Attachment 10DATE:
TO :
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REMARKS :
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
APRIL 6, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: 04/12/2017
ITEM NO : 3
JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
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.
The Planning Commission considered the applications on August 10, 2016 and August 24, 2016 .
The applications were continued to a date certa i n of October 26, 2016, with specific
recommendations including those topics listed below. On October 26, 2016, the project was
continued to January 11, 2017, to allow additional time for revisions and outreach, and then
again to March 22, 2017 and April12, 2017 . The attached public comments (Exhibit 30) were
received after distribution of the staff report for the March 22, 2017, meeting.
The applicant submitted revised development plans in February of 2017 in response to the
comments received from the public and the Commissioners at the meeting on August 24, 2016.
The Town's Architectural Consultant reviewed the revised development plans and provided
recommendat ions in a report dated February 22, 2017 (Exhibit 32). The applicant submitted
revised development plans (Exhibit 36) and a letter to address these specific recommendations
(Exhibit 33), along with a response letter addressing the Commissioner's comments (Exhibit 31).
PREPARED BY : JENNIFER ARMER
Associate Planner
Reviewed by : Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408 -354-6874
www.losgatosca .gov ATTACHMENT 10
PAGE20F7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001
APRIL 6, 2017
A. Building Size
The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to significantly reduce
the size of the building in height, mass, and floor area .
The applicant has reduced the size of the project by :
• Reducing the building height between five and 12 feet (see sheet A3 .03 for elevation
comparisons);
• Reducing the overall mass of the building in cubic feet (volume) by approxi mately 25
percent; and
• Combining the two, two-story buildings into a single, two-story building and reducing
the floor area by 8,965 square feet, approximately 10 percent of the previous floor
area (see sheet Al.OO of Exhibit 36 for floor area comparison).
B. Design
The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to revise the proposed
design to be more in keeping with the neighborhood and small town character. Specific
suggestions included :
1. Moving the proposed 405 Alberto Way bui lding further away from the residential
neighbors on the north side of the project;
2. Reducing the scale (height and length) of the 401 Alberto Way building fac;ade , with
additional second floor articulation ;
3 . Not blocki ng the view of the mountains from neighbors across the str eet to the
northeast;
4. Changing the style of proposed build ings to be more similar to the neighborhood
architectural styles;
5. Increasing conformance with the Commercial Design Guidelines, specifically: Section
1.4 Community Expectations :
a. Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town 's
residential structures;
b. The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential
neighborhoods;
c. Scale and character appropriate to the setting; and
6 . Increasing conformance with General Plan Policies :
a. Policy LU-1.8: Commercial development of any type (office, retail, research and
development, etc .) shall be des igned in keeping with the small-town character of ·
Los Gatos; and
b. Policy LU-6.5: The type, density, and intensity of new land use shall be cons istent
with that of the immediate neighborhood.
N :\DEV\PC REP ORTS\2017\AibertoWay401·409 04.12 .17 CUP AS EIR .docx 4/6/2017 4 :5 7 PM
PAGE 3 OF7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001
APRIL 6, 2017
The applicant has made the following design changes :
• Moved the proposed building ten feet farther away from residential neighbors on the
north side of the project;
• Reduced the scale of the 401 Alberto Way building fa!;ade with additional second floor
balconies;
• Reduced the 401 Alberto Way building fa~ade height and increased the front setback
to 63 feet to increase views of the mountains and provide for a landscaped buffer
between the street and the proposed building; and
• Provided a written description of the building style choice in the applicant response
letters (Exhibit 31 & 33).
A follow-up report was prepared by the Town's Architectural Consultant, dated March 17,
2017 (Exhibit 34). The report provided an evaluation ofthe revised development plans
(Exhibit 36), and specific recommendations. Should the Commission determine that the
project revisions meet the direction provided at the August 24, 2016 meeting, then the
Planning Commission could require all or some of the Consulting Architect's
recommendations to be implemented prior to building permit approval.
C. Street Width/Configuration
The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to work with Town Staff
and Caltrans to consider options for the following:
1. Changes to the w idth and alignment of Alberto Way, with consideration of bike
lane(s);
2. Implementation of complete streets elements on Alberto Way; and
3. Potential improvements to improve visibility of pedestrian access along Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road frontage and across the Highway 17 onramp .
The applicant has proposed to dedicate approximately 1,000 square feet of land to
increase the width of Alberto Way and stripe for bike lanes . If accepted , this dedication
would reduce the lot size and result in a slight increase in the proposed lot coverage (from
45 .3 percent to 45 .8 percent), though the project would still be below the 50 percent
maximum lot coverage allowed in this zone . The applicant has retained the complete
streets elements previously proposed , including separated sidewalks. The applicant has
retained the previously proposed improvements that would increase visibility of
pedestrians crossing the Highway 17 on ramp .
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Aibe rtoWay401-409 04.12.17 CU P AS EIR .docx 4/6/2017 4 :57PM
PAGE40F 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT /S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001
APRIL 6, 2017
D. Neighborhood Outreach
The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to work with the
neighbors in developing a reduced project scale and revised design.
The applicant worked with the neighbors while their design was developed and held four
open house outreach meetings on January 30, 2017 and March 20, 2017 (two on each
day), as described in applicant's response letter (Exhibit 31).
E. Project Elements to be Retained
The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to keep many of the
elements of the project, including but not limited to the proposed office use, high quality
building, the outdoor spaces, the underground parking, and the LEED Certification . All of
these elements are proposed to remain.
The applicant proposed:
• Increasing the number of parking spaces in the surface parking lot from 7 to 42
(adding 35 parking spaces);
• Reducing the number of parking spaces in the underground parking garage from 383
to 290 (removing 93 parking spaces); and
• Reducing total number of parking spaces to match the minimum required for the new
building size from 390 to 332 (removing 58 parking spaces).
F. Additional Items of Concern
The Planning Commission also expressed concerns about a number of items without
asking for a specific response. These items included concerns about the traffic numbers
and emergency access for Alberto Way residents . Staff has confirmed that the traffic
numbers in the traffic impact analysis comply with standard traffic engineering practices
and that the Santa Clara Fire Department has no concerns about emergency access during
or after construction. The applicant asked their traffic consultant, Hexagon Transportat ion
Consultants, to specifically address these concerns . These concerns are addressed in their
letter, dated April 6, 2017, attached as Exhibit 35, which has been reviewed by Town staff.
G. g_Q8
The revised project has been reduced in scale by decreasing the proposed floor area and
depth of excavation in response to comments from the Planning Commission and the
public and is consistent with the project description described in the Draft EIR . The revised
project would implement all ofthe mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR and
would not result in any new or increased significant environmental impacts as compared
N:\DEV\PC REP O RTS\2017\Aibe rtoWay401-409 0 4.12.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 4/6/2017 4 :57PM
PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT /S-15 -056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001
APRIL 6, 2017
to the Original Project. Therefore, no further environmental review is required under the
California Environmental Quality Act since all potential environmental impacts can still be
mitigated by the measures listed in the Draft EIR and the revi sed project would not result
in any new or substantially increased significant environmental i mpacts as compared to
the Original Project .
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION :
A. Conclusion
Should the Planning Commission determine that the project revisions meet the direction
provided at the August 24, 2016 meeting, the Commission can make the findings to approve
the Conditional Use Permit and Architecture and Site applications as outlined below.
B. Recommendation
If the Planning Commission determines that the revised project meets the direction
provided at the August 24, 2016 meeting and finds merit with the proposed project, it
should:
1. Adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact (Exhibit 4);
2. Certify the Final EIR and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Exhibit 15);
3. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for
granting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Exhibit 28) (Note: if the application is
approved the findings for denial will be removed);
4. Make the required finding that the project is in compliance with the Commercial
De sign Guidelines (Exhibit 28);
5. Make the findings required by Section 29 .10 .09030(e) of the Town Code for the
demolition of an existing structure (Exhibit 28);
6. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code
for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (E xhibit 28); and
7. Approve Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 and Architecture & Site
Application S-15 -056 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 29, and the plan s in
Ex hibit 36.
C. Alternatives
lfthe Commission has concerns with the propose d project, it can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
2. Approve the applications with additional and/or modified condition s; or
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\A ibertoWay401-409 04.12.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 4/6/2017 4 :57PM
PAGE 6 OF7
SUBJECT : 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001
APRIL 6, 2017
3. Deny the applications and make the required findings for denial (Exhibit 28) (Note : if
the applications are denied the provided findings for approval would be removed from
Exhibit 28).
EXHIBITS :
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report
Previously received with August 10, 2016 Staff Report:
2. Location Map
3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
4. Required CEQA Findings of Fact (24 pages)
5. Recommended Conditions of Approval (15 pages)
6. Letter of Justification/Project Description (15 pages), rece ived 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
Pr eviously received with August 24, 2016 Desk Item:
20. Comments received from 11 :01 a.m . on Thursday, August 18, 2016 to 11 :00 a.m . on
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
21 . Applicant's Response Letter, received August 24, 2016
Previously received with October 26, 2016 Staff Report :
N :\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Aibe rtoWay401-409 04.12.17 CUP AS EIR .docx 4/6/2017 4:57 PM
PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001
APRIL 6, 2017
22 . Communication from the applicant, received October 10, 2016 and October 19, 2016
23 . Public comments received from 11:01 a .m., Wednesday, August 24, 2016 to 11:00 a.m .,
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Previously received with January 11, 2017 Staff Report:
24. Communication from the applicant, received November 11, 2016
25 . Public comments received from 11 :01 a.m ., Thursday, October 20, 2016 to 11:00 a.m.,
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Previously received with March 22, 2017 Staff Report :
26. Communication from the applicant, received February 28, 2017
27. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, January 5, 2017 to 11:00 a.m. on
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Received with this Staff Report:
28. Revised Required Findings and Considerations
29. Revised Conditions of Approval (21 pages)
30. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, March 16, 2017 to 11 :00 a.m. on
Thursday, April6, 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 l etter 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 Consu ltant Letter (eight pages), received April 6, 2017
36. Revised Development Plans (35 pages), received March 17, 2017
Distribution:
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\20 17\Aib e rtoWa y401-409 04.12.1 7 CUP AS EIR .d ocx 4/6/2017 4 :57PM
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION-Apri/12, 2017
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
401-409 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056
Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009
Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001
Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct a new,
two-story office building with underground parking on property zoned CH. APN 529-
23-018.
APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
• An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed development. The
Planning Commission must certify the EIR, make findings of fact, and adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program .
Required findings for a Conditional Use Permit:
• As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit:
The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of the Town Code if it
finds that:
(1) The proposed use would be considered desirable in that the office buildings would
replace the existing office buildings on-site and provide necessary uses and services for
the community; and
(2) The proposed application will continue to provide office uses in one of the few small
mixed-use commercial areas of Town and the zone allows office; and
(3) The existing and proposed office use are not detrimental to public health, safety or
general welfare; and
(4) The proposed use is in harmony with the General Plan and Town Code.
Required findings to deny a Conditional Use Permit application:
• As required by Section 29.20.190 ofthe Town Code for denying a Conditional Use Permit:
The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a
conditional use permit for a new office building if any of the following findings are made :
IEXHIBff 2 s
(1) The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with specific provisions or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of the Town Code;
(2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of businesses in
the commercial district in which the u se is proposed to be located;
(3) The proposed use would create an over-concentration of similar types of busines ses ; or
(4) The proposed use will detract from the existing land use mix and high urban design
standard s including uses that promote continuous pedestrian circulation and economic
vitality.
Commercial Design Guidelines:
• The proposed buildings are consistent with applicable prov isions of the Commercial Design
Guidelines.
Required finding for the demolition of an existing structure:
• As required by Section 29 .10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing
structure :
1 . The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the demolition does not include any
residential buildings.
2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance .
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure as it ex ist s.
4. The economic utility of the structure is diminished becau se of age .
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code , the consideration s in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
N :\DEV \FI NDIN GS\20 17\A LBE RTO 401-409.DOCX
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-Apri/12, 2017
401-409 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056
Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009
Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001
Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct a new,
two-story office building with underground parking on property zoned CH . APN 529-
23-018.
APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER : CWA Realty
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all ofthe conditions of
approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or
modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the
scope of the changes .
2. EXPIRATION : The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Sec tion 29:20.320 of the Town Code , unless the approval has been vested .
3 . SIGN PERMIT: A Sign Permit from the Los Gatos Community Development Department
mu st be obtained prior to any changes to exi sting signs or in stallation of new signs.
4. CERTIFICATE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY: A Certificate of Use and Occupancy from the Los
Gato s Community Development Department mu st be obtained prior to commencement
of u se .
5. BUSINESS LICENSE : A bu siness license from the Town of Los Gatos Finance Department
must be obtained prior to the commencement of any new or change of use.
6. LAPSE FOR DISCONTINUANCE : lfthe activity for which the Conditional Use Permit ha s
been granted is di sc ontinued for a period of one (1) year, the approval lapses pursuant to
Section 29.20.340 of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. LEED CERTIFICATION: Prior to iss uance of building permits and prior to final, the applicant
shall provide documents showing progress towards and completion of LEED Silver
certification.
8. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down
directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood l ights
shall be u sed unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.
9. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
10. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT : A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be
removed, p r ior to the iss uance of a building or grading permit.
EXHIBIT 2 9
11. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their co st, all
recommendations made by Deborah Elli s, identified in the Arborist 's report dated
September 26, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance
Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit
application detailing how the recommendations have or will be addres sed. The se
recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior
to is suance of a building permit where applicable .
12. TREE FENCING : Protective tree fencing and other protection mea sures shall be placed at
the drip line of existing trees prior to is suance of demolition and building permits and shall
remain through all phases of construction . Refer to tree fencing requirements and other
protection measures identified in the Arborist Reports prepared by Deborah Elli s dated
September 26, 2015, on file in the Commun ity Development Department. Include a tree
protection plan with the construction plan s.
13 . TREE STAKING : All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
14 . WATER EFFECIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final land scape plan shall meet the
Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule
adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plan s are
submitted for review.
15 . LANDSCAPING : Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy all landscaped mu st be
complete .
16. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 day s of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
17 . SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the iss uance of a demolition permit, the
developer shall provide the Community Development Director with written notice of the
company that will be recycling the building materials. All wood, metal, gla ss, and
aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a
company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these
materials, noting the type and weight of materials, shall be submitted to the Town prior to
the Town's demolition inspection .
18. AIR QUALITY 1: Final plans for the proposed buildings on the site shall be amended to
include a requirement for low NOX heating systems to be in stalled in new buildings on the
site .
19. AIR QUALITY 2: Final plans shall be amended to include a requirement for the in stallation
of at least four electric charging st ations prior to occupancy, with parking re stricted to
electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, and at lea st one handicapped spac e shall b e provided
with acce ss to a chargin g station .
20. AIR QUALITY 3: The project contractor shall implement ba sic du st control mea sures at all
on-site and off-site location s where grading or excavation take s place . The project
contractor shall implement additional du st control measure s at all on -site and off-s ite
location s where grading or excavation t akes place within 200 f eet of re sid ential
properties.
Ba si c du st control m easu re s:
a. All exposed surfaces (e .g., parking areas, staging areas , soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved acce ss road s) shall be watered two times per day;
b . All haul trucks tran sporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered ;
c. All vi sible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public road s shall be removed using wet
powe r vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited;
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved road s shall be limited to 15 mph;
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pad s shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used; and
f. The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" respons i ble for
responding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor
will po st a publicly vi sible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator. The disturbance coordinator shall respond and take correction action for
any complaint received with 48 hours. The Air Di strict's phone number shall also be
visible to en sure compliance with applicable regulations.
g. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average
wind speed s exceed 20 mph ;
h. Vegetative ground cover (e .g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in
di sturbed area s as soon as po ss ible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
es tabli shed ; and
i. Unpaved road s shall be treated with a three to si x in ch compacted layer of wood chips,
mulch , or gravel.
21 . BIOLOGY 1: If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other
con struction activities begin during the nesting b i rd season (February 1 to Augu st 31), or if
con struction activities are suspended for at lea st two weeks and recommence during the
n es ting bird sea son, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct
a pre-con struction survey for nesting bird s. The survey shall be performed within suitable
nes ting habitat area s on and adjacent to the site to en sure that no active nests would be
di sturbed during project implementation. Thi s survey shall be conducted no more than
two week s prior to the initiation of disturbance/con struction activities. A report
do cumenting survey re sults and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be
completed by th e qualified biologi st and submitted to the Town of Los Gato s for review
and approval prior to di sturbance and/or constru ction activities.
If no ac tive bird ne st s are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed
as scheduled. However, if an active bird ne st of a native specie s is detected during th e
survey, then a plan for bird nest avoidance shall be prepared to determine and clearly
d elineate an appropriately-sized , temporary protective buffer area around each active
n es t , depe nding on the nesting bird species, exi sting site conditions, and type of proposed
disturban ce and/or con struction activities . The protective buffer area around an active
bird nest i s typically 75 -250 feet, d etermined at the di scretion of the qualified biologist
and in compliance with applicable project permits.
To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance
and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the
juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at
nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist.
22. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project's grading
plan shall indicate the requirement for a qualified archaeologist to be present at all times
during grading and excavation activities on the project site . If archaeological resources are
uncovered, work will not continue until the resources have been removed and/or
recorded . The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be
responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures . Co sts shall be
the responsibility of the developer(s).
23. CULTURAL RESOURCES 2: If human remains are found during construction activities, no
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the archeological monitor and the
coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted . If it is determined that the remains are
Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commis sion
within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or
persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native
American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person
responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public
Resources Code section 5097 .98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall
rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native
American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the
descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his
authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the
mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fail s to provide measures
acceptable to the landowner.
The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible
for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the
responsibility of the developer(s).
24. GEOLOGY & SOILS 1: Prior to the approval of building permits for the project site, the
applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the approval of the Building Official
that proposed design plans are in conformance with all current California Building Code
standards and that all design measures and site preparation recommendations as
suggested in the project's geotechnical exploration report prepared by ENGEO (2015)
have been incorporated into the project's final design
25. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1 : Prior to any demolition activities on the project
site, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey shall be performed to determine if any
additional waste removal activities would be required. The selected project contractor
shall implement all site specific measures and recommendations identified within the
site's asbestos and lead -based survey. Compliance with the asbestos and lead-based paint
survey during site demolition activities shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Town Engineer.
26. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction
of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction
agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to implement improvements for the restriping of
Alberto Way to include a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared left-through lane. Costs
for these improvements will be determined by the Town's traffic consultant.
27 . TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction
of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construct ion
agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide a bike box on Alberto Way at the
intersection with Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, as well as the detached sidewalks with a
landscape buffer on Alberto Way along the project site frontage, and on the north side of
Los Gatos-Saratoga Road between Alberto Way and the State Route 17 northbound on-
ramp .
28. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 3: Off-site improvement plans shall show that parking on
southbound Alberto Way between the two project driveways shall be prohibited to
ensure sight distance is not obscured.
29 . TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that
any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
30. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the
building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
Building Division
31. PERMITS REQUIRED: A separate Building Permit will be required for the two level Parking
Garage podium structure and a separate Building Permit shall be required for each
office/commercial building. Separate permits are required for electrical , mechanical, and
plumbing work as necessary.
32 . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the
second sheet of the construction plans . A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of
Approval will be addressed .
33. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, size 24" x 36" minimum, 30" x 42"
maximum .
34 . BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresse s to the Building
Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process .
35 . SOILS REPORT : A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendation s, shall be submitted
with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
36. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Obtain Building Department Demolition Applications and
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Applications from the Building Department
Service Counter. Once the Demolition Forms have been completed, all signatures
obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected,
return the completed Forms to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air
District's J# Certificate(s), PG&E verification , and three {3) sets of Site Plans showing all
existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E . No
demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a Permit from the Town.
37. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed
four {4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent
property or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a
Cal ifornia licensed engineer and shall conform to Cai/OSHA regulations .
38 . FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licen sed civil engineer or land
surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection.
This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils
report and that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and
elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical
controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for
the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d . Retaining Walls
39. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE : All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms
must be blue-lined (sticky-backed) onto a sheet of the plans.
40. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary
sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the
plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los
Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District {WVSD) requires backwater valves on
drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches above the
elevation of the next upstream manhole.
41. FIRE ZONE : This project will require Class A Roof Assemblies .
42. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The
Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested
parties, and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are
available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at
www.lo sgatosca.gov/building
43 . NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara
County Valley Non point Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (or Clean Bay Sheet
24x36) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second or third page . The specification
sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose
Blue Print for a fee .
44. N PDES-C.3 DATA FORMS: Copies of the N PDES C.3 Data Forms (updated based on the final
construction drawings) must be blue-l i ned in full onto the Plans . In the event that this
data differs significantly from any Planning approvals, the Town may require
recertification of the project's storm water treatment facilities prior to release of the
Building Permit.
45. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS: This project must, at a minimum, be in compliance with
the Nonresidential Mandatory Measures of the current California Green Building
Standards Code (CGBSC) and all subsequent Amendments.
a. Bicycle Parking: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.4.1.1 provide twenty (20) permanently
anchored bicycle racks (= 5% of motorized vehicle parking) for short-term bicycle
parking or ten (10) two-bike capacity racks. Per CGBSC Section 5.106 .4.2 provide
secure bicycle lockers for twenty (20) bicycles(= 5% of motorized vehicle parking).
Note: Providing showers, changing rooms, and clothes lockers in each building is a
voluntary amenity to be considered .
b . Designated Parking : Per CGBSC Section 5.106.5.2 provide designated parking for any
combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in
Table 5.106.5.2 which equals 8% of the proposed parking or a minimum of 32 spaces.
c. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations : Per CGBSC Section 5.106.5.3, during construction
provide electric vehicle supply equipment and electrical components as listed to
facilitate the future installation of (or provide for during construction) electric vehicle
charging stations. Per CGBSC Table 5.106.5.3.3, 12 electric vehicle charging stations
spaces are required for this project or 3% of the total parking spaces.
46. SITE ACCESSIBILITY : At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be
provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger
loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance that they
serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route
for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect all acce ssible buildings,
facilitie s, elements and spaces that are on the same site. If acces s is provided for
pedestrians from a pedestrian tunnel or elevated walkway, entrances to the buildings
from each tunnel or walkway must be accessible .
47 . ACCESSIBLE PARKING: The parking lots, as well as the parking structure, where parking is
provided for the public as clients, gue sts or employees, shall provide handicap accessible
parking. Acces sible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the
shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. In
buildings with multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking
spaces shall be di spersed and located closest to the accessible entrances.
48 . APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development/Planning Division: Jennifer Armer at (408) 399 -5706
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Wei sz at 395-5340
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. We st Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000
f. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school
district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit
issuance.
49. ADVISORY COMMENTS :
a. Allowable Area calculations shall be provided for each building per California Building
Code Chapter 5.
b . Per California Building Code Section 1027.5 Exit Discharge Access to a public way, from
the Shared Courtyard Amenity Area, it appears that there will be difficulty providing a
direct and unobstructed access to the public way or the ability to provide a safe
dispersal area in compliance with the Exception requirements.
c. For the balconies, the occupant load will be calculated at 15 square feet per occupant.
Please consider dividing the balconies with permanent railings to limit the balcony
areas to less than 750 square feet in order to avoid the requirement for two compliant
exits in anticipation of unknown future tenant improvement layouts.
TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS :
Engineering Division
50. GENERAL : All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering De sign Standards. All work shall
conform to the applicable Town ordinances . The adjacent public right-of-way shall be
kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the
end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities . The
storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed
unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Divi sion of the Parks and
Public Works Department. The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job
site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this
condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders
and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer 's expense.
51. APPROVAL: This application shall be c~mpleted in accordance with all ofthe condition s of
approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and
approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or
conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
52. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction
Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security . It is the
responsibility of the Developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from
affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to , Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E), AT&T, Com cast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the
Town Engineering Div ision of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing
any permit.
53 . GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to
the Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all
elements encroaching into the Town 's right-of-way.
54 . PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS : The Developer or their representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining
to on -site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way.
Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of work that went on without
inspection.
55 . RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace all
existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of the Developer's operation s. Improvements such as, but not l i mited to: curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic
pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better
than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names,
graffiti, etc . Any concrete identified that is displayi ng a stamp or equal shall be removed
and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be
allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the
d i rection of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24
Disabled Acce ss provisions . The Developer shall request a walk-through with the
Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing
conditions.
56. SITE SUPERVISION : The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job
site at all times during construction .
57. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure ofthe street
and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations
on works hours, protective enclo sures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe
manner may be required .
58. PLAN CHECK FEES : Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review
at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department .
59 . INSPECTION FEES : In spection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance
of any permits.
60. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR : The Developer shall fund a full time public works inspector,
selected by the Town of Los Gatos, for the duration of the grading operations. The
Applicant w i ll be charged on a t i me and materials basis. A deposit for the full amount, to
be estimated by the Town based on the Contractor's approved schedule, shall be paid
prior to issuance of the demolition permit.
61. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval. Additionally, any post-project traffic or parking counts, or other
studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the
Applicant .
62 . GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work
except for exemption s listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos
(Grading Ordinance). The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to
the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles
Avenue . The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining walllocation(s),
driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork
quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically
allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued
concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building
footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main
Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint.
63. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conforms to existing pavement on Alberto Way shall be
constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed .
64. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a drainage study of the
project evidencing that the proposed drainage patterns will not overload the existing
storm drain facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer.
65 . DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits,
whichever comes first, the Applicant shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and
b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal
for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any
required easements to the Town .
66. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
the issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
67. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a
licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the
following items:
a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations.
b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes .
68. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of
any site work, the general contractor shall :
a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town
Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site
maintenance and other construction matters;
b . Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of
approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and
understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the
project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction.
69. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main
Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the
Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review
process.
70. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated by separate instrument. The dedication
shall be recorded before any permits are issued:
a. Alberto Way: Right-of-way within Alberto Way for public street purposes as delineated
on the plans prepared by Kier & Wright shall be dedicated in fee .
b. Public Service Easement (PSE): Five (5) feet wide, along the Alberto Way frontage.
71. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the
application. The soils report shall include specific cr iteria and standards governing site
grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The
reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance
with Section 6735 of the California Busines s and Professions Code .
72 . GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE : A geotechnical investigation shall be
conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub -surface condition s at the site
and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site . The geotechnical
study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations,
retaining wall s, concrete slab-on-grade con struction, excavation , drainage, on-site utility
trenching and pavement sections . All recommendations of the investigation shall be
incorporated into project plan s.
73 . SOILS REVIEW : Prior to iss uance of any permits, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare
and submit a de sign-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval
by the Town . The Applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage
plan s to en sure that design s for foundation s, retaining walls, site grading, and site
drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments .
Approval of the Applicant's soil s engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by
letter or by si gning the plan s.
74. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION : During con struction, all excavations and
grading shall be inspected by the Applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete
and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the
design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the
recomm e ndation s contained in the report, if necessary. The result s of the con struction
obse rvation and testing sh all be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by
the Applicant's soil s e ng ine er and submitted to the Town before final release of any
occupancy permit is granted .
75. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS : The project shall in corporate the geotechnical/geological
recommend ation s contain ed in the project's de sign-level geotechnical/geolog ical
investigation as prepared by th e Applicant's engineer(s), and any subsequently required
r e port or addendum . Sub sequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the
Town's con sultant and co st s shall be borne by the Applicant .
76. IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT : The Applicant shall enter into an agreement to con struct
publi c improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town
in the amount of 100% (performance) and 100% (labor and m ateria ls) prior to issuance of
any permit. Th e Applic ant shall provide two (2) copie s of documents verifying th e cost of
the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Park s and
Public Works Department. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the
En ginee rin g Divi sion of the Park s and Public Works Department prior to the iss uance of
any permit.
77. JOINT TRENCH PLANS : Joint trench plan s shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
prior to re cordation of a map . The joint trench plan s shall include street and/or site
lightin g and ass ociated photometries. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that
publi c street li ght billing will by Rule LS 2A, and that private l ights shall be metered with
billing to the homeowne rs ass ociat ion . Pole numbers, ass igned by PG&E , shall be cl e arly
deline at e d on the plan s.
78. WATER DESIGN: Water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed and
approved prior to issuance of any permit.
79 . WATER METER: The existing water meters, currently located within the Alberto Way right-
of-way, shall be relocated within the property in question , directly behind the public right-
of-way line. The Applicant shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any portion
of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity.
80. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the Developer.
Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer,
reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance
Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the
recordation of a map . The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town
before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
a. Alberto Way :
i. Install new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip,
street lights, signing, striping, and storm drainage as directed by the Town
Engineer.
ii. Remove and replace the existing pavement section along the project frontage
with a traffic-appropriate engineered structural pavement section from
centerline to the lip of gutter on the project (west) side.
iii. Provide a 2-inch grind and overlay from centerline to the east side of the
street/lip of gutter.
iv. Provide two (2) travel lanes, an exclusive right-turn lane 210 feet in length and
a shared left-thru lane, and a bike lane exiting Alberto Way.
v. Provide a bike lane between the two travel lanes on southbound Alberto Way.
vi. Install a bike box on Alberto Way at the intersection with Lo s Gatos-Saratoga
Road.
vii. Install ADA-compliant curb ramp s at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road.
b . Los Gatos-Saratoga Road:
i. Install new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip,
street lights, signing, striping, and storm drainage as directed by the Town
Engineer.
ii. Install ADA-compliant curb ramps for the pedestrian crosswalk on Lo s Gatos-
Saratoga Road at the SR -17 northbound on-ramp. Install high visibility
crosswalk stripes and pede strian warning lights as approved by Caltrans.
iii. Provide a 2-inch grind and overlay from the median island to the new lip of
gutter along the project frontage.
iv. Widen the north side of Lo s Gatos-Saratoga Road and remove & replace the
existing median island along Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to provide for a future
bike lane and a left-turn pocket, 250 feet in length, for eastbound Lo s-G atos
Saratoga Road traffic turning onto northbound Alberto Way.
v. Provide pedestrian crosswalk improvements 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. as
approved by Caltrans and the Town Engineer.
81. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MEASURES : Projects which propose work within the Town's
right-of-way, including but not limited to pavement restoration, street widening,
con struction of curb, gutter and/or sidewalk, right-of-way dedication, etc., will be
evaluated by Staff to determine its potential for the implementation of Green
Infrastructure measures and associated improvements.
82. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS : The Applicant shall be required to improve the project's
public frontage to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not
limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approach(es), curb ramp(s), traffic signal(s),
street lighting (upgrade and/or repaint) etc . The improvements must be completed and
accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be
issued.
83 . ADA COMPLIANCE: The Applicant shall be required to meet all ADA standards, which must
be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued. This may require additional construction measures as directed by
the Town.
84. ON-STREET PARKING : On-street parking along the project's Alberto Way frontage shall be
prohibited after the construction and installation of public improvements . Additionally,
new red curb shall be painted along the eastern curb of Alberto Way (northbound
direction) at the Be st Western frontage.
85. UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE DRAINAGE : Water from the underground parking
garage shall not be discharged onto the public street. The Applicant shall design a floor
drainage system for the garage that collects all drainage and conveys runoff to the
sanitary sewer system. Connecting said drainage system to the storm drain system is not
permitted.
86. PARKING LOTS: Parking lots and other impervious areas shall be designed to drain
storm water runoff to vegetated drainage swales, filter strips, and/or other treatment
devices that can be integrated into required landscaping areas and traffic islands prior to
di scharge into the storm drain system and/or public right-of-way. The amount of
impervious area associated with parking lots shall be minimized by utilizing design
features such as providing compact car spaces , reducing stall dimen sions, incorporating
efficient parking lanes, and u sing pervious pavement where feasible. The use of
permeable paving for parking surfaces is encouraged to reduce runoff from the site. Such
paving shall meet Santa Clara County Fire Department requirements and be structurally
appropriate for the location .
87. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television
service. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments
from any and all utility se rvice providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be iss ued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for
final ali gnment or de sign of these facilitie s.
88. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any
sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing
adjacent infrastructure must meet current ADA standards. Sidewalk repair shall match
existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details.
New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified
that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole
expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of
sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the
construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted
by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued .
89. CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR: The Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town
standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. All
new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet Town standards. New curb and
gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of
stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or
equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional
compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be
determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of
the project . The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a
Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
90. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Developer shall install two (2) Town standard commercial
driveway approaches . The new driveway approaches shall be constructed per Town
Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued . New concrete shall be free of stamps,
logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall
be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional
compensation shall be allowed therefore.
91. CURB RAMPS: The Developer shall construct one (1) curb ramp in compliance with ADA
Standards which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps,
logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall
be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional
compensation shall be allowed therefore.
92. CAL TRANS APPROVAL: The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining design approval(s)
and construction encroachment permit(s) from Caltrans for any improvements within the
Caltrans right-of-way.
93. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but
not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080,
26 .10.065, and 29.40 .030.
94. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION): The Applicant shall upgrade
existing traffic signals to current Town standards including, and may not be limited to :
a. LED vehicular and pedestrian signal indication
b. LED safety and intersection lighting
c. ADA-compliant pedestrian push buttons
d . 12" signal heads
e . Emtrac fire preemption device
f. Service pedestal
g . New service pedestal at intersection (remove the existing service pedestal at the
south end of the Best Western and install new conduit from the existing service to the
new service pedestal)
h . Video detection system and cameras
i. Signal controller
j . Traffic signal interconnect
The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
95. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STREET LIGHTS): The Applicant shall replace existing street
light poles with new street light poles and LED light fixtures. The improvements must be
completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued .
96. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (LOS GATOS-SARATOGA ROAD/ALBERTO WAY INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT): Extend the left turn lane in eastbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to 250
feet in length. Re-construct the median island and necessary roadway configuration to
accommodate the extended left turn lane and to provide for future bike lane. Plans shall
be prepared by developer's design consultants and submitted to Town Engineer for
approval prior to construction. Applicant is required to designate necessary right of way
for the required widening. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the
Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued .
97 . TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FROM ALBERTO WAY TO LOS GATOS
BOULEVARD): Install signal interconnect conduit from Alberto Way to the existing empty
conduit approximately 300 feet east of Alberto Way. Repair said existing empty conduit if
nece ssary and as directed by the Town Engineer. Install conduits at Los Gatos
Boulevard/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road as needed for entering existing controller cabinet.
Install new signal interconnect cable in the new and existing conduits from Alberto
Way/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to the existing signal controller cabinet at Los Gatos
Boulevard/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road . Install necessary communication equipment inside
existing controller cabinets at Alberto Way/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and Los Gatos
Boulevard/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road for transmitting controller data and live video . Install
necessary signal interconnect equipment to complete functional signal communication.
98. THIRD PARTY STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSPECTION FEES : The Developer shall
pay a fee in the amount of $3,000.00 for Town's inspection of street lights and traffic
signal -related work installed by the Developer. The fees shall be due at time of building
permit application.
99 . TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TOM): The Developer shall prepare a
Transportation Demand Management Plan for the Town of Los Gatos approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The TOM shall include the measures such as and not
limited to bicycle· facility provisions, shower facilities, transit passes and subsidies, carpool
incentive, designated car share parking, shower and changing rooms, cash incentives,
transit passes and subsidies, carpool incentives, reserved car share parking, guaranteed
ride-home, etc., an annual monitoring report, and other measures that may be required
by the Town Engineer. The TOM shall also include a TOM coordinator and identify the
requirement and targets for an annual TOM effectiveness report to the Town of Los
Gatos.
100. TRAFFIC STUDY: Any development of land use that generates greater traffic impacts than
those assumed in the traffic study report may require an updated traffic study in
accordance with the Town's traffic impact policy.
101. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The developer shall pay the project's proportional
share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within
the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in
effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a
building permit. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project using the current fee
schedule is estimated at $526,768.00. The final fee with credits for complete street
improvements along Los Gatos-Saratoga Road shall be calculated from the final plans
using the rate schedule in effect immediately prior to building permit issuance.
102. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross vehicle
weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of
a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from the
Town Engineer.
103. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: No construction vehicles, trucks, equipment and
worker vehicles shall be allowed to park on the portion of any public (Town) streets
without written approval from the Town Engineer.
104. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: A traffic control plan is required and must be submitted and
approved prior to any work in the public right-of-way. This plan shall include, but not be
limited to, the following measures:
a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic
disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the
area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the
coordination ofthe trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption .
b . Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow. All
flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate
the operation.
c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency
services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of
operation .
105. CAL TRANS APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTOL PLANS : The Developer shall be responsible for
submitting the proposed traffic control plans to Caltrans for approval for any work within
the Caltrans right-of-way or that may affect traffic on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (California
State Route 9).
106. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL: All construction traffic and related vehicular routes,
traffic control plan, and applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to beginning of any work.
107. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION : Advance notification of all affected residents and emergency
service s shall be made regarding parking restriction , lane clo sure or road closure , with
specification of date s and hours of operation .
108. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on-or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evenin g pea k period s (between 7 :00a .m. and 9:00a.m. and between 4 :00p.m. and 6:00
p .m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Park s and Public Works . Prior to
the issuance of a build i ng permit, the Developer shall work with the Town Building
Department and Engineering Divi sion In spectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure
safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off of the project
site. Thi s may include, but is not limited to provisions for the Developer/Owner to place
con struction notification sign s noting the dates and time of construction and hauling
act ivities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant
projects in the area may also be required . Cover all trucks hauling soil , sand and other
loose debri s.
109. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivis ion improvements and site improvements
con struction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy
equipm ent, supplie s, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00a.m. to 8:00p.m .,
weekday s and 9:00a.m . to 7:00p.m. weekend s and holidays. The Town may authorize,
on a ca se-by-ca se ba sis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant shall provide written
notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of thi s
reque st is at di scretion of the Town .
110. CONSTRU CTION NOISE : Between the hours of 8:00a.m . to 8 :00p.m ., weekd ays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekend s and holidays, con struction, alteration or repair activities shall
be allowed . No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noi se level exceeding
eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source . If the device i s located
w ithin a structure on th e property, the mea surement shall be mad e at di stances as clo se
to twenty-five (25) f eet from the d evic e as poss ible . The noise level at any point outsi de
of the property plan e shall not exceed eighty-five {85) dBA.
111. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET : Prior to the iss uance of any permits, the
Applicant shall submit a con struction mana gement plan sheet (full-size) within the plan
se t that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan , Traffic Control Plan ,
Project Schedule, site security f encing, employee parking, con struction sta ging area,
material s storag e area(s), con struction trailer(s), concrete wa shout(s) and proposed
outhouse location(s). Plea se refer to the Town 's Construction Mana gement Plan
Guidelin es document for additional information.
11 2. CAL TRAN S: Pri o r to the start of any work along or within Caltran s rights-of-way and/or
ease ment, the Developer shall obtain nece ss ary encroachment permits for the proposed
work. A co py of approved encroachment permit i s required to be submitted to the
En gine erin g Divi sion of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to permit is suance .
113 . WVSD (We st Valley Sanitation Di strict): Sanitary sewer lateral s are televised by West
Vall ey Sa nitation Di strict and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
re u se d. A Sanitary Sewer Clean-out i s re quired for each property at the property line, or
at a location spe c ified by the Town.
114. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities includ ing but not limited to
clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land , which disturbs one (1) acre or more
which are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs le ss than one (1)
acre are required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State
Water Resources Control Board . The Applicant is required to provide proof of WDID# and
keep a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the
construction site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and/or Building Department upon
request.
115. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Appl icant is re sponsible for en suring that all
contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are
implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for
all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and /or
operations that need· protection . Removal of BMPs (temporary removal duri ng
construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of ea ch working day. Failure to
comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices,
citations, or stop work orders.
116. STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF : All new development and redevelopment
projects are subject to the stormwater development runoff requ i rements. Every
Applicant shall submit a stormwater control plan and implement condition s of approval
that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction , operation and
ma i ntenance of treatment mea sures and other appropriate source cont ro l and sit e de sign
measures. Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with th e
development runoff requirements .
117. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate the following mea sures:
a. Protect sensitive ar eas and m inimize changes to the natura l topograph y.
b . Minimize impervious surface area s.
c. Direct roof down spouts to vegetated areas .
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum .
e . Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
118. LANDSCAPING : In f i nalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment are a(s), it is
r ecommended that the landscape architect en sure that th e characte r istics of th e se lected
plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention area s in Append ix D
of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP ) C.3
Stormwater Handbook .
119. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plan s shall be prepared and
submitted to the Engineering Div ision of the Park s and Public Works Department. A
Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects
disturbing more than one (1) acre . A ma ximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between
clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy
season . Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during con stru ction and
before installation of the final land scaping, shall be included . Interim e ros ion cont ro l
method shall include, but are not limited to: si lt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and
detail s), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification , filter berm s, check
dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect
downstream water quality during winter month s. The grading, drainage, erosion control
plan s and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the
amended provision s C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Sy stem (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring for
ero sion and sed i ment control i s required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP
Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Con struction
General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects
may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Level s
and/or Numeric Effluent Level s. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) must be developed
forty-ei ght (48) hours prior to any likely precipitation even, defined by a fifty (50) percent
or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Admini stration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print
and save records of the precipitation foreca st for the project location area from
(http :/ /www.srh.noaa .gov/forecast) which must accompany monitoring reports and
sampling te st data. A rain gauge is required on -s ite. The Town of Lo s Gatos Engineering
Divi sion of the Park s and Public Works Department and the Building Department will
conduct periodic NPDES in spections of the site throughout the recognized storm sea son
to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances
and re g ulations.
