performed for each peak period for each
analysis scenario. There are different LOS calculation methods in use, all of which have advantages and
disadvantages. Some, such as the intersection capacity utilization method, correlate LOS directly to the volume -
to -capacity ratio, which is the proportion of intersection capacity used by conflicting critical movements (for
instance, the northbound left turn and southbound through, plus the eastbound left turn and westbound through).
Others use empirical relationships to estimate average delay, which is then correlated to a specific level of service
(Attachment 5).
N:1DE VICNCLRPTS\TRAFFIC.928
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
September 24, 1998
Some methods consider many input variables (signal timing, lane widths, number of buses, etc.), and others
consider only a few (traffic volumes and lane configuration). Even the fairly simple ones can be useful, because
the objective is to estimate the degree of change of LOS, rather than the precise LOS. The important thing is to
remember that the purpose is to conduct a planning level study and to interpret the results on a planning, rather
than operational, level (see the "Planning Versus Operations" section of this report). Therefore, the methodology
may be considered acceptable if it does an adequate job of quantifying the incremental impacts of a development,
even if the precise LOS range predicted is questionable.
8. Analysis Scenarios. LOS calculations are performed for each analysis scenario. The typical scenarios analyzed
for studies in Los Gatos consist of the following:
Existing Conditions
Pre -Project (Existing + Approved Developments)
Post Project (Pre -Project + Project)
Post Project + Pending Developments
9. Project Impact Identification. Following completion of the LOS calculations, the results are evaluated to
determine if project impacts exceed acceptable thresholds and must therefore be deemed significant. It is
important to understand that the local agency can define the impact significance criteria, as long as it is within
reason.
10. Project Mitigation Identification. If possible, feasible mitigation measures must be identified for each significant
project impact. Typical measures include street widening, restriping, signalization, or even project size reduction.
If no feasible mitigation can be identified, the only way the project can be approved is to adopt a statement of
overriding consideration following preparation of an environmental impact analysis.
11. Cumulative Impact and Mitigation Identification. If the future level of service is expected to be unacceptable
(per local criteria), there may be a significant cumulative impact even if there is no project -specific impact. If
this is the case, mitigation measures are identified as in the previous step.
12. Optional Components. Depending on the study, additional elements may be included, such as a review of project
access and onsite circulation, parking requirements, etc. These elements may include a combination of qualitative
and quantitative evaluation, as appropriate.
CEQA Considerations and Traffic
To comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Town is required to
determine whether or not a development proposal is subject to the Act and whether it may have a significant impact on
the environment. In many instances most development proposals may be exempt from CEQA's mandated
environmental assessments (e.g. single family residences, accessory buildings, additions to existing buildings, etc.),
however the following list of circumstances would be exceptions to allowed exemption from CEQA:
Public Resources Code Section 21084(b). (c). (e) and CEOA Guidelines Section 15300.2
O A reasonable possibility exists that the activity may have a significant environmental impact
because of unusual circumstances;
o Cumulative impacts (i.e. the development combined with other factors) would be significant;
o A project with certain categories of exemption occurs in certain specified sensitive
environments (e.g. riparian/wetland corridors, an area with a documented landslide or fault,
etc.);
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\TRAFF IC.928
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
September 24, 1998
A project affects scenic resources within official state scenic highways;
0 A project is located on listed toxic sites maintained by the California Environmental
Protection Agency;
0 A project causes substantial changes in significant historic resources
Development proposals that are not exempt from CEQA are deemed to be a "project". The Town is compelled by
CEQA to analyze all projects for possible significant impacts to the environment by conducting a preliminary
environmental assessment called and "Initial Study". The Initial Study reviews many different areas, including
Transportation and Circulation, and is used to determine whether the project will have significant impacts and whether
additional environmental reviews and documents such as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are warranted.
With regards to Traffic and Circulation, the Initial Study, through a suggested "Checklist Format" and accompanying
text description and summary, must answer questions to determine whether a project impact is significant and/or requires
further review (Attachment 6).
In order to accurately fill out the appropriate "checklist box" and conduct the initial study, the environmental consultant
preparing the initial study must use established standards to measure an impact's significance. These standards or
criteria measurements are often referred to as "significance thresholds" or "significance criteria."