120. DUST CONTROL : Blowin g du st shall be redu ced by timing construction activities so that
pavin g and building con struction begin as soon as poss ible after completion of gradin g,
and by land sc aping di sturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be
pre sent and in use at the construction site . All portion s of the site subject to blowing du st
shall be wate red as often as deemed nece ss ary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3)
tim es daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved acce ss roads, parking area s,
and st ag ing are as at con struction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust
for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be
clean ed by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed nece ss ary by the Town
En ginee r, or at least on ce a day. Watering ass ociated with on -site construction activity
shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m . and shall include at least on e (1)
late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled
or litte red due to this con struction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily ba sis
durin g the workweek to the sati sfaction ofthe Town. Demolition or earthwork activities
shall be halted when wind speed s (instantan eou s gu st s) exceed twenty-five (25) miles per
hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand , or other loose debris shall b e covered .
121. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any
pe rmits, all p ertinent detail s of any and all proposed stormwater management facilitie s,
includin g, but not limited to, ditche s, swal es , pipe s, bubble-ups, dry wells, outfall s,
infiltration trenches, dete ntion ba sin s and energy dis sipaters, shall be provided on
submitted plan s, reviewed by the Engineerin g Divi sion of the Park s and Public Works
Dep artment, and approved for implementation.
122. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requ i rements of
the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities
and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control
ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as
required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities .
123 . STORMWATER DISCHARGE: New buildings shall provide a covered or enclo sed a rea for
dumpsters and recycling containers . The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on
to the area and runoff from the area. Areas around trash enclosures and recycling areas
shall not discharge directly to the storm drain system . Any drains in stalled in or beneath
dumpsters and compactors shall be connected to the sanitary sewer . The Applicant shall
contact the local permitting authority and/or sanitary district with jurisdiction for specific
connection and discharge requirements.
124. WATER FEATURES: The proposed fountain feature shall have a connection to the sanitary
sewer system, subject to West Valley Sanitation District's authority and standard s, to
facilitate draining events. Discharges from this feature shall be directed to the sanita ry
sewer and are not allowed into the storm drain system .
125. SITE DRAINAGE : Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb
drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to
public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING -Flow s to
Bay" NPDES required language . On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one
of the alternatives included in section C.3 .i ofthe Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.
These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from
impervi ous surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces . If dry wells are to
be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line
and/or right-of-way. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of
an adjacent, downstream or down slope property.
126. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: A storm water management shall be included with
the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as defined in the
amended provisions C.3 ofthe Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2-
2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 . The plan shall delineate source cont r ol
measures and BMPs together with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be certified by a
professional pre-qualified by the Town. In the event that the storm water measures
proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those cert ified on the
Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval
prior to release of the Building Permit. The Applicant may elect to have the Planning
submittal cert!fied to avoid this possibility.
127. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOTES : The following note shall be added to the
storm water management plan : "The biotreatment soil mix used in all stormwater
treatment landscapes shall comply with the specifications in Attachment L of the MRP .
Proof of compliance shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Town of Lo s Gatos a
minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site using the
Biotreatment Soil Mix Supplier Certification Statement."
128. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Cert ification from the biotreatment
soil s provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division Inspection staff a
minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site . Additionally
deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering Division Inspection
staff. Sample Certification can be found here:
129. http:/ /www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT +SOIL.
130. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the
Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this
project by the Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or
modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be
performed by the property owner and shall specify device maintenance reporting
requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits
and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded, and a copy of the recorded
agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits .
131. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and
homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on
a daily basis . Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into
the Town's storm drains.
132. OUTDOOR TRASH ENCLOSURES: Outdoor trash enclosures shall be covered and provided
with area drains connected to the sanitary sewer per current NPDES requirements before
a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued . Temporary trash
enclosures are exempt from this condition. Connecting said drainage system to the storm
drain system is not permitted.
133 . GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during
the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or
person s authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Developer's
representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to
maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or
the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
134. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: Immediately upon approval of
any permit, the Applicant shall initiate a weekly neighborhood email notification program
to provide project status updates . The email notices shall also be posted on a bulletin
board placed in a prominent location along the project perimeter.
135. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.
N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2017\Aiberto 401-409 .doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
> Dear Jennifer,
>
Marilyn Basham <marilynbasham@me.com >
Sunday, March 26, 2017 3:09PM
Jennifer Armer
corrected email disregard 3/25/2017
Follow up
Flagged
>I am a resident of the Los Gatos Commons(LGC}, a senior, and a small business owner in Los Gatos along with my son,
Dr Ryan Basham MD. ·
>
>I want to share some of the communication that took place at the Commons on March 20 at 4:30pm with the
residents of LGC and Developer Lamb of the 401-409 Alberto Way Project.
>
>The meeting was billed as a presentation of revised building plans but in fact the square footage was unchanged and
the underground garage remains two levels and unchanged. When the residents questioned the deception, Mr Lamb
said he had met the request of the Planning Commissioners( PC) and reduced the MASS by 25% using cubic feet
measurements. When the residents protested that the PC had requested a 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in size, he told us we
were mistaken and should review the video of the meeting.
>
>One of the residents remarked that traffic has greatly increased in the last 6 months and that a new traffic analysis for
the project appears warranted. Shane, the other developer, said "the town is comfortable with the traffic study and we
need to go to the Town about traffic, not us!"
>
> Mr Lamb said that there would be 200 diesel truck trips per day; some days more. The trucks would come 6-7 a time.
When I asked him about how was he going to make the schedule work with BEACH TRAFFIC gridlock, he replied that
wasn't going to be a problem. He said the gridlock was ONLY a weekend occurrence and wouldn't interfere with the
trucks . When it was pointed out that summer BEACH TRAFFIC was everyday, he said he would have flagmen and walkie
talkies to handle it. The residents became very concerned that this outside developer had very poor knowledge about
the Town . It was especially concerning since this project will totally disrupt and isolate us at LGC (our only exit is
through the .construction zone) for a year and a half to two years.
>
>Thank You
> Marilyn Basham
EXHIBIT 3 0
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Jennifer,
Kalane McDonald <kalaneella@icloud.com >
Tuesday, March 28 , 2017 8:3 2PM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way project
First, allow me to thank you for your quick response to my previous message.
I continue to have strong reservations about the project as a whole, but I have become very concerned about the
construction process. After attending an information meeting presented by Lam , the concept of hundreds of trucks
hauling dirt away for weeks is horrifying. A few days ago as I was driving up to the corner, heading to Safeway, a large
truck was parked along the curb in front of 401-409 . It left very little space to pass even crossing over to the opposite
side, and luckily no car was coming in that direction . As I understand, trucks will be operating all day long, causing
congestion and dangerous situations. These trucks would be necessary to haul the excavation material in order to dig
out for an underground garage. I strongly object to such an underground garage .
I am registering my serious concerns for safety and extreme congestion on Alberto Way and Highway 9.
I will be attending the April12 meeting.
Sincerely,
Kalane McDonald
443 Alberto Way B224
Sent from my iPad
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
· Subject:
Attachments:
Loretta Fowler <lorettakfowler@gmail.com >
Friday, March 31 , 2017 11:44 AM
Jennifer Armer
March 20 meeting of residents of 401-409 Alberto Way with Mr. Lamb and co .
Lamb2 .docx
We had two meetings on March 20, one at 4 :30PM. Marilyn Basham, from The Commons committee on the
401-409 project, sent you the minutes a few days ago. Here is a summary ofthe 6:30 meeting discussion.
Loretta Fowler
The Commons Committee on the 401-409 Alberto Way project
March 20, 2017 6 :30-8 PM Meeting of residents with Mr. Lamb in The Commons clubhouse
From 9-11 present
Mr. Lamb focused on trying to convince us that it was useless to oppose the project.
First, he said his architect made changes to address our complaints about the mass of the building. He
said the Town Architect already approved these changes, implying that this person now thinks the
building is not too large and massive. Instead of reducing square footage, they "broke up mass" by
reducing the cubic feet of the building so the mass is reduced by 25% (volume reduced from 1.6 million
to 1.2 million cubic feet). So the building is smaller and residents' and Planning Commission complaints
are adequately addressed.
We objected to that logic.
Then he told us that it was pointless to complain about traffic congestion. We would be wasting our
time because the Town accepts the Hexagon traffic study that indicates the residents on Alberto Way
will not be inconvenienced by the project.
He finished by telling us that something would be built on the site and if he was not able to build the
83,000 sf office building, something worse for us would be put in that spot.
From Loretta Fowler
For Committee on 401-409 Alberto Way project, Los Gatos Commons
Jen nifer Arme r
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Jennifer
Jim Wagner <jimwag49er@aol.com>
Saturday, April 01 , 2017 12:11 PM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way Project/Lo s Gatos Commons
I am writing to you to voice my objections to the proposed buildings and construction at the corner of Alberto Way and
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. I cannot attend the Planning Commission meeting on the 12th but want my voice heard .
The City of Los Gatos is very well familiar with this street and it's communities already in here. It is so obvious there is no
room for a large commercial/business,added amount of working people/traffic/parking and in addition to the all day traffic
on Saratoga/LG Road . This is a qu ite part of Los Gatos housing many people especially seniors who want to live
peacefully. Surely, the Planning Commission can understand our concerns and objections Putting us (all residents) and
Alberto Way through 16 months of construction and destruction , delayed traffic, noise, dust, aggravation , anger and just
plain hell w ill be a nightmare for all of us . With all of that, we end up with th is commercial business whom we do not want
there in the first place.
I have to leave my home every morning at 8 :00 am and getting through the streets, lights and traffic and flagmen w ill
make me late every day and the inconvenience of having to leave earlier every day will eventually become a hardship.
You are Los Gatos , we are Los Gatos, I ask you to please reject the developers plans to disrupt our environment and way
of living and to find another location with space to build whatever they want and not try to squeeze into our neighborhood .
I hope the Town of Los Gatos is with it's loyal people and will do the right thing .
Respectfully,
Marge Wagner
Los Gatos Commons
Los Gatos Town Planning Commission
Jennifer Armer
Dear Ms. Armer,
APR 0 3 2017
TO\r.JN OF LOS GATOS
PLA NN if-.J G DIVISI ON
We purchased our condominium in Los Gatos Commons in 2014. We have lived in the bay area for over
30 years. The appeal to purchase in Los Gatos was that over the 30 years living in this area, Los Gatos
was able to maintain a wonderful small town appeal. One of the main attraction is that Los Gatos has
not sold out to developers as in the case of Cupertino. Los Gatos is such a beautiful town nestled
amongst the mountains and beautiful scenery.
The proposed office building will cause an extreme strain on the residents of Los Gatos Commons.
Alberto Way, less than one mile long will never be able to accommodate the amount of traffic that this
building will bring . At this time during the weekday, t raffic causes extreme congestion between highway
9 and Alberto Way. The residents are already ex periencing speeding traffic coming from the office
build ing at the end of the street. Los Gatos planning committee needs to understand Alberto Way
cannot and will not be able to accommodate this type of development.
I strongly urge the committee to decline this development request.
Nancy Orvell
439 Alberto Way A201
Los Gatos, California 95032
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dick McGowan <dickmcgowan114@gmail.com>
Monday, April 03 , 2017 4:37 PM
Jennifer Armer
401-405 Alberto Way
I really don't think the developers care what we think and don't think "they really" understand that this huge project is
going to impact everyone that lives on Alberto Way.My husband and I both in our 80's moved to the Common s JunelS
and just in that short time, we've had to leave at least 20 minutes early in order to make an appointment. With this
project we'll have to at least double that time plus more at times.
Driving with cars that belong to the residents line both sides of the street certainly impact our safety even now.
Needless, to say we're very sad about this project.
Thanks for listening to me.
Connie and Richard Mcgowan
Sent from my iPad
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
H i Jennifer
LORENESPRANDEL < lorenesprandel@com cast.n et >
Wednesday, April OS , 2017 6:59PM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Project
With increased traffic o n Highway 9, all northbound traffic on Highway 17 exiting o n East Los Gatos ramp will
ha ve a difficult time to cross highway 9 to access th e left tum for A lberto Way . Many of the Common s residents
have families south of h ere and Highwa y 17 is the o nly one they ca n use. Thanks for all th e help you h ave given u s
at the Common s
Sincerely Lorene Sprandel
April 4, 2017
Planning Commissioners
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Impact of 401-409 Alberto Way Proposed Development
on Bella Vista Village
Bella Vista Village is a development of 47 Craftsman-style townhomes that was constructed in
1998 and 1999 on a small farm at the base of Bella Vista Avenue . A local architectural firm,
Paragon Design, put great thought into designing a project that would blend well with the
existing residential homes at the end of this idyllic cui-de sac on Alberto Way.
I've enjoyed this neighborhood for 18 years as an original owner. My neighbors and I have
carefully watched the various proposed developments at both ends of Alberto Way with
curiosity and trepidation. As a Realtor having represented buyers and sellers on 24 Bella Vista
Village homes, I've experienced another perspective--the impact the proposed project at 401-
409 Alberto Way has had on marketing homes for sale or for rent for the past two years as
residents wonder what kind of impact a development of this size would have on these homes.
The existing plan:
• Is nearly 2 Y2 times the square footage of the existing office space
• Requires an extended period of time for underground and above ground construction
which ultimately could cause structural damage to adjacent properties
• Will cause increased traffic congestion on Highway 9, Highway 17 and Alberto Way--a
bottleneck entrance to hundreds of homes and nearly 200,000sf of commercial office
space . Without any additional development, the street already suffers from a narrow
roadway limited by street parking on both sides of the street.
(Kemp, 2 of 3)
In my recent door to door survey in Bella Vista Village, the residents indicated they would look
forward to a new development that would enhance this area of town but have an overwhelming
concern for the size, mass and scale of the proposed development. They have asked me to
represent them as a liaison with neighboring developments at Pueblo de Los Gatos, The Los
Gatos Commons and Las Casitas to voice their concerns to the proposed developer. These
concern s can best be summarized in six points:
1. The size, mass and scale of the originally designed 93,000 sf building should be
reduced by one third to one half as requested by the Planning Commission at the last
hearing in 2016 (46,000 to 62,000sf).
2. Compared to the current artist renderings presented by the developer, the
architectural features of the project should be in keeping with the existing residential
neighborhood with lower building height, breaks in the roofline, a mix of exterior
building materials possibly including wood, glass and stone with breaks in the front
and side elevations and privacy for adjacent neighbors, avoiding a massive,
contemporary, concrete, cubic design that blocks hill views and light at the end of the
day.
3. This project should allow reasonable ingress/egress on Alberto Way as most of the
residents in Bella Vista Village are working profess ionals, and many families have small
children that attend school and have after school activities. They are especially
concerned with the number of trucks and heavy equipment that will be needed for
quite some time during the extended con struction phase .
4. This project should not cause an additional burden to the drainage system on
Alberto Way. Plea se see the independent hydrologist's report for 401-409 Alberto
Way which shows the project will overload neighboring systems if not mitigated
properly. The Bella Vista Village developer (Landmark Development) returned a year
after construction completion to install additional drainage including sump pumps to
the homes on the lower half of Cuesta de Los Gatos Way due to excess water run-off
they had not anticipated from the highest elevation in the development (Maggi Court
which lies at the base of Bella Vista Avenue). The se sump pumps have been working
overtime this year with the return to normal rainfall, and our streets and curbs have
often flooded when the drains failed to meet the run-off demand. Our residents
realize that mitigation for any additional load on Alberto Way is going to be critical.
(Kemp, 3 of 3)
5. The 401-409 Alberto Way parking should not overflow to street parking on Alberto
Way where many residents in Bella Vista Village park their vehicles due to storage in
their garages. Parking after hours on the street is already at a premium for existing
residents .
6. As a real estate agent, I've experienced sellers that are concerned about additional
disclosures that must be provided to buyers and tenants detailing anything "that could
possibly affect the value of the property" as required by law. These details include
proposed size of the project and increase in traffic congestion during construction and
after construction completion . Additional disclosures detailing work to be completed
at some future date is seldom viewed as a positive feature .
IN SUMMARY, the size and scale of this project is of tremendous concern to the residents of
Bella Vista Village on a wide range oftopics . We ask that the Planning Commission of the Town
of Los Gatos reject the existing EIR due to inaccuracies and reject the currently proposed
development plan .
Regards,
Melanie Kemp
Broker Associate
Coldwell Banker
174 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
To: Planning Commission, los Gatos, CA
From: Loretta Fowler
451 Alberto Way, Los Gatos Commons
Date: April 6, 2017
Dear Committee,
I am a member of the Commons committee that wrote to you objecting to the proposed project at 401-
409 Alberto Way. We did not address in any detail the disruptions that we will experience during the
construction phase of the proposed project. In our community meetings, we questioned Mr. lamb
about this and got some information . Then I consulted two project managers, both of whom worked on
large buildings with underground garages. The construction phase of the proposed project, if approved,
will be devastating for us .
The project will have four stages, according to Mr. Lamb . Each will bring a staggering increase in traffic
into Alberto Way and a significant increase in air pollution. The work will take place 9AM to 4PM.
In the demolition stage there will be a continuous movement of heavy equipment in and out of the site,
the street, and the intersection. Considerable dust and debris will be produced.
The next phase, which Mr. Lamb said would "only" be six weeks, is excavation. Diesel trucks will come
in empty and leave with loads of dirt-Mr. Lamb said 200 truckloads a day so 29 loads per hour; round
trips would be 58 per hour on average. However, we have learned that if the soil is very moist, as the
soil at this site will be, it will expand so even more loads will be requ ired . It could very well be that 270
loads will go out in one day and there will be 540 round trips by diesel trucks. This would be 39 trips per
hour!
Then there is the garage construction phase in which large concrete trucks go in and out continuously.
Mr. Lamb told us only 87 truck trips {174 round trips) per day. If that figure is accurate, we can expect
25 round trips per hour.
This is followed by 8 months of above ground work with crane trucks bringing in roof tiles and many
other trucks bringing supplies and services in and out every day.
The construction will produce particulate matter and diesel fumes far beyond what can be mitigated by
the developer's plan (two daily waterings, as described in the EIR).
Nine AM to four PM includes the school rush. The traffic at the intersection of Alberto Way and
between the 17 ramps and HWY 9 will be backed up as the trucks come and go. When little Grill 57 was
built, we often were held up 5-15 minutes waiting for the trucks to clear. Not only will it be difficult to
drive in and out of Alberto Way in a timely manner; we will not be able to comfortably and safely walk
up and down the street as we usually do and as school children have to do.
Please protect the quality of life on Alberto Way, half of the residents of which ar e seniors. This
con struction, if approved, w ill be very stressful and disruptive . The developer should put this large
bu i lding with its two-story underwater garage somewhere else . Please do not approve this project.
April 6, 2016
To: Town of Los Gatos Planning Commissioners
Cc: Jennifer Armer, Town of Los Gatos Planning Dept.
From: The Alberto Way Liaison Committee ("AWLC") representing residents of 228 units living on Alberto Way in
four Homeowner Associations:
Los Gatos Commons, 445 Alberto Way (110 units)-John Mittelstet-443 Alberto way, Unit B123
Bella Vista Villages, (La Cuesta; Maggi Ct.) (47units)-Melanie Kemp, 174 Cuesta de Los Gatos
Pueblo de Los Gatos, 420-Alberto Way, (53 units)-Bob Burke, Unit #49
Las Casitas, 435 Alberto Way (18 units), Roman Rufanov, Unit #5
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commissioners :
With the understanding that the property known variously as 405 Alberto Way and as 401-409 Alberto Way is
one which will ultimately be redeveloped, we hope when that day arrives, it will be a development which is an
asset to the community, conforms with the Town's General Plan, fits in with the small town feel of Alberto Way,
and respects the needs of all the citizens of Los Gatos. We feel that the latest revision to the Proposed
Development from LP Acquisition, LLC, insufficiently addresses these goals and disrespects the earlier directives
of the Planning Commission itself.
Additionally, we feel that the EIR for this project contains serious errors relative to both traffic and hydrology,
which in sum demand that prior to any development for this location, the EIR should be amended and
recirculated for comment.
The AWLC representatives submit the following reports which we believe show why the Proposed Development
does not meet the goals of the Town and where the EIR has erred either by co -mission or by omission:
1) Peter Geissler, Phd., P.E., Registered Civil Engineer, R.C.E ., Hydrology Report (10 pages)
2) The Los Gatos Commons Report by the Committee on the 401-409 Alberto Way Project "COAWP" (5
page s with three attachments, an additional total of 31 pages)
3) Letter from Melanie Kemp-Bella Vista Village s (2 pages)
4) Comprehensive report prepared by Bob Burke-Pueblo de Los Gatos (49 pages) with additional14-page
July 27 th, 2016, VTA approved Measure B Project List as attachment.
5) Seven copies (one for each Commissioner) of the Las Casitas Opposition Summary by Roman Rufanov (7
pages with color traffic photos), and two attachments (Geissler Report; and VTA Measure B projects list-
July 2016; additional total of 12 pages); includes signed petitions of Las Casitas residents ; 18 signatures
representing each of the 16 occupied residences
6) Petitions (common language) to Planning Commission from :
a. Los Gatos Commons-87 signatures representing 76 units
b. Bella Vista Villages -29 signatures representing 29 units
c. Pueblo de Los Gatos-64 signatures representing 48 units
In summary, the four HOAs have submitted 198 signatures from 169 units (74%) in support of these reports."J-t ~
The Alberto Way Liaison Committee unanimously supports each and every one of the above re ports.
We have worked hard and long over the past 39+ weeks, meeting weekly since August, to understand
the project and its Impact on the community. The seven members of the Los Gatos Commons COAWP
have also met weekly since September. We have arranged four separate meeting times t o host Lamb
Partners for presentations to our re si dents in our attempt to educate our re si dents and bette r
understand their offering. More than 77 residents attended these meetings, and gave thei r feedbac k to
the developer and to their respective committees.
Sadly, we feel that our collective communities' requests for adequate traffic mitigation, and our
concern s about a two-level underground garage, size of the project at 83,000 sf, and loss of nearby
community services have fallen on the developer's deaf ears.
We ask that you reject the 401-409 Development as proposed, and that you not certify the EIR until it
can be appropriately amended and re-circulated for comment. Then a developer w i ll have an ade quate
roadmap for an appropriate development at 401-409 Alberto Way.
Respectfully submittedo /~~ __ ~L-;f)J(~ u~ ~~~)0
John Mittelstet, Pres.-Lo s Gatos Commons Board of directors; Chair-Alberto Way Liaison Committee
Melanie Kemp-Bella Vista Villages
Bob Burke-Pueblo de Los Gatos
Roman Rufanov-La s Casitas
I
n /' ~ /\/\ ! ) --/'\
II I U/f[ \:J)f::;/)SLt:-tf<(
,.
Peter Geissler, Ph.D., P.E.
Consulting Civil Engineer
HYDROLOGY REPORT
401-409 Alberto Way , Los Gatos, CA 95032
31 st March 2017
Jennifer T .C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner G
Community Development Department •.
1 1 0 E. Main Street '
Los Gatos CA 95030 ·
And
Los Gatos Commons Homeowners Association
445 Alberto Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Project:
Project
Location:
Affected
Hydrology Report re 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032
401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos , CA 95032
Properties: Los Gatos Commons, Los Gatos
Bella Vista Village, Los Gatos
Pueblo de Los Gatos, Los Gatos
Las Casitas, Los Gatos
Ref: ENGEO Report dated July 17, 2015, revised August 13, 2015
401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration, Appendix C,
DEIR
Ref: Architectural Technologies Plans for Project 153948 revised 19 February 2016
Ref: Civil Engineering Plans by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier &
Wright revised 8 February 2017
Ref: Geissler Engineering Project No. E16-2402
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Geissler Engineering has been asked to review hydrological and geotechnical data presented in
the ENGEO Report referenced above . In addition, Geissler Engineering has been asked to
review civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier &
Wright revised 8 February 2017.
The review includes an evaluation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented
in the ENGEO Report and renders an expert opinion as to the hydrological impact of the
proposed project on neighboring properties.
In so doing, Geissler Engineering has considered the impact of the proposed construction of a 2-
story underground garage on the residential developments on Alberto Way due to:
(i) The likelihood of life-threatening flooding due to upstream dam failures ;
(ii) Soil subsidence caused by temporary dewatering during construction ;
(iii) Long-term hydrological effects caused by diversion of subsurface flow of
groundwater following construction of the proposed 2-story underground garage;
(iv) The likelihood of structural cracking (post construction) of the proposed 2-story
underground garage and subsequent seepage of groundwater into the garage;
(v) Long-term dewatering required to discharge the seepage of groundwater into the
underground garage ;
(vi) Problems associated with long-term dewatering in the vicinity of the proposed 2-story
underground garage;
(vii) The likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm;
(viii) The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a
previously mapped Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone;
(ix) The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a
previously mapped Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone;
(x) The likelihood of flooding of the proposed 2-story underground garage due to
storm water runoff;
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project includes the construction of a 2-story underground garage 20 to 22 feet below grade.
The ground water varies in depth from year to year depending on annual rainfall during the
previous 5 or 6 years. At this particular location, the depth of the ground water varies from a
high of 12 feet below grade to a low of 18 feet below grade. [Ref: Section 4 .1 and Section 5.13,
ENGEO Report, pages 8 and 20]
ENGEO recommends that for civil engineering design purposes, the groundwater must be
assumed to be 12 feet below grade. Geissler Engineering concurs. [Ref: Section 4.1 and Section
5.13 , ENGEO Report, pages 8 and 20]
Page 2
Therefore, the bottom of the foundation of the proposed 2-story underground garage is to be
constructed I 0 to 12 feet below the water table .
The proposed 2-story underground garage is located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone.
[Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation]
The location of the 2-story underground garage has been identified as an Earthquake Induced
Liquefaction Haz ard Zone. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February
21 ' 2012]
The combined effect of: (i) the likelihood of seismic activity; and (ii) subgrade soils subject to
liquefaction (i.e., sudden loss of strength and bearing capacity in the event of strong vibration),
make this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater) garage.
In the event of an earthquake, the soils below the 2-story underground garage are likely to
exhibit significant loss of bearing capacity. Loss of bearing capacity is likely to result in
differential foundation settlement with resultant structural cracking of the reinforced concrete
structure . Cracking of the reinforced concrete structure allows significant influx of groundwater.
Geissler Engineering estimates the rate of flow into the (cracked) underground (and underwater)
garage structure could range from 50 gallons per minute to 500 .gallons per minute, or more ,
depending on the severity of the cracks.
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that construction of a 2-story underground parking
structure shall cause soil subsidence, differential foundation settlement and cracked slabs at
nearby houses in Los Gatos Commons , Bella Vista Village, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas
developments.
Even in the absence of earthquake activity , ENGEO has admitted that differential foundation
movement is likely due to seasonal shrink-swell activity of expansive sub grade soils. Such
movement can cause leakage at cold joints in underground concrete walls and floors. Thus even
in the absence of earthquake activity, leakage of groundwater into the underground garage is
likely. The leakage of groundwater through cold joints has been estimated by Geissler
Engineering to be on the order of 50 gallons per minute.
Obviously, seepage as small as 50 gallons per minute could be collected in a drainage sump
located within the interior of the garage and pumped out by means of submersible sump pumps.
However, it is not practical to attempt to collect and discharge 500 gallons per minute or more.
The underground garage is to be constructed at a location subject to significant sheet flow of
storm water runoff during heavy rains. Thus, surface drainage may also result in flooding of the
underground garage unless the surface drainage facilities are substantially improved.
The proposed 2-story underground garage is located at a site that has been identified as one that
is subject to flooding in the event of an upstream dam failure. [Ref: Section 14.4.2 .2 .6, Santa
Page 3
Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21, 2012 Page 14-48 ; ABAG, 1995. Dam
data from State of Cal ifomia Office of Emergency Services]
Dam failures always pose significant risk to life and property. However, the construction of an
underground garage at a location that has already been identified as one subject to flooding in the
event of an upstream dam failure is beyond the ordinary concept of engineering risk; this is
certain death for everyone inside the garage .
Put simply, the construction of an underground parking garage that is subject to flooding in the
event of a dam failure is wanton disregard for public safety.
The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright
revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because they show inadequate property drainage.
SOIL CONDITIONS
ENGEO borings show medium dense to dense clayey sands to depths ranging between 10 to 21
feet below grade. Below this level , medium dense to very dense clayey gravels were
encountered to depths of approximately 29 to 33 feet below ground surface. Bedrock was
encountered below the strata of medium dense to very dense clayey gravels. Geissler
Engineering holds the opinion that this description of subgrade soils is accurate.
The surficial clayey sands exhibit adequate strength and bearing capacity to support foundation
loads. Unfortunately, the surficial clayey sands are moderately expansive (i.e., subject to shrink-
swell activity when subject to periodic wetting and drying due to seasonal changes in moisture
content). This can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures
founded on shallow foundations. [Ref: Section 4.3 ENGEO Report, page 8]
The strata of clayey gravels sandwiched between the clayey sands (above) and the bedrock
(below) is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. [Ref: Section 4.13 ENGEO
Report, page 6]
ENGEO estimates the settlements due to liquefaction-induced ground settlement as follows.
Our liquefaction analyses indicate that gravel deposits up to 9 feet thick below the bottom
of the proposed parking garage (estimated to be 20 f eet below grade) may potentially
liquefy and result in vertical settlements of approximately 1 inch. Additionally, our
liquefac tion analyses indicate that gravel deposits up to 14 feet thick for portions of the
site not within the proposed parking garage may potentially liquefy and result in vertical
settlements of approximately 2 inches. Ref: Section 4.1.4 ENGEO Report, page 7]
ENGEO estimates the potential total and differential settlement as follows.
Assuming the subterranean parking garage extends at least a distance of 20 feet below
grade, w e recommend that the foundation design consider 1 inch oftotal and !12 inch of
Page 4
differential settlement associated with liquefaction-induced settlement. [Ref: Section
5.7.1 ENGEO REPORT, page 15]
Aside from an apparent inconsistency in the ENGEO report as regards to the magnitude of
expected settlements, the message is clear. We should expect settlements on the order of I inch
or more .
Appreciate that differential foundation settlements on the order of an inch or more shall cause
significant cracking in the reinforced concrete structure. In an underground (and underwater)
garage, this is likely to allow the influx of substantial flow of groundwater.
EARTHQUAKE RISK
The project location is located within an earthquake fault rupture hazard zone. [Ref: California
Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation]
The project location is located within an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The
risk of earthquake induced liquefaction hazard has been determined to be high by the Santa Clara
Planning Department. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21,
2012]
Plate 1.2 of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Gatos Quadrangle (2002) indicates a
likelihood of liquefaction that requires mitigation measures are required as per Public Resources
Code Section 2693( c).
The ENGEO Report admits that the strata of clayey gravels soils at the subject property
(specifically, soils at the location of Boring B3) are subject to liquefaction according to criteria
described in an authoritative research paper. [Ref: Seed, R. B., Cetin K. 0., Moss R. E. S.,
Kammerer A.M., Wu J ., Pestana J. M., Riemer M . F., Sancio, R. B., Bray J.D., Kayen R. E.,
Faris A., 2003, Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A unified and Consistent
Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar]
GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
In 2008, Earth Systems Geotechnologies (ESG) reported encountering groundwater at a depth of
approximately 18 feet at a nearby site located at 55 Los Gatos Saratoga Road. This is
approximately 200 feet away from the proposed construction s ite. The groundwater is likely to
be 5 or 6 feet higher following the end of the record drought.
ENGEO did not record the groundwater level in boring B 1 or boring B3 .
The ENGEO Report recommends using a design value of 12 feet for the depth of the
groundwater at the project location. Geissler Engineering concurs.
Geissler Engineering is concerned that the construction of a 22-foot deep underground garage
may cause diversion of subsurface seepage patterns. The long-term effects of such diversion of
Page 5
subsurface seepage include a rise in groundwater levels in neighboring properties and increased
seepage flow rates which in tum may cause piping failures in adjacent soil strata.
Geissler Engineering estimates that the so-called "radius of influence" of the diversion of
subsurface seepage is approximately 250 feet from the underground garage. This estimate of the
radius of influence is based upon soil classifications . The permeability of the surficial clayey
soils estimated to be on the order of 1 o-8 em /sec (very low) whereas the permeability of the
gravel strata 1 o-s em /sec (very high).
SURFACE HYDROLOGY
The project site is located within the FEMA flood plane defined by 0.2% annual chance flood
hazard. [Ref: FEMA-Santa Clara County DFIRM, 2009)
Thus, the chance ofNOT flooding during any 100-year period is given by the expression :
p = (1 -0.002)100 = 82%
Accordingly, the chance of flooding during any 1 00-year period is 18%.
Based upon the size of the tributary drainage area and the slope of the surface of the ground and
the runoff characteristics of the ground, Geissler Engineering estimates that the chance of
flooding is 0.8% annual chance flood hazard.
Geiss ler Engineering calculates the chance of NOT flooding during any I 00-year period is given
by the expression :
p = (1-0 .008)100 = 45%
Thus , Geissler Engineering estimates the chance of flooding during any 1 00-year period is 55%.
Statistically, this is more-or-less equivalent to a 125-year flood plane.
The usual standard for the assessment of the risk of flooding due to annual rainfall is whether or
not the property is located within the so-called 1 00-year flood plane. This parcel is not located
within the 1 00-year flood plane .
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that where, as here, flooding would result in certain death
for anyone caught inside the underground parking garage in the event of flooding, a higher
standard should be applied by planning authorities.
DEWATERING
ENGEO advises that temporary dewatering during construction is required, as follows .
Page 6
Based on the anticipated depths of approximately 20 feet for the planned excavation and
con sidering groundwater levels encountered during our field exploration and a design
groundwater level of 12 feet, groundwater may be encountered above the bottom of the
excavation. Temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary. Assessment of
dewatering should be made prior to excavation to determine the level of groundwater
control and dewatering necessary to address long-term conditions for the depressed
portions of the structure at this site.
Temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary to keep the excavation and
working areas reasonably dry. If necessary, dewatering should be performed in a manner
such that water leve l s are maintained not less than 2 feet below the bottom of excavation
prior to and continuously during shoring and foundation installation. As the excavations
progress, it may be necessary to dewater the soils ahead of the excavation, such as by
continuous pumping from sumps, to control the tendency for the bottom of the excavation
to heave under hydrostatic pressures and to reduce inflow of water or soil from beneath
te mporary shoring. [Ref: Section 5. I 3, ENGEO Report, page 20]
During construction, the contractor shall need to construct a cofferdam around the proposed
construction site (i.e ., a partial barrier against the influx of ground water) and shall need to
dewater the excavation by means of diesel-powered pumps.
Geissler Engineering estimates the flow of groundwater to be on the order of 250 gallons per
minute (minimum) and 500 gallons per minute (maximum).
During construction, the effect of this local dewatering is two-fold.
F irst, there is likely to be slight soi l subsidence in the near vicinity of the cofferdam due to
dewatering. Geissler Engineering estimates the upper limit of(downward) soi l subsidence of
neighboring properties to be as follows.
Distance to Proposed Excavation Soil Subsidence During Construction
5 feet away from excavations 1" of soil subsidence
15 feet away from excavations 3/4" of soil subsidence
25 feet away from excavations I /2" of soil subsidence
50 feet away from excavations 3/8" of soil subsidence
I 00 feet away from excavations 1/4 " of soil subs idence
150 feet away from excavations 1 /8" of soi l subsidence
250 feet away from excavations 1/16" of soi I su bs idence
Page 7
Second, the effluent from diesel-powered pumps must be discharged onto the street or other
receiving drainage facility such as a storm drain. Geissler Engineering hold s the opinion that
the di scharge of250 gallons per minute (minimum) to 500 gallons per minute (maximum) on a
continuous basis will negatively impact existing property drainage facilities. At a minimum , thi s
water is added to existing drainage facilities and, in effect, reduces the capacity of other drainage
facilities (e.g., storm drains) that serve the neighborhood.
Based on proximity to the proposed excavation, Geissler Engineering calculations suggest that
all of the Las Casitas development and Pueblo de Los Gatos development are likely to exhibit
cracked slabs as a result of soil subsidence during construction.
ENGEO advises against permanent dewatering. Instead, ENGEO recommends the use of
waterproofing to prevent the influx of groundwater.
Specifically , ENGEO advises:
Permanent dewatering is not recommended and the mat foundation or concrete slabs and
basement walls s hould be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic and/or uplift
pressures. [Ref: Section 5.9 ENGEO Report, page 18]
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that it is impossible to prevent the influx of groundwater
into an underground garage by means of waterproofing alone where, as here , ground settlements
up to I inch (vertical) are expected.
Put si mply, th ere is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of
groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure that is badly cracked in the aftermath of an
earthquake with earthquake-induced liquefaction settlements.
Like-wise, there is no waterproofing product on the market that w ill prevent the influx of
groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when differential foundation settlements due to
seasonal groundwater variations cause differential foundation settlements of W' or more.
It is sign ificant that ENGEO recommended that concrete slabs be 8 inches thick at the proposed
development. That shows that ENGEO appreciates the potential for cracked s labs due to
seasonal groundwater variations in expansive subgrade soils. Sadly, thi s level of protection
against cracking is not afforded neighborin g properties' existing slabs.
Geiss ler E ng ineering warns that the public safety is at risk.
UPSTREAM DAM FAILURE
The mo st significant hazard is posed by the possibility of an upstream dam failure.
Built in 195 2 , th e Lenihan Dam (Lexington Reservoir) is an earthen dam and is maintained by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It hold s 19 ,000 acre-feet of water and is just minutes
upstream from the project location.
Page 8
A catastrophic failure of Lenihan Dam would cause flo oding at the project locat ion w ithin
minute s.
U nd erground parking amplifies the risk of drownin g in the event of a dam failure.
PROPERTY DRAINAGE
The c ivil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright
revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because there is inadequate property drainage.
T he existing and proposed grade elevations are as fo llows.
• The existing grade on the property at 405 Alberto Way ran ges from +338.84 (near Las
Cas itas) feet to + 341.31 feet (near Saratoga-Los Gatos R oad).
• The proposed finish grade is +336.63 feet (varies).
• The proposed first floor elevation is +336 .50 feet.
• The street elevation at Alberto Way is 339.02 feet (varies).
Put s impl y , the proposed development is no t well draining and is like ly to serve as a temporary
storm water retention basin (i.e., po nding water) after heavy rains.
The primary storm water drainage facility shown on the plans Kier & Wright re vised 8 February
2017 is a proposed 8" diameter storm drain runnin g towards the northwest comer of the p roperty
but which traverses the southwest comer of the nei g hborin g deve lopm ent, Las Casitas. Geissler
E ngineering ho ld s the opinion that th e proposed st o rm drain facility is inad equate to dra in th e
storm water runoff. Geissler Engineering recommends that the storm water drain age must be
redesigned so as to avoid trav e rsing nei ghb o ring prop ertie s.
Ge iss ler En gi neerin g holds th e o pinio n th at there is inad equate pervi ou s landscape to absorb a
s ig nific a nt fraction of the storm water runoff. The likely result is po nding o n the patio areas and
parking areas and pedestrian areas of 405 Alberto Way . Geiss ler Eng ineering also ho ld s th e
opinion that storm water surface runoff from 405 Alberto Way towards th e sout hwest co m er of
the Las Casitas property is like ly since th e northwest comer of 405 Alberto Way is at a s li ghtly
hi gher e levati on than is the southwest comer of the Las Casitas property.
Geissle r E ngi neerin g recommends that the percentage of pervi ou s landscape surface should be
inc reased and a hy dro logy study be undertaken to evaluate the effect of in creased storm water
run off o n nei ghboring properties.
SANITARY SEWER
Page 9
The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright
revised 8 February 2017 show the 6" vitreous clay sewer pipe traversing the southwest comer of
the Las Casitas property. Such a configuration sets the stage for future conflict between the
neighboring property owners . Geissler Engineering recommends that the sewer be redesigned
so as to avoid traversing adjacent properties.
MITIGATION MEASURES
ENGEO identifies the risks but the proposed mitigations (e.g., dewatering and waterproofing)
are not sufficient to protect the neighboring properties. (Ref: DEIR 3-80-81)
Geissler Engineering has identified a number of risks associated with the current design. By
simply requiring that all parking remain above grade and be designed as pervious paving, all
these risks can be successfully mitigated.
You are welcome to contact Geissler Engineering if you have questions .
We are pleased to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Scott Geissler, Ph.D., P.E.
Registered Civil Engineer, R.C.E. 44320
GEISSLER ENGINEERING
HYDROLOGY DIVISION
235 Montgomery Street, Suite I 011
San Francisco, CA 94920
TEL: (415) 760-5636 (Office)
TEL: (4 1 5) 887-8704 (Mobile)
Page 10
r
I
-----U-1. --·---------·--------·-··-·-------------1
·--------------------------------------·---------------· ~~-==~ ------
·----------------·----------
=-----=-----_-H-...,__---_ y ():::::..__ .!_!Yl.:...___!_-----------------
---T+-~--------_-1:iQ_S r;;_g Til?---G; d//111)~=~----------
---------4+-------------------------------------------------·----·--
---------··-++---·----------------------------·---------·--·-
--·-------------------------------·-·-·----·-------
-----------···'+------··----------------·------------------------------·--·-.. --.. -. --
-·----·----~---·----·---------------------·----------·-·-----···--
---------·--·. f.-·--·-·-------------------------------------·---
----------h~-----------------------------------·---------------------·------· --
--------.U...----·--------------------------·----------·-···-----··-·
-------··--· -4-ll--------------------------------
. -----------· ·-----
-----· -----····----
------·-·------f.-----------------------··--
-------4+-------------------------------...