Planning Versus Operations
As previously stated, the purpose of a TIS is to study project impacts on a planning level. The emphasis on the planning
level aspect of a TIS is important. Because the purpose of a TIS is to evaluate future (post -project) conditions, the
analysis must be limited to parameters that can be quantifiably measured for existing conditions and quantifiably
projected for future conditions. Since operational characteristics can be measured for existing conditions but not
projected for future conditions, the TIS analysis must be performed on a planning level rather than on an operational
level.
To better understand the difference between planning and operational traffic studies, consider that an operational study
evaluates in detail various operational characteristics of existing conditions. Typical operational studies look at things
like sight distance, high accident locations, safe routes to school, parking, signal coordination, handicapped access,
pedestrian and bicycle safety, street lighting, sign reflectivity, and conformance of signs, pavement markings, and
signals with established standards. These are all characteristics that relate to the present time, and operational studies
can be useful to determine if changes should be made to improve current traffic circulation and/or safety.
On the other hand, a TIS can not deal effectively with operational factors because it must predict future conditions,
which can not be measured. Although a TIS can occasionally address some of these issues qualitatively (by describing
and discussing them) rather than quantitatively (by numerically analyzing them), attempts to include a quantitative
operational evaluation in a TIS generally result in false precision. For instance, an effort could be made to predict the
increase in collisions that would result based on the incremental increase in traffic volume, but the resulting numeric
answer would appear to be far more precise than it would actually be.
As another example of potential false precision, consider a case where traffic from a proposed development may use
a local residential street like Meadowbrook Drive to bypass the arterial street (Blossom Hill Road). Say a TIS estimates
that the development will add five vehicles to the 50 existing vehicles during the peak hour, but it turns out that twenty
vehicles actually use Meadowbrook following construction of the development. Although the study's estimate is off
by only fifteen vehicles, that error represents 300% of the original estimate and 30% of the street volume! Therefore,
it is usually not appropriate to evaluate low -volume streets and intersections quantitatively, although they may be
discussed qualitatively. Furthermore, most TIS calculations (derived from theory and validated with field study) are
standardized, even though they are applied to local traffic counts and geometrics.
N:1DE VICNCLRPTS\TRAFFIC.928
PAGE 8
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
September 24, 1998
Traffic Impact Study Preparer's Qualifications
The preparer of the TIS must have adequate education, experience, knowledge, and understanding of procedures,
methodologies, math, statistics, propagation of error, sensitivity of fmdings to assumptions made, etc., as well as the
ability to describe the study and findings in a report. A study will frequently be less academic and more useful if the
preparer also has experience and understanding of safety and operational aspects. This is true even though the TIS is
prepared on a planning level. For instance, some studies identify mitigation measures that may not actually be practical
or feasible due to operational or safety reasons.
Although not legally required, it is generally wise to select a registered traffic engineer to prepare a TIS. Better yet
would be an engineer registered in both civil and traffic engineering. Such registration is evidence that the person is
an engineer (rather than a person with a non -engineering education) with the technical education and training needed
to conduct a sound TIS. Registration as a civil engineer requires the following:
► A 4-year degree in civil engineering from an accredited college
► Successful completion of an 8-hour Engineer in Training examination
► Two years of professional experience working under a registered civil engineer
► Four references from registered civil engineers
Successful completion of an 8-hour engineering principles and practices examination
Successful completion of a 2.5 hour seismic engineering examination
Successful completion of a 2.5 hour surveying examination
Successful completion of an examination on State laws and Board of Registration rules
Registration as a traffic engineer requires the following:
► A 4-year degree in civil engineering from an accredited college
► Successful completion of an 8-hour Engineer in Training examination
► Two years of professional experience working under a registered traffic engineer
► Four references from registered traffic engineers
► Successful completion of an 8-hour traffic engineering examination
► Successful completion of an examination on State laws and Board of Registration rules
► Additional qualifications include a broad range of traffic engineering experience, such as studies, design,
operations, and maintenance. Many TIS preparers lack the type of operations and maintenance that city traffic
engineers have, although they occasionally have greater design experience.