···--· -·--------f---·--------------------· ----·--·-·---------. --------·-----------···-·
----------------------·------------... --·------------·-·-··-· .... ····---·· -..... ---
. --------------4+-------·--·-----------------·----·-·---
TO: PlANNING COMMISSION, LOS GATOS
FROM: LOS GA~COMMO~~ COMMITTEE ON]};!! 401-409 ~
Basham, Loretta"to"'l;ter, Marien~lf.-ney, Shirley Ryan, Suzanne .
I
authorized by the HOA members and the Board of Directors on 9~
Commons in the matter of the proposed development.
DATE: AprilS, 2017
AY PROJECT: w.11a$n
oble. This committee was
16 to advocate for The
We re sidents of The Los Gatos Commons (74% of whom signed the petition submitted by res i dents
from all four developments on Alberto Way) ask that you not certify the EIR and that you do not
approve the proposed project at 401-409 Alberto Way. Our sen i or community would be adve r se ly
affected by construction of an 83,000 sf office building with a two-story underground garage and
the associated traffic.
THIS BUILDING WOULD BE TOO lARGE FOR THE ALBERTO WAY NEIGHBORHOOD, OF WHICH THE
SENIOR COMMUNITY IS A PROMINENT AND INTEGRAL PART, AS WELL AS FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY.
Size and Scale of proposed building not suitable for surrounding neighborhood
The office buildings currently on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road are 11,000 sf or less . And, on Un ivers ity
Avenue between LG -S Rd . and Lar k, where the speed l imit is 35m ph and the offices outnumber t he
residences, the office buildings are much smaller than 20,000 sf. The one exception is at 750
University and that building is 60,000 sf (set far back from the road and su r rounded by trees ). A
building of 83,000 sf, especially in a residential neighborhood, does not meet the General Plan goal
to preserve , promote, and protect the existing small-town character and quality of life w ithin Los
Gato s (LU-1; LU Policy 1.8: Commercial development of any type shall be desi gned in kee pi ~g w ith
the small-town character of Los Gatos). It is that small town feel that attr acted many sen i ors to Los
Gato s and encouraged those already here to stay and age in place .
Size and Scale of proposed building not suitable for Alberto Way neighborhood where half the
residents are seniors
The proposed development, a huge general office building that stretches v irtua lly from one end of
the site to the other, would replace the current stores and office bl.J i ld ings of ~1,000 sf t hat ble nd i n
with the scale and architecture of the street. Until the preparations f or the proposed project, we
enjoyed the availability of businesses at 401-409 Alberto Way, to where we could walk and where
we knew the proprietors. Thi s complex wa s part of our neighborhood physically and sociall y, and it
could be r enovated .
1
The proposed building, with tenants who will be largely commuters, will change the character of the
neighborhood dramatically. We seniors are attracted to The Commons in large part because it is
situated on a quiet street, very walkable, where we know other residents by sight and social
relationship.
2
Moreover, the proposed project does not comply with GP policies : the new construction shall be
compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood (LU6.8). Non-residential activity will be
allowed in residential areas only when the character and quality ofthe neighborhood can be
maintained (LU6 .2). It does not meet GP goal LU6, to preserve and enhance the existing character
and sense of place in residential neighborhoods . (See also, CD 1.2: New structures shall be designed
to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and CD 1.4: Development
shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential
neighborhoods; and see VIS-3, LU 1.2, LU 6.4 and LU 6.5).
Cannon Design Group concluded that the proposed project at 93 ,000 sf was "visually quite large in scale
and not sufficiently sensitive to its surround i ng neighborhood context or to its promi nent location at the
entry to the adjacent residential neighborhood." Photos of eight buildings of less than 20,000 sf were
given to serve as models for a revision of the project. For example, one 10,200 sf building is at
10251Torre Ave., Cupertino, in a predominantly residential area . But in a subsequent report, after the
buildings were reduced only by 700 sf, Cannon concluded that the revised project was "sympathetic" to
the other structures in the neighborhood. We do not consider the Cannon Design Group assessment
credible.
The El~ Aesthetics section concluded that, based on the Cannon letter, the proposed project would not
change the v isual character of the project site significantly (3-11). Given the lack of compliance with (JP
policies (see above) and the huge size of the building (inconsistent with the size of other office buildings
in the vicinity), we di sagree.
2
WE OPPOSE THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE. IT Will DAMAGE OUR PROPERTY AND DISRUPT
OUR LIVES IN MAJOR WAYS.
THE GP REQUIRES THAT GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS SPECIFY CONSTRUCTION METHODS
TO PROTECT THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AS WEll AS EXISTING RESIDENCES IN THE VICINITY, FROM
IDENTIFIED HAZARDS (SAF 1.11). THE EIR NEGLECTS TO ADDRESS POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
We hired Dr. Peter Geissler of Geissler Engineering to review the ENG EO report on which the EIR
assessment was based (see Attachment 1). Dr. Geissler, civil engineer and hydrologist, concluded that:
3
*As a result of soil subsidence, Las Casitas and Pueblo de Los Gatos will likely experience cracked slabs
(p. 8), and we would experience huge expense and disruption from the necessary repair work, if not
cracks in our foundation.
*Construction of the underground garage will cause piping failures _in the neighboring properties (p.
6}, very expensive and disruptive to repair.
*Reduced capacity of drainage facilities in the neighborhood (p. 9} will create many problems for us,
including impediment to pedestrians.
The underground garage should not be built at the 401-409 site . The expense to us from damages and
the accompanying disruption of our life style when repairs are made would adversely affect our senior
community and the ability of our residents to live comfortably in their homes.
DR. GEISSLER ADVISES "BY SIMPLY REQUIRING THAT All PARKING REMAIN ABOVE GRADE AND BE
DESIGNED AS PERVIOUS PAVING, All THESE RISKS CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY MITIGATED."
The EIR 1s conclusion that the Project will not result in hydrology1 geology/soils/seismic~ and health and
safety impacts is not supported. Pursuant to the expert testimony of Dr. Peter Geissler~ Geissler
Engineering, the EIR is inadequate and incomplete and the Project's impacts have not been fully
divulged. CEQA achieves its purpose of long-term protection of the environment by functioning as "an
environmental full disclosure statute1 and the EIR is the method ... [of] disclosure ... "Rural
Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Cai.App.3d 1013, 1020. An EIR should not just
generate paper, but should act as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public
and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of
no return." County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cai.App.3d 795, ~no. The EIR provides analysis to allow
decision makers to make intelligent judgments. (Guideline Section 15151. " ... the preparation of an
EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA .... " No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles {1974) 13
Cal.3d 68, 82; Section 21151.) Here the EIR failed to act as a full disclosure document and must be
rejected as inadequate. We request that the EIR b~ revis!"!d and recirculated to consider appropriate
alternatives and mitigation mea sures that reduce these impacts prior to further consideration of the
Project.
3
THE EIR'S TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IS INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE AND DOES NOT FULLY DIVULGE THE
PROJECT'S TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
The EIR presents unreliable projections of the post-development congestion at the Alberto Way
intersection.
The EIR (relying on the Hexagon study) concluded that the projected delays from the introduction of the
300 +cars at the proposed building will not significantly impact the intersection at Alberto Way (LOS B:
4
good signal progression and /or short cycle l engths). This projection i s ba sed on outdated f indings of the
ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th ed ., v. 1-3, 2012.
These findings are misleading and underreport the traffic patterns that would follow from the proposed
project because they are based on very old data. The manual reports average peak hour trips associated
with a "General Office Building" for sites across the nation . Of the 527 studies that are dated, 5 %were
done in the 1960s; 14% in the 1970s (including two in the Los Gatos area in 1974 and 1975 ); 30% in the
1980s; 26% in the 1990s; and 24% from 2000-2012 . The manual also concedes that the trip generation
data collected post-2000 would be significantly different than data from pre-2000. (See attachment 2) It
is not unreasonable to expect that the projected project delay would be far greater than LOS B.
The Hexagon report did not include new traffic from 475-485 Alberto Way.
Since the two office buildings at 475 and 485 Alberto Way were renovated (afte r the Hexagon study),
the tenants have increased threefold. During March 2017 we had 100 cars go i ng and com i ng from there
to the intersection (75 more than before the renovation). If a third office building is approved for Pine
Street, there will be up to 50 additional cars.
According to the Department of Transportation, the project will add trips greater than 1% capacity on
SR 17 and the ramps. Mitigation is required (See attachment 3). The proposed project includes no
mitigation in the EIR other than voluntary activities by tenants. There is no guarantee public
transportation will be available.
The mitigations for the project's contribution to traffic congestion on Alberto Way are not adequate :
restriping Alberto Way for a dedicated right turn lane (EIR 3-170, 175). Traffic coming and going from
Los Gatos Blvd. would still be significantly increased .
IVIOREPVER, WE THINK THAT TRA POLICY 2.5 SHOULD APPLY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
..
Discourage single access roads of extended length, and restrict development along such roads.
One of the attractions of this neighborhood for us as seniors is its walkability. We are accustomed to
' I '
walking to Grill 57 and the Los Gatos Lodge, and most of us wa.lk daily for medical reasons. Many of our
residents walk dogs several times a day .
Even when driving, the additional congestion at the intersection could delay us getting to medical and
other important appointments on time and transporting grandchildren to school and other activities .
For all these reasons, traffic from the proposed project during and post-construction negatively
impacts us as seniors. (See GP, TRA 3.12: The max imum level of mit igation mea su r es shall be r equi r ed
for transportation impacts adjacent to sensitive receptors; see also TRA 3 and LU 2.1). And the EIR
offers inadequate mitigations.
IN CONCLUSION
THE GENERAL PLAN CALLS FOR PROTECTING THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF SENIORS IN LOS ~ATOS; YET,
THE PROPOSED BUILDING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS OUR INDEDPENDENT LIFE STYLE.
The GP asserts that the needs of seniors must be met and a high quality of life maintained for them
(VIS-2, VIS-3). And, the Town intends to protect independent living and walkable neighborhoods for
seniors {HS 10). Moreover, new developments should work with existing senior life style living
facilities (HOU 5.3, HOU 6.4).
The senior restricted Los Gatos Commons on Alberto Way is a major asset to the Town: the Town
should protect what it has in The Commons.
5
"Los Gatos Commons is one of the only Bay area senior communities that offers total inde pendent living
{Living in Los Gatos, Town of Los Gatos website)." The Commons is also the only senior development in
Los Gatos where se niors can purchase their units. Prices are affordable and the monthly assessment is
as low as $367.
The proposed building undermines our quality of life in its size and scale, underground garage, and
added traffic congestion.
WE RESIDENTS OF THE LOS GATOS COMMONS URGE YOU NOT TO CERTIFY THE EIR AND NOT TO
APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 401-409 ALBERTO WAY.
Attachments :
1 . ~eport of Dr. Peter Geissler, March 3l, 2017
2. IT£ Trip Generatipn Manual, 9 ~~., v. 1-3 {2012), l: 12, Appenpix: 23-47; 3: 1250-51
3. Wian Ash urst {C alif. Dept. of Transportation, Dist. 4, to ~orettf3 Fowler, Oct. 17, 2016 (follow-up
t9 Patricia Maurice, Calif. Dept. of Transportation, DiH. 4, fa Je!ln ifer Armer, Jun e 13, 2016)
ATIACHMENT1
Report of Dr. Peter Geissler, March 31, 2017
~·
31st March 2017
Peter Geissler, Ph.D., P.E .
Con sulting Civil Engineer
HYDROLOGY REPORT
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos , CA 95032
Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
II 0 E. Main Street
Los Gatos CA 95030
And
Los Gatos Commons Homeowners Ass ociation
445 Alberto Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Project:
Project
Location:
Affected
Hydrology Report re 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032
401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Properties : Los Gatos Commons, Los Gatos
Bella Vista Village, Los Gatos
Pueblo de Los Gatos, Los Gatos
Las Casitas, Los Gatos
Ref: ENGEO Report dated July 17, 2015 , revised August 13, 2015
401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration, Appendix C,
DEIR
Ref: Architectural Technologies Plans for Project 153948 revised 19 February 2016
Ref: Civil Engineering Plans by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier &
Wright revised 8 February 2017
Ref: Geissler Engineering Project No. El6-2402
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Geissler Engineering has been asked to review hydrological and geotechnical data presented in
the ENGEO Report referenced above . In addition, Geissler Engineering has been asked to
review civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier &
Wright revised 8 February 2017 .
..
The review includes an evaluation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented
in the ENGEO Report and renders an expert opinion as to the hydrological impact of the
proposed project on neighboring properties.
In so doing, Geissler Engineering has considered the impact of the proposed construction of a 2-
story underground garage on the residential developments on Alberto Way due to :
(i) The likelihood of life-threatening flooding due to upstream darn 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) ofthe proposed 2-story
underground garage and subsequent seepage of groundwater into the garage;
(v) Long-term dewatering required to discharge the seepage of groundwater into the
underground garage ;
(vi) Problems associated with long-term dewatering in the vicinity of the proposed 2-story
underground garage;
(vii) The likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm;
(viii) The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a
previously mapped Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone ;
(ix) The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a
previously mapped Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone;
(x) The likelihood of flooding of the proposed 2-story underground garage due to
storm water runoff;
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project includes the construction of a 2-story underground garage 20 to 22 feet below grade .
The ground water varies in depth from year to year depending on annual rainfall during the
previous 5 or 6 years . At this particular location, the depth of the ground water varies from a
high of 12 feet below grade to a low of 18 feet below grade. [Ref: Section 4.1 and Section 5.13 ,
ENGEO Report, pages 8 and 20]
ENGEO recommends that for civil engineering design purposes, the groundwater must be
assumed to be 12 feet below grade. Geissler Engineering concurs . [Ref: Section 4.1 and Section
5.13, ENGEO Report, pages 8 and 20]
Page 2
Therefore, the bottom of the foundation of the proposed 2-story underground garage is to be
constructed 1 0 to 12 feet below the water table.
The proposed 2-story underground garage is located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone.
[Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation]
The location of the 2-story underground garage has been identified as an Earthquake Induced
Liquefaction Hazard Zone. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February
21 , 2012]
The combined effect of: (i) the likelihood of seismic activity; and (ii) subgrade soils subject to
liquefaction (i.e., sudden loss of strength and bearing capacity in the event of strong vibration),
make this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater) garage .
In the event of an earthquake, the soils below the 2-story underground garage are likely to
exhibit significant loss of bearing capacity. Loss of bearing capacity is likely to result in
differential foundation settlement with resultant structural cracking of the reinforced concrete
structure. Cracking of the reinforced concrete structure allows significant influx of groundwater.
Geissler Engineering estimates the rate of flow into the (cracked) underground (and underwater)
garage structure could range from 50 gallons per minute to 500 gallons per minute , or more,
depending on the severity of the cracks.
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that construction of a 2-story underground parking
structure shall cause soil subsidence, differential foundation settlement and cracked slabs at
nearby houses in Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista Village, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas
developments.
Even in the absence of earthquake activity, ENGEO has admitted that differential foundation
movement is likely due to seasonal shrink-swell activity of expansive sub grade soils. Such
movement can cause leakage at cold joints in underground concrete walls and floors. Thus even
in the absence of earthquake activity, leakage of groundwater into the underground garage is
likely. The leakage of groundwater through cold joints has been estimated by Geissler
Engineering to be on the order of 50 gallons per minute.
Obviously, seepage as small as 50 gallons per minute could be collected in a drainage sump
located within the interior of the garage and pumped out by means of submersible sump pumps.
However, it is not practical to attempt to collect and discharge 500 gallons per minute or more.
The underground garage is to be constructed at a location subject to significant sheet flow of
storm water runoff during heavy rains . Thus, surface drainage may also result in flooding of the
underground garage unless the surface drainage facilities are substantially improved.
The proposed 2-story underground garage is located at a site that has been identified as one that
is subject to flooding in the event of an upstream dam failure. [Ref: Section 14.4.2.2.6, Santa
Page 3
Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21 ,2012 Page 14-48; ABAG, 1995. Dam
data from State of California Office ofEmergency Services]
Dam failures always pose significant risk to life and property. However, the construction of an
underground garage at a location that has already been identified as one subject to flooding in the
event of an upstream dam failure is beyond the ordinary concept of engineering risk; this is
certain death for everyone inside the garage.
Put simply, the construction of an underground parking garage that is subject to flooding in the
event of a dam failure is wanton disregard for public safety.
The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright
revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because they show inadequate property drainage.
SOIL CONDITIONS
ENGEO borings show medium dense to dense clayey sands to depths ranging between 10 to 21
feet below grade. Below this level , medium dense to very dense clayey gravels were
encountered to depths of approximately 29 to 33 feet below ground surface. Bedrock was
encountered below the strata of medium dense to very dense clayey gravels. Geissler
Engineering holds the opinion that this description of subgrade soils is accurate.
The surficial clayey sands exhibit adequate strength and bearing capacity to support foundation
loads . Unfortunately, the surficial clayey sands are moderately expansive (i.e., subject to shrink-
swell activity when subject to periodic wetting and drying due to seasonal changes in moisture
content). This can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures
founded on shallow foundations . [Ref: Section 4.3 ENGEO Report, page 8]
The strata of clayey gravels sandwiched between the clayey sands (above) and the bedrock
(below) is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. [Ref: Section 4.13 ENGEO
Report, page 6]
ENGEO estimates the settlements due to liquefaction-induced ground settlement as follows .
Our liquefaction analyses indicate that gravel deposits up to 9 feet thick below the bottom
of the proposed parking garage (estimated to be 20 feet be low grade) may potentially
liquefy and result in vertical settlements of approximately 1 inch. Additionally, our
liquefaction analyses indicate that gravel deposits up to 14 feet thick for portions of the
site not within the proposed parking garage may potentially liquefy and result in vertical
settlements of approximately 2 inches. Ref: Section 4.1.4 ENGEO Report, page 7]
ENGEO estimates the potential total and differential settlement as follows.
Assuming the subterranean parking garage extends at least a distance of 20 feet below
grade, we recommend that the foundation design consider 1 inch of total and ~ inch of
Page4
differential settlement associated with liquefaction-induced settlement. [Ref: Section
5.7 .1 ENGEO REPORT, page 15]
Aside fro m an apparent inconsistency in the ENGEO report as regards to the magnitude of
expected settl e ments, the message is clear. We should expect settlements on the order of I inch
or more.
Appreciate that differential foundation settlements on the order of an inch or more s hall cause
significant cracking in the reinforced concrete structure. In an underground (and underwater)
garage, thi s is likely to allow the influx of substantial flow of groundwater.
EARTHQUAKE RISK
The project location is located within an earthquake fault rupture hazard zone. [Ref: Ca lifornia
Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation]
The project location is located within an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The
risk of earthquake induced liquefaction hazard ha s been determined to be high by the Santa C lara
Planning Department. [Ref : Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21 ,
201 2]
Plate 1.2 of the Seismic Haz ard Zone Report for the Los Gatos Quadrangle (2002) indicates a
likelihood of liquefaction that requires mitigatio n m eas ures are required as per Public Resources
Code Section 2693( c).
The ENGEO Report admits that the strata of clayey gravels soils at the s ubject property
(specifically, so il s at the locati on of Boring B3) are subj ect to liquefaction according t o criteria
described in an authoritative research paper. [Re f: Seed, R. B., Cetin K. 0., Moss R . E. S.,
Kammerer A .M ., Wu J ., Pestana J. M., Riem er M. F., Sancia, R. B., Bray J.D., Kayen R . E.,
Faris A ., 2 003 , Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction E ngineering : A unified and Consistent
Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geot echnical Spring Seminar]
GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
In 2008, Earth Systems Geotechnologies (ESG) reported encountering groundwater at a depth of
approximately 18 feet at a nearby s ite located at 55 Los Gatos Saratoga Road. This is
approximately 200 feet away fr om the proposed con struction site. The groundwater is like ly to
be 5 or 6 feet hi gher following the end of the record drought.
ENGEO did not record the groundwater level in boring Bl or boring B3.
The ENGEO Report recommends using a des ign value of 12 feet for the depth of the
groundwater at the project locati on. G eissler E ngineering concurs .
Geissler Engineering is concerned that the construction of a 22-foot deep underground garage
may cause d ive rsion of sub surface seepage patterns. The long-term effects of such divers io n of
Page 5
subsurface seepage include a rise in groundwater levels in neighboring properties and increased
seepage flow rates which in tum may cause piping failures in adjacent soil strata.
Geissler Eng ineering estimates that the so-called "radius of influence" of the diversion of
subsurface seepage is approximately 250 feet from the underground garage. This estimate of the
radius of influence is based upon soil classifications . The permeabil ity of the surficial clayey
soils estimated to be on the order of 10-8 em /sec (very low) whereas the permeability of the
gravel strata 1 o-5 em /sec (very high).
SURF ACE HYDROLOGY
The project site is located within the FEMA flood plane defined by 0.2% annual chance flood
hazard . [Ref: FEMA-Santa Clara County DFIRM , 2009]
Thus, the chance of NOT flooding during any I 00-year period is given by the expression:
P =(I -0 .002)100 = 82%
Accordingly, the chance of flooding during any 1 00-year period is I 8%.
Based upon the size of the tributary drainage area and the s lope of the surface of the ground and
the runoff characteristics of the ground, Geissler Engineering estimates that the chance of
flooding is 0.8% annual chance flood hazard.
Geissler Engineering calculates the chance of NOT flooding during any 1 00-year period is given
by the expression:
p = (1 -0.008)100 = 45%
Thus, Geissler Engineering estimates the chance of flooding during any 1 00-year period is 55%.
Statistically, this is more-or-less equivalent to a 125-year flood plane.
The usual standard for th e assessment of the risk of flooding du e to annual rainfall is whether or
not the property is located within the so-called 1 00-year flood plane . This parcel is not located
within the 1 00-year flood plane.
Geissler E ngineering holds the opinion that where, as here, flooding would result in certain death
for anyone caught inside the underground parking garage in the event of flooding, a higher
standard shou ld be applied by planning authorities.
DEWATERING
ENGEO advises that temporary dewatering during construction is required , as follows.
Page 6
Based on the anticipated depths of approximately 20 feet for the planned excavation and
considering groundwater levels encountered during our field exploration and a design
groundwater level of 12 feet, groundwater may be encountered above the bottom of the
excavation. Temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary. Assessment of
dewatering should be made prior to excavation to determine the level of groundwater
control and dewatering necessary to address long-term conditions for the depressed
portions of the structure at this site.
Temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary to keep the excavation and
working areas reasonably dry. If necessary, dewatering should be performed in a manner
such that water levels are maintained not less than 2 feet below the bottom of excavation
prior to and continuously during shoring and foundation installation. As the excavations
progress, it may be necessary to dewater the soils ahead of the excavation, such as by
continuous pumping from sumps, to control the tendency for the bottom of the excavation
to heave under hydrostatic pressures and to reduce inflow of water or soil from beneath
temporary shoring. [Ref: Section 5.13 , ENGEO Report, page 20]
During construction, the contractor shall need to construct a cofferdam around the proposed
construction site (i.e., a partial barrier against the influx of ground water) and shall need to
dewater the excavation by means of diesel-powered pumps.
Geissler Engineering estimates the flow of groundwater to be on the order of 250 gallons per
minute (minimum) and 500 gallons per minute (maximum).
During construction, the effect of this local dewatering is two-fold.
First, there is likely to be slight soil subsidence in the near vicinity of the cofferdam due to
dewatering. Geissler Engineering estimates the upper limit of (downward) soil subsidence of
neighboring properties to be as follows.
Distance to Proposed Excavation Soil Subsidence During Construction
5 feet away from excavations 1" of soil subsidence
15 feet away from excavations 3/4" of soil subsidence
25 feet away from excavations 1/2" of soil subsidence
50 feet away from excavations 3 /8" of soil subsidence
1 00 feet away from excavations l /4" of soil subsidence
150 feet away from excavations 1/8" of soil subsidence
250 feet away from excavations 1116" of soil subsidence
Page 7
Second, the effluent from diesel-powered pumps must be discharged onto the street or other
receiving drainage facility such as a storm drain. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that
the discharge of250 gallons per minute (minimum) to 500 gallons per minute (maximum) on a
continuous basis will negatively impact existing property drainage facilities. At a minimum, this
water is added to existing drainage facilities and , in effect, reduces the capacity of other drainage
facilities (e.g., storm drains) that serve the neighborhood.
Based on proximity to the proposed excavation, Geissler Engineering calculations suggest that
all of the Las Casitas development and Pueblo de Los Gatos development are likely to exhibit
cracked slabs as a result of soil subsidence during construction.
ENGEO advises against permanent dewatering. In stead, ENGEO recommends the use of
waterproofing to prevent the influx of groundwater.
Specifically, ENGEO advises:
Permanent dewatering is not recommended and the mat foundation or concrete slabs and
basement walls should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic and/or uplift
pressures. [Ref: Section 5.9 ENGEO Report, page 18]
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that it is impossible to prevent the influx of groundwater
into an underground garage by means ofwaterproofing alone where , as here, ground settlements
up to I inch (vertical) are expected .
Put simply, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of
groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure that is badly cracked in the aftermath of an
earthquake with earthquake-induced liquefaction settlements.
Like-wise, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of
groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when differential foundation settlements due to
seasonal groundwater variations cause differential foundation settlements of W' or more.
It is significant that ENGEO recommended that concrete slabs be 8 inches thick at the proposed
development. That shows that ENGEO appreciates the potential for cracked slabs due to
seasonal groundwater variations in expansive subgrade soils. Sadly, this level of protection
against cracking is not afforded neighboring properties' existing slabs.
Geissler Engineering warns that the public safety is at risk.
UPSTREAM DAM FAILURE
The most significant hazard is p osed by the possibility of an up stream dam failure.
Built in 1952, the Lenihan Dam (Lexington Reservoir) is an earthen dam and is maintained by
the Santa Clara Valley Water Di strict. It holds 19 ,000 acre-feet of water and is just minutes
upstream from the project location.
Page 8
A catastrophic failure of Lenihan Dam would cause flooding at the project location within
minutes.
Underground parking amplifies the risk of drowning in the event of a dam failure.
PROPERTY DRAINAGE
The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright
revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because there is inadequate property drainage.
The existing and proposed grade elevations are as follows.
• The existing grade on the property at 405 Alberto Way ranges from +338.84 (near Las
Casitas) feet to+ 341.31 feet (near Saratoga -Los Gatos Road).
• The proposed finish grade is +336.63 feet (varies).
• The proposed first floor elevation is +336.50 feet.
• The street elevation at Alberto Way is 339.02 feet (varies).
Put simply, the proposed development is not well draining and is likely to serve as a temporary
storm water retention basin (i.e., ponding water) after heavy rains.
The primary storm water drainage facility shown on the plans Kier & Wright revised 8 February
2017 is a proposed 8'' diameter storm drain running towards the northwest corner of the property
but which traverses the southwest corner of the neighboring development, Las Casitas. Geissler
Engineering holds the opinion that the proposed storm drain facility is inadequate to drain the
storm water runoff. Geissler Engineering recommends that the storm water drainage must be
redesigned so as to avoid traversing neighboring properties.
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that there is inadequate pervious landscape to absorb a
significant fraction of the storm water runoff. The likely result is ponding on the patio areas and
parking areas and pedestrian areas of 405 Alberto Way. Geissler Engineering also holds the
opinion that storm water surface runoff from 405 Alberto Way towards the southwest corner of
the Las Casitas property is likely since the northwest corner of 405 Alberto Way is at a slightly
higher elevation than is the southwest corner of the Las Casitas property.
Geissler Engineering recommends that the percentage of pervious landscape surface should be
increased and a hydrology study be undertaken to evaluate the effect of increased storm water
runoff on neighboring properties.
SANITARY SEWER
Page 9
ATIACHMENT2
Photocopies of pages from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 3:1250-51; 1 : 12 and Appendix 23-47
12
v. I
may differ from the post-energy crisis data. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) analyzed
the database from the third edition (1982) of Trip Generation and stated, "Based on statistical tests
such as T-tests and F-raties, it was concluded that there were no significant differences between
the mean trip rates of older data (pre-1973) and new data (post-1973) for all land uses analyzed.':5
ITE staff performed additional analyses comparing pre-and post-1980 data for the restaurant land
uses (931, 932 , 933) for the February 1995 Update to the Fifth Edition. Again it was found that there
were no significant differences between the mean trip rates of the older data and the newer data and
that all data points were retained in the database to maximize the sample sizes of the given land
uses. Prior to the release of the eighth edition of Trip Generation, ITE examined the data that were
contained in the banking land use-Drive-in Bank (912)--to determine if changes in travel patterns
resulting from recent technological advances in the banking industry had a significant impact on
the trip generation rates. This analysis concluded that pre-and post-2000 trip generation data
were significantly different. As a result, all data from the years prior to the year 2000 were removed
from the database for the two banking land uses-Walk-in Bank (911) and Drive-in Bank (912). It
is anticipated that additional analyses will be performed for future updates to continue monitoring
variations based on the age of the data.
Variations in the Statistics
Variations in trip generation characteristics for specific land uses are reflected in the range of rates,
standard deviation and coefficient of determination (R2) value. (See Chapter 5, "Description of Data
Plots and Reported Statistics," for additional details on these topics.) These variations may be due
to a small sample size, individual marketing of the site, economic conditions of the business market,
geographic location of the sites studied, or unique characteristics of the specific site . Accordingly,
judgment must be exercised in the use of the statistics in this manual.
Other sources of variation include different lengths of traffic count duration and the time of year the
traffic volumes were counted ; that is, daily and seasonal variations may exist for some land uses.
Studies have not been undertaken to analyze differences t;lased on geographic locatio n.
Limitations of the Data Plots
The plots presented in Trip Generation cover only the range of independent variables for which data
are available. Caution should be used if extrapolating the data beyond the ranges provided because no
information has been supplied to document trip generation characteristics beyond the given ranges.
It should also be noted that in some cases , because of t.he limited sample size and variation in
the data received, the projected trip generation estimate for the peak hour of the adjacent street
traffic exceeds the trip generation estimate for the peak hour of the generator. By definition , this is
impossible. In these isolated cases, knowledge of the project site and engineering judgment should
be used to select the appropriate trip generation approximation.
5 Kellerco. Development and Application of Trip Generation Rates. Washington, DC, U SA: U .S . Department of
Transportation , Federal Highway Administration, 1985.
Trip Generation, 9th Edition • In stitute of Tra ns portation Enginee rs
I
I
I
I
I
I
v. 3
Description
Land Use: 710
General Office Building
A general office building houses multiple tenants; it is a location where affairs of businesses,
commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted . An office
building or buildings may contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance
companies, investment brokers and tenant services, such as a bank or savings and loan institution,
a restauran't or cafeteria and service retail facil ities. Corporate headquarters building (Land Use
714)1 single tenant office building (Land Use 715), office park (Land Use 750), research and
development center (Land Use 760) and business park (Land Use 770) are related uses.
If information is known about individual buildings, it is suggested that the general office building
category be used rather than office parks when estimating trip generation for one or more office
buildings in a single development. The office park category is more general and should be used when
a breakdown of individual or different uses is not known. If the general office building category is used
and if additional buildings, such as banks, restaurants , or retail stores, are included in the development,
the development should be treated as a multiuse project. On the other hand, if the office park category
is used , internal trips are already reflected in the data and do not need to be considered .
When the buildings are interrelated (defined by shared parking facilities or the ability to easily walk
between buildings) or house one tenant, it is suggested that the total area or employment of all
the buildings be used for calculating the trip generation . When the individual buildings are isolated
and not related to one another, it is suggested that trip generation be calculated for each building
separately and then summed .
Additional Data
Average weekday transit trip ends-
Transit service was either nonexistent or negligible at the majority of the s ites surveyed in this
land use. Users may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in this land use to reflect
the presence of public transit, carpools and other transportation demand management (TOM)
strategies. Information has not been analyzed to document the impacts of TOM measures on
the total trip generation of a site. See the ITE Trip Generation Handbook , Second Edition for
additional information on this topic.
The average building occupancy varied considerably within the studies for which occupancy data
were provided. For buildings with occupancy rates reported, the average occupied gross leasable
area was 88 percent.
Some of the regression curves plotted for this land use may produce illogical trip-end estimates for
small office buildings . When the proposed site size is significantly smaller than the average-sized
facility published in this report, caution should be used when applying these statistics . For more
information , please refer to Chapter 3, "Guidelines for Estimating Trip Generation ," of the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook, Second Edition .
1250 Trip Generation , 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers
In some regions , peaking may occur earlier or later and may last somewhat longer than the
traditional 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m . and 4 :00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. peak period time frames .
The sites were surveyed between the 1960s and the 2000s throughout the Un ited States.
Tr ip Characte r istics
The trip generation for the A .M. and P.M. peak hours of the generator typically coincided with the
peak hours of the adjacent street traffic; therefore, only one A.M . peak hour and one P.M. peak hour,
which represent both the peak hour of the generator and the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic,
are shown for general office buildings .
Source Numbers
2,5,20,21 ,51,53,54, 72 ,88 ,89,92 ,95 ,98, 100,159,161,172,175,178,183 ,1 84 ,185,189 ,
193,207,212 ,217 ,247,253,257,260,262,279 ,295,297,298,300 ,301,302,303 ,304 ,321 ,322,
323,324,327,404,407,408,418,419 ,423,562,734
Trip Generation , 9th Edition • Institute of Transport ation Engineers 1251
v. I
Appendix A. Source s
1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Western Section. "Trip Generation," January 1967.
2. ITE Illinois Section. "Trip Generation Study of Selected Commercial and Residential
Developments," undated.
3 . ITE Southern Section. ''Trip Generation for Commercial and Industrial Development," 1972.
I 4. ITE New England Section, 1973.
I 5. ITE Ohio Section, 1973.
6 . State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways,
District 4. "Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco, CA,
1965.
7. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways,
District 4. "Second Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts ." San
Francisco, CA, 1966.
8 . State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways,
District 4 . ''Third Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco,
I CA, 1967.
9 . State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways,
District 4 . "Fourth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco,
CA, 1968.
10 . State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways,
District 4. "Fifth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco,
I CA, 1969.
11. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works , Division of Highways,
I District 4. "Sixth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts ." San Francisco,
CA, 1970.
I 12. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, D ivision of Highways,
District 4 . "Seventh Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San
Francisco, CA, 1971.
I 13. State of California Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways ,
District 4 . "Eighth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts." San Francisco,
I CA, 1973.
14. Maryland State Road Commission , Bureau of Traffic Planning, 1968.
I 15. Maryland State Road Commission, Bureau of Transportation Planning , 1970.
I Trip Generation , 9th Edition • In stitute of Tra n sp ortatio n Engineers 23
16 . State of Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation . "Special Traffic Generator
Study, Report Number 1 ." Residential Generations. Dover, DE , 1971 .
17. State of Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation. "Special Traffic Generator
Survey." Industrial Generations. Dover, DE, 1972.
18. State of California Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division
of Highways, District 11. "First Progress Repor:t on Traffic Generators." San Diego, CA, 1971.
19. State of California Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works , Division
of Highways, District 11 . "Second Progress Report on Traffic Generators." San Diego, CA,
1972 .
20 . Virginia Department of Highways, Metropolitan Transportation Planning Division. Comparison
of Virginia Urban Trip Generation Studies with Similar Investigations Conducted by the States
of Maryland and California . Richmond, VA, 1972.
21. Trip Generation Rates, Interim Technical Report 4365-4410. New York, NY: Tri-State Regional
Planning Commission, 1973.
22 . Transportation Considerations of Regional Shopping Centers, Interim Technical Report. New
York , NY: Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1969.
23. Travel to General Hospitals , Interim Technical Report. New York, NY: Tri-State Transportation
Commission, 1970.
24 . Wisconsin Department of Transportation Division of Highways . La Crosse Area Transportation
Study, SuNey Data. La Crosse, WI, 1970.
25. Wisconsin Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Janesville Area Transportation Study.
Janesville, WI, 1973.
26 . Lexington Transportation Study, Special Generator Study. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department
of Highways, 1972.
27. Biciunas, A.E. "Trip Generating Potential of Hospitals." Research News , Vol. 7, No.4
(December 1965).
28. Pendakur, V.S. and P.O . Roer. "Access and Parking Criteria for Hospitals." Highway Research
Record, Vol. 371 (1971).
29. Traffic Generation Study of Rest Homes and Chronic and Convalescent Homes. Wethersfield,
CT: Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1972.
30. Shuldiner, P.W., D.S . Berry and J . Montgomery Jr. "Traffic and Parking Requirements of Off-
Center Medical Office Building." Highway Research Record, Vol. 49 (1963).
31. Trip Generation Equations by Zone, Dougherty Area Regional Transportation Study. Atlanta ,
GA: Georgia Department of Transportation, 1969.
24 Trip Generation , 9th Edition • Institute of Tra ns portation Enginee rs
II
II
32. Floyd-Rome Urban Transportation Study, Technical Report Number Six , Documentation of
Model Development and Calibration . Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Transportation, 1972.
33. State of Hawaii Department of Transportation , Highways Divis ion Planning Branch .
34.
35.
36 .
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42 .
43 .
44 .
45.
46.
47 .
48.
49 .
Trip Generation Summary, Trip Generation Study of Kaiser Koulai Clinic, Study Number TG-
006, Revised. Honolulu, HI : Hawaii Department of Transportation , undated.
Trip Generation, Las Cruces Area Transportation Study. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State
Highway Department, 1970 .
Composite Report of Traffic Generation Studies. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles, 1969.
Trip Making Characteristics. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles, 1972.
Single Family Generation Study-Summary. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles, 1972.
"Trip Generation Rates." Los Angeles , CA: County of Los Angeles, 1973.
Single Family Dwelling Unit Trip Generation Factors from Department of Traffic Studies .
Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles, 1973.
State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division Planning Branch .
Trip Generation Summary. Honolulu , HI, 1972.
Cohen, D.S . "A Methodology for Determining the Traffic Impact of Regional Shopping Centers ."
Washington , DC, 1970.
Kimmel, H., S .E. Rowe, A. Rubenstein , R. Stanford and A . Weber. Trip Generation. Los
Angeles , CA: Automobile Club of Southern California, 1967.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "Traffic Characteristics of Shopping
Centers ." Washington , DC, 1970.
Hollander Associates. Study of Eighteen Alder Community Shopping Centers. Baltimore , MD:
City of Baltimore, 1965 .
Stoll, W. Characteristics of Shopping Centers-Chicago Area Transportation Study. Chicago,
IL: State of Illinois, 1966.
Cousens, P.O., W.M. Ladd and D .A . Pampu. Residential Locations and Shopping Patterns in
Oakland County, 1966.
Carl H. Buttke Inc. "An Approximation of Regional Shopping Center Traffic." Traffic Engineering
(April 1972).
Miller, F.D. "Trip Generation at Shopping Centers." Traffic Engineering (1969).
Keefer, L.E. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 24: Urban Travel
Patterns for Airports, Shopping Centers and Industrial Plants. Highway Research Board , 1966.
Trip Generation, 9 th Editi on • Institute of Transportation Engineers 25
26
50. Keefer, L.E. and O.K. Witheford. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report
62: Urban Travel Patterns for Hospitals, Universities, Office Buildings and Capitols. Highway
Research Board, 1969. ·
51 . Parking and Traffic Generation-Office Buildings. Newport Beach, CA: Herman Kimmel and
Associates, 1970.
52. Traffic Generation and Parking Factors. St. Paul, MN: Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., 1971.
53 . Summary of Special Generator Studies. Minneapolis , MN: Twin Cities Area Metropolitan
Council, 1971.
54. National Association of County Engineers. 'Travel Generation." Action Guide Series (July
1972).
55. Deleuw, Cather & Company. "Parking and Trip Generation Reports and Summaries, Volume
1." Chicago, IL, undated.
56. Atlantic City Urban Area Transportation Study, Survey Data. Atlantic City, NJ: New Jersey
Department of Transportation, 1973.
57. Steinhauer, J.J. Traffic Generator Study, Shopko West Shopping Center. Green Bay, WI :
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 1967.
58 . Traffic Generator Study, Arlan's Shopping Center. Sheboygan, WI: Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, 1967.
59. Degiorgi, B.R. Traffic Generated by Shopping Centers. Poughkeepsie, NY: New York State
Department of Transportation, 1971 .
60. Deleuw, Cather & Company, Palo Alto Transportation Planning Program. "Data Measured at
Stanford Shopping Center." Palo Alto, CA, 1969.
61 . Silver, J . and W .G . Hansen . "Characteristics of Travel to a Regional Shopping Center." Public
Roads (December 1960).
62 . "Studies of Three Shopping Centers at Confidential Locations." Salem, OR: Oregon State
Highway Division , 1972.
63. Report of Traffic and Engineering Investigation of Mayfair Shopping Center Driveways on
S. T.H. 100 and West North Avenue. Wauwatosa , WI: State Highway Commission of Wisconsin,
1964.
64. Messner, W.H. Shopping Center Study. Wethersfield, CT: Connecticut Highway Department,
1968.
65. Harding, C.H .V. Shopping Centers: Planning and Design for Traffic and Traffic Generation.
Berkeley, CA: Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of Cal ifornia , 1960.
66. Motorola Inc. 'Traffic Generator." Schaumburg, IL, 1972.
Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• e
..
a
a
II
67. William Harper Jr. College. 'Traffic Generator." Joliet, IL, 1971 .
68. Port of Portland Planning Division . Land Use Master Plan, Swan Island Industrial Park.
Portland, OR: Port of Portland , 1982.
69. ITE Technical Council Committee 6V-A, Traffic Engineering. Transportation Considerations of
Regional Shopping Centers . Washington , DC: ITE , 1972 .
70. Guideways for Driveway Design and Location. Arlington, VA : ITE , 1975 .
71. Residential Trip Generation, Interim Technical Report. New York , NY: Tri-State Transportation
Commission, 1971 .
72. New York Metropolitan Section . Trip Generation Statistics . New York, NY: ITE, 1973.
73 . Trip Generation Studies of Three Regional Shopping Centers in Washington. Olympia, WA:
Washington State Department of Highways, 1973 .
7 4 . Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Plann ing and Research. Industrial Park
Trip Generation Study. Wethersfield , CT, 1972.
75. State of Hawaii Department of Transportation , Highways Division Planning Branch . "Study
Number TG-005 , Revised ." Honolulu, HI, 1972.
76. Gern, R.C . Variations in Traffic Flow at Regional Shopping Centers. Evanston, IL: Barton-
Aschman Associates Inc., 1968.
77. Simpson & Curtin. "Various Studies of Shopping Centers." Philadelphia, PA , undated.
78 . Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation. Special Traffic Generator Study,
Shopping Centers. Dover, DE: State of Delaware , 1972.
79 . Travel to Regional Shopping Centers, Interim Technical Report . New York, NY: Tri-State
Transportation Commission , 1970.
80 . Office of County Surveyor and Road Commissioner, Orange County. Trip Generation . Santa a Ana , CA: Orange County, 1972.
81 . Kuhn, H .A.J . "Land Use and Traffic Generation Characteristics of Rural Highway
Interchanges." University of Wisconsin, Madison , WI , 1967.
82. Trip Generation by Land Use . Tempe, AZ: Maricopa Association of Governments, 1974.
83 . Kanaan, G .E. Parking and Access at General Hospitals. Westport, CT: Eno Foundation for
Transportation Inc., 1973 .
84. "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 1, Revis ion 2." Residential Generations.
Dover, DE : Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation, 1974 .
85 . "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 2 ." Industrial Generations. Dover, DE :
Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation, 1973 .
Trip Generation, 9th Ed ition • Institute of Transportation En gi nee rs 27
86. "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 3." Education Facilities Generations. Dover,
DE : Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation, 1976.
87. "Special Traffic Generator Study, Report Number 4." Commercial Generations. Dover, DE:
Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation, 1975.
88 . Ninth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts. San Francisco, CA:
California Department of Transportation , District 4 , 197 4 .
89 . Tenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts. San Francisco, CA:
California Department of Transportation, District 4 , 1975.
90 . Eleventh Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts. San Francisco, CA:
Department of Transportation, District 4, 1976.
91 . · Trip Generation Study of Various Land Uses. Wethersfield, CT: Connecticut Department of
Transportation, 197 4.
92. Zevin, I. Trip Generation Study of Various Land Uses , Supplement A Wethersfield; CT:
Connecticut Department of Transportation , 1975.
93. Trip Generation Study of Regional Shopping Centers. Columbus , OH: Mid-Ohio Regional
Planning Commission, 1977 .
94. Re-Evaluation of Trip Generation Study of Condominium Developments in the Columbus
Metropolitan Area. Columbus, OH : Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission , 1976.
95. Carl H. Buttke Inc., Portland, OR, 1977.
96 . Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto , Department of Roads and Traffic, Toronto, Canada, 1978.
97. ITE District 7 . Trip Generation Data. Alberta, Canada , 1978 .
98. Paul C . Box and Associates, Skokie, IL , 1981 .
99 . Hensley-Schmidt Inc. Consultants, Chattanooga , TN , 1981.
100. Traffic Generators. San Diego Association of Governments , 1979-1981.
101. Transportation Planning and Engineering Inc., Bellevue, WA, 1981 .
102. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, Boston, MA, 1981 .
103 . Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver, CO, 1980.
104. Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner Inc ., Minneapolis , MN, 1981 .
105 . Barton-AschmanAssociates Inc., Washington, DC, 1981 .
106 . Grigg, G.M., Cupertino, CA, 1980.
107. Entranco Engineers . "Access Study, General Telephone Headquarters Expansion." Bellevue ,
WA, 1979.
~ . ··-·'--........ c: • .m:~~ .. '""'Htooto nf Tr .. n!':nnrt"tion Enaineers
108. Traffic Generation Survey. Clayton , NJ: Gloucester County Planning Department, 1979.
109. Schimpeler, Corradino Associates , Louisville, KY, 1980 .
110 . Arnold Jr., E.D. Special Land Use Trip Generation in Virginia . Charlottesville , VA : Virg inia
Highway and Transportation Research Council, 1981 .
111. Metcalf, G .W., Overland Park, KS , 1980.
J8 112. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1980.
113. Twelfth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Counts. San Francisco , CA: California
Department of Transportation , District 4, 1979.
114. Thirteenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Counts. San Francisco, CA: California
Department of Transportation , District 4, 1980.
115. Herp, D.J., Phoenix, AZ., 1980.
116 . ITE District 7 , Toronto Section. Trip Generation Data . Toronto, Canada , 1978.
117. Nash , B. Trip Generation Study. Chico, CA, 1978.
118. Brown, C., Seattle, WA, 1981.
119. Pleyte , A.P., Milwaukee, WI , 1980.
120. Center for Urban Transportation Studies. Generation Studies. University of Wisconsin ,
Milwaukee , WI , 1980.
121 . Wilbur Smith and Associates for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission. Marine Terminal Traffic Generation Ma nual.
San Francisco, CA: Wilbur Smith and Associates, 1980 .
122. Pursell , G. Trip Ends Generation Study. Chico, CA, 1978.
123. Wilsey & Ham Inc., Seattle, WA, 1981 .
124. Byrne, A.S . "Traffic Generation Characteristics: Florida Shopping Centers ." ITE Technical
Notes. Washington, DC: ITE, 1975.
125. Bureau of Traffic Engineering, Milwaukee, WI , 1980.
126. Fourteenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts . San Francisco, CA:
California Department of Transportation, District 4, 1982. a 127-151. Removed sources .
152. Special Land Use Trip Generation at Special Sites . Virginia Highway and Transportation
Research Council , 1984.
153. West Virginia Department of Transportation. "Trip Generation Rates ."
Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transpo rtat ion Engineers 29
30
154. New York Department of Transportation, Region 1 , Albany, NY, 1984.
155. Carl H. Buttke Inc., Portland, OR, 1980-1984.
156. Vanasse/Hangen Associates Inc., Boston, MA, 1982.
157. Thomas S . Montgomery & Associates, California, 1983.
158. Crommelin-Pringle & Associates , Los Angeles, CA, 197 4 .
159. Guckert, W., Parkton, MD, 1983.
160. Segal DiSarcina Associates, Boston , MA, 1982.
161 . C.E. Magu ire Inc., New B r itain, CT, 1984.
162. New York Department of Transportation, Albany, NY, 1984.
163. ITE Intermountain Section, Bill ings, MT, 1982.
164. Sear-Brown Associates PC , Rochester, NY, 1985.
165. BRW Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 1984.
166. Street Traffic Studies Ltd., Baltimore, MD, June 1984.
167. California State University, Chico, CA, April1984.
168-170. Trip Generation at Special Sites, Final Report, Virginia Highway and Transportation
Research Council , 1984.
-
171 . City of Lakewood, Lakewood, CO, 1985.
172-173. Barton-Aschman Associates , Houston, TX, 1979-1985.
174. Leigh, Scott & Clearly Inc., Colorado Springs, CO , 1985.
175. Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety, Westchester County, White Plains , NY, 1984. ·
176. Department of Public Works, City of Lakewood , CO, 1985.
177. Barge, Waggoner, Sumner and Cannon, Nashville, TN , 1984-1985.
178. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1984-1985.
179. City of Corvallis Utility and Engineering Services, Corvallis, OR, 1985.
I
180-181 . Department of Public Works, City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee , WI , 1983 .
182. Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., Houston, TX, 1979.
183. Texas Department of Transportation , Dallas, TX, 1985.
Trip Generation, 9th Ed ition • Institute of Tra nsportatio n Engineers
I!
.. ..
" I
184. Nassau County Planning Commission , New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.
Nassau County Trip Generation Report. New York, NY: New Yo rk Metropolitan Transportation
Council , 1986.
185-18.6 . Westchester County Trip Generation Study, Draft Final Report. New York, NY: New York
Metropolitan Transportation Council, 1985.
187. New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, Suffolk County Planning Department. Suffolk
County Trip Generation Study. New York , NY: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council , 1985.
188. RBA Group, Atlanta , GA, 1984. a 189. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Philadelphia, PA, 1985.
a -
190. Traffic and Transportation Department, Des Moines, lA, 1986.
191. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton , NJ, 1985.
192-203. Raymond Keyes Associates PC, Elmsford, NY, 1984.
204. Civgin, M. Trip Generation Rates for Multiple Family Residential Developments and
Neighborhood Shopping Centers in the Chicago Area, Technical Memorandum 83-01.
Chicago Area Transportation Study, 1982.
205. Chang, H. and A. Wolny. Fifteenth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts.
San Francisco, CA: Department of Transportation, 1983.
206. Shandro, P. Traffic Analysis-Wild Waters . Boise, ID: Ada County Highway Department, 1986.
207. Crawford , Bunte, Brammeier, St. Louis, MO, 1982.
208.
209.
210.
211.
Kinder Care Learning Centers. Trip Generation Study. Gaithersburg, MD : Street Traffic Studies
Ltd., 1984.
Ryan, T.A. Trip Generation Analysis. Christiana Medical Offices Project. Baltimore, MD: Kidde
Consultants Inc., 1984.
Fitzpatrick, D .R., Fitzpatrick-Llewellyn Inc., Essex Junction, VT, 1984.
JHK & Associates. The Brandermi/1 PUD Traffic Generation Study, Technical Report.
Alexandria , VA: JHK & Associates, 1984.
til 212-214. San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA, 1986.
215. Baumgaertner, W.E. "Movie Theater Trip Generation Rates." ITE Journal (June 1985).
216. Voorhies, K.O. Trip Generation Rates for New Types of Generators. Atlanta, GA:
The RBA Group, 1986.
217. Beaubien, R.F., Troy, Ml, 1986.
218. Montgomery County Government, Rockville, MD, 1984.
Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Tra nsportation Engi neers 31
219. Reynolds/Russillo. Video Arcade Traffic and Parking, 1983.
220 . State of Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT, 1988.
221. Transportation Department, City of Edmonton, Alberta , Canada, 1988.
222. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1988.
223 . San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo, CA, 1988.
224. Unknown source.
225. Gordon D. Ziecina Inc., Bradenton, FL, 1988.
226. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1989
227. Keith and Schnars, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, 1987.
228. City of Overland Park, Overland Park, KS, 1987.
229. Unknown source.
230. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1987.
231. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1987.
232. Sear-Brown Associates, P.C ., Rochester, NY, 1986.
233. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1983-1987.
234. Travers Asspciates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1986.
235. F.J . Reinders & Associates, Brampton, Ontario, Canada, 1989.
236. Clough, Harbour & Associates, Albany, NY, 1988.
237. Removed source.
238. Los Angeles County of Public Works, Los Angeles, CA, 1989.
239. Orth-Rodgers &Associates, Raritan, NJ , 1988.
240. County of San Louis Obispo, CA, 1989.
241. McMahon Associates Inc., Willow Grove, PA , 1987.
242. Irving K. Chann, Wilton, CT, 1988.
243. Travers Associates Inc., Clifton, NJ, 1988.
244. McMahon Associates Inc., Willow Grove, PA, 1987.
245 . Frederick P. Clark Associates, Consultants. Southport, CT, 1987.
32 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers
~
a;;
II .,
=
al
g
R
II
-
II
246. Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization , Yuma , AZ, 1989.
247 . Maguire Group Inc., Connecticut, 1989.
248 . ITE Student Chapter, Purdue University, West Lafayette , IN , 1989.
249. Miscellaneous trip generation studies .
250. Nashua Regional Planning Commission, Nashua, NH, 1989.
251. Orth-Rodgers &Associates Inc., Pennsylvania , 1988.
252 . A&F Engineering Inc., Indianapolis , IN .
253 . McMahon Associates Inc., Willow Grove, PA, 1980s.
254 . McMahon Associates Inc., Willow Grove, PA, 1987.
255. Weston Pringle and Associates, Fullerton, CA, 1988.
256 . Traffic Planning & Design Inc., Oaks, PA, 1989.
257 . Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, NY, 1988.
258. Vollmer Associates , North Haledon , NJ, 1989.
· 259 . JBM and Associates Traffic Study, Overland Park, KS, 1988.
260. A&F Engineering Co ., Indianapolis , IN .
261. Travers Associates Inc., Ridgewood, NJ, 1988.
262 . Andrews and Clark Inc., Long Island, NY, 1987.
263 . Detroit Department of Transportation, Detroit , Ml, 1989.
264 . County Engineering Department, San Louis Obispo, CA, 1988.
265. Barkan and Mess Associates Inc., Clinton , CT, 1986.
266. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, 1989.
267 . DSA Group Inc., Bradenton, FL, 1988.
268. BRW Inc., Bloomington , MN , 1988.
269 . Traffic Management Division , City of Oklahoma City, OK , 1988.
270 . Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin , Orlando, FL, 1989.
271. Nolte and A ssociates, Santa Cruz County, FL , 1989.
272. Department of Public Works , City of Ceres, CA, 1989.
Trip Genera tion, 9t h Editi on • In stitute of Transportation E ngineers 33
273. San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1989 .
274 . "Gas/Convenience Store Trip Generation Study." Florida Department of Transportation, 1989.
275. City of Parma, OH , 1981.
276. ITE-Montana Technical Committee. "Trip Characteristics of Convenience Markets with
Gas Pumps." ITE Journal (July 1987).
277. San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego , CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1987 .
278. Parking and Traffic Department, City of Modesto, CA.
279. City of Overland Park, KS, 1981 .
280. James T. Rapoli Consulting, Poughkeepsie, NY, 1985.
281 . Sear-Brown Associates PC, Rochester, NY, 1986 .
282 . Lancaster, T.R., Portland, OR, 1987.
283. Carl H. Buttke Inc., Portland, OR, 1988.
284. ASL Consulting Engineers Inc., Los Angeles, CA, August 1987.
285. Hazarvartian, K.E. "Trip Generation Characteristics of Air Force Bases ." ITE Journal
(October 1988).
286. The Maguire Group, Connecticut, 1987.
287 . San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego , CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 1987.
288 . ITE New England Section , 1987-1989.
289. Transportation/Traffic Division, Department of Engineering Services, C ity of Camarillo, CA, 1988 .
290 . Keith and Schnars, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 1987.
291. Daubert Engineering Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO , 1987 .
292. Miscellaneous trip generation studies.
293. Maguire Group Inc., New Britain, CT. 1987.
294. Trip Generation Rates for Drive-In/Fast-Food Restaurant and Medical Office Buildings in the
OK/ Region. Cincinnati, OH: Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, 1987.
295. Clough, Harbour & Associates, Albany, NY, 1986.
296. ITE Student Chapter, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN , 1987.
297. PHR & A, Fairfax, VA, 1988.
298. T JKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1988 .
34 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers
g
=
-
11 299. The Cafaro Compa ny, Youngstown, OH , 1988.
3 00-30 1. Indianapolis/Marion County Site Trip Generation Counts. Indianapolis, IN : Barton-
Aschman Associates , 1989 .
302-3 06 . National Research Counci l. NCHRP Report 323 : Travel Characteristics at Large-Scale
Suburb.an Activity Centers. Washington , DC : Transportation Research Board, 1987-1988.
307-318. Miscellaneous trip generation studies .
319-325. Montgomery County Trip Generation Rate Study. Silver Spring , MD: Maryland-National
Capital Park and Planning Commission , 1986.
326. C itru s County Department of Dev elopment Services, Lecanto, FL , 1990.
327. Trip Generation From Suburban Office Buildings in New J ersey. Philadelph ia , PA: Delaware
Valley Regional Planning Commission , 1988-1989.
328. J .W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering Inc., Jacksonville, FL , 1990 .
329. H .W. Moore Associates Inc. Consulting Engineers, Boston, MA, 1990.
330. Maguire Group Inc., Connecticut, 1990.
331 . Trip Generation Analysis for High Cube Warehouses. City of Livermore , CA: Fehr & Peers
Associates , 1989.
332. State of Californ ia Transportation Agency, District 4 "Sixteenth Progress Report on Trip Ends
Generation Research Counts ." San Francisco, CA, 1986 .
333 . Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., Columbus , OH, 1990.
334. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, 1989.
II 335 . Monteleone, M ., Chapel Hill , NC , 1990.
336. Metro Traffic and Parking, Nashville, TN, 1991 .
337. City of Chattanooga , Chattanooga, TN , 1990 .
338. Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency/Jefferson County Publ ic Works and
Transportation Division , Louisville , KY, 1993.
339. Travers Associates Inc., New Jersey, 1991.
340. Bens hoof and Associates Inc., Edina, MN, 1993.
341 . Traffic Planning and Design , Altamonte Springs, FL, 1992.
342. MWCOG, Washington , DC , 1989.
343. Removed source.
Trip Gen eration , 9th Edition • Inst itute of Tra nsportation Engineers 35
344. Central Transportation Planning Staff, Boston , MA, 1992.
345. The Traffic Group Inc., Towson , MD, 1992.
346. Muncaster Engineering and Computer Applications, Charlottesville , VA, 1990 .
347-348. KHRAssociates. "Mobil National Traffic Study." Irvine, CA, 1992.
349. VHB Inc., Watertown , MA, 1992.
350. Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency/Jefferson County Public Works and
Transportation Division, Louisville, KY, 1993.
351. Palm Beach County Traffic Division, West Palm Beach, FL , 1989.
352. Tipton Associates Inc., Orlando, FL , 1989.
353 . Traffic Generation Study for Wai-Mart Stores. Andover, MA: Robert D . Vanasse & Associates
Inc., 1994.
354. Peters & Associates. Trip Generation Studies for Wai-Mart Supercenters. Little Rock, AR:
Peters & Associates, 1994.
355. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Development of Montgomery
County Trip Generation Rates . Montgomery County, MD, 1993 .
356. Street Smarts, Atlanta, GA, 1990.
357-359. City of Rapid City. "Rapid City MPO, Trip Generation Rates." Rapid City, SO , 1995.
360. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA, 1989-1990.
361. Trip Generation-Golf Driving Range . Boston, MA: Bruce Campbell & Associates Inc., 1993.
362. Trip Generation Information for Quick Lubrication Shops in Vancouver, WA. Portland , OR:
Kittelson & Associates Inc., 1995.
363. MCV Associates In c., Mclean, VA, 1994.
364. Removed source.
365. The Sear-Brown Group In c., Rochester, NY, 1991 -1995.
366. Inland Pacific Engineering Company, Spokane, WA, 1995.
367. Eschbacher & Associates , Syosset, NY, 1996.
368. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 1996.
369. Transportation Concepts, Clifton Park, NY, 1996.
370. TDA Inc., Seattle, WA.
36 Trip Generation , 9 th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers
•
a
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
371 . Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, 1996 .
372 . Grove Miller Engineering Inc., Harrisburg, PA, 1992 .
373. Tulare County Association of Governments, Visalia, CA, 1993.
374. Transportation Engineers Inc., Fullerton , CA, 1990 .
375. Removed source
376 . An Informational Trip Generation Report-"Big Box Users" and "Category Killers " for Power
Retail Centers. Towson, MD: The Traffic Group, 1993.
377. Trip Generation and Parking Generation Study. Issaquah, WA: Optimum Environment, 1991.
378. Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz & Jacquemart Inc., New York, NY, 1990-1991.
379. JW Buckholz Traffic Engineering Inc., Jacksonville, FL, 1991 .
380 . Factory Outlet Center Trip Generation Study. Santa Barbara, CA: Associated Transportation
Engineers, 1991-1996.
381 . Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., Dallas, TX, 1986 .
382 . Barr, Dunlop & Associates Inc., Tallahassee, FL, 1995.
383. Barakos-Landino Design Group, Hamden, CT, 1995.
384. Benshoof & Associates Inc., Edina , MN, 1995.
385. Benshoof & Associates Inc., Edina, MN, 1992.
386 . Free-Standing Retail Establishment Trip Generation Study. Rochester, NY: Bergmann
Associates, 1994.
387 . Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 1996.
388 . Langley and McDonald, Williamsburg, VA, 1990.
389 . Charlotte Department of Transportation , Charlotte, NC, 1995.
390. Creative Transportation Solutions, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, 1994-1995.
391. Creighton Manning Inc., Delmar, NY, 1994.
392. Cupertino, CA, 1993-1995.
393. DJKAssociates Inc., Arlington, MA, 1991.
394 . D.J . Parrone & Associates , Penfield , NY, 1993 .
395 . David Evans and Associates Inc., Portland, OR, 1991.
396 . City of Farmington, NM.
Trip Generation , 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 37
397. Horner & Canter Associates , Medford, NJ, 1991-1994.
398. Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin , Orlando, FL, 1990-1991.
399. Grove Miller Engineering Inc., Harrisburg , PA, 1992.
400. I.K. Chann Associates , Wilton , CT, 1996.
401. Inland Pacific Engineering Company, Spokane , WA, 1996.
402. Inland Engineering Corporation , Victorville, CA, 1995.
403. Traffic & Circulation Study for Proposed Mini Storage . Fullerton , CA: Transportation Engineers
Inc., 1993.
404. Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency, Lou isville, KY, 1993.
405. Mackenzie Engineering Inc., Portland, OR.
406. CE Maguire lnc.,·New Britain, CT, 1986-1994.
407. Morris County. County of Morris 1992 Trip Generation Study. Morris County, NJ , 1992 .
408. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates Inc., San Mateo, CA, 1995.
409. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh , NC, 1993.
410. Town of Oro Valley, Oro Valley, AZ , 1993.
411. Orth-Rodgers &Associates Inc., Bridgewater, NJ , 1987-1990.
412. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Bridgewater, NJ , 1991.
413. City of Overland Park, KS, 1991 .
414. Paul C . Box &Associates Inc., Skokie, IL, 1987-1991.
415. Prosser, Hallock & Kristoff Inc., Jacksonville, FL, 1994.
416. Robert D . Vanasse &Associates Inc ., Andover, MA, 1993.
417. TRC Raymond Keyes Associates, Tarrytown, NY, 1994-1995.
418. Barton-AschmanAssociates Inc., San Jose, CA, 1987-1995.
419. Balloffet &Associates Inc., Denver, CO , 1995.
420. State of Vermont Agency of Transportation , Montpelier, VT, 1990.
421. CMX, Manalapan, NJ , 1993-1996.
422-424. DKS Associates, Portland , OR, 1991-1996.
425. Transportation Planning & Engineering Inc., Bellevue, WA, 1991-1992.
:a Trip Generation , 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers
•
II 426 . Tim Miller Associates Inc., Cold Spring, NY, 1992.
Cl
a
427. Area Plan Commission ofTippecanoe County, Lafayette, IN , 1995.
428. Travers Associates Inc., New Jersey, 1990-1994.
429 . Vollmer Associates , Rochelle Park, NJ, 1993.
430 . Western Planning & Research Inc., Auburn, CA, 1996.
431 . University of Tennessee Transportation Center, Knoxville, TN, 1995.
432. University of Wisconsin . District IV Trip Generation Study. Platteville, WI: ITE Student Chapter,
Platteville , 1994-1995.
433 . University of Hawaii at Manoa , Honolulu, HI, 1995.
434. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 1995.
435 . Supplement to San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of
Governments , 1991-1995.
a 436-439. Traffic Planning and Design, Maitland, FL, 1991-1996.
D
II -ra
I
I
I
I
I
440-441. Associated Transportation Engineers, Santa Barbara, CA.
442. Sprinkle Consulting Engineering, Lutz, FL, 1990-1993.
443-445. OKS Associates, Portland, OR, 1991-1996.
446. International Council of Shopping Centers Trip Generation Study. Tarrytown, NY: Raymond
Keyes Associates Inc., 1994.
447. CMX, Manalapan , NJ, 1995.
448. Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington, CT, 1996 .
449. Lumber Store Trip Generation Analysis . Jacksonville , FL : JW Buckholz Traffic Engineering Inc.,
1992.
450. University of Texas at El Paso , TX, 1999.
451. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 1999.
452. Clemson University, Clemson , SC, 1999.
453. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1999.
454. Removed source.
455. CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 1995-1998.
456. DeShazo, Tang and Associates Inc., Dallas, TX, 1997.
Trip Generation , 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 39
457. Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum Consultants Inc., Cincinnati , OH , 1999 .
458. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 1998.
459. Doyle, J. "Trip Generation for Entertainment Land Uses." ITE 1999 Annual Meeting and Exhibit
Compendium. Washington, DC : ITE, 1999.
460-499. Blank sources.
500. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Somerset, NJ, 2001.
501 . Corcoran, S. "Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Demand Characteristics." ITE 1996
Annual Meeting and Exhibit Compendium . Washington , DC: ITE , 1996 .
502 . Creighton Manning Engineering LLP, Albany, NY, 1999.
503 . Removed source.
504. Jha, M .K . and D.J. Lovell . "Trip Generation Characteristics of Free-Standing Discount Stores: A
Case Study." ITE Journal on the Web (May 1999): 85-89.
505. Removed source .
506. Removed source .
507. Traffic Planning and Design Inc., Maitland , FL, 1997-2002.
508. Hex agon Transportation Consultants Inc., San Jose, CA, 1999.
509. Barakas-Land ino Inc., Meridan, CT, 1998.
510. 510. Transportation Concepts LLP, Clifton Park, NY, 1998.
511. Removed source .
512. Removed source .
513. Trans Associates, Pittsburgh , PA, 1996.
514. Kittelson &Associates Inc., Portland, OR, 1997-1998.
515. Charbonneau Engineering LLC, Portland, OR, 1999.
516 . DeShazo, Tang & Associates Inc., Dallas, TX, 2002.
517 . San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego , CA: San Diego Association of Governments , 1998.
518. Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., San Jose, CA, 1998.
519 . A&F Engineering Company Inc., Indianapolis, IN, 1998.
520. The Sear-Brown Group Inc., Syracuse, NY, 1997 .
521. Removed source.
40 Trip Generation , 9th Edition • In stitute of Tra nsportation Engineers
522 . Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission , Columbus , OH , 1996.
523. Removed source .
524. Resource S ystems Group In c., Wh ite River Junction , VT, 1998.
525. J-U-B Engineers In c., Orem, UT, 1998-1999.
526. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., Tu c son, AZ, 2001 .
527. Removed source.
528 . The Traffic Group In c., Baltimore, MD, 1992.
529 . Albun Inc., 1999 .
.... 530 . Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission , Knoxville , TN, 1996 .
531 . DKSAssociates, Portland , OR, 1999 .
532. The Sear-Brown Group Inc., DeWitt, NY, 2003.
533. San Diego Traffic Generators. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments, 2002.
534. City of Santa Maria , Santa Maria, CA, 2000.
535 . Henningsen, Durham & Richardson Inc., Omaha , NE, 2000 .
536 . TEl Engineers & Planners, Lake Mary, FL, 2001 .
537 . Creighton Manning Engineering LLP, Albany, NY, 2001 .
538. R.E. Gray & Associates , S e lbyville , DE, 2000-2001 .
539 . LandMark Design Group Inc., Williamsburg, VA, 2000.
540. City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation , Los Angeles , CA, 1996-1997 .
541 . Removed source.
542. Ariz ona State Univ ersity, Tempe , AZ , 1996-1997.
543. Removed source.
544. San Diego Tra ffic Generator s. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governm e nts, 1996.
545. Removed source.
546. Removed source .
547 . The HNTB Companies, Milwaukee , WI , 11997.
548 . Removed s o urce .
549 . Removed source .
Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute o f Transport ation Engin eers 41
550-551. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1996-2001 .
552. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1995-2002.
553. Dixon Associates Consulting Engineers , Galloway, NJ, 2002.
554. LSC Transportation Consultants Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, 2001 .
555. FRA Engineering PC, Henrietta, NY, 1998-2000.
556-558. Removed sources.
559. Perry Engineering Inc., Coventry, Rl , 2001.
560. Removed source .
561. Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Somerset, NJ, 2002 .
562 . Orth-Rodgers & Associates Inc., Somerset, NJ, 1997-2001.
563. Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 1997-2001 .
564. BL Companies, Meriden, CT, 2002.
565. Fricker, J.D. 'Trip Generation at Youth Soccer Complexes: Some Unforeseen Issues."
ITE Journal on the Web (February 1999): 75-78.
566. Kittelson & Associates Inc., Portland, OR, 2001-2002.
567. Removed source .
568. Washington Group International Inc., Glenwood Springs, CO, 2000-2002.
569. Removed source.
570. Removed source.
571. McMahon Associates Inc., Fort Washington, PA, 1994-2003.
572. Pape-Dawson Engineers Inc., San Antonio, TX, 2001.
573. CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 1995-2003.
574. Removed source.
575. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., Ocala, FL, 2002.
576. Traffic Planning and Design Inc., Pottstown, PA.
577 . Trans Associates Engineering Consultants Inc., Pittsburgh , PA, 2000-2002.
578. Removed source.
579-580. OKS Associates, Portland, OR, 2001-2002.
42 Trip Gen era tion , 9th Editio n • In stitute of Tra ns porta tio n Eng ineers
I
a
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
581 . Eschbacher, R.M. 'Trip Generation and Parking Demand Characteristics of Assisted Living
Facilities ." ITE 2002 Annual Meeting and Exhibit Compendium . Washington , DC : ITE , 2002.
582. Parsons Corporation . Southfield, Ml , 2002 .
583-584. OKS Associates , Portland , OR, 1994-2001.
585. USKH In c., Spokane, WA, 2005.
586. FRA Engineering/T.V. Lin International, Orchard Park, NY, 2007.
587 . Removed source.
588. BL Companies, Meriden , CT, 2006.
589. Shropshire Associates LLC, Medford , NJ, 2004.
590. Gwinnett County Department of Transportation, Lawrenceville, GA, 2003 .
591. VanCleef Engineering Associates, Whippany, NJ , 2002.
592. ITE Student Chapter, University of Nebraska, Lincoln , NE , 2007.
593. ITE Student Chapter, University of Nevada , Reno, NV, 2007.
594. G.W. Nickelson, Walnut Creek , CA, 2004-2007.
595. Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, Clearwater, FL, 2004.
596. R.D. Zande & Associates Inc., Columbus, OH , 2003.
597. KD Anderson & Associates, Loomis, CA, 2007.
598-599 . Horner & Canter Associates, Medford, NJ, 2000-2007.
600. Transportation Resource Group Inc., York , PA, 2007.
601. Traffic Planning and Design Inc., Pottstown, PA, 2006 .
602 . Omland Engineering Associates Inc., Cedar Knolls , NJ , 2006.
603. Karins and Associates, Newark, DE, 2006.
604. Kittelson & Associates Inc., Portland , OR, 2005.
605. CMX. Trip Generation Study, Land Use Code 152, High Cube Warehouse . Manalapan , NJ , 2006.
606. Removed source.
607. ITE Student Chapte r, Auburn University, Auburn , AL, 2007.
I 608. ITE Student Chapter, Texas A&M University, College Station , TX, 2007 .
609 . ITE Student Chapter, University of Alabama , Birmingham, AL, 2007.
Trip Genera tion, 9th Edition • Insti tute of Transportati on Eng ineers 43
610. CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 2007.
611-612. DKS Associates, Portland, OR, 1999-2007.
613. WGM Group Inc., Missoula, MT, 2007.
614. Maurer-Stutz Inc., Peoria , IL, 2008.
615. Krager and Associates Inc., Denver, CO, 2005-2007.
616-618. Greenman-Pedersen Inc., Nashua, NH, 1999-2006.
619. Crain & Associates . San Bernardino/Riverside County Warehouse/Distribution Center Vehicle
Trip Generation Study. Los Angeles , CA, 2005-2007.
620. Lee Engineering, LLC, Dallas , TX, 2007.
621. Traffic Data Inc., St. Louis Park, MN, 2004-2005.
622. Bogart Engineering , Moscow, PA, 2006.
623. Removed source.
624. Ferguson & Associates Inc., Bend, OR, 2005.
625. VRPA Technologies Inc. Trip Generation Characteristics of Free-Standing Discount Superstores.
San Diego, CA, 2006.
626. Oracle Engineering Inc., Piscataway, NJ , 2007.
627. Town of Hilton Head Island. Hilton Head Island, SC, 2004.
628. City of Overland Park, Kansas, Overland Park, KS, 2007-2011.
629-630. McMahon Associates Inc., Fort Washington, PA , 1997-2008.
631. Rick Engineering Company, Lake Forest, CA, 2007.
632. Prosser Hallock Inc., Jacksonville , FL, 2004.
633. Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers. Daycare Transportation Impact Analysis & SOC Alternate
Calculation Methodology. Eugene, OR, 2003.
634. Stahl Sheaffer Engineering , LLC , State College, PA, 2006 .
635. ITE Student Chapter, University of Washington, Seattle , WA, 2007.
636. HDR/WHM Transportation Eng ineering, Austin , TX, 2007.
637. WGM Group In c., Missoula, MT, 2005-2007.
638. C3 Consulting Group, Wellesley, MA, 2003.
639. Bogart Engineering , Moscow, PA, 2006.
44 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transporta tion Eng ineers
640. Kinney Engineering, LLC, Anchorage, AK, 2007.
641. City and County of Denver, CO, 2004.
642. Peters Engineering Group. Trip Generation Study, High-Cube Warehouse Buildings. Fresno,
CA; and Trip Generation Study, Fresno Area Mini Storage Complexes. Clovis , CA, 2007 .
643. Removed source.
644 . ITE Student Chapter, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 2005.
645. King Engineering Associates, Jacksonville , FL, 2007.
646-64 7. Removed sources.
648. Kim ley-Horn and Associates Inc . Independent Trip Generation Study. Tampa, FL, 2007 .
649. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Large-Scale Retail Distribution Centers . Tampa , FL, 2007.
650. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. Assembly Square Mixed-Use Redevelopment Study. Somerville,
MA, 2006.
651-652. Texas Transportation Institute . Nationwide Discount Supercenter Study. College Station,
TX, 2008.
653-655. Removed sources.
656 . ELA Group Inc., State College, PA, 2003.
657. Gibson Traffic Consultants Inc., Everett, WA, 2007.
658. Stantec Consulting Inc., Phoenix, AZ, 2007.
659. Removed source .
660. Loudoun County-Office of Transportation Services, Leesburg, VA, 2010-2011.
661 . MRO Engineers Inc., Rocklin, CA, 2004.
662. Unknown source.
663-699 . Blank sources.
700. ITE Student Chapter, Auburn University, Auburn , AL, 2008.
701 . Hubbell , Roth & Clark In c., Bloomfield Hills, Ml, 2008 .
702. City of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2009-2011.
703 . CMX, Manalapan, NJ, 2008.
704. Fisher Associates , Rochester, NY, 2008-2009.
705. A & F Engineering Company LLC, Indianapolis, IN, 2008.
Trip Genera tion , 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Eng ineers 45
706 . Transportation Resource Group Inc., York, PA , 2007 .
707 . ITE Student Chapter, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 2008 .
708 . ITE Student Chapter, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 2008.
709. Morrison Maierle Inc., Tempe, AZ, 2008.
710. Group Mackenzie, Portland, OR, 2008.
711 . John Davenport Engineering Inc., Winston-Salem , NC, 2006-2007.
712. ITE Student Chapter, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2008.
713. BL Companies, Meriden, CT, 2009 .
714. GENIVAR, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2012.
715 . The Traffic Group Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1989-2010.
716. T.Y. Lin International , Orchard Park, NY, 2008.
717. Burgess & Niple, Columbus, OH, 2007.
718 . ITE Student Chapter, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 2009 .
719 . McMahon Associates, Fort Washington, PA , 2009-2010 .
720 . MRO Engineers Inc., Rocklin , CA, 2010.
721. Buckholz T~affic , Jacksonville, FL, 2007-2009.
722 . ITE Student Chapter, University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, HI , 2009-2011 .
723 . ITE Student Chapter, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 2009-2011 .
724 . ITE Student Chapter, Texas A&M University, College Station , TX, 2008-2009.
725 . ITE Student Chapter, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 2008-2009.
726. ITE Student Chapter, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 2008 .
727. Traffic Data Inc., St. Louis Park, MN , 2009.
728. Vermont Agency of Transportation , Montpelier, VT, 2006-2010.
729. ITE Student Chapter, University of North Carolina-Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, 2009.
730. ITE Student Chapter, University of Waterloo , Waterloo, Ontario, Canada , 2009.
731. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL.
732. Neal Ogden, Arroyo Seco, NM , 2008.
46 Trip Generation , 9 th Editio n • Institute of T ra nspo rtation E ngineers
=-
II
a
a
~
II
Gl
II
II
-
:1
II
733. ITE Student Chapter, Portland State Univers ity, Portland, OR , 2009 .
734. Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission , Manchest er, NH .
735 . OKS Associates, Portland, OR.
736. Removed source .
737. Shropshire Associates LLC , Lumberton , NJ , 2008 .
738 . Shea Carr Jewell Inc., Olympia , WA, 2010.
739 . Washington State Department of Transportation , Un ion Gap, WA , 2002 .
740 . Blank source.
7 41. Removed source.
7 42. Blank source.
743-744 . Removed source.
745. The Traffic Group Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1989-2010 .
746 . ITE Student Chapter, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 2 008 .
747 . ITE Student Chapter, University of Nevada-Reno , Reno, NV, 2009.
748 . Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA, 2011 .
749 . The Traffic Group Inc., Baltimore, MD , 2008.
750. Florida Department of Transportation , Tallahassee, FL.
751. Vermont Agency of Transportation , Montpelier, VT, 2006-2010.
752. Texas Transportation Institute , College Station , TX, 2008-2009.
753 . Street Smarts, Duluth , GA, 2007.
754. Blank source.
755. OKS Associates, Portland, OR, 2003 .
Trip Generation, 9th E d ition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 47
AlTACHMENT 3
Letter from Brian Ashurst (CA Dept. of Transportation, Dist. 4) to Loretta
Fowler, October 17, 2016
April 4, 2017
Planning Commissioners
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Impact of 401-409 Alberto Way Proposed Development
on Bella Vista Village
Bella Vista Village is a development of 47 Craftsman-style townhomes that was constructed in
1998 and 1999 on a small farm at the base of Bella Vista Avenue. A local architectural firm,
Paragon Design, put great thought into designing a project that would blend well with the
existing residential homes at the end of this idyllic cui-de sac on Alberto Way.
I've enjoyed this neighborhood for 18 years as an original owner. My neighbors and I have
carefully watched the various proposed developments at both ends of Alberto Way with
curiosity and trepidation. As a Realtor having represented buyers and sellers on 24 Bella Vista
Village homes, I've experienced another perspective --the impact the proposed project at 401 -
409 Alberto Way has had on marketing homes for sale or for rent for the past two years as
residents wonder what kind of impact a development of this size would have on these homes.
The existing plan:
• Is nearly 2 Yz times the square footage of the existing office space
• Requires an extended period of time for underground and above ground construction
which ultimately could cause structural damage to adjacent properties
• Will cause increased traffic congestion on Highway 9, Highway 17 and Alberto Way--a
bottleneck entrance to hundreds of homes and nearly 200,000sf of commercial office
space . Without any additional development, the street already suffers from a narrow
roadway limited by street parking on both sides of the street.
(Kemp, 2 of 3)
In my recent door to door survey in Bella Vista Village, the residents indicated they would look
forward to a new development that would enhance this area of town but have an overwhelming
concern for the size, mass and scale of the proposed development. They have asked me to
represent them as a liaison with neighboring developments at Pueblo de Los Gatos, The Los
Gatos Commons and Las Casitas to voice their concerns to the proposed developer. These
concerns can best be summarized in six points:
1. The size, mass and scale of the originally designed 93,000 sf building should be
reduced by one third to one half as requested by the Planning Commission at the last
hearing in 2016 (46,000 to 62,000sf).
2. Compared to the current artist renderings presented by the developer, the
architectural features of the project should be in keeping with the existing residential
neighborhood with lower building height, breaks in the roofline, a mix of exterior
building materials possibly including wood, glass and stone with breaks in the front
and side elevations and privacy for adjacent neighbors, avoiding a massive,
contemporary, concrete, cubic design that blocks hill views and light at the end of the
day.
3. This project should allow reasonable ingress/egress on Alberto Way as most of the
residents in Bella Vista Village are working professionals, and many families have small
children that attend school and have after school activities. They are especially
concerned with the number of trucks and heavy equipment that will be needed for
quite some time during the extended construction phase.