A significant reason for .the selection of Mark Wessel as the Town Traffic Engineer was his educational background
(Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Civil Engineering), professional registration (in both Civil and Traffic Engineering),
and range of experience (both public and private sectors, design, studies, operations, maintenance, and experience as
city traffic engineer for cities ranging from 8,000 to 100,000 population).
EN V I RONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Trip Generation Spreadsheet
2. Planning Department Policy on Trip Credits
3. Traffic Impact Policy
N:1DE V 1CN CLRPTSITRAFF I C.928
PAGE 9
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING WORKSHOP
September 24, 1998
4. Approved/Pending Project List
5. Level of Service Definitions
6. CEQA Checklist Excerpt Regarding Traffic and Circulation
LEB:MW:EO:TD
N:\DE VICNCLRPTS\TRAFFIC. 928
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
PROJECT ADDRESS: 742 University Av
Date: 6/17/97
Contact: Steve Sund -- McCandless Corp. Fax: 980-6440 Phone: 980-6500
Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
EXISTING USE
AREA (sf
or UNITSper
A.D.T.
1000 s1
A.M. Peak
er 1000 sfper
P.M. Peak
1000 sf
A.D.T.
for Use
A.M. Peak
for Use
P.M. Peak
for Use
Lumber Yard (812)
18,295
30.56
2.11
3.27
559.10
38.60
59.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
EXISTING USE TOTALS
18,295
559.10
38.60
59.82
PROPOSED USE
AREA
or UNITS
A.D.T.
per 1000 st
A.M. Peak
er 1000 sfper
P.M. Peak
1000 sf
A.D.T.
for Use
A.M. Peak
for Use
P.M. Peak
for Use
General Office (710)
61,796
14.03
1.90
1.87
867.00
117.41
115.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PROPOSED USE TOTALS
61,796
,
867.00
117.41
115.56
Net Increase
307.90
78.81
55.73
Rounded Increase
0
308
79
56
This proposal is a major intensification of use.
A traffic study is required.
COMMENTS: The following Traffic Impact Mitigation fees are based on the plan submitted
and current fee schedule.
307.90 A.D.T.
-10.00 A.D.T. @ $ 600 per A.D.T. = 6,000.00
297.90 A.D.T. @ $ 60 per A.D.T. = 17,874.16
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee = 23,874.16
Prepared by: Date:
AiTTACHME:NT 1
PLANNING DEPARTMENT POLICY
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Subject Traffic Impact Policy
Page: Section Number.
Approved: Effective Date: Revised Date:
Lee E. Bowman, Planning Director August 1, 1996
PURPOSE
To provide guidelines for determining whether a traffic credit may be granted for an existing or former use.
POLICY
Traffic credits may be granted for improved parcels based on the number of trips generated by a previous use
for an existing structure that dates from March 4, 1985. This policy is subject to the following conditions:
(1) A new structure may be reconstructed with the identical use and number of trips generated, or:
(2) A new structure with a different use will receive credit for the last previously existing use, subject
to all other zoning restrictions, or;
(3) In cases where the most recent existing structure has been razed or destroyed, the following are
the only types of documentation that will be accepted for proof of traffic credits: 1) demolition
permit, 2) building permit, 3) planning applications, or 4) county assessors records.
(4) No credit is granted for structures that were demolished prior to March 4, 1985.
(5) No credit is granted for illegal uses.
(6) Traffic credits are non -transferable from parcel to parcel.
K\OEVaIS PCUCY.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION 1991-174
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CONCERNING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos to
amend the policy requiring developers whose projects are shown to generate additional
traffic in the Town of Los Gatos to establish the community benefits that would result from
the project and to participate in the cost of constructing capacity enhancing and transit
improvement projects to reduce traffic congestion.
RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos does hereby adopt
the Policy Statement as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" as the Town of Los Gatos
Traffic Impact Policy.
FURTHER RESOLVED, this Resolution rescinds Resolution No. 1990-147.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Tawn of Los Gatos at a
regular meeting held this 5th day of August 1991, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Joanne Benjamin, Steven Blanton
NAYS: Mayor Brent N. Ventura
ABSENT: Eric D. Carlson
ABSTAIN: None
AI Ih.ST:
SIGNED:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
C9\M(SC\TAAFYtC.4
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
OS GATOS
ATTACHMENT 3
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
A. POLICY STATEMENT
The deciding body may approve a project with a minor traffic impact (one or
more and less than five additional AM or PM peak hour trips) subject to
payment of a traffic mitigation fee
2. The deciding body may approve a project with a traffic impact of five to
nineteen additional A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips only if it is determined that
the benefits of the project to the Town outweigh the impact of increased
traffic and subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee
3. The deciding body may approve a project with twenty or more additional
A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips only if it is determined that the benefits of the
project to the Town outweigh the impact of increased traffic and subject to:
a. preparation of a comprehensive traffic report.
b. Payment of a traffic mitigation fee
c. Payment of a proportionate share of the cost of the construction of
circulation improvements in the immediate area.
4. Where benefits to the Town are required to be shown, applicants shall submit
a letter of justification which clearly states housing or economic benefits
and/or specific sections of the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan
which show that the type of project will benefit the community (See Section
2.5.6 of the General Plan). The burden of proof of community benefit is on
the applicant.
5. In order to determine if a project will generate additional traffic, the Town
will use composite trip generation rates derived from the following sources
and updated from time to time:
• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
■ San Diego Association of Governments (San DAG)
■ California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
• Other Municipalities such as the City of San Jose
EXHIBIT A
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
The specific mitigation measure(s) required would be based on the magnitude of the
project's traffic impact which would also establish the procedure for processing the
project as set forth below.
B. REVIEW PROCESS
1. Staff will initially determine whether a proposed project generates a net
increase in traffic. If the project does not generate a net increase in traffic,
the traffic policy does not apply. Therefore, the project will be recommended
for approval or denial based on the merits of the project.
2. If there is a net increase in traffic, staff will review the applicant's proposal
and determine if the project will create minor traffic impacts or major traffic
impacts.
a. Minor traffic impact is defined as one or more and less than twenty
additional AM or PM peak hour trips.
b. Major traffic impact is defined as twenty or more additional AM or PM
peak hour trips.
c. The determination of whether a project has a minor or major traffic
impact is based on a traffic analysis prepared by the Town Engineering
Department based on standardized trip generation rates.
3. If a project is determined to have a major traffic impact, a traffic report shall
be prepared by a private consultant, hired by the Town at the applicant's
expense. The report will include an analysis of generated trips and any linked
trips. If an applicant does not agree with the results of the Town's traffic
analysis or the traffic report prepared by the Town's consultant, the applicant
may have an independent traffic report prepared at the applicant's expense.
4. Projects that generate additional traffic of five or more peak hour trips may
only be recommended for approval if the project's benefits to the community
override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections of the General
Plan and/or any Specific Plan. If a project generates additional traffic of five
:4t++t!CI TRRi}2C. 4
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
or more peak hour trips the burden is on the applicant to cite economic or
housing benefits to the Town and/or specific sections of the General Plan and
any applicable Specific Plan that demonstrate the project's benefit to the
Community which outweighs the traffic impact. The deciding body must make
specific findings which demonstrate that the benefits) of the project outweigh
the impact in order to approve the project.
3. If a project is determined to have a major traffic impact, a traffic report shall
be prepared by a private consultant, hired by the Town at the applicant's
expense. The report will include an analysis of generated trips and any linked
trips.
C. MITIGATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS
If a project with a traffic impact is recommended for approval by staff and/or
subsequently approved by the Planning Commission and/or Town Council, traffic
mitigation measures shall be imposed. The traffic mitigation shall be in the form
of an in -lieu traffic impact mitigation fee. The mitigation for projects with major
traffic impacts will be the required payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee and
a proportionate share or construction of intersection and/or roadway improvements
within a specified distance from the project.
D. FEES
Based on a traffic analysis required in A above, any project which is found to cause
a net increase in traffic shall pay a traffic impact mitigation fee, as established by
separate resolution.