4. This project should not cause an additional burden to the drainage system on
Alberto Way. Please see the independent hydrologist's report for 401-409 Alberto
Way which shows the project will overload neighboring systems if not mitigated
properly. The Bella Vista Village developer (Landmark Development) returned a year
after construction completion to install additional drainage including sump pumps to
the homes on the lower half of Cuesta de Los Gatos Way due to excess water run-off
they had not anticipated from the highest elevation in the development (Maggi Court
which lies at the base of Bella Vista Avenue). These sump pumps have been working
overtime this year with the return to normal rainfall, and our streets and curbs have
often flooded when the drains failed to meet the run-off demand. Our residents
realize that mitigation for any additional load on Alberto Way is going to be critical.
(Kemp, 3 of 3)
5 . The 401-409 Alberto Way parking should not overflow to street parking on Alberto
Way where many residents in Bella Vista Vi llage park their veh icles due to storage in
their garages. Parking after hours on the street is already at a prem ium for existing
residents .
6 . As a real estate agert, I've experienced sellers that are concerned about additional
disclosures that must be provided to buyers and tenants detailing anything "that could
possibly affect the value of the property" as required by law. These details include
proposed size of the project and increase in traffic congestion during construction and
after construction complet ion . Additional disclosures detailing work to be completed
at some future date is seldom viewed as a positive feature.
IN SUMMARY, the size and scale of this project is of tremendous concern to the residents of
Bella Vi sta Village on a wide range of topics. We ask that the Planning Commission of the Town
of Los Gatos reject the existing EIR due to inaccuracies and reject the currently proposed
development plan .
Regards,
Melanie Kemp
Broke r Associate
Coldwell Banker
174 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
II
I
---·----------------
I
l
'
'
J
I
I
_I
Alberto Way Citizens' Opposition to the Revised
P lan filed March 9 , 2017 by Lamb Partners for
405 Alberto Way (formerly 401-409 Alberto Way)
Submitted by Bob Burke, Pueblo de Los Gatos
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Los Gatos is not requesting adequate Impact Recovery on Commercial Developments for Impact to LG Roads or our
LG School Systems ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
I. The Revised PO Attempts and Fails to address these issues ................................................................................... 7
A . Reviewability ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
B . Size & Mass of the Buildings ................................................................................................................................. 8
C . VTA decided to fund the 9 & 17 Interchange before Measure B passed ............................................................... 8
D . North side of Revised PO allows its Tenants to look into Las Casitas Windows and confiscates 100% of Las
Casitas Santa Cruz Mountain views ............................................................................................................................. 8
E. Buildings block our Santa Cruz Mountain Views ................................................................................................... 9
F. Revised PO fails to adequately stra ighten Alberto for Safety & on-street parking ................................................ 15
G . Traffic on Hwy 9 is already too congested & Alberto Way will become severely congested by the Revised PO .. 16
1. Traffic congestion will impact Alberto Way and LG within a % mile radius ....................................................... 16
H . Our traffic Study-See Also Roman Rufanov's companion submission .............................................................. 16
I. There is no Construction Plan and no Plan can avoid blocking Residents and emergency vehicles for extended
periods of time ........................................................................................................................................................... 27
II . Revised PO did not attempt to address these EIR Issues at all .............................................................................. 27
A . Hydrology & Geo-Technical ................................................................................................................................ 27
1 . Water Table Issue s addressed by our expert, Dr. Geissler (report attached): .................................................. 27
2 . Water table beneath the Revised PO has risen significantly since the June, 2015 borings .............................. 28
3 . Hydrology impacts to us that are not revealed in the EIR are ID'd by our Expert ............................................. 29
Ill. Not Addressed at all by Changes made in the Revised PD ................................................................................. 33
A. Aesthetics (3:1-14): EIR concludes no negative impacts-we disagree ............................................................... 33
B . Air quality (3 : 14-38): Impacts are understated and m itigations inadequate ......................................................... 33
C. Public service (EIR 3 :135-41 ): Negative Impacts that weren 't identified .............................................................. 35
1. E IR conclusion Area Schools: The impact is not insignificant in our view ........................................................ 35
2. EIR CONCLUSION Fire and Emergency Medical Services: The impact is not insignificant in our view ........... 36
1 1P age
D. Traffic & Transportation Conc lusions of the EIR (3 :141-80) & Rebuttals ............................................................. 37
1. Impact (EIR 3-140): The project would result in less t han significant i mpacts to area fire department fa ci lities 37
2 . False Traffic Report Data on Appendix H: Hwy-9 & Alberto Way: Eastbound PM Rush "Ex isting + Proposed" 38
3 . Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ..................................................................................................................... 39
4 . Impact (EIR: 3-179) The proj ect could potentially increase hazards due to design features f or bi cycles,
pedestrians, and transit (less than significant) ........................................................................................................ 40
Mitigation T3 Causes a new and Unacceptable Environmental Impact on 4 20 & 435 A lberto Way ........................ .41
E . FEIR Impacts that have not been adequately addressed .................................................................................... 42
Unidentified Impact: The PD will depress Alberto Way Property Values both duri ng and after construction ............ 42
Unidentified Impact: The Revised PD driveway and parking areas are insufficient ................................................. 42
Unidentified Impact: The Revised PD appears to have no tum-around large enough for Busses .......................... .42
Unidentified Impact: The Revised PO Garage is blocked while trash and re cycli ng is picked up, backi ng up traffic
on Alberto & Hwy-9 or in the PDs garage while they are present.. ......................................................................... .42
Unidentified Impact: The curve in front of the PO is a s ight problem for vehicles .................................................... 42
Unidentified Impact: No construction plan can prevent complete shutdown of A lberto W ay fo r extended peri ods ... 42
Unidentified Impact: During construction , work crews of 50-100 will be present on the site at all ti mes , each
arriving in a separate vehicles: it is not possible for them to all park on t he PO property ........................................ 42
Un identified Impact: If water is used to control particulates during construction , the trucks ex iting the site will leave
with caked-on mud on their tires, which will be deposited in Alberto Way and Hwy-9 ............................................ .43
Unidentified Impact: Duri ng construction , the road beds of Alberto Way and Hwy-9 w ill be destroyed or seri ously
damaged by the fully loaded concrete trucks which weigh up to 80 tons ............................................................... .43
Unidentified Impact: Mitigation T-2 calls for a construction contract with Los Gatos, however, there is no Mitigation
for the construction contract with Caltrans .............................................................................................................. 43
Unidentified Impact: As a Mixed-Use development, the PD would , generate high levels of continuous traffic that are
not disclosed in the DEIR or FEIR .......................................................................................................................... 43
F . Revised and Missing Mitigations ......................................................................................................................... 43
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T -4 : Widen Hwy-9 by one lane along the enti re length of the Proposed Development on
Hwy-9 to allow safe right turns from Alberto Way: ................................................................................................. .43
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-5 : Widen Hwy-9 by one lane each direct ion between the Hwy-17 Overpass and the 2
lane sections on both sides to enable the EB left turn pocket into Alberto to be extended enough to prevent AM
gridlock ................................................................................................................................................................... 44
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-6 : Reduce PO Footprint by enough to enable the w iden ing of Hwy-9 by one lane each
direction between the Hwy-17 Overpass and the 2 lane sections on both s ides .................................................... .45
G . ALTERNATIVES (EIR 6 : 1-12): Alternatives Considered .................................................................................... 46
H . Revised PD Design Features in conflict with General Plan Policies ................................................................... 46
I. Revised PD Features in conflict with LG Commercial Design Guidelines ............................................................ 47
1 .3 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 7
Provide a greater degree of project review and approval predictability ................................................................... 47
21 Page
Plan Deficiency: ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos ................. .47
Maintain a building scale that is consistent with the Town's small scale image ....................................................... 48
Reinforce the special qualities of the Town 's visual character. ............................................................................... 48
Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate adjacent development. .................................... 48
To encourage signs which are in scale and harmony with the architecture and the character of the Town ............ .48
1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 48
Maintenance of the existing small town feel. ........................................................................................................... 48
Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town 's residential structures ...................... .48
Small scale buildings with a strong pedestrian orientation ...................................................................................... 48
The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential neighborhoods ................................ .48
Strong encouragement of a unique Los Gatos scale and character ........................................................................ 48
1 .5.1 Design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Los Gatos ................................................. 48
Break overall building masses into segments similar to those of nearby structures and parcels ............................ .48
Avoid design which consists largely of boxes with applied design elements .......................................................... .48
Break facade segments into modules ..................................................................................................................... 49
1.5.3 Provide a unified design around all sides of buildings .................................................................................... 49
Where continuity of design is difficult to achieve, substantial landscaping .............................................................. 49
1.5 .5 Integrate the screening for all trash and service areas into the design of the buildings .................................. 49
1.5 .6 Operable windows ......................................................................................................................................... 49
1.5. 7 Provide visual buffering of on-site utility elements .......................................................................................... 49
Locate transformers, valves and similar elements where they will be least visible .................................................. 49
1.5.8 Subordinate parking to the buildings ................................................................................................................. 49
Avoid parking lots in locations that interrupt retail and/or structural continuity near front property lines .................. 49
Projects with multiple tenants will be required to prepare a Master Signage Program ............................................ 49
Introduction
We the Citizens of Alberto Way ask that the Town of Los Gatos:
Not certify the Environmental Impact Report and
Not approve the Revised 405 Alberto Way Proposed Development (PO)
This Report addresses the Applicant's Current March 9 , 2017 Design. In it, we address only issues that remain to exist
with the Design and the original EIR. To avoid duplication we refer to reports submitted by the other three HOA
31Page
Members of our Coordinating Committee, which consists of myself, John Mittelstet (The Commons), Roman Rufanov
(Las Casitas) and Melanie Kemp (Bella Vista V i llage).
The EIR presently on-file for the original site layout and building design vs. the current Design and it:
Significantly understates the negative impact the Revised PO would have on Alberto Way residents & non-
Alberto Way Los Gatos Citizens
Contains Geotechnical & underground Hydrological assessments that bar the site from any buildings of the size
of the PO based on liquefaction and settling as well as the Revised PDs underground parking, the lower level
of which would be underwater
Contains a Traffic Report whose computation analysis fails to acknowledge, disclose or predict the photographic
evidence of the high degree of congestion , including the "F" Level of Service suffered daily during the 7 :45AM-
8 :45AM and 5 :15PM-6:15PM Rush Hours
Fails to acknowledge impact to all who use Hwy 9 during the other two afternoon Rush Hours at Noon (lunch ) &
2 :30 (school's out)
Understates the additional trips generated by omitting all trips to and from the PO by tenant employees who
leave during the day to conduct business off-premises and return before the end of the day,
Understates the additional trips generated by failing to disclose the maximum number of tenant personnel that
can occupy the PDContains a Traffic Report that fails to acknowledge that the limiting factor to Eastbound
Traffic flow from Hwy 17 to Los Gatos B lvd . along Hwy 9 is limited by the two-lane section of Los Gatos Blvd
from Van Meter Elementary to the High School on Main Street, and instead represents that the congestion can
be controlled by traffic light coordination at the Los Gatos Blvd and Alberto Way intersections with Hiway-9.
Confiscates approximately 90 % of Alberto Way's present Santa Cruz Mountain views upon completion to 1 00 %
within a decade as proposed plantings grow to block it all
Negatively impacts existing Alberto Way property values without compensation to current owners
Remains too massive to be legally constructed under the LG 2020 General Plan , Commercial Des ign
Guidelines and Ordinances
Creates enough new traffic that it compounds the existing Rush Hour "F" Level of Service on Hwy 9 : no
proposed traffic improvement is able to accommodate the proposed development because it doesn't address
the root cause: LG Blvd must be w idened first.
P lacement of the PO on the property prevents the Hwy-9 & 17 Intersection renovation that is approved for
Measure B funding (see attached VT A July, 2016 Resolution). A significant portion of the site is likely to be
condemned for the Hwy-9 congestion-relieving renovation . Approval of the PO should not occur before the
Intersection 's new design. The Caltrans ROW design of the intersection's replacement will like ly interfere with
the current placement on site of the PD.
The submitted EIR provides inadequate mitigations to all issues.
And too many more to list in this summary
The 9 % decrease in the Revised PO to 83 ,000sf is not consistent with LG 's 2020 General Pla n, Ordinances or
Commercial Design Standards.
The Revised PO does not address the c oncerns of Alberto Way Residents and ignores requests made by the Planning
Commission , 3 members of which called for floor space reduct ion to as low as 43,000sf and up to 62 ,000sf i n the
August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
4j Page
L os Gatos is no t r equesting ad eq u at e Impact Recover y o n C o mm er c i a l Dev e lopm e nts
f o r Impact to LG Road s o r o ur LG Sc h ool S yst em s
Patricie Maurice, CaiTrans Oakland District Branch Chief wrote to LG on June 13, 2016 that there are impacts to State
Hwys 9 & 17, including the Interchange that require mitigation and that Los Gatos, as the Lead Agency, is responsible
to mitigate and pay for them:
2
3
7
Lellll Jttenq .
As the lead aaency, the Town of Los Gatos (Town) is responsible for all project mitigation,
including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair ahare contribution.
finmciq, acbecluliD& implementation responsibilities and lead agellC)' monitorin& 1hould be
tully discussed tor all proposed mitiption meuures.
Ms. Jennifer Armer/Town of Los Gatos
June 13, 2016
Pqe2
~1Jt111UI6
1. This developmeat will add trips grHtcr.Wn one perceat of capacity on aousbbound SR 17
cluria& AM and PM peak hoUD, 10 will tipfieantly impact the STN and require miti&Uion.
For example, the DOitbboUDd (NB) S1l17/Saratop Loa Oatoa Road ctYaoaal on·ramp ad
the southbound (SB) SR 17/Saratoaa Los Oams Road loop on·ramp have extsttaa ramp
meteriD& eqwpmeat iDStlllecl and are to be further metered i.D the future with metering rates
typically bctweea 240 and 900 vehicles per hour. These additional trips will sipifican.tly
impact the cip&Citiea of these ramps.
2. A closed ciralit televmon (CCTV) camera, nmp metaioa, and other traffic JDODitorin& are
Wtal1cd in the area of the Suatop Loa Gatos Road. (SR. 9) on-nmp to NB SR. 17. The
propoHd development bu the potcatial to impact these ~ation1, pani,culady the ~Dduit
wbich NAI to the semce co.nnectioftl at Alberto Way. Please refer to the A1-Built plans for
EA 1502.64, 151364, and otlu:r n:Jevant EAs md field verify locations of the installations and
coanections. u existina eonditioDS may have cbuaed (e.a .• the receat Bridge Rail
Replacement Project, EA 1A3404).
Trll/lk l~~~p~Jd Feu
Olven the projeet's contribution to mea ~c and its pJOx.imit)l to SR 17 and SR 9, the project
shouJd contribute fair share traffic impact fees to the piiii1Ud SR 17 ramp meterinc, fUture
auxiliary lanes, and other improvements to Sll17 and SR 9 to mitiptc these impacta. These
contributiou would be used to lessen future tra:ffic coqeation and improve U'IDiit in the project
vicinity.
Yet the FEIR summarily dismisses the Mitigations asserted by Caltrans without any mention of negotiation or
mathematical traffic analysis, and thereby dismisses the Applicant's required funding with these comments:
5I Page
The table is sourced from the very same Hexagon Consultants who refused to speak w ith us when we called to inquire
about the computational methods and Highway 17 Traffic tables vs. their departure from reality as portrayed by our rush
hour photographs.
Furthermore, the stakes are much larger than this single Application: California Housing Element Law, Title 7 . Planning
and land use [65000 -66499.58] requires that LG add housing in sufficient quantity to allow the holders of new jobs
added into The Town , so the Application has impact on schools , roads and services that far exceed the puny traffic
impact fees the Town plans to assess.
An example : Lexington Elementary was rebuilt at a cost over $20M for up to 285 students. This equates to $70K per
student. For reasons detailed from the 2010 Census below, the ball park of what a reasonable "per job created " School
Impact Fee would be .72 (students I tenant employee) x $70K or $50K per Tenant Employee .
However, LGUSD staffer Thomas Gray shares that the school impact fee is limited by law to $3 .36 I sq ft for residential
and $.54 I sq . ft . for commercial buildings.
Using well known averages in California for family s ize (2 .90 people/family, from this URL
https://www.census.govl news room l releasesl archives/2010 census/cb11 -cn1 37 .html ) and school age children 's fraction
of the population , the average tenant employee in the PD may be predicted to bring .72 of a student
(https://www.censu s.govl prodl cen201 Ol briefsl c201 Obr-14 .pdf) to LG Area Schools. The present School Impact Fee
sums to $201/ student added to LG schools for Commercial buildings, a puny fraction of the real cost of $50 K.
The School Impact on our two LG school systems brought to LG are easily computed to be in the range of $16 .7M vs :
$44K at current school impact fees.
We fail to see that The Town of LG should approve any new Proposed Development until such time as it can convince
the State of California to eliminate this unfunded mandate that subsidizes the actual cost to schools generated by
Planned Developments v ia a revised State authorization of Impact Fees that are in line with actual impact costs to add
new students.
The computation of "New Trips" generated to and from the PD orig inally submitted was woefully inadequate.
Point-by-point, what follows is our explanation of how the changes contained in the Revised PD ignores consequences
of the EIR's warnings and is adverse to specific portions of LG 's 2020 General Plan , Ordinances and Commercial
Design Standards.
I. The Revised PO Attempts and Fails t o address these iss ues
A. Reviewability
The Revised PD is not adequately reviewable since it is a simply a set of revised plans . In order for Citizens and LG
Staff to review it, there must be full complement of documentation , including a revised DEIR. The Original EIR is
inadequate and incorrect in many areas. Since the EIR is legally obliged to identify negative impacts and there are
litigated precedents covering the consequences to Applic ants & Jurisdictions to approvals of inadequate EIRs and
Mitigations, we cannot agree that certification of the current EIR is in any Party's interest.
71 Page
B. Size & Mass of the Buildings
The Revised PO reduces the floor space from 92 ,000 square feet to 83,000. During the Planning Commission hearing
on Aug 24 , 2016, Members suggested significant size reductions to between 43,000 and 62,000 as targets. The
Revised PO is still so large that it violates Section 1.4 of LGs Commercial Design Guidelines. Applicant will attempt to
position the current design to the Town as acceptable by attempting to position it as a 25% decrease in Mass by
changing the roof design to reduce the new height.
The Revised PO combines all the floor space into one huge building and attempts to mask its mass by:
-moving it to the rear of the property and
-reducing its height.
It still does not conform to Section 5 .1.1 of LGs Commercial Design Guidelines.
C. VTA decided to fund the 9 & 17 Inte rch ange before Measure B passed
The Revised PO would , if approved and construction started , block the VTA Approved & funded renovation . Los Gatos
needs the improvements for traffic congestion relief. LG should not therefore approve any application for this parcel
prior to completion of the intersection's design and condemnation of any portion needed for the interchange renovation .
Los Gatos needs the interchange improvements for traffic congestion relief and pedestrian I cycling safety.
LG should not therefore approve any application for this parcel prior to completion of the intersection 's design and
condemnation of any portion needed for the intersection renovation . Furthermore, VTA does have the Hwy-17 widening
to or past Hwy 9 on its future project list. VT A documentation , including the Resolution clarifying the 9 & 17 is funded
are attached.
D. No rth side o f Revised PO allows its Ten ants to l ook into Las Casitas Windows and
confiscates 100 % of Las Casitas Santa Cruz Mounta in views
The Revised PO moves the North end of one single massive building farther from Las Casitas. It is still 2 stories and
second story windows, creating line-of-sight into nearby Las Casitas second story bedrooms. This is in violation of
Commercial Design section 2 .3 .3 .The Revised PO then attempts to block the view with trees, which still removes the
Mountain views enjoyed by Las Casitas owners and residents .
The only method that can completely and permanently prevent this violation of the Commercial Building Guidelines is
that the North half of the proposed building is one story. This is consistent with feedback from the August 24 , 2016
Planning Commission Members to lamb Partners to reduce the size to between 43,000 to 60,000 square feet.
81P ag e
2.3.3 Respect the privacy of neighboring residents
a) A''oid '''>i.ndowos ,,·hich 'vou.ld pro,-:ide ,·ie...-.·s into
resid.,ntial priv:>t.. yard s pac.,s.
Avoid windows looking into residential
private yard s paces
E. Build ing s bl o ck our Santa Cruz Mountain V iew s
The Revised PO combines all the floor space into one huge , massive building and attempts to address it's blockage of
our Mountain Views by lowering the foundation 's elevation by 4 .5 feet, moving it to the rear of the property and
modifying the roof features . The Revised PO blocks all the view we have now w ith the exception of the highest peak to
the west and does not conform to Los Gatos Policy CD1 .1.
The only acceptable design that would conform to LG Policies, Ordinances and Commercial Design Guidelines would
be a one story building .
Below are photos of the present Mountain views followed by the view afforded by the Rev ised PO as shown in
Applicant's illustrations. Blue netting outlines the current March 9 , 2017 building profile and orange was the design as
of the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing . On a "viewable area " basis, the photos show that the presently submitted March
9 , 2017 profile block, in total , over 90% of our current Santa Cruz Mountain views.
9j Page
.... ..-·---------
Photo 1 : view from 420 Alberto (Pueblo)-enlarge the photo to see that the March 9 Story Poles (Blue netting) eliminate
approximately 75% of the existing SC Mountain view.
101P age
Photo 2 : view from 420 Alberto (Pueblo)-enlarge the photo to see that the March 9 Story Poles (B lue netting)
eliminates approximately 90% of the existing SC Mountain view.
11 1Page
Photo 3 : v iew from 420 Alberto (Pueblo)-enlarge the photo to see that the March 9 Story Poles (Blue netting )
eliminates approximately 95% of the existing SC Mountain view.
1 2 I Page
Photo 4 : Is the view from 435 Alberto (Las Casitas)-enlarge the photo to see that the March 9 Story Poles (Blue
netting) eliminate 100% of the existing SC Mountain view. Applicant failed to submit an illustration for this view.
131P age
G. Traffic on Hwy 9 is already too congested & Alberto Way will become severely
congested by the Revised PO
1. Traffic congestion will impact Alberto Way and LG within a 3/4 mile radius
a . Adding more traffic will make rush hour unbearable
b . As is without adding another 342+cars we have severe backups for cars traveling East (hwy17 to Los
Gatos Blvd) and turning left into Alberto way
c . Traffic should consider proposed construction at Alberto Oaks (475-485 Alberto Way) to account for
cumulative effect. Proposed con_struction at Alberto Oaks is submitted and known and needs to be
considered .
H. Our traffic Study -See Also Roman Rufanov's companion submission
To largely avoid duplication we split the Traffic comments-please see Roman Rufanov's companion submission from
Las Casitas.
We conducted our own Traffic Study for this submission . We observed the 7:45AM-8:45AM & 5 :15PM-6 :15PM rush
hours multiple times. Eastbound Hwy-9 traffic takes several cycles and several minutes for vehicles to get through the
lights at Los Gatos Blvd and Alberto Way.
All observations see continuous light failures at Hwy 9 & Alberto with vehicles waiting for several minutes through
multiple cycles to clear the intersection and move up onto Los Gatos Blvd.
Here is one of two sets of photos taken of the Alberto Way & Hwy-9 intersection during the AM Rush Hour on
September 15, 2016 between 7:45Am and 8 :45AM : We've highlighted the backups resulting from:
-present failures to clear the light at Alberto & Hwy-9 which blocks either one or both Hwy-17 ramps onto Eastbound
Hwy9
-present failures to clear the light at Hwy-9 onto Los Gatos Blvd
16 I P age
Here is the second of the photo series we've recorded . It was made during the 7 :45AM-8 :45AM on September 7 , 2016,
a school day. This continuous series illustrates one of several observed AM "failures to clear" at the Alberto & Hwy 9
intersection .
171P age
18 I P age
Here is a series of 5 :15PM-6:15PM Rush Hour photos taken on February 27 , 2017 , illustrating several instances of
the same eastbound backup and "fai lure to clear" the Alberto & Hwy-9 intersection as the AM Rush .
First set showing the intersection 's congestion : Left view is to the West on Hwy-9 and right view is East on Hwy-9.
19 I P ag e
Here is a second set showing the intersection's congestion:. Left view looks East on Hwy-9 and right view looks West
on Hwy-9.
20 I P age
Here is a third set showing the intersection 's failure to clear. Left view looks East on Hwy-9 and right view looks West
on Hwy-9.
21 I Page
Here is a fourth set during the 5 :15PM-6:15PM Rush Hour photo series taken on February 27 , 2017 , illustrating the
same eastbound backup as the AM Rush . Note that the left view shows the black auto in the intersection where it
remains after the light at Alberto on Hwy-9 changes to green .
221 Page
Here is a fifth set of 5 :15PM -6:15PM Rush Hour photos taken on February 27, 2017, illustrating the same eastbound
backup: Left view is to the West on Hwy-9 and right view is East on Hwy-9.
And finally, here is a sequence of photos at 5 :40PM on April 4 , 2017showing the Los Gatos Blvd & Hwy-9 congestion
that drives the Hwy-9 & Alberto Way Signal Light to an "F" LOS. What happens in the PM Rush is that the Southbound
traffic on LG Blvd backs up toward Van Meter Elementary. Southbound LG Blvd Cars wanting to tum West on Hwy-9
are stuck in the line s ince the LG Blvd section between Hwy-9 and Van Meter is one lane in each direction with a short
right turn pocket near Hwy-9. Meanwhile, most Eastbound traffic on Hwy-9 is destined for Northbound Los Gatos Blvd ,
so it backs up past Alberto, the Hwy-17 North off-ramp all the way to the Hwy-17 Overpass.
231 P age
This photo shows southbound Los Gatos Blvd from its intersection with Los Gatos Blvd (Hwy-9): it's backed up as far as
the eye can see .
241 P ag e
This second photo shows traffic arriving from the West on Los Gatos-Saratoge Rd (Hwy-9) at Los Gatos Blvd. It's
backed up past Alberto Way & the Hwy-17 Ramp : the last visible car is on the Hwy-17 overpass.
251 P age
This photo series is proof positive that the Alberto Way & Hwy-9 intersection is above capacity, failing and
delivering a Level of Service (LOS) of F today. The EIR's traffic computations are clearly incorrect and the EIR
must be re-done, mitigations accounted for, funded and re-circulated for comments.
Applicant's traffic study does not reveal this fact as observed by us and photographed multiple times, proving the
inaccuracy of the Applicant's Traffic Study.
This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the EIR or addressed in any Mitigation since the Tenant
population is not known or limited in the EIR and since the Applicant omitted the Hwy-17 Intersection and Traffic in the
EIR.
We further observed on multiple occasions that, as shown above, that the root cause of the AM & PM Rush Hours "F
LOS" is the congested 2 lane segment of Los Gatos Blvd from its transition in front of Van Meter Elementary to the
Town's offices. This cannot be addressed by any traffic signal coordination as has been described by the Applicant in
the August 24, 2015.
No trip generating PD should be approved before Los Gatos Blvd is widened.
The EIR inadequately addresses Traffic, both present, future and cumulative and needs revision to address the current
rush hour congestion and re-circulation for comments .
Below are the results of the sensitivity study we delivered for the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing scaled down to show
trips generated by the PO based on the 9,000 square foot reduction to 83,000 square feet:
scale to 83,000sq ft 0 .90217
The Traffic Report in the Transportation DEIR is Defective:
The Technical Traffic Appendices to the EIR Transportation Report (H) are missing . The Busy Hours are not specified.
The counts are low enough that Applicant apparently counted traffic outside the busy hours.
Applicant's traffic study recorded an incorrect Number of Busy Period Trips into and out of Alberto Way to be generated
by the Proposed Development: and has an economic incentive to do so to get the project approved anyway and to
reduce cost the traffic impact fees. They omitted both lunch-time exits and re-entries as well as mid-day exits and
re -entries by employees, many of which occur during the busiest two daily rush hours: Early AM and at the end
of the day.
And since the Applicant's traffic study did not find that the intersection of Alberto Way & Hwy-9 has a present Level of
Service (LOS) of "F" during the Early AM & Day End Rush Hours, the study cannot be accepted as representative of
actual observable reality .
The photographed congestion through multiple observations proves otherwise.
261 P a ge
Based on the photograph ic evidence, the traffic report is rife with:
-Errored data of the Hwy-17 Intersections of Hwy-9 & Lark Ave from the Intersections at which Traffic was studied that
omit the numbers needed to verify the Traffic Study in its entirety and in specific enable Applicant to falsely report the
present and as-proposed Rush Period traffic caused by the proposed development
-It is obvious from the photos that the Traffic Study data incorrectly depresses the submitted numbers for Rush Period
vehicle arrivals at Alberto Way and Hwy-9 both presently and as generated by the Proposed Development
-Similarly, the Study incorrectly portrays the number of Busy Period Trips into and out of Alberto Way to be generated
by the Proposed Development.
-We believe the photos show that the Study's time interval during the Rush Period incorrectly reduces Rush Period
vehicle arrivals at Alberto Way and Hwy-9 both presently and as generated by the Proposed Development
-We believe that the sq. ft . per employee assumption submitted for the Proposed Development is the subject of gross
underestimation in a manner wh ich would correspondingly also understate the daily and rush period trips generated by
the Proposed Development.
-Substitution of partial and stale Hwy-17 traffic data in the place of collecting traffic data during 2015 when the Alberto
Way & Hwy-9 intersection was studied seems to have been sourced from either Caltrans in 2013 (stated by Ollie Zhou
Hexagon on the phone) or from VTA in 2014 (Stated in one of the Applicant's filings).
All of the omissions, assumptions and false numeric entries work in whole to under-represent the traffic generated by
the Proposed Development.
Traffic Impact Rebuttal:
I. There is no Construction Plan and no Plan can avoid blocking Residents and
emergency vehicles for extended periods of time
The Revised PD contains no construction plan. Alberto Way is a dead-end street with only one entrance I exit. The only
access points that would avoid extended blockage of our access to and from our homes on Alberto Way would be that
access to the construction site is allowed from a temporary entrance to and exit from Hwy 9 and the Northbound ramp
of Hwy 17 adjacent to the property. Applicant will damage both roads regardless of entrance and exit points with
concrete, dirt & construction material trucks.
·11 . Revised P O did not attempt to address these EIR Issues at all
A. Hydrology & Geo-Technical
1. Water Table Issues addressed by our expert, Dr. Geissler (report attached):
a) The Water T abl e is now too shallow now for a 2 -l evel underground garage and requires boring at this time to
confirm the cu r rent wet period water tabl e l evel prior t o approval & start o f construction
b) The ENGEO Geo-Tec report finds in section 4.1.4 that the PO 's foundation is subject to settlement from
liquefaction during shaking or construction induced earth defect after construction. Should the foundation crack
below the waterline , no waterproofing can guarantee that leaks won't occur. No underground parking can
remain dry with cracks. Safeway's single-level underground garage , for example, has suffered rising water
271 P a g e
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. Ou r hydrology ex pert Dr. Peter Geissler, PE , asserts that settling after construction or
liquefaction are, at some po int in its life, likely to crack the foundation of the underground parking structure ,
leading it to flood and need continuous de-watering. The Revised PD does not address this risk.
c) ENGEO's report finds in section 4 .2 that existing fill is a settlement risk . It does not address t he existing fill on
the site f rom 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 PO's property, i nstalled the concrete
swale on the other side of 17 , eliminating the LG creek channel that used to flow beneath t he PD. The Revised
PD does not address this risk.
d) ENGEO's report shows water level at 21 feet below elevation , 340 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The
boring was done while the site was still in the d rought.
e) ENGEO's report in section 5 .9 recommended no de-watering beneath or around the parking structure . De-
watering will be required once the foundation cracks from either liquefaction or fill-induced settlement.
f) The Revised PD places the ground level of the building at 336.5 ft AMSL, 5 feet lower elevation than the s ite's
2015 Boring Logs show water at 21 feet below ground level . This means water was, at that time, 17.5 feet below
the currently proposed ground level. This means that water was at a level that is 2 .5 feet above the currently
proposed P-2 (lower parking level) floor.
g) Our Hydrology Expert, Dr Geissler finds that the local dewatering in the coffer dam needed around the
underground parking structure is likely to cause ground subsidence during construction that is large enough to
shift foundations of existing buildings within an area of influence 250 feet around the PD . This includes Las
Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, Grill 57, Satellite Health Care & the Inn at Los Gatos . This can cause foundation
shifts leading to cracks or pipe breaks to our properties, Las Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, and also to Grill 57,
Satellite Health Care & the Best Western Inn at Los Gatos.
h) Our Hydrology Expert, Dr Geissler finds that the underground water diversion around the PDs underground
parki ng structure may i nterfere with current underground water flow in the area . This is covered in more detail
below in section 3 .
Applicant's Revised PD w o uld cons truc t a 2-l evel under g r o und par k ing s t r u ctur e t h at will r un i nto wat e r issues
tha t ap pear t o be ins urmountable. The PD sits on a filled-in former portion of the Los Gatos Creek bed. Viewing
satellite photos of LG from 17 & S . Santa Cruz Ave through Vasona Reservoir and on through Campbell on Google
Earth , one can clearly see that 405 Alberto sits in the original LG Creek bed . The creekitself was re -routed during the
mid-1950's during the Lenihan Dam's construction for flood control and water supply reasons. This eliminated the
frequent floods into Los Gatos. The concrete swale was constructed from S Santa Cruz Ave to about 250ft N of Hwy 9
to keep LG Creek out of the remainder of the plain in which the Revised PD sits. A rebuild of Hwy-17 at that time
accommodated the concrete swale . A Caltrans magazine from the era describes it: "Included in this project is a
relocation of Los Gatos Creek for a distance of 6 ,000 feet, requiring a concrete line channel." The construction is
documented on-line here : https://en .wikiped ia.org/wiki/Los Gatos Creek (Santa Clara County, California)
We know residents of Los Gatos who lived in here during the 1950's before LG Creek was diverted from beneath 405
Alberto.
Additional proof is found in an easement to San Jose Water Works granted in 1876 for a water flume on Tract II of
17250 Pine to the North of 401-409 Alberto (APN 529-21-044) and the position of the former Forbes Mill to the South,
which used water wheel power when bu i lt.
2 . Water table beneath the Revised PO has risen significantly since the June, 2015 borings.
281 P age
a) Applicant drilled 3 core borings on June 27, 2015 (81, 82 & 83) shown in the hydrology report.
b) 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 EIR's
ENGEO report .
c) At the community outreach meeting, Applicant described that it would now build the walls of the entire
structure with poured concrete as an attempt to counteract the "hydrological pressure." This means the entire
structure would have been and might still be light enough to float up until it cracks and floods . We computed the
weight of the building and of the water it displaces and should the depth to water at the North end be in the 0-1 0
feet range, as illustrated in SCVWD map below, the North end of the building would be subjected to significantly
larger "Lift Forces" than the South end of the building since the weight of the water displaced by the building is
greater in that region. This Lift differential is much more likely to cause cracks in the North end of the
underground parking structure than if the "depth to water" is uniform. PD presents no Civil Engineering
representation that the UG Parking Structure is immune to lift differential-induced cracks. Cracks would
lead to leaks and constant water removal, which could cause the same land subsidence detailed in Dr,
Geissler's report for construction de-watering.
d) The Revised PD places the above ground floor's slab at 336.5 ft AMSL, 3.5 feet below the top of 83's
elevation at 340ft AMSL. Revised PD sheet 15 reveals that it lowers the foundation of the first floor to 4.5 feet
below the location of 83 and then excavates to place the below ground P-2 floor at 20.5 feet lower. The
excavation will be 2-3 feet lower than the foundation and will hit deep water during construction .
This table illustrates the water level below boring 82 in June, 2015 and likely February 2017 levels per Dr.
Geissler and the illustration of "depth to water", overlaid onto the floor levels shown in the Revised PD.
Underaround WaterTible Levels In Rewlsed 4CI5 Alberto P!Mned Development July 201SM Depth of Dro._.tltvs. Febnialr2017 after Dnlulht Recovery
June l7, 2015 -12 dalrned Bored In ENG EO Ell Report Febnary 2017 per Dr. Geissler Report
~ Elevation -Feet AMSL Feet Below Too of 82 Water over Park Lvt 2 floor Feet Below ElevofB2 Water lvt Feet > P-1 or P-2
op of bonne B2 per Revi sed PO Sheet 16 340 0 0
1st Foor Level Revised PO, sheet 15 336.5 -3.5 -3.5
UG water level can be as
~ Waterlvl in borine B2 & above P-1 floor athieh level of -U hieh as 3ft above P-lFioor
floor level of P-1 sheet 15 325 -15 -15
UG Wate r leve l in boring B2 & above P-2 floor per UG water level is 3 feet above P-2 UG water level can be as
ENGEOreport 320 ·21 floor at low level of ·18 low as 6ft above p-2 Floor
Floor level P-2 per sheet 15 316 ·24 ·24
e) The DEIR made no mention of the fact that, at the time of its publication, the water table was higher than
the floor of lower parking level P-2. It does, however, state that the PD is likely to suffer settling & cracking .
This will lead to flooding in the parking structure and constant pumping the water out of the parking
structure as well as from around and beneath the foundation, thereby causing foundation shifts to Las
Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, Grill 57 and likely pipe breaks in water & sewer serving all communities
and businesses along Alberto Way.
f) There is no Hydrology mitigation plan that can relieve the conditions mentioned in a) through e), nor are
they acknowledged or addressed in the DEIR.
3. Hydrology impacts to us that are not revealed in the EIR are ID'd by our Expert
We hired Dr. Peter Geissler, a certified PE who specializes in Hydrology to advise us. His report is attached.
a) Our expert Dr. Geissler reports that adverse impact on surrounding properties will likely be caused by
dewatering the Revised PDs underground parking structure excavation during construction to our
foundations from soil subsidence in Las Casitas and Pueblo De Los Gatos. Both will be caused by the
291 Page
Ill. Not Addressed a t all by Changes made in the Revised P D
A. Aesthetics (3:1-14): EIR concludes no negative impacts-we disagree.
EIR Conclusions
(2)1mpact : "The proposed project would change the visual character of the project site (less than significant)." As the
EIR notes, the town architect found that the project was inconsistent with the 2020 General Plan that requires keeping
with the small-town character and blending and harmonizing with established areas (EIR:2:23).
Rebuttal: The report indicates that subsequently the project was "redesigned " to correct this problem. We do not see
any change that would address the General Plan's requirement that the property type (office building), density and
intensity be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. We see no indication that the developer would ach ieve
the small-town character by "the quality of development plans and the judgment exercised in the design review process"
(3 :11 ). This project offers nothing to its neighbors. It replaces small businesses (chiropractors, law offices, and other
community services) which are part of the community fabric of Los Gatos and the Alberto Way neighborhood with a
massive building that will be off limits to its neighbors.
(3)1m pact: "The project would create less than significant light and glare (less than significant)."
Rebuttal: Actually, the proposed building will stand very near the Las Casitas property and in that building people will
work late hours and light will shine into Las Casitas bedrooms. People working late will be able to look out their
windows into rooms at the Las Casitas complex. Moreover, the proposed building will cast giant shadows that will block
the sunlight that residents currently enjoy.
B . Air quality (3 :14-38): Impacts are understated and mitigations inadequate
The proposed project will introduce hundreds of trips into the Alberto Way cul-de-sac. As they wait to clear
signals, cars will idle at intersections on Highway 9, at the Alberto Way intersection, and on the Highway 17 ramp area
and its approach. As the EIR points out (3:146-47), there will be queues on the ramps and on Highway 9 that will
require up to three or more signal cycles to clear. This idling will increase air pollution in the neighborhood. The
mitigations suggested do not address the problem of congested traffic emissions.
EIR CONCLUSIONS: Three Impacts
(1) Impact: "The project is inconsistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan," the goal of which is to atta in air quality
standards and reduce population exposure. The Bay Air Basin is now in non-attainment status for some
pollutants so emissions from the proposed project could elevate the pollution levels.
Rebuttal to EIR's Impact mitigation measures:
The furnace upgrade does not reduce vehicle emissions.
The charging stations for electric/plug-in vehicles would have little effect on the traffic emissions, and there is no
guarantee the tenants would have these kinds of cars in large numbers. Charging from a 24V charging station
takes 9.5 hours for most popular Tesla Model Scars. Four cars will be able to charge per day, which is about
1% of the total parking spots.
The construction site regulations for lower diesel emissions are not fully implemented now (3 : 21-22).
331 Page
The trip reduction program is voluntary and probably unrealistic: ride sharing may not occur; there is no easy
access to public transit; cycling is not very convenient or safe. Tenants probably are not local residents , so they
won't be walking or biking on dangerous roads .
Restriping the intersection at Alberto Way is not go ing to reduce congestion because we currently have an
unmarked right tum lane that we use and we still have long waits for a gap in traffic. Space for the bike box is
problematic, and the extensive use of bicycles by tenants is questionable and proven by current tenants in both
475-485 and 401-409 Alberto Way to be negligible to non-existent. The sidewalk improvement is not necessary
-we currently use the sidewalk that is there and the dangerous ramp crossings to highway 17 will not be
improved. In short, none of these "mitigations" actually reduces traffic congestion significantly. Emissions will
not be reduced .
(2) Impact: 'The project would result in less than significant emissions of criteria air pollution emissions due to a
reduction in per capita trips." No mitigation necessary.
Rebutta l: Mitigation is necessary. Where does the Clean Air Plan call for "per capita " trip statistics? This per
capita approach is misleading in terms of traffic congestion . There would be an increase of hundreds of daily
trips including hundreds in peak hours. This is an increase in trips and the PO provides no data on how the
increase would contribute to pollution. The EIR concludes that because the site is an office complex, patrons
will not spend time outside exposed to the roadway emissions with high volumes of traffic, including diesel
trucks so the effect of roadway emissions is less than significant. This ignores the fact that Tenants will breathe
the outside air via the PDs HVAC system. So do residents as they open w indows & doors, walk in the
neighborhood, including near the proposed project site , every day, and most homes have outdoor patios or
balconies.