The traffic impact mitigation fee and any proportionate share of intersection
improvements shall be due prior to Final Map approval, issuance of a Building
Permit, or occupancy permit as applicable. The traffic impact mitigation fee shall
C9\MISC\rvAFFIC.4
3
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
be used to construct capacity enhancing projects (i.e., sigiials, street widening, etc.)
that are listed in the Capital Improvement Program and transit improvement projects
that are identified by the Town as a means of reducing traffic congestion.
E. RIGHT TO DEVELOP NOT GUARANTEED
Compliance with the provisions of the Traffic Impact Policy is not to be construed
to be a right of development. The Town specifically retains the right of review and
approval (or denial) of each project based on its merits.
4
C9\MrSC\7RAfftC.4
U
W
0
D4
a
0
Ei
0
LIJ
Z
W
a
❑
Z
0
a.
a.
co
a)
co
co
0
1-
0_
n
a. CC
1-
r
r
O
(O
r
r
r
r
in
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
co
LI)T
O
CO
0D
r
r
r
r
r
00
F- 1-
LJ 0
Z Q
0
r
r
00
N`
Ln
0
r
o
r
c,-)
d'
0
r
0
r
00
(V
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
CO
r
r
(.O
0)
LO
0
O
co
0
Nti
r`---
N
CO
N
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
CO
L()
PROPOSED
LAND USE
MFR
L
a
06
DC
L1
CO
CL
LL
(n
1 SFR 1
ui
Q
<
cr
LL
U)
SFR
Gen. It. ind.
CC
LL
U)
CC
LL
U)
EL
LL
U)
1 SFR 1
CC
COCC
r
CI)
General Office
DO
Mixed Use
Church
Gas Station
w/convenience
Market
Mixed Use
Mixed Use/
Office -Res.
LL
U)
OC
LL
CI)
LL
U)
!Com. Ctr.
CC
LL
CO
r
ct
u .
CO
ill
O
0
PREVIOUS
LAND USE
Q'
LL
U)
SFR & Agri
Vacant
CO
co
>
SFR
C
U
co
>>U)
C
U
CD
LL
Vacant
C
CO
C13
>
Vacant 1
Vacant
C
o
CO
>>
C
CO o
03
1 SFR
3,024 sf medical
off.
Gen. Office
C
o
CO
>
Church
Service Station
Retail / SFR
C
o
co
>
[Vacant
cc
LL
CO
!Vacant
Com. Ctr.
Vacant
'd
(0
C6
>0
0
U
W N
Z U)
'p
r
r
44 du & park 1
_
0
r
0
r
7 du
0
r
0
r
4000 sf
1 du
7
r
1 du 1
7
r
7
r
0
r
19 du
6,678 sf
2500 sf
Lf)
CO
CO
°:
ui o
CO 0
N U)
146757 sf
8 desp. Stations
8003 sf & 1 du.
2,973 sf & 5
apts.
-p
r
0
r
"C3
r
134,481 sf
-O
r
0
r
2250 sf
APPRVL.
DATE
N`
6)
00
r
7/24/97
9/24/97
8/14/97
0))
L!7
ti
0))
N
0
r
6/25/97
=
r
N
r
10/23/96
0)
(yi
r
T 4/23/97
(`
0)
r
N
0
r
FILE
NUMBER
LC)
o
O
0))
>
n
DEV-97-001
O
r
r
-)
N
N
0
o�j
-)
a
CV
O
0
r
O
>
o
PRJ-97-121
LO
CO
0
0)
'-7
a�
PRJ-97-118
(O
N
0
O)
'7
O
PRJ-97-1951
r
N
cp
In
d)
0)
r
N
0))
-)
a
PRJ-97-218
PRJ-97-012]
O
O
(0
>
o
O
LO
r
r
O)
-f')
a.
PRJ-98-032
PRJ-97-129
ti
CO
V
D
PRJ-98-021
CO
CO
(O
6)
a.
PRJ-97-162
CO
O
N�
0
CL
d'
0
N L
6)
a.
1 PRJ-97-182
0
N
D
(o
0
C0
6�)
a.
IPRJ-98-016
co
(n
PROJ. ADDRESS
STATUS NO. IDIR STREET
337 Bella Vista Av. 1
14734 Blossom Hill Rd. `
16466 Bonnie Ln.
16020 Camino Del Cerro
14115 Capri Dr.
107 Colorado Ct.
16860 Cypress Way.
17427 W. Farley Rd. 1
14632 Golf Links Dr.
15763 Kavin Ln.
17730 Kilkenny Rd. 1
388 Knowles Drive
398 Knowles Drive
15051 Larga Vista Dr.
16673 Lark Av.
15827 Los Gatos BI.
115827 Los Gatos BI.
16190 Los Gatos BI.
116330 Los Gatos BI.
275 Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd.
1 34 E. Main St.
223 W. Main St.
217 Mistletoe Rd.
16471 W. Mozart Av.
Q
7
o
i o
z
1 14855 Oka Rd.
37 Peralta Av.
7:9
Et
co
0
a
oo
225 N. Santa Cruz Av.
n.0Q0CLC.a
o0aa0nCL
<
L
<
L
<
L
<
L
<
t.
<
L
<
L
<
L
<
L
<
L
<
L
CI
I <
t..
n0ana
<
L
<
L
<
L
0..
<<
L
<<
L
L
as
<<
L
L
nn00o.
<<<<<<<<
1�
L
0a0a
L
i_
L
• •
r
N
M
V
Ln
(6
t`
co
O)
O
r
r
r
N
r
M
r
V
r
in
r
CO
r
N—
r
00
r
a)
r
O
N
r
N
N()
N
N
V
N
in
N
CO
N
N
t0
N
O)
N
o�
`�� ACHMEN
9/24/98 258 PM
c
i
APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS LIST
UPDATED 8/6/98
(1)N-T.
°-
Cl.
I-
I�
1-
C�
CO
CO
`)
O
N.
LC)
C,")
v-
N
•-
c-
N
N
N
N
CO
OD
N
I.-.
N
1-
W 0
Z <
O
LOCp
c-
O
N
LO
5,7821
T.
N
CO
1-
3291
30
O
401
20
10
10
O
'-
O
N
20
O
N
ti
227
T-
VC)
CA
C1)
0
CD
0
PROPOSED
LAND USE
Retail & Apts.
Retail & Condos
SFR
MFR
CV
CC
Mini -storage 1
R&Doffice
Office
4 Lot sub.
SFR
IL
CO
o
N
SFR
W
U)
•-
11 SFR
2 lots
1 sfr, 1 duplex
x
Q
-0
15,591 sf office;
8,903 retail
General Office
4,102sf med
office; 5,288 Sf
gen office
General Office
Traffic study
required
Rest. Addition
d?
o
1
PREVIOUS
LAND USE
LL
y
a
Q
Vacant
SFR
CO7
a)
W
Vacant office
Lumber yard
Vacant
-o
vacant
vacant
1 SFR
U
asx
>
!Vacant
Vacant
1 sfr
1 du
Vacant
(1)
Cn
7
D
E
I1 sfr
5,702 Sf med.
Office; 1,026 Sf
gen. Office
C
0
as
>
w
u)
.--
'Restaurant
2 q. rest. & dry
cleanter
I -
W N
Z ET)
5,772 sf & 2
apts.
Cn
co
oo
T)
co
M
LO
13
,-
8 du
34,057 sf
15,265 sf
60,000 sf
14,700 sf
4 du
-6
r
4 d.u.
2 lots
1 du
D
0
N--
7
a
T.
11 du
2 du
2 du
11970 sf
7,517 sf
See U-94-67 in
Appr. list.
83 hotel rooms;
4200 sf q. rest.
APPRVL.