(3)1mpact: "The project could result in pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors ."
Rebutta l: The EIR concedes that sensitive receptors (elderly and seriously ill persons and children) are
especially affected by pollutant concentrates and that a separation of 500 feet between high volume freeways
and sensitive receptors is recommended. The California Air Resources Board says quality of life issues need to
be considered for this population , not just the volume of daily trips. The CEQA guidelines require that there not
be a net increase of criteria pollutants in non-attainment status and that sensitive receptors should not be
exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations . We need to know the pollution levels, especially on highway
17, to evaluate if the proposed project would create substantial levels of pollutants. Almost all Los Gatos
Commons and Las Casitas residents are within 500 feet of Southbound Hwy 17. And we need to have the
"quality of life " issue recognized and addressed .
Response to Mitigation Measures: These measures focus on the construction site and the dust it will produce.
One of our residents, Lewis Darrow, is a construction project manager/owners' rep w ith 30 years of experience
working on projects in Silicon Valley. He is currently working on a si milar project for a major client: a two-story
building of 96,000 square feet, with 210 spaces of underground parking . The site is located in a commercial
business park with no residential neighbors and three times as much land w ith two access roads. Mr . Darrow
points out that the Alberto Way site will not support the construction of this proposed project w ithout major
impacts on all of the residents in the Alberto Way neighborhood . The site being proposed at Alberto Way has
one access point, a point already with congestion at the traffic light. To excavate a two story 332-car
underground parking garage on this site would involve multiple diesel trucks in demolition and debris off hauli ng.
Excavation could take six to eight weeks with dump trucks hauling 200 loads per day for 1450+ loads . Other
trucks will be required : concrete trucks making 4-5 deliveries with about 200 loads per day, 10 yards per truck,
80 tons per load. The roads were not meant to support these massive construction loads and will have to be
341 Page
replaced and repaired. These trucks are massive and will be continuous, blocking visibility and creating plumes
of dust and particulate into the air. If they try to control it with mist and water, the heavy treaded truck ties will
drag mud everywhere. Cleanup will need to be constant, thus adding additional trucks and delays to the
overtaxed street and intersection . These trucks and the number of them required and the number of trips
required to do this project will emit diesel and particulate, and current regulations on diesel emissions are not
fully implemented (3:21-22). The street will need to be closed down to be safe during these periods of
demolition, excavation, concrete and foundation work. How will residents and clients of existing business and
emergency vehicles be guaranteed access? They cannot be. All of these problems are worsened because of
the proximity of the site exiting to the busy intersection and single entry point into Alberto Way. The number of
workers to support concrete pours , rebar installation and general construction will number 60-80 at any given
time and these workers will need to park somewhere. There is no space for them on Alberto Way. The
proposed project will add serious air and noise pollution and ensnarl a small residential one-entry cul-de-sac
with gridlock traffic.
C. Public service (EIR 3:135-41): Negative Impacts that weren't identified
1. EIR conclusion Area Schools: The impact is not insignificant in our view.
351 Page
Re butta l :
There is no EIR for the Revised PD.
The PD itself would force Los Gatos to allow construction of a living unit within its border for each job
placed in it per CA Housing Element Law. And new legislation was recently submitted to add
Penalties for non-compliance.
The "No Impact on Schools" conclusion in the EIR can only be true if State Housing Element Law
didn't force Los Gatos to add living units within its border based on the number of jobs added within
Los Gatos by the PO and if either all employees in the new building were already living in Los Gatos
or have children in schools elsewhere. Some of the latter could place their children in the Los Gatos
area private schools and after school programs, then then pick them up after work and drive home.
This would increase traffic in the town and even a small increase in s tudent population could require
new facilities. This project will add students to the schools in Los Gatos, due to the addition of living
units added to Los Gatos, a fact which seemingly is ignored in the E IR. The mention of a
development impact fee does not include any specifics on how the fee would be used to address
overcrowding.
2 . EIR CONCLUSION Fire and Emergency Medical Services: The impact is not insignificant in
our view.
Re b utta l :
361 P age
There is no EIR for the Revised PD .
There will be added delay time for emergency services caused by the Revised PO's added traffic
congestion . The fire department and associated E MS on University south of Hwy-9 respond to
emergencies on Alberto Way, and especially at the Commons senior condominiums. This is contrary
to the EIR statement on 3:135 and as conveyed by Mr. Lamb in public meetings,. A higher than
average 7 .75 calls per month to Alberto Way since 2014 are documented, yet t here is no plan to
address delays. The traffic study by Hexagon did not consider the impact of the proposed project on
emergency calls to the residents on Alberto Way; nor does the EIR, although in the Traffic and
Transportation section, access of emergency vehicles to the new building was assessed and the
developer is required to produce a plan at some point in the future to show the project would not
impede emergency response to the project site (3:179). Mr. Ray Toney , in a letter to the Plann ing
Commission in August, 2016 , reported that Mr. Lamb told him the Fire Department had approved the
proposed project for safety. The Fire Department told Mr. Toney that that was not true. In addition to
EMS vehicles, every day Outreach vehicles come to the Commons to take people to and from
medical appointments. Hospice and home health workers come to administer pain relief, IV
medication , chemotherapy, and physical therapy. Missed or delayed appointments due to traffic
congestion are a real problem, as is the disruption of schedules of medicine.
State of CA CEQA Section 21100(b)(5) specifies that the growth-inducing impacts of a project must
be addressed in an EIR. They were not.
State of CA CEQA Guideline Section 15126.2(d) states that a proposed project is growth-inducing if it
could "foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly
or indirectly, in the surrounding environment."
And that the EIR shall: Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or
population growth , or the construction of additional housing , either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population
growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example , allow for more
construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing commun ity service
facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects .
Also , discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities
that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be
assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the
environment.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 Specifies that: An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the
reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant
and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Reasons were largely missing in the EIR for
this PD.
D. Traffic & Transportation Conclusions of the EIR (3:141-80) & Rebuttals
1 . Impact (EIR 3-140): The project would result in less than significant impacts to area fire
department facilities
Rebutta l :
This is incorrect and is based on the Traffic Report's omitted and under-stated added trip numbers.
The LOS at Hwy-9 & Alberto is highly under-reported as a result. We present photographic proof that the LOS
during rush is much worse than "B" and is in fact an "F" during two of the Rush Hours now.
Traffic Report is based on an exaggerated 2-hour rush period for tenant employee arrivals and departures,
wh ich lowers the reported rush period trip generation to below that generated by employer's stated working
hours .
Original Traffic Report used 370 employees in the PO based on an atypical "spacious" office layout Vs . the
more typical 735 employees, which lowers the reported trip generation to below that generated by high tech
employers using 1/3rd cubicles and 2/3rd bull pen office layouts. These figures are scaled to 90% of the
original new trip generation figures.
Rebuttal:
EIR ignores its own observed AM Rush Hour Spillback on EB Hwy-9 approaching Alberto Way that has
blocked Fire and EMS access to Alberto Way
371 P age
This is what is ignored (EIR 3-146-147):
Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. During the AM peak period, heavy traffic volume was observed
only on the eastbound leg of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road . There was spillback from the downstream
intersection on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road at Los Gatos Boulevard. As a result, the inner eastbound through
lane on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road queued to the State Route 17 southbound on-ramp , and the outer
eastbound through lane on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road queued onto the State Route 17 northbound off-ramp.
Because of the spillback issue from Los Gatos Boulevard , the eastbound through movement on Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road required several signal cycles to clear the queue.
Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road . During the AM peak period , heavy traffic volume was
observed on the eastbound leg of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road . The eastbound left-turn lane on Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road feeds onto northbound Los Gatos Boulevard, but because of spillback issues at the
downstream intersection at Caldwell Avenue, the eastbound left-turn lane on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
requires three cycles to clear. The right-tum lane on Los Gatos Saratoga Road queued only to the location of
the Bella V ista Avenue overpass , and cleared within one signal cycle . No significant issues were observed on
other movements. During the PM peak period , heavy traffic volumes were observed on the southbound
through movement on Los Gatos Boulevard and eastbound left-turn movement on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road .
Both movements required two signal cycles to clear.
R ebuttal:
Additional trips generated by the Project were Under-reported: they will further block entry to Eastbound
traffic from both Hwy-17 ramps and for Fire + EMS on University.
All of the omissions, assumptions and false numeric entries work in whole to under-represent the traffic
generated by the Proposed Development.
Rebuttal:
Traffic Fee calculation uses 700 add it ional tri ps ($615,800 I $879/additional trip). Th is is under-stated.
Th is is far less than the fee that would be pa id should the Tenants employ 735 people using the high density
seating layout. Attached is an e-mail from Bernie Walik of Caltrans . The new trips generated in the rush
periods alone are twice what the fee calculation shows presently.
2. False Traffic Report Data on Appendix H: Hwy-9 & Alberto Way: Eastbound PM Rush "Existing +
Proposed"
Applicant is showing 1 parking space for approximately every 250 square feet. This equates to -332
employees.
This sa id , it's clear that Applicant spread the trips generated over -2 hours Rush Period since it asserts
-180+/-trips in the Peak Hour(s).
The building's capacity is reasonably as high as 735 employees and there is no mass transit into Los Gatos .
Employees will be principally commuters in autos with very minor numbers being in carpools and other
alternatives .
The rush period for tenants employees is much more likely to be 40 minutes rather than 2 hours.
381 P age
While there are factors that can depress any particular day's "out of officeH employee count, the trips
generated will be far higher than Applicant estimates . Asserting reliance on ITE's Handbook without providing
the detailed basis assumptions for this or anything else in the Traffic Report is a telling sign that Applicant may
be hiding them to show lower results.
3. Trip Generation Sensitivity Study
For decision making purposes, it's reasonable to size the building's floor space and parking space count so
that the floor space limit is based on the minimum possible square feet per employee and that be used to
compute the required parking spaces.
Applicant selected a 2 hour peak window, spreading projected 332 +/-tenants' arrivals over 2 hours.
Corporate tenants will have a scheduled start and end time: about 90% of employees arrive and leave within
+1-15 minutes of the start and end times, per the experience of those who work in these types of offices.
Applicant has under-stated the Peak period traffic flow. Below we present the sensitivity study showing how
peak traffic rates vary with the two variables that determine them: Tenant Employees and the width in m inutes
of the Peak Traffic Interval.
Sensitivity Study of trip generat ion by t he Proposed Devel opment
Employees vs. Peak Traffic Interval
Filed by Applicant (top line on left) vs. Calculated Hourly Traffic Flow Ra t es in Vehi cles/Hour
SQI ~ to 83,000 sq It 0.90217
Applicant originally filed 159 AM inbound arrivals I hour and 152 PM outbound exits I hour for 370 tenant
employees. We've scaled all numbers in the chart above down to 90.2% of the original to account for the
reduction in the Revised PDs size.
We observed and photographed the AM rush hour multiple times . Existing Eastbound Hwy-9 traffic takes
several cycles and 6-8 minutes over 2-3 cycles to get through the light at Alberto Way.
This means the intersection is failing and the Level of Service (LOS) is F. We further observed on multiple
occasions that the root cause of the AM Rush "F LOSH is the congested 2 lane segment of Los Gatos Blvd
from its transition in front of Van Meter Elementary to t~e Town's offices.
No trip generati ng PD should be approved before Los Gatos Blvd is widened.
This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation since the
Tenant population is not known or limited in the FEIR and since the Applicant om itted the Hwy-17 Intersection
and Traffic in the EIR.
Rebuttal: FEIR did not identify all Transportation Environmental Impacts
391 P age
The errored data, omissions, low-balled calculations and stale data (2013 or 2014 from Caltrans or VT A) led
to omission of several Traffic Mitigation Techniques needing to be implemented by the Proposed
Development (PO), or that the Proposed Development needs to be designed for, in order to accommodate
their near term future construction. These are what the -$617K is or should be earmarked for. And the tab to
be sent to Caltrans or the VTA has yet to be identified. The omissions accrue to the benefit of the Applicant.
Furthermore , EIR ignores Los Gatos' own Design Rules and Policies , including the Los Gatos Commercial
Design Standards:
• Streamline the development review process by more clearly communicating community expectations to
property owners and developers.
This has not been done with Citizens and [adjacent] property owners other than sending notice cards out.
4. Impact (EIR: 3-179) The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for
bicycles, pedestrians, and transit (less than significant)
Rebuttal: There is no construction plan and no mitigation proposed while the sidewalk on the 401-409
Alberto side of the street is closed during demolition and construction
There is no place for pedestrians to cross Alberto Way when the PO side is closed and they must cross to go
to Los Gatos Blvd. There are dozens of children and elderly who walk to school and businesses from the PO
side of the street. Today they walk to the comer and cross at the Hwy-9 light in the crosswalk. There is no
crosswalk on Alberto and drivers traveling to and from Alberto Oaks speed all along Alberto Way.
Rebuttal: This Impact is significant since the Impact is Injury prone up to and including Death
Rebuttal to Traffic Related Cumulative Impact Statements
Traffic related impact statements that rely on the Traffic Study are errored due to :
Traffic data errors on Table 20, Figures 6 & 11
Exaggerated assumptions that understate the Project -generated trips
Rebuttals to Traffic Mitigations T -1 & T -2
Mitigation T-1 (EIR:3-175) is:
T-1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the
applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to implement improvements
for the restriping of Alberto Way to include a dedicated right-tum lane and a shared left through lane. Costs
for these improvements will be determined by the Town's traffic consultant.
Mitigation T-2 (EIR:3-177) is:
T -2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the
applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide a bike box on
Alberto Way at the intersection with Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, as well as the detached sidewalks with a
landscape buffer on Alberto Way along the project site frontage, and on the north side of Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road between Alberto Way and the State Route 17 northbound on-ramp.
Mitigations T1 & T2 constitute a simple re-painting of Alberto Way. There is simply insufficient paved
surface width to do this re -painting to convert what is presently 2 lanes into 3 lanes+ the Bike Box.
401P age
Rebuttal: Mitigations T1 & T2 cannot be implemented as proposed:
41 I P age
Alberto needs to be widened . The Revised PD proposes insufficient widening. The widening proposed in
the Revised PD is insufficient and provides for sub-par minimum lane width of 10 feet
The Caltrans Road Design Manual Chapter 300 specifies minimum lane width for an area collector road is
11 feet and 12 is preferred:
Index 301.1 -Lane Width The minimum lane width on two-lane and multilane highways, ramps,
collector-distributor roads, and o the r appurtenant roadways shall be 12 feet, except as follows:
For conventional State highways with posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour and
AADTT (truck volume) less than 250 per lan e that are in urban, city or town centers (rural main
streets), the minimum lane width shall be 11 feet. The preferred lane width i s 12 feet.
It goes on to specify minimum bike lane width at 4 feet. FEIR proposes these two mitigations together
without widening Alberto Way. Alberto Way is 1 foot too narrow to do so using 11 foot wide lanes and
4 feet too narrow using the preferred 12 foot lanes.
Mitigation T3 Causes a new and Unacceptable Environmental Impact on 420 & 435 A lberto Way
Residents & Visitors
T -3 Off-site improvement plans shall show that parking on southbound Alberto Way between the two project
driveways shall be prohibited to ensure sight distance is not obscured .
Mitigation T-3 furthermore attempts to remove eight of "our" on-street parking spaces. 401-409, 420 & 435
Alberto Way and Alberto Way itself were designed with sufficient on-street and off-street parking for the
sizes and occupancies of their buildings. 401-409 Alberto Way never have full parking lots.
Los Gatos approved the construction of Grill 57, which replaced the former registration lobby of the Los
Gatos Inn, which brought significant additional use of the on-street parking, without requiring that the Inn or
Grill 57 add parking for its patrons. Now the Grill's employees and patrons use the on -street parking,
forcing re sidents and guests to compete with residents and guests on Bella Vista and The Commons for
on-street parking.
Furthermore LP Acquisitions LLP declines in meetings with us to provide any substitute parking to Alberto
Way Residents and our visitors who use on-street parking today.
Elimination of on-street parking while denying 420 & 435 Alberto Way Residents & Visitors access to the
same number of parking spots on the PD is an Environmental Impact of significant proportions that EIR
proposes and along with the insufficient width of Alberto Way to implement Mitigation s 1-3 without
pavement widening .
These misses accrue to the financial benefit of LP Acquisitions at the expense of Alberto Way Residents &
Visitors .
Mitigations T1, T2 & T-3 fail to widen Alberto Way in front of 401-409 to Los Gatos Street Design
Standards despite the need to do so
E . FEIR Impacts that have not been adequately addressed
Unidentified Impact: The PO will depress Alberto Way Property Va lues both dunng and after construction.
Property that is sold during the construct ion period will sell at significantly lower pricing due to construction
inconvenience and traffic uncertainty. PO proposes no compensation to damaged sellers.
Property that is after construction will sell at significantly lower pricing due to added traffic, diminished desirability
caused by the PO's non-compliance with the 2020 General Plan, LG Commercial Design Guidelines and Ordinances.
PO proposes no compensation to damaged sellers .
See the current impact on Real Estate as detailed in Melanie Kemp's report from Bella Vista Village . She is a practicing
real estate agent.
Unidentif ied Impact: The Revised PO driveway and parking areas are insufficient
on Applicant's property when visitors are also parked and there is no alternative to blocking a portion of the street for
moving trucks and a second bus :
This Major Environmental Impact is not recogn ized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation. The PO is usable for:
Underground parking is insufficient for use by Busses, UPS, Fedex and similar large delivery and moving trucks
Driveway and its parking areas are sufficient only for brief stops by Busses, UPS , Fedex and similar large delivery
trucks
Un iden tifi ed Impact: The Revised PO appears to have no turn-around large enough for Busses
and the cul-de-sac at the end of Alberto is too small for the turn: this is not disclosed in the OEIR of FEIR and forecloses
the possibility of most bus trave l to the PO
Unidentified Impact: The Revised PO Garage is blocked wh ile trash and recycling is picked up , backing up traffic on
Albe rto & Hwy-9 or in the PDs garage wh ile they are present
this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation
Unidentified Impact: The curve in front of the PO is a sight problem for vehicles
this Major Environmental Impact is not recogn ized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation
Unidentified Impact: No construction plan can prevent comp lete shu tdown of Alberto Way for extended periods
since there is insufficient room for street ingress and egress of the large concrete trucks, cranes , materials delivery and
dirt/debris hauling trucks w ithout using the entire street to enter and exit the PO s ite and there will be a continuous
stream of such trucks particularly during demolition, excavation & concrete pour: this Major Environmental Impact is not
recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation
Unidentified Impact: During construction, work crews of 50 -100 will be present on the site at all t1mes , each arriving in
a separate vehicles: it is not possible for them to all park on the PD property
after demolition ends. There is insufficient parking for them in the area : this Major Environmental Impact is not
recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation
421 P age
Un identified Impact: If water is used to control particulates during construction, the trucks exiting the site will leave with
caked-on mud on their tires, which will be deposited in Alberto Way and Hwy-9
during construction : this Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation
Un identified Impact: During construction, the road beds of Alberto Way and Hwy-9 will be destroyed or seriously
damaged by the fully loaded concrete trucks which weigh up to 80 tons
and fully loaded hauling trucks which weigh up to 30 tons: this Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or
addressed in any Mitigation including T-2 (construction contract) and there is no construction damage Mitigation
showing restoration of the roads at Applicant's expense : this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR
or addressed in any Mitigation
Unidentified Impact: Mitigation T-2 cal ls for a construct ion contract with Los Gatos, however, there is no Mitigation for
the construction contract with Caltrans
Unidentified Impact: As a Mixed-Use deve lopment, the PD would, generate high levels of continuous traffic that are not
disclosed in the DEIR or FEIR.
Applicant has stated that the target tenants are corporate offices of 1-2 high tech firms and has not accurately
characterized the trip generation this type of tenant nor disclosed calculation details despite our request to do so. No
traffic study is submitted for a mixed use development. No Traffic Mitigation for Mixed Use is contained in the FEIR.
F. Revised and Missing Mitigations
Alberto Way is highlighted in the Los Gatos street map as an Area Collector Road in the Los Gatos Maps.
The Town's Street Design Standard here : http://www.losgatosca.gov/1150/30-Circulat ion requires that flatlands Streets
to be designed with a 60 foot wide Right~f-Way (ROW) and 40 foot w ide minimum pavement.
Alberto Way has 36 foot w ide pavement. To meet street design standards , Alberto Way needs widening and should be
widened even more by eliminating the curve in front of t he PD a nd keeping on-street parking vs. minimizing applicant's
costs at the Alberto Way Residents ' expense.
The EIR proposes no such widening per the Design Standard at Applicant's expense, but rather to Impact us by
removing on-street parking instead of widening Alberto by u sing a portion of Applicant's land to accomplish the traffic
safety objective while preserving our on-street parking .
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T -4: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane along the entire length of the Proposed Development
on Hwy-9 to allow safe right turns from Alberto Way:
This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation.
431P age
LU -9.1: Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance of a
small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image.
LU-9.6: Encourage development that maintains and expands resident-oriented service and/or creates employment opportunities for
local residents consistent with overall land use policies of the Town .
LU-9.9: Buffers shall be required as conditions of approval for non -residential projects that are adjacent to residential areas and
may consist of landscaping , sound barriers , building setbacks, or open space.
CD-1 .1: Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood.
CD-1 .2: New structures , remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and
rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area."
CD-3. 7: Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened and such screening shall be considered as part of the structure
foe height limitations.
TRA-6 .5 : Require bicycle parking in private parking lots, and provide bicycle parking in all public lots in the Downtown."
TRA-9.5: Alternative transportation means shall be required whenever the traffic generated by a development would result in a
significant increase in air pollution, traffic congestion, or noise.
I. Revised PD Features in conflict with LG Commercial Design Gu i de lines
Referring to http:l/www.losgatosca.gov /DocumentCenterNiew/325
HERE IS THE LI ST OF FEATURES IN CONFLICT :
1.3 PURPOSE
The guidelines contained in this document are intended to accomplish the following:
Provide a greater degree of project review and approval predictabil ity .
P lan Deficiency: The guidelines in the Purpose section are not adhered to by the proposed project. The project review was
minimal from the perspective of the residents of Alberto Way. The project staff did not interact in a significant way with the
residents or attend the meetings held by the developer in the neighborhood. The Deve loper held very few meetings and in his
interaction with the residents was at time not forthright or courteous; he made it clear he was not interested in the residents'
input. The guidelines call for the streamlining of the development review process by more clearly communicating community
expectations to property owners and developers. But the property owners did not have much contact with the planning staff in
the early stages ofthe review process and did not receive timely information in the more recent time.
Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos.
Plan Deficiency: The proposed project does not reinforce and support the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos because
the immense scale contrasts with any office building in the neighborhood or downtown. Thus, the proposed building scale is not
consistent with the Town's small scale image. .
471 P a ge
Maintain a building scale that is consistent with the Town's small scale image.
Plan Deficiency:
The building is 3-4 x the size of surrounding buildings and others in The Town
Reinforce the special qualities of the Town's visua l character.
Plan Deficiency:
The building is a serious break from the Town 's character due to its floor space and mass
Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate adjacent development.
Plan Deficiency: Approval would be inappropriate adjacent development.
To encourage signs which are in scale and harmony with the architecture and the character of the Town.
Plan Deficiency: there is no signage plan for the PD .
1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS
Ma intenance of the existing sma ll town feel
Plan Deficiency: The project does not maintain the existing small town feel; it is massive in scale, looks like a downtown San Jose
or San Mateo development and looms over the other structures on the street.
Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town's residential structures
Plan Deficiency: PO building is not similar at all
Small scale buildings w1th a strong pedestrian orientation
Plan Deficiency: There cannot be a strong pedestrian orientation because access to the West is made difficult by the unmitigated
dangerous ramp crossings between the proposed project site and the University and Santa Cruz downtown streets.
The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residentia l neighborhoods
Plan Deficiency: This massive building is clearly could not be described as providing a sensitive interface of commercial
development and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Strong encouragement of a un ique Los Gatos scale and character
Plan Deficiency : This massive building fails to encourage the unique scale and character of los Gatos and is more suitable as a
remodel or replacement of the current footprint and limited to one story so it does not interfere with existing mountain and
sunset views.
1.5.1 Design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Los Gatos
Break overall building masses into segments similar to those of nearby structures and parcels .
Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development is one massive buildings with almost 2 acre on 2 floors under roof. It is far from
similar in scale to all other nearby parcels and structures .
Avoid design wh1ch cons1sts largely of boxes with applied design elements
Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development's building contains 3 massive boxed sections with a minor modification from pure
rectangles .
481 Page
Break facade segme nts into modu les that reflect those common a long nearby commercial building frontages. For facades
along streets that are closely related to nearby residences , break larger building elements into modules that are sympathetic to
the smaller scale of those houses .
Plan Deficiency: The building is not at all sympathetic to the smaller scale or nearby residential structures.
1.5.3 Provide a unified d e sign around all sid e s of build ings
Wher e continuity o f d esign i s difficult to achieve , substantial landsca ping should be provided to screen the area . Lo s Gato s
example of facade depth and detail Los Gatos example above showing simple reflection of front facade design on building side
Commercial Design Guidelines
Plan Deficiency: The Propo sed Development plans to remove all existing mature landscaping and replace them with i mmature non
substantial landscaping whose trees will take decades t o screen the area . Furthermore, large trees are proposed for placement so
they will, within 10 years , block the remainder of the 10% of our present SC Mountain views the PO wants to let us have .
1.5.5 Integrate the scre en in g f or a ll t rash a nd service areas i nto t he desi gn of the b u i ldings.
Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development plans to remove the existing trash & recycl ing area in the rear of the building, place
trash & recycling in the front where it blocks the PO's parking entrance and place immature non substantial landscaping whose
trees & bushes will take decades to screen the area. The trash area will be near the sidewalk and the odors will be a nuisance to
pedestrians.
1.5.6 Operable windows are encouraged i n recognition of the area's temperate climate and the typically small scale of
commercial structures .
Plan Deficiency: Nowhere does the Plan indicate any description of the Windows or their operability.
1.5. 7 Provide visua l buffering of on-site utility e le ments
Locate transformers , va lves a nd s imila r e lements where t hey w ill be least v is i b le from public rights-of way. If not possible,
these elements should be placed underground or, at a minimum, screened from view with walls and landscaping that relate to the
rema i nder of the project.
Plan Deficiency: No Tran sformer vaults are shown : they were near Alberto Way
Utilize landscaping and/or wall s to screen transformers and other utility elements if they mu st be located in close proximity to the
public right-of-way.
1.5.8 Subordinate parking to the buildings
Avoid pa rkin g lo ts in locations th a t inte rrupt re ta il and/or structura l continuit y near front p ro p e rty lines.
Plan Deficiency: The underground parking lot entrance and exit disrupt any possible retail use via their location at the front of the
property.
6 . Signage
Projects w ith multip le te nant s will b e re q u ire d to pre p a re a M ast e r S ignage Progra m for review and approval.
The program will establish the specific location and design for major project signs (e.g ., Ground Signs)
Plan Deficiency: There is no Master Signage Program in the Plan.
4 91 P ag e
,& ..... ,, ... ~m.. Vall ey Transportation Authority ·
Date:
Current Meeting:
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board ofDirectors
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria 1. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Government Affairs, Jim Lawson
July 27 ,2016
August 4, 2016
August 4, 2016
SUBJECT: Append Project Lists to Resolution No. 2016.06.17 (Ballot Measure)
Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Formally append to Resolution 2016.06.17 the candidate project lists previously approved by the
Santa Clara Valley (VTA) Board of Directors on June 2, 2016 as part ofthe adoption of the
framework and funding amounts for the Y2 cent 30-year sales tax measure.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 2, 2016 Board of Directors meeting, the Board of Directors unanimously approved a
Resolution attaching candidate project lists , and introduced an Ordinance placing before the
voters the question of a Y2 cent Sales Tax to fund various transportation projects and services.
Subsequent to this action , the State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB)
recommended more preci~e language to describe the projects proposed for the SR 85 Corridor.
As a result of this recommended language change to the adopted Resolution, the Board
unanimously agreed to revise only this language in the previously approved Resolution at its
June 241h meeting.
At the June 24,2016 Board of Directors Meeting, the Board voted unanimously to rescind
Resolution No. 2016.06.12 and adopt Resolution No. 2016.06.17, which revised only the
language describing the State Route 85 Corridor-related projects.
333 1 North First Street • San Jose , CA 951 34-I 927 • Administration 408.321 .5555 • Customer Service 408 .321 .2300
6.3
DISCUSSION:
Since there were no changes to the previously approved project lists, these lists were not
included in the Board action on June 24th . Because the approved project lists were not included
in the June 24th Board package, however, concern has been expressed about the Board's intent
regarding the approved project lists . To avoid any possible confusion regarding the status of the
approved project list, staff recommends the Board take formal action to append the attached lists
entitled Attachment A, Attachment B, Attachment C and Attachment D to the approved
Resolution No . 2016 .06 .17.
By taking this formal action, there will be a permanent record of the approved candidate project
lists associated with Resolution No . 2016 .06.17 and the Ballot Measure proposed to the voters at
the November 8, 2016 General Election.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board may accept or reject the recommendation. Rejecting the recommendation may cause
uncertainty as to the approved project list.
FISCAL IMP ACT:
There is no fiscal impact to this decision .
Prepared by: Jim Lawson
Memo No. 5675
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolut1on No 2016 .06.17 (PDF)
Resolution No 2016 .06.17-Attachment s A thru D (PDF)
Page 2 of2
6.3
RESOLUTIONNO. 2016.06.17
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) CALLING AND PROVIDING FORA SPECIAL
ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016 AND REQUESTING THE CONSOLIDATION OF
SUCH SPECIAL VTA ELECTION WITH TilE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMIITING TO THE VOTERS
OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY A MEASURE SEEKING AUTIIORlZATION FOR
ADOPTION OF A RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX ORDINANCE BY THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directoi·s of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) deems it advisable to submit a measure to the voters within the territory ofVTA at a special
election to be held on November 8, 2016, to authorize the VTA Board of Directors to adopt a one~
half of one percent retail transactions and use tax ordinance pursuant to Public Utilities Code
section 100250 et seq., which tax shall be in effect for 30 years,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION A UTHORlTY that the measure hereinafter set
f01th in full be submitted to the voters within the territory ofVTA, which is the incorporated and
unincorporated territory lying within the County of Santa Clara, at a special election to be held and
conducted on November 8, 2016, and that the Registrar of Voters be, and thereby is, directed to
publish such notice as may be required by law. for the time and in the manner so required, and to
place the same on the ballot at an election to be held throughout the territory ofVTA on November
8, 2016. The full text of the proposed measure, which shall be printed in the voter information
that accompanies the official vote by mail ballot and in the appropriate sample ballot pamphlet, is
set forth as follows:
To repair potholes and fix local streets; finish the BART extension through
downtown San Jose and to Santa Clara; improve bicycle and pedestrian safety;
increase Caltrain capacity, in order to ease highway congestion, and improve safety
at crossings; relieve traffic on the expressways and key highway interchanges; and
enhance transit for seniors, students, low-income, and disabled , shall the Board of
Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) enact a retail
transactions .and use tax ordinance, Ordinance No. 2016.01 , imposing (a) a tax for
the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail upon every · retailer in
Santa Clara County, the territory of VTA, such tax to be at the rate of one-half of
one percent of the gmss receipts of the retailer from the sale of tangible personal
property sold by him/her at retail in the territory of VTA; and (b) a complementary
tax upon the storage, use, or other consumption in Santa Clara County, the territory
of VTA, such tax to be at the rate of one-half of one percent of the sales price of
1be property whos e storage, use, or other consumption is subject to the tax ;
collection of such tax to be limited to thirty years?
VT A shall be the administrator of the tax, shall establish a program and develop
program guidelines to administer the tax revenues received from the enactment of
6.3.a
Resolution No. 2016.06.17
this measure (the "Program"). Tax revenues received for the 30-year life of the tax,
including any interest or other earnings thereon, Jess any funds necessary for
satisfaction of debt service and/or cost of borrowing and costs of program
administration and oversight, such as costs of grant administration and fmancial
management, shall be referred to herein as "Program Tax Revenues."
VT A shall allocate the Program Tax Revenues to the following categories of
transportation projects: Local Streets and Roads ; BART Phase 11; BiCycle and
Pedestrian; Caltrain Grade Separation ; Caltrain Capacity Improvements; Highway
Interchanges; County Expressways; SR 85 Corridor; and Transit Operations .
The present value (i.e, present day purchasing power) of the Program Ta1t
Revenues, as of April 2017, is .forecasted to be approximately $6.3 Billion. The
actual revenues to be received over the 30-year Jife of the tax will be affected by
various economic factors, such as inflation and economic growth or decline. The
estimated amounts for each category reflect the allocation of approximately $6.3
Billion. Tite estimated amounts for each category, divided by $6.3 Billion,
establishes ratios for the allocation among the categories. The VTA Board of
Directors may modify those allocation amounts following the program amendment
process outlined in this resolution .
• LocaJ Streets and Roads -Estimated at $1.2 Billion of the Program Tax
Revenues in 2017 dollars.
To be returned to cities and the County on a fonnula basis to be used to repair
and maintain the street system . The allocation would be based on the population
of the cities and the County of Santa Clara's road and expressway lane mileage.
Cities and the County will be required to demonstrate that these funds would be
used to enhance and not replace their cuJTent investments for road system
maintenance and-repair . The program would also require that cities and the County
apply Complete Streets best practices in order to improve bicycle an d pedestrian
elements of tlte street system. If a city or the County has a Pavement Condition
Index score of at least 70, it may use the ftmds for other congestion relief projects.
fl BART Phase IT-Estimated at $1 .5 Billion of Program Tax Revenues in
2017 dollars (capped at a maximum of25% of Program Tax Revenues).
To fund the planning, engineering, construction, and delivery costs of BART
Phase If, which will create a new regional rail connection by extending BART
from the Berryessa Station. in San Jose t o Santa Clara with stations at Alum
Rock/28th Street, downtown San Jose, San Jose Diridon Station, and Santa
Clara.
• Bicycle/Pedestrian -Estimated at $250 Milli~n of Program Tax Revenues
in 2017 dolJars.
To fund bicycle and pedestrian projects of countywide significance identified
by the cities, County, and VTA. The prograllJ will give priority to those
projects that connect to schools, transit , and empl oy men t centers; fill gaps in
the existing bike and pedestrian network; safely cross barriers to mobility; and
2
6.3.a
Resolution No. 2016 .06.17
make walking or biking a safer and more convenient means of transportation
for all county residents and visitors.. Bicycle and pedestrian educational
programs, such as Safe Routes to Schools, will be eligible for funding.
Candidate Projects are set f01th in Attachment A.
• Caltrain Grade Separation -Estimated at $700 Million of Program Tax
Revenues in 2017 dollaa·s.
To fund grade separation projects along the Caltrain corridor in the cities of
Sullllyvale, Mountain View, and Palo Alto, separating the Caltrain tracks from
roadways to provide increased safety benefits for drivers, bicyclists, and
pedestrians and also reduce congestion at the intersections.
• Caltrain Corridor Capacitv Improvements -Estimated at $314 MiJJion of
Program Tax Revenues in 2017 dollars.
To fund Caltrain corridor capacity improvements and increased service in
Santa Clara County in order to ease highway congestion, including: increased
service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy, station improvements, level boarding,
extended platforms, and service enhancements.
" Highway · I nterchanges -Estimated at $750 Million of Program Tax
Revenues in 2017 doUars.
To fund highway projects throughout the valley that will provide cOngestion
relief, improved highway operations and freeway access, noise abatement,
ro adway connection overcrossings, and deploy advanced technology through
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Candid ate Projects are set f01th in
Attachment B.
• County Expressways -Estimated at $750 MiJlion of Program Tax
Revenues in 2017 dollars.
To fund Tier 1 improvement projects in the County's Expressway Plan in order
to relieve congestion, improve safety and increase the effectiveness of the
expressway system in the county. Candidate Projects are set forth in
Attachment C .
• State Route 85 Corridor -Estimated at $350 Million of P rogram Tax
Revenues in 2017 dollars.
To fund new transit and congestion relief projects on SR 85, including a new
transit lane from SR 87 in San Jose t o U.S. 101 in Mountain View.
Additionally this category will fund noise abatement along SR 85 and will
provide funding to study transportation alternatives that include, but are not
limited to, Bus Rapid Trans it with infrastructure such as stations and access
ramps, Light Rail T ransit, and future transportation technologies that may be
applicable.
3
6.3.a
....
Resolution No. 2016 .06.17
• Transit Operations -Estimated at $500 MiiJion of Program Tax
Revenues in 2017 dollars.
The revenue from this program category will provide additio.Ifal funds
specifically for bus operations to serve vulnerable, underserved, and transit
dependent populations throughout the county. The goals of the program
category are to increas e ridership, improve efficiency, enhance mobility
services for seniors and disabled, and improve ~ffordability . for the
underserved and vulnerable constituencies in the county. As VTA considers
modifications to . bus operations and routes to improve ridership and
efficiencies, these funds may also be· utilized to maintain and expand service
to the most underserved and vulnerable populations. The funds may be used
to increase core bus route service frequencies, extending hours of operations
to early morning, evenings and weekends to improve mobility, safe access and
affordability to residents that rely on bus service for critical transportation
mobility needs. Attachment D de scribes the list of Candidate Projects and
Program s.
Th e Program Categories will be administere d in . accordance with program
guidelines and policies to · be developed and approved by the VTA Board of
Directors.
An independent citizen 's oversight committee s hall be appointed to ensure th at th e
funds are being expended consistent w ith the approved Program. Annually, the
comm ittee s hall have an audit conducted by an independent auditor. The audit shall
review the rece ipt of reveriue and expenditure offunds. The c ommittee shall hold
public hearings , and issue a report annually to infonn the Santa Clara County
residents how the funds are being s pent. l11e hearings will be public meetings
subject to the Brown Act.
To s upport and advance the delivery of projects in the PrQgram, VTA may issue or
enter into finan cia l obligations secured by the tax revenues received from the State
Board of Equalization (SBOE), inCluding but not limited to, bond s, note s,
co mmercial paper, leases, loans and other financial obligations and agreements
(collectively, "Financing Obligations"), and may engage in any other trans actions
allowed by law. NotW ith standing anythin g to the contrary, to obtain the f.ir unge sl
credit ratings and lowest financing cost s, VTA may pledge up to the full am oun t of
tax revenues receive d from the SBOE as security for any Financing Obligations of
the Program and may contract with the SBOE to have pledged amounts transferred
directly to a fiduciary, s uch as a bond trustee, to s ecure Financing Obligations to
fund any project in the Program. Any Financing Obligation s hall be fully paid prior
to the expiration of thi s tax me asure.
If approved by a 3/4 majority of the VT A Board of Directors, and only aft er a
noticed public meeting in w hi ch the County of Santa Clara Board of S upervisors,
and the city co un c il of each c ity in Santa C lara County have been notified at lea st
30 days prior to the meetin g, VTA may modify the Program for any prudent
4
6.3.a
Resolution No. 2016.06.17
purpose, including to account for the results of any environmental review required
under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of the individual specific projects
in the Program; to account for increases or decreases in federal,. state, and local
funds, including revenues received from this · tax measure; to account for
unexpected increase or decrease in revenues; to add o~ delete a project from the
Program in order to catTy out the overall purpose of the Program; to maintain
consistency · with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan; to shift funding
between project categories; or to take into consideration new innova.tions or
w1foreseen circumstances.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such measure will appear in summarized form upon
the ballot as follows:
Measure
To relieve traffic, repair potholes; shall VTA en.act a 30-year
half-cent sales tax to:
G Repair streets~ fix potholes in all 15 cities; YES
• Finish BART extension to downtown San Jose, Santa
Clara; ..
() Improve bicycle/pedestrian safety, especially near
schools;
G Increase Caltrain capacity, easing highway congestion,
improving safety at crossings;
0 Relieve traffic on all 9 expressways, key highway NO interchanges;
• Enhance transit for seniors, students, disabled;
Mandating annual audits by independent citizens watchdog
committee to ensure accountability.
BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to
consolidate this election with the statewide general election and any other elections to be held
within the County of Santa Clara on November 8, 2016, and that it include in its proclamation or
notice of the special election that Article 3 of Chapter 2 of Div ision 9 of the Elections Code re lating
to arguments concerning county measure applies, and that the Office of the County Counsel is
directed to prepare an impartial analysis.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Elections Code section 10403, VTA
aclmowledges that the consolidate d election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed
in E lections Co de section 10418.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Santa Clara Co unty Board of Supervisors is
requested to permit the Registrar of Voters to render all services specified by Elections Code
section I 0418 relating t o the election, for which services VTA agrees to reimburse the County .
5
6.3.a
BE lT fURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to E lection~ Code section 10418.. all
proceed ing s related to, connected wit h, and incidental to the electi on shall be regulated and
performed in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the sta tewide election.
BEn FURTHER RESOLVED that the returns of such V'IA election shall be canvassed
by the Registrar of Voters of the Co unty of Santa Clara and the retums, when canvassed, shall he
reported to the Board of Directors of the Santa Cla!·a Valley Transportation Authority.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board Secretary is hereby directed to file a
certified copy ofthis Resolution with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and to submit
ce1tified copies of this Resolution to the County Clerk and to the Registrar of Voters of the County
of Santa Clara no later th an 8S days prior to the date of the election.
PASSED AND ADOPTE D by the Sant~. Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors
on June u 2016 by the following vote:
6.3.a
AYES: DUREC TORS: Baker , Bruins, Carr, Chavez, Hendricks : Khamis :
Liccardo i Nguyen , O'Neill, Perale~. Yeager
NOES: DIRECTORS ~ None
ABSENT: DIRECTORS : Carrasco
ATTEST:
." ;. ·."'.:'
Elaine B al ta·rBoard Secretary
APPROVED AS TO fORM.:
.. -, ---· -R=--0-BE-~ R_T.;_· .-:F·A_B_-E-t·l . -'-~----
General Counsel
Resolution No . 2016.06.17
----'--'--.----·-,.----Cindy Chavez, Chah·person
Board of Directors
6
A TTACHMENT A
ENVIS I O N SILIC ON VAL LEY BIC YC LE AND PEDESTRIAN CANDIDAT E LIST
Project
Implementation of Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan*
Trails in Expressway Rights-of-Way
Alum Rock Trail
Coyote Creek Trail Completion
Lions Creek Trail
Lower Silver Creek Trail
M iramo nte Ave Bikeways
Fremont Road Pathway
Los Gatos Creek Trail Connector to SR 9
Berryessa Creek Trail
West Llagas Creek Trail
Gualadupe River Trail-Extension to Almaden
Three Creeks Trai l East from Guadalupe River to Coyote Creek Trail
Five Wounds Trail from William Street to Mabury Road/Berryessa
Hwy 237 Bike Trail: Great America Parkway to Zanker (Class I, II , and IV )
Lower Gudalupe River Access Ramp s
Los Gatos Creek Trail Gap Closure
Calabazas Creek T rail
San Tomas Aquino Trail Extension to South & Campbell Portion
Union Pacific Railroad Trail
Stevens Creek Trail Extens ion
Hamilton Avenue/Highway 17 Bicycle Overcrossing
Ped/Bike Bridge over SR 17 from Railway/Sunnyside to Campbell T echnology Pkwy
Mary A venue Complete Streets Conversion
UPRR Bike/Ped Bridge Crossing: Stevens Creek Boulevard to Sn yde r Hammo nd House/Rancho
San Antonio Park
A-1
6.3.b
Montague Expwy Bike/Ped Overcrossing at Milpitas BART Station
Shoreline/] 01 Bike Ped Bridge
Mayfield Tunnel Ped/Bike under Central Expressway connecting to San Antonio Caltrain station
South Palo Alto Caltrain Bike/Ped Crossing
Matadero Creek Trail Undercrossing
Cal train Capitof Undercrossing
Phelan Avenue Pedestrian & Bike Bridge over Coyote Creek
Newhall Street Bike/Ped Overcrossing over Caltrain Tracks
Kiely Bicycle & Pedestrian Overcrossing
Winchester Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing
Bernardo Caltrain Undercrossing
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Underpass at 49er Stadium
Latimer A venue Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing
Bike & ped safety education at approximately -200 schools
Implementation of Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan (VT A)*
Bike amenities at transit stops and on transit vehicles
Countywide Vision Zero Program (VTA)*
Highway 9 Pedestrian Safety Improvements
*These plans are currently being developed/updated and projects are being identified.
A-2
6.3.b
ATTACHMENT B
ENVISION IDGHWAY PROGRAM CANDIDATE L I ST
Project
US 101 Improvements in the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View to add ress regional
connectivity and circulation between San Antonio Road and Charleston Road at the US 1 0 I /San
Antonio Road, US 101/Rengstorff/Charleston Road and US IOI/Shoreline Boulevard
interchanges.
SR 85 /SR 237 Area Improvements in Mountain View to address mainline congestion and
regional connectivity through the SR 85 /SR 237 connector, SR 85 /EI Camino Real interchange,
and the SR 237/EI Camino/Grant Road interchange .
SR 23 7/US 1 01 /Mathilda A venue Area Improvements in Sunnyvale to address local roadway
congestion.
SR 23 7 Corridor Improvements in the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara and Milpitas to address
mainline congestion and regional connectivity by addition ofSR 237 westbound /eastbound
auxiliary lanes between Zanker Road and North First Street, improvements at the SR 237/Great
America Parkway westbound off-ramp, and replacement/widening of the Calaveras Boulevard
structures over the UPRR tracks.
West County Improvements along 1-280 in Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos H ills and Sunnyvale
to address mainline congestion with mainline and interchange improvements from Magdalena
A venue to the San Mateo County line.
SR 85 /1-280 Area Improvements in Cupertino, Los Altos , and Sunnyvale to address regional
connectivity through a northbound 1-280 braided ramp between SR 85 and Foothill Boulevard
and improvements at the northbound I-280 off-ramp to Foothill Boulevard.
US I 0 I /Trimble Road/De La Cruz Boulevard to Zanker Road Area Improvements to address
local roadway connectivity and mainl"ine congestion in San Jose and Santa Clara with US
101/Trimble Road/De La Cruz Boulevard interchange improvements, southbound US 101 /SB 87
connector impro vements, and a new US 1 0 I /Zanker Road interchange. ·
US 10 l/Old Oakland Road Improvements in San Jose to address local roadway congestion,
access and connectivity .
A new interchange at US 101/Mabury Road in San Jose to address regional access.
l-680 Corridor Improvements in San Jose to address mainline congestion and regional
connectivity by improving the 1-680/Alum Rock Avenue and 1-680/McKee Road interchanges.
1-280/L awrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard Interchange Improvements to address
mainline and local roadway congestion .
B-1
6.3.b
I-280/Saratoga Avenue Interchange Improvements to address local circulation and mainline
congestion.
I-280/Winchester Boulevard Area Improvements in Santa Clara and San Jose to address regional
connectivity and local circulation.
SR 87 Corridor Technology-based Improvements in San Jose to address mainline congestion and
system reliability through the implementation of technology-based operational improvements to
the freeway .
Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief: Upgrade Highway 17/9 interchange to improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety, mobility, and roadway operations; deploy advanced transportation
technology to reduce freeway cut thru traffic in Los Gatos, including traffic signal control system
upgrades in Los Gatos, Traveler Information System, advanced ramp metering systems; support
Multi-Modal Congestion Relief Solutions , including enhanced Highway 17 Express Bus service,
implementing local bus system improvements that reduce auto trips to schools, work, and
commercial areas in Los Gatos; and develop park and ride lots to serve as transit hubs for
express bus , shuttles, local bus system connections.
SR 17 Southbound/Hamilton A venue Off-ramp Widening Improvements in Campbell to address
mainline congestion and local circulation.
SR 17/San Tomas Expressway Improvements in Campbell to address mainline congestion and
local circulation.
US 101 /Blossom Hill Boulevard improvements in San Jose to address local roadway congestion
and connectivity including for bicyclists and pedestrians.
US l 0 I Improvements in Gilroy to address mainline congestion and regional connectivity with a
new US 101/Buena Vista Avenue interchange and US 10 1/SR 152 lOth Street ramp and
intersection improv ements .
SR 152 Corridor Improvements in Gilroy including US 1 01/SR 25 interchange improvements to
address regional connectivity and goods movement network improvements.
I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements in Cupertino to address mainline congestion and
improve local traffic circulation.
I-880/Charcot Avenue Overcrossing in San Jose to address local relief circulation and adjacent 1-
880 interchanges congestion relief.
Noise Abatement Projects in Santa Clara County to implement treatments to address existing
freeway noise levels throughout the county.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Projects in Santa Clara County such as integrated
corridor management systems, traffic operations systems, ramp metering, managed lanes , and
local traffic signal control systems to address freeway mainline congestion and local roadway
congestion caused by cut-through traffic.
B-2
6.3.b
ATTACHMENT C
SANTA CLARA COUNTY EXPRESSWAY IMPROVEMENTS (TIER 1)
Project
Almaden Expressway at SR-85-Interim Improvements
Almaden Expressway at Branham Lane Intersection Improvement
Almaden Expressway at Camden Ave Intersection Improvements
Capitol Expressway Widening and Interchange Modifications between I-680 and Capitol Avenue
Central Expressway at Thompson Intersection Improvement
Foothill Expressway Auxiliary Lanes between El Monte and San Antonio
Lawrence Expressway at Homestead Road Interim Improvements
Lawrence Expressway at Homestead Road Grade Separation
Lawrence Expressway from Reed/Monroe to Arques Grade Separation
Montague Expressway Complete 8-lane Widening including HOV lanes and Auxiliary Lanes
between Great Mall and McCarthy/O'Too le
Oregon-Page Mill Widening (possible HOV lanes) and Trail between 1-280 and Foothill
Expressway
Oregon-Page M ill Intersection Improvements between Porter and Hansen
Oregon-Page Mill/El Camino Real Intersection Improvements
San Tomas Expressway Widening and Trail between Homestead and Stevens Creek
Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor Road and T rail between Dewitt and Main
Santa Teresa-Hale Corridor Widening and Trail between Long Meadow and Fitzgerald
SR 17/San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements
I-280/Foothill Expressway Interchange Modifications and Auxiliary Lane to Homestead
I-280/0regon-Page Mill Road Interchange Reconfiguration
Expressway ITS/Signal System Countywide
C-1
6.3.b
ATTACHMENT D
TRANSIT OPERATIONS CANDIDATE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS LIST
• Expand mobility services and affordable fare programs for seniors, disabled , students and
low-income riders.
This project would provide funds to develop and expand senior and disabled transportation
mo bility programs and services . The propose d program would prov ide mobility options such
as coordinated eligibility services and enhanced mobility options provided in a secure and
safe manner for the most vulnerable and underserv ed re si dents in the County, such as seniors
and persons with disabilities. lt would support mobility options including maint ai ning the
paratransit service coverage area and service expansion by extending hours of operation and
weekend service . The funds would also establish permanent and augment discount fare
programs to incre as e transit access for low-income, underserved and v ul nerable popul ations
unable to afford standard fare s.
• Enhance Frequent Core Bus Network.
The project would up grad e service frequenc y on VTA 's top core network routes to IS-
minutes or faster. Some specific examples include expanding the number of hi gh frequency
core routes and expanding the sc hedule of existing ser vices . This may also include enhancing
freque nc y of services during early mornings , evenings and weekends in order to improve
convenience, reliability , connectivity, ridership , farebox recovery and supp ort local land use
plans. T he up grade would improve the quality of service for vul nerable , underserved and
transit dependent populations as well as existing riders and attract new riders which would
decrease vehicle miles trave le d, traffi c congestion an d pollution .
• Improve amenities at bu s stops to increase safety, securi ty and access .
The project wou ld provide funds for system wide improvements to bus stops, transit centers
and stations including new and replacement she lters , lighting , ac cess improvements including
safe sidewalk connecti ons, passenger in fo rm ation signs a nd secu rity.
• Support ne w innovative transit service mo de ls to address fir st/last mil e conn ection s.
The project wou ld support affordable new innovative transit service models to addres s
first/last mile connections including FLEX type services, dynamic on -d emand subscription
shuttles and partnership s with o th er demand respo n sive serv ice providers serving vuln erable,
underserved and tran sit dependent populations .
D-1
6.3.b
Las Casitas Opposition Summary:
Re : pro p osed d e v e lo pment at 401-409 Albero W ay
Dear Planning Commission,
The developer has returned with new revised plans.
• These new plans do not follow the recommendations the Planning Commission expressed in Aug 24th
meeting .
• They also do not address the needs of the residents.
We are asking that the Planning Commission NOT to certify the EIR and REJECT this project.
Please see additional reasons and lists of violations with Town policies below.
Table of contents
1. The unaddressed i ssue is scal e and bulk .
1a. List of violations of LG Commercial Design Guidelines
2. Flawed EIR and direct financ ial impac t t o L as Casitas
2a. Direct cost to Las Casitas
2b. Too narrow view of the EIR
2c. Additional reasons why EIR is flawed :
3. Traffic impact
3a. VT A approved funding for Hwy9 & 17 i nterchange rebuild
3b. Existing traffic jams (without any additional traffic)
Evidence photos-Thursday, September 15th, 2016@ 8:15am
Evidence photos-Wednesday, September 7th, 2016@ 8 :01:10am
4 . C o nc lus i o n
5. Appendices
Sa . Appendix A : List of Attachments
Sb. Appendix B : Conflicts with General P lan Policies
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
1
2. Flawed EIR and direct financial impact to Las Casitas
There are 3 common concerns for all 4 associations to which Las Casita s association fully subscribes.
They are all identified and spelled out in detail by an independent ex pert (see Geissler hydrology report in attachment).
• Current plan to have 2-story underground pa rking w ill run into water issues.
• Current mitigation plan is not sufficient.
e Un-mitigated or overlooked issues : dewatering , diversion and liquefaction.
2a . Di rect cost to Las Casitas
As indicated by an independent ex pert (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 1/2 to 3/8 inches
• Geissler expects this will result in cracked foundations I 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-estlmated and unmitigated financial impact to Las Casitas.
We ask you to REJECT the EIR baled on the findings in the Geissler hydrology report.
References to Geissler report:
• Page 3 quote: "the combined effect of .. (ii) subgrade soils subject to liquefaction ... makes this site unsuitable for the
proposed underground (and underwater) garatge"
• Page 3 quote: "Geissler holds the opinion that construction of the 2 story underground parking ... shall cause ...
foundation settlement and cracked slabs at nearby houses in ... Las Casitas".
• Page 7 quote: "50 feet from excavation ... 3/8" of soil subsidence"
2b . Too narrow view of the EIR
The Developer took way too narrow and superficial approach to EIR. This is not the purpose of the EIR as explained below.
Specifically:
The EIR's conclusion that the Project will not result in hydrology, geology/soils/seismic, and health and safety impa cts is n ot
supported. Pursuant to the expert testimony o f Dr. Peter Geissler, Geissler Engi neering, the EIR is inadequate and
incomplete and the Project's impacts have not been fully divulged. CEQA achieves its purpose of long-term protection of the
environment by functioning as "an environmental full disclosure statute, and the EIR is the method . . . [of] disclosure ... "
Rural Landowners Association v . City Council (1983) 143 Cai.App.3d 1013, 1020. An EIR should not just generate paper,
but should act as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return ." Countyoflnyo v. Yorly (1973) 32
Cai.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 C E QA, .. ." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 82 ; §21151 .) Here, the EIR failed to act as a full disclosure document and must be rejected as
inadequate.
We ask you to REJECT the EIR based on the findings In the Geissler hydrology report.
3
3. Traffic impact
There have been many points raised to the Planning Commission during the initial hearing . Specifically:
e Safety impact to all children walking or biking to or from the school
e Additional air pollution impacting quality of life and health
e Loss of street parking
• Additional congestion on Hwy9
The revised plans do not fully address these concerns.
Without rehashing previous arguments, Las Casitas HOA would like to bring two facts to your attention :
3a. VT A approved funding for Hwy9 & 17 interchange rebuild
In November 2016 election CA public voted for 112-cent sales tax measure to generate $6 billion to $6.5
billion in 2017-year dollars for infrastructure projects. Rebuild of Hwy9 & 17 interchange was added to the VTA approved list
to utilize these approved funds.
Going forward with proposed construction at 401-409 Alberto Way will make it impossible (or too costly to taxpayers) to
rebuild the interchange
• We are asking to not certify EIR until after Hwy9 and Hwy 17 interchange is rebuilt.
• A new EIR is needed and a new traffic study is needed after interchange is rebuilt to address new impacts.
Please see VT A July Resolution in Appendix 5a on page 7.
3b. Existing traffic jams (without any additional traffic}
While developer's traffic study did not find any significant impact, we conclude otherwise.
Here are pictures of how traffic looks today without additional traffic.
• It looks terrible already
• It is clear that adding another 300+ cars will make the situation even worse
• We are asking you to reject the proposed construction based on the evidence presented
Evidence photos-Thursday, September 15th, 2016@ 8:15am
First set of four pictures:
We observed the AM rush hour multiple times. Eastbound Hwy-9 traffic takes several cycles and 6-8 minutes over 2-3 cycles
for vehicles to get through the light at Alberto Way.
• Please see lines of cars outlined by red lines.
o They are queued from the Hwy17 Los Gatos East off-ramp onto Hwy 9 all the way up to Los Gatos Blvd.
• This means the intersection is failing and the Level of Service (LOS) is an F today.
o Applicant's traffic study does not reveal this observation.
o This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation.
Ev idence photos-Wednesday, September 7th, 2016@ 8:01 :10am
Second set of four pictures: different day but situation is the same.
Eastbound traffic queued all the way along Hwy 9 from Hwy17 to Los Gatos Blvd.
5
4 . Conclusion
We are asking you to NOT certify the EIR and REJECT this project due to:
• Multiple direct violations with LG Commercial Design Guidelines (listed in section 1 and 1a)
• Unmitigated financial impact to Las Casitas due to 2-story deep excavation (section 2 and 2a)
• Traffic impact and additional congestion (section 3 and 3a)
5. Appendices
Sa. A p pe nd ix A: Li st of Attach ments
• Geissler hydrology report (March 2017)
a . Please see last attachment to this document
• VTA Resolution attachment B (July 2016)
a. https://drive.google.com/open?id=OB8UvZbAzgZQUZ1 FoM1 BgTVZUX1l zNThPNVNfZOhndXF4b3o4
• Santa Clara Test Well data (Jan 2017)
a . http :f/www .valleywater.org /uploadedlmaqes/Services/CieanReliableWater/WaterSupplyPianning/WaterTrack
er documents and images/1 -Final Docs and lmaqes/7.%20Auq 2013 SantaCiara .jp q
5b . A p pen dix 8: Confl icts w it h General Plan Pol icies
Located at https://www.losgatosca .gov/27/General-Pian
LU -1 .2: "Ensure that new development preserves and promotes e xisting commercial centers consistent with the
maintenance of a s ma ll-scale, small-to w n at mosphere and image."
LU-1 .8: "Commercial development of any type (office retail, research and development, etc.) shall be designed in keeping
with the small-t o wn character of Los Gatos."
LU-6.3: "Protect existing residential areas f r o m adjacent n o n-reside ntial uses by assuring that buffers are developed and
maintained."
LU -9.1: "Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the
maintenance of a small-scale, small -town atmosphere and image.·
LU-9.6: "Encourage development that ma intains and expands reside nt~riented service and/or creates employment
opportunities for local residents consistent with overall land use policies of the Town."
LU-9.9: "B uffers s hall be req u ired as conditions of approval for non-residential projects that are adjacent to residential
areas and may consist of landscaping, sound barriers , building setbacks, or open space ."
CD-1 .1.: "Building elements s hall b e i n p roportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood ."
CD -1.2 : "New structures, remode ls, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend w ith t he scale
an d rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area ."
TRA-9.5: "Alt ernative t ransportation means shall b e requ i re d whenever th e traffic generated by a development would
result in a s ignificant Inc rease In a i r pollutio n , traffic congestio n, o r noise ."
7
31st March 2017
Peter Geissler, Ph.D., P .E.
Consulting Civil Engineer
HYDROLOGY REPORT
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Jennifer T .C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner (~}
Community Development Department J.
110 E . Main Street
Los Gatos CA 95030
And
Los Gatos Commons Homeowners Association
445 Alberto Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Project:
Project
Location:
Affected
Hydrology Report re 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, C A 95032
401 -409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Properties: Los Gatos Commons, Los Gatos
Bella Vista Village, Los Gatos
Pueblo de Los Gatos, Los Gatos
Las Casitas, Los Gatos
Ref: ENGEO Report dated July 17, 2015, revised August 13, 2015
401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration, Appendix C,
DEIR
Ref: Architectural Technologies Plans for Project 153948 revised 19 February 2016
Ref: Civil Engineering Plans by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier &
Wright revised 8 February 2017
Ref: Geissler Engineering Project No. E 16-2402
T O WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Geissler Engineering has been asked to review hydrological and geotechnical data presented in
the ENGEO Report referenced above. In addition, Geissler Engineering has been asked to
r eview civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier &
Wright revised 8 February 2017.
Therefore, the bottom of the foundation of the proposed 2-story underground garage is to be
constructed 10 to 12 feet below the water table.
The proposed 2-story underground garage is located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone.
[Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation]
The location of the 2-story underground garage has been identified as an Earthquake Induced
Liquefaction Hazard Zone. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February
21, 2012]
The combined effect of: (i) the likelihood of seismic activity; and (ii) subgrade soils subject to
liquefaction (i.e., sudden loss of strength and bearing capacity in the event of strong vibration),
make this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater) garage.
In the event of an earthquake, the soils below the 2-story underground garage are likely to
exhibit significant loss of bearing capacity. Loss ofbearing capacity is likely to result in
differential foundation settlement with resultant structural cracking of the reinforced concrete
structure. Cracking of the reinforced concrete structure allows significant influx of groundwater.
Geissler Engineering estimates the rate of flow into the (cracked) underground (and underwater)
garage structure could range from 50 gallons per minute to 500 gallons per minute, or more,
depending on the severity of the cracks.
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that construction of a 2-story underground parking
structure shall cause soil subsidence, differential foundation settlement and cracked slabs at
nearby houses in Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista Village, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas
developments.
Even in the absence of earthquake activity, ENGEO has admitted that differential foundation
movement is likely due to seasonal shrink-swell activity of expansive sub grade soils. Such
movement can cause leakage at cold joints in underground concrete walls and floors. Thus even
in the absence of earthquake activity, leakage of groundwater into the underground garage is
likely. The leakage of groundwater through cold joints has been estimated by Geissler
Engineering to be on the order of 50 gallons per minute.
Obviously, seepage as small as 50 gallons per minute could be collected in a drainage sump
located within the interior of the garage and pumped out by means of submersible sump pumps.
However, it is not practical to attempt to collect and discharge 500 gallons per minute or more.
The underground garage is to be constructed at a location subject to significant sheet flow of
storm water runoff during heavy rains . Thus, surface drainage may also result in flooding of the
underground garage unless the surface drainage facilities are substantially unproved.
The proposed 2-story underground garage is located at a site that has been identified as one that
is subject to flooding in the event of an upstream dam failure. [Ref: Section 14.4.2.2.6, Santa
Page3
differential settlement as sociated wi th liquefaction-indu ced settlement. [Ref: Section
5.7.1 ENGEO REPORT, page 15]
Aside from an apparent inconsistency in the ENGEO report as regards to the magnitude of
expected settlements, the message is clear. We should expect settlements on the order of 1 inch
or more.
Appreciate that differential foundation settlements on the order of an inch or more shall cause
significant cracking in the reinforced concrete structure. In an underground (and underwater)
garage, this is likely to allow the influx of substantial flow of groundwater.
EARTHQUAKE RISK
The project location is located within an earthquake fault rupture hazard zone. [Ref: California
Geologic Survey, State of California Department of Conservation]
The project location is located within an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The
risk of earthquake induced liquefaction hazard has been determined to be high by the Santa Clara
Planning Department. [Ref: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21 ,
2012]
Plate 1.2 of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Gatos Quadrangle (2002) indicates a
likelihood of liquefaction that requires mitigation measures are required as per Public Resources
Code Section 2693(c).
The ENGEO Report admits that the strata of clayey gravels soils at the subject property
(specifically, soils at the location of Boring B3) are subject to liquefaction according to criteria
described in an authoritative research paper. [Ref: Seed, R. B ., Cetin K. 0 ., Moss R. E . S .,
Kammerer A .M ., Wu J., Pestana J. M., Riemer M. F ., Sancio, R. B., Bray J.D., K.ayen R. E .,
Faris A., 2003 , Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A unified and Consistent
Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar]
GROUNDW ATER HYDROLOGY
In 2008, Earth Systems Geotechnologies (ESG) reported encountering groundwater at a depth of
approximately 18 feet at a nearby site located at 55 Los Gatos Saratoga Road. This is
approximately 200 feet away from the proposed construction site. The groundwater is likely to
be 5 or 6 feet higher following the end of the record drought.
ENGEO did not record the groundwater level in boring Bl or boring B3.
The ENGEO Report recommends using a design value of 12 feet for the depth ·ofthe
groundwater at the project location. Geissler Engineering concurs.
Geissler Engineering is concerned that the construction of a 22-foot deep underground garage
may cause divers ion of subsurface seepage patterns. The long-term effects of such diversion of
PageS
Second, the effluent from diesel-powered pumps must be discharged onto the street or other
receiving drainage facility such as a storm drain. Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that
the discharge of 250 gallons per minute (minimum) to 500 gallons per minute (maximum) on a
continuous basis will negatively impact existing property drainage facilities. At a minimum, this
water is added to existing drainage facilities and, in effect, reduces the capacity of other drainage
facilities (e.g., storm drains) that serve the neighborhood.
Based on proximity to the proposed excavation, Geissler Engineering calculations suggest that
all of the Las Casitas development and Pueblo de Los Gatos development are likely to exhibit
cracked slabs as a result of soil subsidence during construction.
ENGEO advises against permanent dewatering. Instead, ENGEO recommends the use of
waterproofing to prevent the influx of groundwater.
Specifically, ENGEO advises:
Permanent dewatering is not recommended and the mat foundation or concrete slabs and
basement walls should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic and/or uplift
pressures. [Ref: Section 5.9 ENGEO Report, page 18]
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that it is impossible to prevent the influx of groundwater
into an underground garage by means of waterproofing alone where, as here, ground settlements
up to 1 inch (vertical) are expected.
Put simply, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of
groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure that is badly cracked in the aftermath of an
earthquake with earthquake-induced liquefaction settlements.
Like-wise, there is no waterproofing product on the market that will prevent the influx of
groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when differential foundation settlements due to
seasonal groundwater variations cause differential foundation settlements of Yz" or more.
It is significant that ENGEO recommended that concrete slabs be 8 inches thick at the proposed
development. That shows that ENGEO appreciates the potential for cracked slabs due to
seasonal groundwater variations in expansive subgrade soils. Sadly, this level of protection
against cracking is not afforded neighboring properties' existing slabs.
Geissler.Engineering warns that the public safety is at risk.
UPSTREAM DAM FAILURE
The most significant hazard is posed by the possibility of an upstream dam failure.
Built in 1952, the Lenihan Dam (Lexington Reservoir) is an earthen dam and is maintained by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It holds 19,000 acre-feet of water and is just minutes
upstream from the project location.
Page 8
·.
A catastrophic failure of Lenihan Dam would cause flooding at the project location within
minutes.
Underground parking amplifies the risk of drowning in the event of a dam failure.
PROPERTY DRAINAGE
The civil engineering drawings by Architectural Technologies in association with Kier & Wright
revised 8 February 2017 are of concern because there is inadequate property drainage.
The existing and proposed grade elevations are as follows.
• The existing grade on the property at 405 Alberto Way ranges from +338.84 (near Las
Casitas) feet to +341.31 feet (near Saratoga -Los Gatos Road).
• The proposed finish grade is +336.63 feet (varies).
• The proposed first floor elevation is +336.50 feet.
• The street elevation at Alberto Way is 339.02 feet (varies).
Put simply, the proposed development is not well draining and is likely to serve as a temporary
storm water retention basin (i.e., ponding water) after heavy rains.
The primary storm water drainage facility shown on the plans Kier & Wright revised 8 February
2017 is a proposed 8" diameter storm drain running towards the northwest corner of the property
but which traverses the southwest corner of the neighboring development, Las Casitas . Geissler
Engineering holds the opinion that the proposed storm drain facility is inadequate to drain the
storm water runoff. Geissler Engineering recommends that the storm water drainage must be
redesigned so as to avoid traversing neighboring properties.
Geissler Engineering holds the opinion that .there is inadequate pervious landscape to absorb a
significant fraction of the storm water runoff. The likely result is ponding on the patio areas and
parking areas and pedestrian areas of 405 Alberto Way. Geissler Engineering also holds the
opinion that storm water surface runoff from 405 Alberto Way towards the southwest comer of
the Las Casitas property is likely since the northwest corner of 405 Alberto Way is at a slightly
higher elevation than is the southwest comer of the Las Casitas property.
Geissler Engineering recommends that the percentage of pervious landscape surface should be
increased and a hydrology study be undertaken to evaluate the effect of increased storm water
runoff on neighboring properties.
SANITARY SEWER
Page9
-
~Tf"[(!J.N~ frtJm -
-~t._os_-_<;/1-~_$_· c~_47dlt!)A)5
--6 .. PJA,._~_t..o_])_e ____ '! .s _f;J~J:.ZIJ-.S
---------!3Ju. Jl -:JZ ~ (;?_ _______ 4._D_5~ -t?.L --
-
-
--
-
---
~----·-·-·· -------·-'<'-~-·--------------
&.r LlJ.~A)__lc..& rn
___b o-~-(;;~sL~_/)_4)_5
-
I
To: Planning Commission, Los Gatos
From: Neighbors of Alberto Way concerned about 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos. We
present this petition in show of our solidarity.
The neighbors of Alberto Way composed of Los Gatos Commons [110 unitst Pueblo de Los Gatos [53
units], Bella Vista [47 units], and Las Casitas [17 units] ask that you not certify the EIR and that you not
approve the project. We strongly agree on the following three positions concerning the 401-409 Alberto
Way Project:
1] We want the scale and design to look and feel like Los Gatos, a small town with views of the Santa
Cruz Mountains, and to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The new plan (for an 83,000 sf
building) violates General Plan guidelines and policies on these points (LU-6, LU-6 .2 and CD 1.2, e.g.).
2] The draft EIR section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix C) fails to address the impact of the below-
water table garage on neighboring properties, as required in General Plan policy (SAF 1.11). Moreover,
since measurements were taken during the ENG EO study, the water table has risen significantly due to
the recent drought recovery. Any excavation would require wholesale dewatering, making the
construction phase extremely disruptive for us. We are concerned about negative effects of the
underground garage on our properties during and post-construction and, therefore, we want all the
401-409 Alberto Way Project parking to remain above ground .
3] We want significant analysis of the traffic impact of not only this 401-409 development but also of
pending 201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and 475 and 485 projects. With the passage of Measure B,
the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief must also be included to provide a comprehensive plan.
Critical in planning is to remember that Alberto Way is a narrow dead end street where children and
disabled seniors live. Additional traffic congestion violates General Plan guidelines and policies (TRA 1.1
and 2.5, e.g.).
To: Planning Commission, Los Gatos
From: Neighbors of Alberto Way concerned about 401-409
Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos. We present this petition in
show of our solidarity.
The neighbors of Alberto Way composed of Los Gatos
Commons [110 units], Pueblo de Los Gatos [53 units], Bella
Vista [ 4 7 units], and Las Casitas [ 17 units] ask that you not
certify the EIR and that you not approve the project. We
strongly agree on the following three positions concerning the
40 1-409 Alberto Way Project:
1] We want the scale and design to look and feel like Los Gatos,
a small town with views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and to
blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The new plan (for
an 83,000 sf building) violates General Plan guidelines and
policies on these points (LU-6, LU-6 .2 and CD 1.2, e.g.).
2] The draft EIR section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix
C) fails to address the impact of the below-water table garage on
neighboring properties, as required in General Plan policy (SAF
1.11 ). Moreover, since measurements were taken during the
ENGEO study, the water table has risen significantly due to the
recent drought recovery. Any excavation would require
wholesale dewatering, making the construction phase extremely
disruptive for us. We are concerned about negative effects of
the underground garage on our properties during and post-
construction and, therefore, we want all the 401-409 Alberto
Way Project parking to remain above ground.
3] We want significant analysis of the traffic impact of not only
this 40 1-409 development but also of pending 20 1-225 Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road and 475 and 485 projects. With the
passage of Measure B, the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion
Relief must also be included to provide a comprehensive plan.
Critical in planning is to remember that Alberto Way is a
narrow dead end street where children and disabled seniors live.
Additional traffic congestion violates General Plan guidelines
and policies (TRA 1.1 and 2.5, e.g.).
---------
--
/l (7
/}£ T! Tl D JJ -f YO /J1 -
tA68Lo ]>C Zos ~~n>2
-
-
-
-------·--· .. ----------·-··-·---·----
----------------
J?&T_j_Ij_ () tJ tr-8/11
I ' I
~£-L-LAc IIL5I~+ V, 1-LI±~F-....
-
-
I
J3el la Vi sf a Vill0c1e
<...__J
Resident Name Resident Address I Ema il Address Signature Dat e !Send Em ail Update? (Y/N)
(28 homes} I I _LL_
T: I100CuestadelosGatos I I .4//1 /) I 4/4/2017
T:.SWan ~~a., J101Cuestade LosGatos J S~_/)('-iJ:Lt&~W_qt,Cdl.m Xjf" v J 4/4/2Cllrr= I
All Self 104 Cuesta de los Gatos ----r-4/4/2017
T: 108 CUesta de Los Gatos
~McCarter f11'n~ f112CuestadeLosGatos ~.S
T: JohnMelehan " --I116CuestadelosGatos I C/A.\C....6r...ri>..t.u..·<lZ.~.{~ 1 "'"fLUlt l ~
120 Cue sta de Los Gatos 1
124 Cuesta de los Gatos
128 CuestA de los Gatos
129 Cuesta de Los Gatos
132 Cuesta de los Gatos 'v .
I-Alexandra &SvenMevlssen 134CuestadeLos Gatos 1 ;~~ £ 1 4/4/2017 1 ~ 1
Anne Hut~hes 136 Cuesta de los Gatos A A . 4/4/2017 v-s"
Jen nifer an d John Bryan 138 Cuesta de Los Gatos -/
T: 166 Cuesta de Los Gatos ~
Julia and E. Kim 1168 Cuesta de los Gatos I I {/ (} 5'< ~ -'-r 4!4/ZCl fi
I RoblnJ.utcert_ ·------·· '---li---4::::!/,::;4/o_:2:::01:.:7+----:-:.---------l
Melan ie Kemp 174 Cue sta de los Gatos 4/4/2017 Xe-~
Judi and David Ste pn er 175 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017
Glgl Matacco 176 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017
Julie Oat Porto 178 Cuesta de los Gatos
I-G=8et3y Hung 179 Cuesta de los Gatos
T: Anne and Paul Kerr 182 Cuesta de los Gatos
T:
Maryhrfltt
Sharon Hart
Ste phanie Mo on
Shelly FrankUn
Colleen Thomas
WesYemoto
185 Cuesta de los Gatos · --4/4/2017 ~
190 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017
194 Cu esta de los Gatos 4/4/2017
195 Cuesta de Los Gatos 4/4/2017
198 Cuesta de los Gatos I _...,___~ _I _ V I 7/9/1905
(4homes}
113 Treseder Court 4/4/2017
~~ 117 Treseder Court 4/4/2017
I c--../ 4/4/2017 121 Treseder Court
125 Treseder Court .J L --y-'-\ ~---~ 4/4/2017
<
(13 homes)
Marjan & Hedeyat Barnla 1140 Maggi _Court .. /{/\ 4/4/2017
T: 142 Maggi Court ~~
144 Maul Court
_.. -~?! 4/4/2017
4/4/2017
146 Maggi Court
Laura ana NIC K WHIIamson 1148 Maggi Court
Mary Badame (RECUSED) 1150 Maggi Court
Nata lila and Vltaly Stulsky 152 Maggi Court
T: 154 Maal Court 1\.k::*h~
Mary Ann and Ken l own 1156 Maggi Court
T: 1158 Maal Court
Janet Corral 160 Maggi Court
Minai Slnsh 162 Maal Court
Paul Murphy 16iiMagl Court }.._tt:)_-f-_ h 0 ~
...... -·· ~-. -~ ~
r7rx-r~-+h.~:-~~
~· v ,
_;_~I'""~
Tor;.:::_t~J: L~~
l4ii017
4/4/2017
4/4/2017
4/4/2017
4/4/2017
4/4/2017
4/4/2017
4/4/2017
4/4/2017
4/4/2017
:;.,q~ ~~'F)~~ {f rueusec:h /1.!) !3'""""'J~)
To: Planning Commission, Los Gatos
From: Neighbors of Alberto Way concerned about 401-409 Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos . We
present this petition in show of our solidarity.
The neighbors of Alberto Way composed of Los Gatos Commons [110 units], Pueblo de Los Gatos [53
units], Bella Vista [47 units], and Las Casitas [17 units] ask that you not certify the EIR and that you not
approve the project. We strongly agree on the following three positions concerning the 401-409 Alberto
Way Project:
1] We want the scale and design to look and feel like Los Gatos, a ~small town with views of the Santa
Cruz Mountains, and to blend in with the surrounding neighborh~od . The new plan (for an 83,000 sf
building) violates General Plan guidelines and policies on these points (LU-6, LU-6.2 and CD 1.2, e.g.).
'
2] The draft EIR section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix C) fails to address the impact of the below-
water table garage on neighboring properties, as required in Gen~ral Plan policy (SAF 1.11). Moreover,
since measurements were taken during the ENG EO study, the water table has risen significantly due to
the recent drought recovery. Any excavation would require whol~sale dewatering, making the
construction phase extremely disruptive for us. We are concernep about negative effects of the
underground garage on our properties during and post-construction and, therefore, we want all the
401-409 Alberto Way Project parking to remain above ground.
3] We want significant analysis of the traffic impact of not only th!s 401-409 development but also of
pending 201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and 475 and 485 proje~s. With the passage of Measure B,
the Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief must also be included to provide a comprehensive plan.
Critical in planning is to remember that Alberto Way is a narrow d
1
ead end street where children and
disabled seniors live. Additional t~affic congestion violates Gener~l Plan guidelines and policies (TRA 1.1
and 2.5, e.g.).
0U_ax J!;. g_~ro TIA-y
·---·~------.. -~~ t
r;_--~ ·-~ . _._gDJJ1 -'L7Jj__ ~/izli -k2_(¢I.l>S G,"'~
~3_9_/_~e:-~70 IAJ~-J-t1.1fLt7 /.t~0-1-
-4us ~~77J5/-Cd
------·---; -SEI(E!p) Cf)./iE:5__t:>~ ----
I
~-r-~~ • .
~~ .d-Mfl__, -·----~--~ . ----T ·
-----
'
-
-
--------
------· -·--
-----···-----
-----
'
\
---------
f----··-· ·----------· ----~lECIE~V!ED
--1-· --
~ AI-~: t 0 6 2017 I ---
TO\:'IJN OF LOS GATOS --------------------Pt:ANN!N G g~Al5~
THIS IS A PERSPECTIVE OF THE IMPACT OF THE 401-409
ALBERTO WAY PRO-JECT ON SENIORS LIVING IN THE 110 UNITS
OF LOS GATOS COMMONS (90°k OF LOS GATOS "COMMONS"
RESIDENTS ARE SENIORS). LOS GATOS COMMONS IS LOCATED
AT 439-453 ALBERTO WAY, LOS GATOS, CA
Seniors living at Los Gatos Commons are stressing over their
quality of life as they contemplate living for months and months
on a dead-end street in a construction zone. In the past the dead-
end street has kept traffic to a low impact and contributed to our
quiet, pedestrian friendly lifestyle. Now with construction and
excavation looming, our dead-end street will trap us in our
homes. There is no other exit except through Alberto Way and
the construction zone.
Seniors who are cautious drivers wonder how will they even get
out of the "Commons" parking lot with the 200 plus diesel truck
trips per day dominating Alberto Way.
"HOW WILL I GET MY GROCERIES? HOW WILL I GET TO
MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS ON TIME? HOW WILL I BE ABLE TO
FILL AN EMERGENCY PHARMACY REFILL DODGING ALL THAT
TRAFFIC?"
Stress levels have started to rise as residents who are thinking
of selling their condos are facing full disclosure of the story poles
to potential buyers and even further disclosure if they have
knowledge of the 475-485 Alberto Oaks project.
The stress level is even higher for residents who are already
house bound and bed bound for medical reasons.
"HOW WILL MY FAMILY OR CAREGIVERS GET THROUGH THE
TRAFFIC LET ALONE FIND A PLACE TO PARK WITH ALL THE
DISRUPTION? WHAT IF I NEED AN EMR TEAM? HOW WILL THEY
GET THROUGH TO ME? WHAT IF IT HAPPENS ON A DAY WITH
BEACH TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK AND 200 PLUS DIESEL TRUCKS
TRIPS DOMINATING ALBERTO WAY?"
For safety reasons and for the potential diminished quality of life
issues including social isolation that the 401-409 Project poses,
we are asking the Planning Commission to deny the EIR and the
project because of the impact on the lives of the seniors already
living on Alberto Way.
We are asking the Planning Commission to insist that any
development on 401-409 honor the request of the Planning
Commissioners to reduce the size of the project one third to one
half. We ask that the project keep the 120 above ground parking
spaces. Please do not excavate 20 feet down on Alberto Way,
which is the old streambed of Los Gatos Creek. Once water is
hit, construction will stop and we seniors will be trapped even
longer on our dead-end street.
We are asking that the Planning Commission live up to its vision
statements and policies to support a Senior Friendly Community.
We are asking you to protect the Los Gatos Commons community
as a valuable senior housing asset as touted in the Senior
Housing section of the 2020 General Plan. Please allow seniors
who have contributed their time, talent, and tax dollars to retire
without isolation and stress in the town they helped to build.