DATE
ti
�
N
9/24/97
N
�
N
O
N
0
FILE
NUMBER
PRJ-97-028
N
0)
1�
CA
0_
PRJ-96-145'
-
N
co
Co
Cfl
O
co
O
O
N
C»
o
Cf)
N
O
0)
na-
PRJ-97-187
0
N co
i
2�
ti
1
PRJ-98-087
PRJ-98-041
PRJ-98-113
N-
O
O
0)
a_
PRJ-98-128
PRJ-98-037
f-
co
O
oD
0)
a
(-NI
c)
(0
0
0
PRJ-98-114
PRJ-98-124
CO
OO
9
0
03
N
co
a.. cC
PRJ-97-156
PRJ-98-058
LO
O
�
O
0
ADDRESS
NO. DIR STREET
646 N. Santa Cruz Av.
664 N. Santa Cruz Av.
550 Santa Rosa Dr.
14960 Terreno de Flores Ln.
50 University Av.
666 University Av.
750 University Av.
973 University Av. - - -
598 Vasona Av.
259 Vista del Monte
End of Wooded View Dr.
14911 Blossom Hill Rd.
16060 Cerro Vista Dr.
Francis Oaks Way
16158 Kennedy Rd.
Larga Vista Dr.
363 Los Gatos BI.
365 Los Gatos BI.
15089 Los Gatos BI.
15575 Los Gatos BI.
15615 Los Gatos BI.
15737 Los Gatos BI.
16185 Los Gatos BI.
16330 Los Gatos BI.
50 Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd.
210 E. Main St.
PROJ.
STATUS
CzaaQ0.
Cl.
.
Cl.
<
Q
Q<
0.
Appr.
a
a
<
afl.dac
a
<
a
<
o_
<
o
<
-d
a)
a
Pend.
Izi
c
a)
a_
Pend.
Pend.
-o
c
a)
a
v
c
a)
s
-a
c
a)
a
Pend.
c
a)
0.
t
c
a)
a
0
c
a)
a
-a
c
a)
a
-o
c
a)
0-
-d
c
a)
CL
j-
Z
0
O
Co
co
N
co
c7
co
V
co
Lc)
co
co
ti
co
co
co
d)
co
c)
..-
V
N
V
C7
rt
V
TY
Tt
Cfl
ct
V
O
V
O
�T
O-
Cf)
Cf)
N
in
c)
Li)
10
Cf)
LO
N
a)
as
0_
0
•
0
1-
0)
J
V
w
0
c 00
a?)
0 (0
Z 00
❑ ❑
W
W
a 0
❑a
Z�
Q
0
LU
0
a.
a
0
L
0
t6
a)
E
0
-c
a)
-0
O 2
E 5
O 0-
(1)
O a<
0
00
� o
� ro
Q
c
C
0
co
O
,�
a) 1E
0_ 0
cn N
c
} O
`o -0
D a)
co -0
E
ca
c _c
0
.0 a)
m a)
c C�
o
0u'
•
-
n.
co>
c
m _
co
0) c
L
0 0
0
z
Was 742 University Av. Address was changed.
co
N
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Average Stopped
Delay per Vehicle (sec)
Description
A
less than 5
Most vehicles do not stop at all. This is the best
level of service, occurring due to some
combination of low volumes, short cycle lengths,
and good signal coordination.
B
5 - 15
Higher average delay than LOS A, but perceived
by motorists as a good operation. All vehicles
normally get through the intersection within one
cycle.
C
15 - 25
The number of vehicles having to stop is
significant, although many still pass through
without stopping. Some vehicles have to wait
through more than one cycle.
D
25 - 40
Congestion is noticeable. Most vehicles have to
stop, cycle lengths may be longer, and a greater
number of vehicles have to wait through more
than one cycle.
E
40 - 60
Significant congestion and long delays, with
many vehicles having to wait through more than
one cycle.
F
more than 60
The vehicle arrival rate exceeds the capacity of
the intersection, resulting in severe congestion,
long delays, and most vehicles having to wait
through more than one cycle. This is the worst
level of service.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third Edition, published by the Transportation Research
Board of the National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994. Descriptions are paraphrased.
N \DE V\CNCLRPTS\TRAFFIC.92S
ATTACHMENT )
111
CEQA CHECKLIST EXCERPT
Will the proposal result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access
to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity (on -site or
off -site)?
e) Hazard or barriers to pedestrians or
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation
(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, Waterborne, or air traffic impacts?
N:\DE V\CNCLRPTS\TRAFFIC.928
ATTACHMENT 6