Respectfully Submitted after interviews with my neighbors at Los
Gatos Commons,
Marilyn Basham,
Retired Physical Therapist
Resident of Los Gatos since 1983
Partner in Basham Eye Associates, 212 Oak Meadow Drive, Los
Gatos, CA
Resident of Los Gatos Commons at 439 Alberto Way, A207 Los
Gatos, CA
REFER TO
''From Pueblo de Los Gatos''
SECTION OF THIS EXHIBIT
Alberto Way Citizens' Opposition to
the Revised Plan filed March 9, 2017
by Lamb Partners for 405 Alberto
Way (formerly 401-409 Alberto Way)
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Marilyn Basham <marilynbasham@me.com>
Thursday, April 06, 2017 10 :2 5 AM
Jennifer Armer
A perspecti ve on the traffic analysis for 401 -409 Alberto Way proposed project
As a member of a group of seniors living at the "Commons ", we have met weekly since the story poles went up on
Alberto Way to understand the proposed development and to get correct information to and from our neighbors . When
one member completes research on a particular topic that detailed information is shared with the rest of the group. A
very detailed report showing the flaws and under estimated facts in the traffic analysis for the 401-409 project is part of
a packet for your rev iew.
I want to highlight four of those flaws so they don't get overlooked :
1 The traffic analysis for the 401-409 proposed development did not address the impact on Highway #17. A recent CAL
TRANS reports indicates that Highway# 17 is already overcapacity and needs further mitigation .
2 The traffic study submitted was not done during a time when school as in session and thus does not reflect the true
impact on the residents and the community.
3 The traffic analysis does not include the impact of 475-485 Albert Oaks proposed project. This is even though there is
a letter from the 475-485 developer to the city indicating his desired to develop Alberto Oaks as of 11/2015.
4 The traffic analysis does not include the implications of the passage of MEASURE B. It is possible that the highway
ramps and interchanges scheduled for improvement under MEASURE B will be impeded by the 401-409 development.
This will then impede use of public funds for improvement.
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Basham
Resident of 439 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, CA
This Page
I ntentio·nally
Left Blank
LP ACQY J S ITI ONS
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017
Ms. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Phone: (408) 354-6872
Email : jarmer@losgatosca.gov
RE: Response Letter to Planning Commission from Public Hearing on August 24, 2016 .
405 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056
Condit ional Use Permit Application U-15-009
APN 529-23-018
Thank you for recommending approval of LP Acquisition's above-referenced project to the
Planning Commission at its hearing on August 24, 2016.
In anticipation of the continued Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 22nd,
this response letter describes the architectural changes between the Original Plan Set (a/k/a
401-405 Alberto Way) submitted on July 13, 2016 and the Revised Plan Set (a/k/a 405 Alberto
Way) submitted on March 9, 2017, and responds to the Planning Commissioner's direction from
the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing.
SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES:
Since the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, LP Acquisitions has been meeting
with the neighbors and interested parties, and we initiated a comprehensive effort to redesign
our Project in response to both the Town and neighborhood comments and concerns. Based
on the feedback we received from the Planning Commission and the neighborhood, we revised
the architecture to incorporate the following key design modifications:
We combined the former two (2), two-story buildings into a single, two-s tory build ing thereby
resulting in a 9,000 square foot reduction in floor area, and a reduction in overall heights by 5.5
feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side of the new building when compared to the
previous two buildings. Other changes include:
• To illustrate the reduction in the building massing and size, the original design was
1,614,290 cubic feet ("cf") and the proposed redesign is 1,207,665 cf. Therefore, we
reduced the building size by 25%.
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190 , Menlo Park , CA 94025 1 650 .326.1600 EXHIBIT 3 1
APPLICANT RESPONSE LEITER
• We relocated the office building to the rear of the site, against the setback lines on
Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. {Route 9) and the on-ramp to Highway 17 . This accomplishes
two very important goals : 1) allows for significantly more open space on the Alberto
Way frontage to the building, which is utilized for additional surface parking and
amenity space, and 2) enhance the views of the existing trees and mountains behind the
building, when viewed from the properties on the other side of Alberto Way.
• We shifted the building by an additional10 feet away from the north property line, in
response to concerns from the Las Casitas neighbors which borders the Applicant's
property to the north.
The reduced building size, along with a reduced par.king ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet
of building area, results in a 58-space reduction in the overall parking count from 390 parking
spaces to 332 parking spaces. In response to the Town and neighborhood concerns regarding
the former design's lack of surface parking, we increased the surface parking count from 7 to 42
parking spaces. The overall parking reduction also results in a significant reduction in size of the
underground parking garage (which we retained) thereby accommodating all construction
staging on site, instead of in the street.
We replaced the proposed building foundation with a concrete superstructure in order to
significantly reduce the building height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south
side. Consequently, the revised building footprint preserves the views of the existing trees and
mountains behind the building, when viewed from the properties on the other side of Alberto
Way.
We also eliminated the tower elements in response to the Planning Commission and neighbors'
concerns that the elements were too prominent, and we eliminated the second-floor exterior
balcony on the north {Las Casitas) side of the building. All second-floor exterior balconies now
face Alberto Way thereby enhancing the design hierarchy of the building to create more
definition between the ground and second floor design elements. LP Acquisitions retained the
Missipn style architecture which maintains the small-town flavor of other, nearby commercial
developments in Los Gatos and resembles the massing and scale of the other existing buildings
in the immediate neighborhood .
Lastly, and in response to both the Town and neighbor concerns with respect to traffic and
safety on Alberto Way, and consistent with the Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are
proposing to dedicate a portion of the site for the purpose of widening and straightening
Alberto Way, allowing for the addition of both a bike lane in front of the property and an
extended right turn lane onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road {Route 9). We have identified locations
for detached sidewalk improvements on both the Alberto Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
{Route 9) street frontages, and are proposing to install new curb, ramps and crosswalk at the
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road {Route 9) to the Highway 17 on ramp .
We have addressed the Town's and neighbors' concerns regarding the project through the
design modifications summarized above and further discussed in ARC TEC's letter dated March
2
APPLICANT RESPONSE LETIER
16, 2017 . The proposed modifications described above are feasible and represent minor
revisions and clarifications to the overall project description that will not add significant new
information to the Town of Los Gatos 401-409 Alberto Way Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). This information will not require recirculation of the EIR because the
proposed modifications will further lessen impacts that the Town previously found to be 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 our 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 .
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER DIRECTIONS TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE
AUGUST 24, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING:
The following summarizes key comments from the Planning Commission followed by ou r
response to the comment referred to as, the "Applicant Response ."
Thomas O'Donnell (Chair)
1. Requested a 1/3 reduction in the size of the building.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Applicant's proposed redesign of the office project
reduces the size and mass of the building by combining the two former buildings
into a single building (a/k/a 405 Alberto Way). The smaller single building
redesign provides Jess floor area and would result in further setting back the
building to the rear setback allowed by the Town. Also, we reduced the
building's overall heights by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south
side, and we eliminated the tower elements. Consequently, the overall size of
the building expressed in cubic feet has resulted in a 25% reduction.
Additionally, the following facts support our redesigned office project: 1) the
current Class A office vacancy rate in Los Gatos is at or near 0% (see attached
exhibit "Colliers Los Gatos Office Class A Snapshot"); therefore, there is an
enormous demand for more Class A office in Los Gatos; 2) Due to the high pri ce
of land and construction costs, it is not financially feasible for LP Acquisitions to
develop an office project of less than 83,000 square feet on this site. For
example, the parking structure costs alone exceed $12 million dollars. When
coupled with the land price, the land acquisition cost and the parking structure
together result in a development cost of $615 per square foot. This cost does
not include other development costs associated with grading and excavation,
and on-site and off-site infrastructure. Lenders typically expect a 12% annual
lease payment on total costs for the lender's own risk calculations in order to
decide whether to invest in a commercial office project. W ith a 12% annual
lease payment, the rent would need to be $6.15 triple net lease (NNN). In the
Los Gatos office market, rents are closer to $4.50 NNN which would result in a
return below 9%. With a return below 9% and the development costs associated
3
APPLICANT RESPONSE LETIER
with this project for an 83,000 square foot building the revised Project is barely
at the threshold of feasibility. Any further reductions in project size compromise
the likelihood that LP Acquisitions will be able to secure a lender for this project.
Accordingly, LP Acquisitions found that the 83,000 square foot building is the
smallest sized building that feasibly could be developed and still meet the basic
project objectives, while incorporating the design changes requested by the
Planning Commission and the public.
D. Michael Kane (Vice Chair)
1. The new office project should be similar (in architectural style) with surrounding
neighborhood per Community Design Element ("CD"), Section 1.4
APPLICANT RESPONSE: As there is no prevalent commercial architectural style
in the immediate surrounding neighborhood as discussed at the August 24th
Planning Commission meeting, we redesigned the proposed project to promote
the small-town atmosphere "feel and image", and so that the building
complements the existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance
and design of a small -town Class A office center. Specifically, the project
vernacular is of a mission-style architecture and the building incorporates
various design elements of the Hotel Los Gatos and Palo Alto Medical
Foundation building located on Los Gatos Boulevard. The Town's Architectural
Consultant approved the proposed architectural style as in keeping with the
Town's Commercial Design Guidelines.
2. Develop traffic safety measures:
a. For vehicles turning from Alberto Way onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
(Route 9) westbound -cars are driving too fast down the hill under
existing conditions.
APPLICANT RESPONSE : LP Acquisitions is proposing to incorporate the
Town's Complete Street Program into the Project circulation system. For
example, the Project Includes detached sidewalk along Saratoga-Los
Gatos Road (Route 9) in order to create a buffer between pedestrians and
vehicles exiting onto the Hwy 17 onramp. The sidewalk will lead to an
ADA compliant ramp that will allow pedestrians to cross the Hwy 17
onramp with the use of a striped crosswalk as shown on Sheets A1.01
and C2.0 of the March 9, 2017 Revised Plan Set submittal package. To
address the existing conditions, the Town could consider installing a
speed feedback sign on the hill.
b. Look into installing traffic calming measures on Alberto Way.
APPLCIANT RESPONSE: After the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission
Hearing, the LP Acquisitions project team met with Public Works and
Planning on September 2, 2016 to explore various options for traffic
calming measures on Alberto Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Route
9). Per the Town's Public Works Department, LP Acquisitions would need
to comply with the Town's Traffic Calming Policy. Traffic calming is
4
APPLICANT RESPONSE LEDER
initiated by submitting a petition signed by 50% of the Alberto Way
Residences in accordance with the Town's Traffic Calming Policy. Further
discussion with the Town's Public Works would be required if the
neighborhood were to request further traffic calming improvements in
the area.
Kendra Burch (Commissioner)
1. Reduce the size of the building.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant Response under Thomas O'Donnell and
Matthew Hudes .
Matthew Hudes (Commissioner)
1. Explore a more visible pedestrian crossing at the Hwy 17 Northbound on-ramp
working with Staff and CaiTrans.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: LP Acquisitions will implement the Town's Complete
Street Program as summarized above . The Applicant will install a detached
sidewalk along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Route 9) in order to create a buffer
between pedestrians and vehicles entering onto the Hwy 17 onramp . The
sidewalk will lead to an ADA compliant ramp that will allow pedestrians to cross
the Hwy 17 onramp with the use of a striped crosswalk. To address existing
pedestrian safety concerns, the Town could consider installing flashing beacons
at the cross walk to make it more visible, which would be consistent with
CaiTrans' suggestion in its June 13, 2016 letter that beacons be installed at this
location. Presumably, then, CaiTrans would be inclined to approve the beacons
and the Applicant would be happy to install these flashing beacons as part of its
offsite improvement plan at this cross walk.
2. Explore with Staff the possibility of straightening and widening Alberto Way to
allow ingress/egress of emergency vehicles and a bike lane, as well as implement
the Town's Complete Street Program .
APPLICANT RESPONSE: LP Acquisitions will implement the Town's Complete
Street Program. The Applicant has proposed a land dedication along the Alberto
Way frontage in order to facilitate this request. The revised design has moved a
majority of the existing curb and gutter into the proposed land dedication as well
as the excess ROW (back 5 feet) in order to have a wider and straighter roadway
section. This widening will allow Alberto Way to incorporate a bicycle lane and a
longer right turn lane which leads onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Route 9).
Additionally, the wider road will improve the visibility between pedestrians and
vehicles.
3 . Reduce the massing and size of Building 401 (Eastern fa9ade) and articulate the
top floor in a way similar to the existing buildings and move Building 401 more to
the rear of the property.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The revised design combines the two former buildings
into a single building (a/k/a 405 Alberto Way). The new building is entirely
5
APPLICANT RESPONSE lETIER
repositioned to the rear setback and the southern end of the new building is
over 60 feet further away from Alberto Way than the former 401 building. We
eliminated the second-floor exterior balcony on the north (las Casitas) side of
the building. As a result, all second -floor exterior balconies now face Alberto
Way which breaks up the building massing by accentuating the first floor and
moves the second floor further away from Alberto Way. Furthermore, through
the use of a concrete structure, lP Acquisitions reduced the floor-to-floor heights
and we reduced the mansard roof height thereby resulting in an overall building
height reduction of 5.5 feet on the north side and by 6.0 feet on the south side
of the property. We eliminated both tower elements which has significantly
reduced the height in these specific roof areas by 13.6 feet on the north side
and 12 feet on the south side. This allows for views of the existing trees in the
CaiTrans right-of-way and distant mountains to be visible from the properties
across Alberto Way.
Melanie Hanssen (Commissioner)
1. Reduce the size of the buildings.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant Response above under Thomas O'Donnell
and Matthew Hudes.
2. Requests that the Residents and Applicant work together.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Alberto Way residents, as part of the various
Homeowner Associations appointed John Mittelstet to be our Point of Contact
("POC"). lP Acquisitions initiated contact with Mr. Mittelstet and has been
providing him regular updates. The first set of new drawings was delivered to
him on January 18, 2017 and two Neighborhood Outreach meetings were held
on January 30, 2017. See attached exhibit "Summary of January 30, 2017
Neighborhood Outreach Meetings". Additionally, Mr. Mittelstet has arranged a
following-up Neighborhood Outreach Meeting with lP Acquisitions and the
neighbors for March 20, 2017 in order to educate the neighbors on the latest
revisions in the March 9, 2017 Revised Plan Set.
3. Preserve the Small-Town Character per CD Introduction and General Plan lU 1.2 .
APPLICANT RESPONSE : The proposed project has been designed so that it
complements the small-town atmosphere and image; and it preserves and
promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance and
design of a small-town Class A office center. Specifically, this project
incorporated various design elements from the Hotel los Gatos and Palo Alto
Medical Foundation office building located on los Gatos Boulevard.
4. Ensure the land use is consistent with the neighborhood per General Plan LU1.4
and lU1.8.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed project has been designed in
conformance with the Town of los Gatos Zoning requirements. Proposed site
coverage, height limitations and parking requirements all meet the Town zoning
requirements. lP Acquisitions proposed a project that complies with the
applicable General Plan and Zoning requirements. We have not requested any
6
APPLICANT RESPONSE LETIER
special considerations, variances, exceptions or amendments as part of this
application. The overall building size expressed in cubic feet is now 25% small
which promotes the design of a small -town scale.
Charles Erekson (Former Commissioner)
1. Wants a new proposal that addresses the following :
i. Significant reduction in scale and size of the building. Applicant to decide
what is appropriate.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant Response above under Thomas
O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes.
ii. Move Building 405 further away from the Las Casitas HOA neighborhood
which borders the Applicant's property on the north.
ARCHITECT RESPONSE: The northern side of the redesigned building has
been repositioned to be 10 feet further away from the Las Casitas
property line. Per the revised design, the northern side of the building
will now sit more than 25 feet from the property boundary (15 feet
setback+ the additional10 feet recently incorporated into the Revised
Plan Set). As noted above, the Applicant also removed the second-floor
exterior balcony on this side per the neighbor's request.
iii. Maintain underground parking structure.
iv. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The underground parking structure has been
retained . The reduced building size, along with a reduced parking ratio of
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, allows the OVERALL
parking count to be reduced from 390 parking spaces down to 332
parking spaces (a reduction of 58 OVERALL parking spaces). As a result,
the footprint of the underground parking structure has been dramatically
reduced in size and its overall parking count has been significantly
decreased by a total of 93 parking spaces from the former 383 garage
parking spaces down to 290 garage parking spaces. In response to the
Town and neighborhood concerns regarding the former design's lack of
surface parking, the Applicant increased the surface parking count from 7
to 42 parking spaces. Additionally, the parking reduction creates a
significant reduction in size of the underground parking garage, which will
now allow for all construction staging to occur on site and it reduces the
amount of export off-haul during excavation . See attached exhibits
"Revised Project Construction Details for 405 Alberto Way" and "Revised
Project Construction Export Details for 405 Alberto Way".
v. Re-examine safety measures and widen the street. Work with Staff to
implement traffic calming measures on Alberto Way.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant response above under D. Michael
Kane and Matthew Hudes. The Applicant has straightened and widened
Alberto Way by over 5 feet. The Applicant will continue to work with the
Town on potential traffic calming measures. Further discussion with the
Town's Public Works is required .
7
APPLICANT RESPONSE LETIER
vi. Incorporate architectural styles that are consistent with the
Neighborhood. Mediterranean architecture doesn't fit the character of
the neighborhood.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Applicant Response above under D. Michael
Kane .
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your as sistance .
Sincerely,
Shane Arters
Principal & COO
8
Direct
Qu arter Date Vacant
04-16 Jan-17 0
Dec-16 0
Nov-16 0
03-16 Oct-16 0
Sep-16 0
Aug-16 2.298
02·16 Jul-16 2,298
Jun-16 2.298
May-16 2.298
01-1 6 Apr-16 2.298
Mar-16 2,496
Feb-16 5.892
04-15 Jan-16 9,339
Quarter Date
04-16 Jan -17
Dec-1 6
Nov -16
03-16 Oet-16
Sep-16
Aug -16
02-16 Jul-16
Jun-16
May-16
01-16 Apr-16
Mar-16
Feb-16
04-15 Jan-16
Avail able Space
Total
Sublease Direct Sublease Available
Vacant Occupied Occ upied Space
0 0 0 0
0 0 2.137 2,137
0 0 2.137 2.137
0 0 2,137 2.137
0 0 0 0
0 15.000 0 17.298
0 15.000 0 17,296
0 15,000 0 17.298
0 15,000 0 17,298
0 0 0 2.298
0 0 0 2.496
0 0 0 5,892
0 0 0 9.339
Los Gatos Office Cl ass A
Absorption
Gross Net
Date Ran!!• Absorption Absorption
12/1116 to 111/1 7 2.557 0
11/1116 to 12/1 /16 0 0
10/1/16 to 1111/16 0 0
9/1/16 to 10/1116 0 0
811116 to 9/1/16 17.298 2,296
7/1/16 to 6/1116 0 0
6/1/16 to 7/1/16 0 0
511/16 to 6/1/16 0 0
4/1/16 to 511116 0 0
3/1116 to 4/1/16 239 198
2/1/16 to 3/1116 3.396 3.396
1/1116 to 2/1 /16 0 0
1211/15 to 1/1/16 6.613 6.813
Los Gatos Office Class A
Weighted Av erage Asking Rents
Weighted
Quarter Date Rentln FS
04-16 Jan -17 $0.00
Dec-16 $3.95
Nov-16 $3.95
03-16 Oct-16 S3.95
Sep-16 $0.00
Au g-16 $3.60
02-1 6 Jul-16 $3.60
Jun-16 $3.60
May-16 $3.60
01-16 Apr-16 $3.95
Mar-16 $3.95
Feb-16 $3.95
Q<:-15 Jan-16 $3.59
Total
Available Buildi ng
Sp ace Rate Base
0.00% 655.340
0.33% 655,340
0.33% 655,340
0.33% 655,340
0.00% 655,340
2.64% 655.340
2.64% 655,340
2.64% 655.340
2.64% 655.340
0.35% 655.340
0.38% 655.340
0.90% 655,340
1.43% 655,340
Gross Net
Absorption Absorption
Quarter Quarter
2.557 0
17.298 2.298
0
3.635 3,59 4
6.813 6.813
Total Available Space Rate
3.00%'
i
=~-=-----=~1--·-------\
O.OO'k ------~-·--~
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-18 Jun-16 Jul-16 AU\)·1 6 Sep-16 Oet-16 Nov·16 Oec-16 Jan-17
~Gross Absorption ~Net Absorption
20 .000 •
18,000 f
16.000 t-----------
14.000 1-------------------
10.000 . ----
8.000
6,000 .
4.000
2.000
I -. -t-
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Deo-16 Jan-17
54.50 -
S4.00
53.50 •
$3.00 .
S2.50 1
I
--~
S2.00 ~
S1 .50 !
S1.00 ---------
50.50
~.00 -------------~
Weighted Average Asking Rents
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-1 6 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-1~ Aug-16 Sop-16 Ocl·16 Nov-16 Oec-16 Jan-17
Cotuers lntemaUOn:tlls pleased to be abte to pmvide the above lnfonnation and In so doing believes lis vartdlty. However, we cannolgU3t'antee its eccuracyor tak.e responsibility ror Its use.
LP ACQ!JISIT I ONS
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
Summary of January 30, 2017 Neighborhood Outreach Meetings
Neighborhood Outreach Table of Contents
1. January 30} 2017} 4:30 pmJ Open House outreach at Los Gatos Commons
2. January 30} 2017, 6 pm, Open House outreach at Los Gatos Commons
*The above Community Outreach Meetings are in addition to 14 other Neighborhood Meetings we held with Alberto Way residents since
September 2015. In total, LP Acquisitions has held 16 Neighborhood Meetings which Planning has received copies of such with every
resubmitta1. Please see the July 13 , 2016 resubmittal for documentation of the other 14 meetings.
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.1600
Questions and Feedback from the January 30, 2017, 4:30pm Open House:
Question or Comment:
• What is the new size of the project?
• Why didn't we reduce the size by 33% as
requested by the Planning Commission on
August 24th, 2016?
• How many parking spaces were removed
• How many more parking spaces are at-grade
• How many parking spaces are in the garage
• How many parking spaces is the Project
removing from Alberto Way
• Is the Project frontage now straighter
• Are there three dedicated lanes for traffic
• Is there now a bike lane
• Do we now meet the Complete Streets Guidelines
• Are we improving the frontage to Alberto and LG/S
• Can we build a bridge over the 17 North onramp
• Can you provide traffic safety ideas on Alberto
• How much did the left turn lane from LG/S extend
• Are the buildings as high now as prior
Applicant Response:
83,000 sf
Class A vacancy is at or near 0% and economically
unfeasible
60 spaces
40 spaces now (7 spaces in the prior design)
290 spaces
8 spaces
Yes
Yes, at the intersection, 1lane inbound, two lanes out
Yes, dedicated and striped
Yes
Yes
No
Yes, but public works owns the road and solutions
100 feet
No, the height was reduced by 6.5 feet on the north
side and 7.5 feet on the south side
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.1600
• Is the building leased yet
• What type of tenant will we look for
• Is the building further back on the site
• Did we move the building back from Las Casitas
• How did we reduce building massing
• How does this help
• Was more stone added to the ground floor
• Are the windows different now
• Are the Western foothill views better now
• Concern about emergency access during construction
• Is the parking garage smaller now than prior
• Will this lead to faster excavation and off-haul
No, but several parties are interested in leasing
Various class "A " tenants which are allowed within
the current zoning code
Yes, substantially, 60 feet further away from Alberto
Way
Yes , another 10 feet. We also removed the znd floor
deck area
We added balconies in the front fa~ade of the building
The massing is now on the ground floor
Yes, substantially more stone
Yes, the redesign has the ground floor windows inset
by 24 to 36 inches to emphasize the massing
Yes , in addition to the height reduction mentioned
above we eliminated the tower elements too
Our redesign now allows full access to the site for all
Construction deliveries and concrete pouring
Yes, quite a bit
Yes, approximately 2 calendar weeks faster than prior
• Will we have flag-men in the streets coordinating traffic Yes
535 Middlefie ld Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.1600
Questions and Feedback from the January -30, 2017, 6 p m Ope n House
Question or Comment:
• Did you consider reducing the project size
• Is there open space now for the project
• Is it available to the public
• Is there a path around the building
• Is parking allowed in the at-grade spaces by neighbors
• Will the employees arrive at the site at the same time
• Will the employees leave the site at the same time
• How do we know this about traffic patterns
• Is the bike lane safe for bikes
• Are the three new lanes for traffic marked in paint
Applicant Response:
Yes, we ran the financial pro-forma and the current.
size of 83 ,000 square feet is what works
Yes , on the north side, there is a large green space
Not at this time, it is part of the Project set-back
Yes
Not at this time
No, they are scattered thr oughout the day
No, they leave at varying times
The Town traffic consultant report in the EIR
The bike lane was designed using the Town code
Yes
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I 650 .326.1600
PLE>t.5E ~lf:.ttvl . -I
~13() /17
-.. , .... ---,_ .,.,, ''-"'"'
losr;rrms G/JJM()A/5 (;~z)
Name Address v IJ' r '* Email v
Phone
5;-ff~uy ~y,.+~ /5 ~Is-sh,t-te.yryt~-n wot3~~ ~~;-.:l.:l-2 b.
P crHY/ J _;_ \J ;-s f) ./ Lj ?:::> fLEEL3~~ Yctl-tco.roVV1 LIC>?S--g-q 1 -oc~o
/lf~ o {JA._ A£.~~tA 6 ~d--:l c
~~).)~c. {0. / c~.A ~_J 1 tJ ,;( J-/,_ 3 A OJ _'>" ~ r1 C1"tl '2 1
,__, N_ ,w td& ( ~a j-:J I if-P
.
L ~-{) ft1o_,_ It /o '2----
1·-·v~v ,_j,lA...DJ.JA 1q__., R-rv I
#-t'k~T ..<_ ~/
B~ I ~ ~ f ·/ci:u ~iJ
r.u.r~~~dc~r J c_B'l
Lnrvdt VlG Geor-o.e-_
I
2..31 .
s1\7Q Ill Vte-JJ~tar~ J3R
6ct M 6CA _wual6 :7. _-=? B
~~.-~~ !!if
0~ hv JJ_,A--I;<_ c;
JeAVft /r:v~ ;s-r
'711~~/Z ..£...I :2 'i() c
_[!,·r-~P D . ,.. S.Nt~r:>v A ;( Dg
f7'Z...ru /lb"v ~"' t Jo D eh er c202/
~~~~~~--~\,}.~~ ~&-~ _\ ~~'\ \ ~"" -'\_\~~'s~~~ ~ ~~~ ~y. \.._~~
":\~~~~ "\-Y ~~~~~ ~~ ~~,\-~ \ ~--\ ~~~l ~~-{ ~~~-~~'<v--
f!o 5 e.,;nart-t ffliYl.e.r
I \ \
/.-s-Lfc .~
~rfvt #a /'J-/'e 'r I~Lf£ • ~II .,.
. ~ . !~ ~ ~~~
~ I I &·n ( ? 4~g-Lfr'J1..-o 1\~:t 1\)J~) 1/0}[ Ljf ~ .w-=#E rt btL "ki Co
J)
'L t=· ,.4-S ·t= . -' 13rr I r7 -r '
L I>$ '-'~-ro s Co mdftJ/CIS. ( 2 ~ .2-)
Name Address v !JtT ~~a Email Phone
I V; !/:( Lt:= ]) ~4.-/f./'~~{(. , ·7"~' -f.. '(02....... /-/4 /ZoLu /5/ .-£) e'L< V jt.tf I 1-1 k -If ;z.,r, L:' I ? .>
84 ~..tlc?U i1't t4 i?f I.A..-B ;(~c) su. iot ,f2o_.u. rl r1 diUJ , 1!11 A ei,J ;:;; "
'fO'tJ -tl-/2. ·J>2 7 ~~
11/M ... , C-0 ,n
:Jl M ~tl\ L fc ~ ifil, ·r IV1 ( 4 ~ ~ 1\ lh.<·..,, ""-;..,! JI MIN~"(,.> £.~,t""..tt-~o.....A -(~,, .......,_ {,) t> ·(..Z..l · UJ7'•
f' cJa._.,._ e.. m ~ ~ b">--!d. JJ.;;).~'-/ Wa ........ .~u ... f2d,. :;]~~·~ yog. ~?~-~()(
(J ~tYI r1Li ... D;d.( M c~nrJa L f-< lr" D
-...)
tA'd v.·tL( II\ iJtt~ hll ~ AZu7
~-'\\~lorY e.. ·., iUl G l 1 -' 4.zo AI(~£AD
~l7 ./·va..~({)u_..) J<..-l't A-\?'t<.).o (VO-L-t c z 1 z_,
~b.e.A L..Jcas A 20..:1
C { M\ Ji.~n.;_,~ _,(\ tl --OJ:rk
1
... v ,.6 \()tx 1 Cl .L't-W.GJ~f9J ritJ rvrr. (Q~
h 'r17l1 i ~~., If I . L1--2_o/ -\......
, ~/JJ/c,?ile!J 1 Jl-~1..1
\ Ti!Jrae Felori A >Jot; 00tCf~ P X C09&...9{g~ 40B-#0-8~c. ~I
jl;; tl~ ,t:::j;) ' /f-.1 j//1( k66"Jt~~~ ~ ,ph/c~ io.:Y'-'1;;. .J:Pf i z... -~ !o.P-JS't-Fl/ ~
:SttJJ m (-rnf_ ~ Tf. r B I J.._~ --:J¢1 1 IT G) (' J'J7l1Cif sT /){:j -v
'-
..
Name : c:J~V\~ SUP tf _ Email:
Addre ss:l...t'U) t}{ ~ *-t<)( \.. G Phon e: -------
Nam e: __ __:_f-_{;_,_'\"_/L_11_€-:-. -~-C_~"--------Email:
Address: ----lF:.......:l~__:_d;::_~b=----::i~:_(J _,_l)i;c..c._o)_LQ-"" . .:....} -"<a'-"'t.~<...'_1 e=-. _s _____ _ Phon e:---------
Nam e: (-::. ....... .~. <:... ~-tc:.-::_x._~-~ Email:----------------
Address: c.t· .). <-A\ b -"-( ·! ,, \.;~ ~ ·U: ,)._L
Name: f\...J · ck~ ~ 1{.c II <-
Addre ss: ij J .o A\ b---< I ~ L ~c-.{j-~ Lf
Nome: S be t€ (2 .\ i 16 vJZ !(..t-:
Email:
Ema il :
Phone:---------
lv -1...\:..-~-= R .o ll e... £'j''J'\c,, t ~
Phone :---------
1 I I Address: --('7 u At.:..\o.e ( ·l--v l.i':· 0-{.\,.1 ·~A i-{,..r"'\
';\-"e.\\'-(, I 'Jc~ (~.'IA2.o d 1.CS;'t . 0e-.*
Phon e: ________ _
Name: l/ltt--".!C/[) I e ,tp·:.-:1,1'7C") Email:----------------
Address: 1 _74 (c d'::Sfr:: ,-je lr. J 'S 0r:,-,ffJ<_; Phone:---------
Nome J"e. . .SH C · w,~ 0;1;~
Address : l ~'j /vlC{__s; ,·(. C:~0r>\" ~
Email: .S>~=-C SG@ (;Tf) tJe_C
cf r-. ..., ."> r t ltcJ 7 . . r . ~ 0 ~. ) \..... Phone :~ r ..J C ] ·-\:J~C:IG
Name: !ft b ffv ·'" L-
Address: 'f 7..-0 .4 I b.~--fv [A).:.-..1
I
Email: bob b<' J~~k?y ~~-/ CcfX
Phone: Lfa (( a r;_t.. 2 [( C
Name:---------------Email:----------------
Address:----------------------Phone: -----------
N a me:----------------Emai l:----------------
Address:---------------------Ph o ne :---------
N ame : Emai l : ---------------------------
Addre ss:---------------------Phone: ----------
Name:-----------------Email:---------------
Address:------------------Phone:---------
1-.lam e: -----------------Email:----------------
Addre ss :------------------------Phon€: --------
LP ACQY I S I T I ONS
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPME N T
Agenda for March 20, 2017 Neighborhood Outreach Meetings
Neighborhood Outreach Table of Contents
1 . March 20, 2017, 4:30pm, Open House outreach at Los Gatos Commons
2. March 20, 2017, 6:30pm, Open House outreach at Los Gatos Commons
*The above Community Outreach Meetings are in addition to 16 other Neighborhood Meetings w e held with Alberto Way residents since
September 2015. In total, LP Acquisitions has held 18 Neighborhood Meetings which Planning has received copies of such with every
resubmittal. Please see the July 13 ,2016 resubmittal for documentation of the other 14 meetings.
535 M idd lefield Road, Su ite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I 650.3 26.1600
40 5 Alb erto Way, Los Gatos, Ca.
Update d & Revised Site and Building Plans-Marc h 9, 2017
Summary of Planning Commission & Neighbor Comments to Applicant on August 2 4, 2016
PC & Neighbor Comments
Buildings are too large
Buildings are too massive
South building too close to Alberto Way
North building too close to residential neighbor
Buildings are too tall
north side
Buildings lack neighborhood style and "small town" feel
Building massing is inappropriate
Western foothill view corridor blocked
Tower roof elements too tall
7 surface parking stalls are inappropriate
Revision in New Plans
Building size reduced from 92,000 sf to 83,000 s f
Buildings combined into one building and moved to rear setback
Building pushed back an additional 60 feet from Alberto Way
Building repositioned 10 feet further aw ay from Las Casitas neighbor
Building reduced in height by 5.5 feet on south side and the 6.0 fee t on the
Building redesigned to articulate neighborhood
roof-lines and to emulate prominent
architectural character in buildings like Palo Alto
Medical, Hotel Los Gatos, 100 LG Sar Rd
Building & Entry redesigned to showcase first
floor massing in both coloring and materials
Redesigned the building by moving the building
back on the site, reduced the height by 6.0 fee t,
decrea sing the foo thill view areas blocked in the
prior design
Tower roof elements eliminated and provided vi sual prominence to the
building entry
Site redesigned to allow for 42 surface p arking spaces
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326 .1600
Parking should be reduced
Concern with construction staging in street
Traffic safety measures on Alberto Way & Rt. 9
North fa<;:ing balcony was intrusive to neighbor
Reduced off-haul trips during excavation timeline
New on-site parking supply reduced by 58 spaces from 390 stalls to 332
stalls
Reduced parking garage footprint below ground
allows all staging to be on site. This is a benefit
for pedestrians, automobiles and emergency
vehicle access and safety
Widened and straightened Alberto Way to
provide easier access for emergency vehicles and
a new bike lane. Both streets to comply with the
Complete Street Ordinance
Removed the balcony facing north toward Las
Casitas neighbor. All balconies are facing only
east towards Alberto Way
Build ing repositioned to allow construction
staging on site as well as a reduction in the off-
haul from 8 weeks down to 6 weeks
535 Middlefield Road , Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I 650.326 .1 600
LP ACQ!J ISITlO NS
REAL ESTAT E DFVELOPM ENT
Revised Project Construction Details for 405 Alberto Way
Updated and Revised February 27, 2017
General Construction Timeline :
• Project construction will occur in a single phase with construction commencing in early
spring 2018.
• All construction staging to occur on site.
• The construction timeframe is 14-16 months including all pha ses from the start of
demolition to the completion of all site work.
• Strict Safety measures will be implemented (i.e. minimum of 2 flagmen positioned on
Alberto Way during grading and construction, and weekly Community Meetings open to
all r es idents) will ensure rapid ingress/egress of emergency vehicles on Alberto Way and
open communication of all Construction processes to residents.
Site Grading:
• The project will require excavation and shoring to accommodate a 2-story underground
parking structure.
• See attached export details and route map of dump-truck travel.
• The General Contractor will implement Dust Control Measures which meet the Town
standards.
• Estimated timeline for excavation, grading and shoring is 3 months.
Underground Garage Const r uction :
• This phase will include digging footings, preparing the pad , installing drainage and
undergrounding, and waterproofing.
• Thi s phase will also include installation of rebar and structural materials to
accommodate the concrete floors and sides of the parking structure .
• The top of the parking structure will be the foundation of the building.
• Our General Contractor will work closely with our Structural, Civil and Geotechnical
eng ineers to incorporate the highest construction standards to meet building codes .
• Estimated t ime line for this phase is 4 months.
Core & Shell Building Con struction :
• Thi s phase will include structural, flooring, skin and roof.
• All connections to public utilities.
• Estimated timeline for this phase is 6-8 months.
Site Work :
• On -site finished hardscap e, concrete sidewalks and paving .
• Land scape including all trees and plants.
• Outside meeting area arbors.
• Estimated timeline is 1 month.
Offsite Work :
• Thi s work will be done during the Core & Shell work noted above.
• Estimated timeline for completion is concurrent with Core & Shell.
Completion of Construction
• This project is estimated to be completed by Spring/ Summer 2019 .
LP ACQ!JISITIONS
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
Updated: February 27, 2017
Revised Project Construction Export Details for 405 Alberto Way:
Based on the original design submitted to the Town on July 13 , 2016, this project
required a total of 69,700 cubic yards of cut; thus, resulting in 6,970 truck trips or 8
weeks of off haul .
With the new design of this project, this project will now require a total of 53,451 cubic
yards of cut and all construction staging can occur on site. One large dump truck can
carry 10 cubic yards or 11 cubic yards (with a small diaper trailer); therefore, 4 ,859 to
5,345 truck trips would be generated. Based on construction industry standards, 200
loads a day would take 24-27 work days plus a few more days for the potential of slow
production. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the total export of 53,451 cubic
yards would take 27-30 work days, M-F or 5.5 to 6 weeks. This results in a reduction ·of
over 2 weeks of off haul. See attached haul routes.
535 Middlefield Road. Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.1600
.. ··,\·.:·.
Lw· t,;o \ , •.. :;_,1·;-·
Go glt
1~.-~s ~·: c~·~~u
1·-:::.c-::n~
!H aul Rou te o ut o f th e Si~e)
r.
' lJ
I•
I'JI
' ;
'·'',..···"
/ •.:?:•
(..,c, g lr
1 ··~ r. .. · ·: r "'",
I -:·.(\';1 j
~
'· ;:.
0
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
February 22, 201 7
Ms. Jennifer Armer
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 405 Alberto Way
Dear Jennifer:
ARCHITECfURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
I reviewed the new drawings, and have previously visited the site. My comments are as follows:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located at the corner of A lberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, and is currently occupied by three office
buildings with office space located both below and above grade level. Photographs of the site and surrounding build -
ings are shown on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LAN DING C I RCLE. SU ITE 199. LARK SPUR . CA. 94939
EXHIBiT 3 2
TEL: 41.'i.331.3795
CDGPL AN@PACB Eli .. N ET
fxisting site building at the Alberto Way Corner
New one-story retail buil ding across Alberto Way
AcljclcC'nl residential development immediately
north or the site
Acljclcenl residential development immC'ciidl ely
north of the site
405 Albeno Way
Design Review Comments
February 22, 20 17 Page 2
[xisting building at 1 he center of the site
Corner at new one-story retail building
across Alberto Way
Existing landscaping along the north edge of the site
across Alberto Way
CANNON DESIGN G RO U P 700 LARKSPU R LANDING CI RC LE . SU ITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
405 Alberco Way
Design Review Commems
February 22 , 201 7 Page 3
CONC ERNS AND RECOMME NDATION S
The applicant h as revised their design approach following direction from the Planning Commission at its p ubli c hear-
ing o n A ugu st 24'h of last year . The P lanning Commission direction includ ed inc r easing the project's conforman ce with
General Plan Policy LU -1.8 (designing in keeping with the small-town ch aracter of Los Gatos), lessening the impact on
the adja ce nt neighborhood and increasing the design's conformance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines,
especially Section 1.4 Community Expectations. The applicant's proposed changes include the following:
• A reduction in the overall gross building area.
• A consolidation of th e original two building s into a single structure.
• A reduction in the str ucture's overall building heigh t by live feet .
• E limin ation of th e tower elements.
• A d ecrease in the size of second story windows.
• An increa se d setback from the n orth property lin e.
• An incre ase d se tback of th e building from Alberto Way near the Los Gatos-Saratoga Road intersection .
• An increase o f surface parking spaces along th e full leng th of the Albe rto Way frontage.
A comparison of the previous and current site plans and A lberto Way eleva tio ns are shown below.
Previous Site Plan Currently Proposed Site Plan
Currently Proposed Alberto Way E levation
CANNON DESIGN G ROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SU ITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
405 Al berto Way
Design Review Comments
February 22 , 2017 Page 4
In preparing the current design approach, the applicant has largely retained many of the previous elevation forms and
de tails while incorporating the changes outlined above. I do believe it is rather difficult to achieve a desired small -town
Los Gatos sc ale and ap pearan ce when starting with a large building and making small changes to it. A sati s factory so lu-
tion might be more easily ac hi evable by starting the design with the goal of creating multiple structures with small scale
modules and details set within a landscaped site framework.
While the ch anges noted above have reduced several asp ects of th e project's perceived size, it is still in m an y ways
reads as a single large building. T h ese include the fo ll owing.
1. T h e project seems to read as on e large office b uilding witho u t a b r ea kdown in scale related to the neighborh ood or
th e Los Gatos exis ting small town scale.
2. The building elements appear very m u ch as boxes with some mansard roof attaclunents -an approach sp ecifically
disco uraged on page 8 of the guideline s within the Community Expectations sec ti o n (n ext to last b ullet point).
3. The d es ign does not have the "Careful attention to architectural ... detail similar to the Town's r esi d ential architec-
ture" (C ommunity Expectations page 7).
Reads as bo xes wi th add-on
elements which is not consistent
with the Commercial Guidelines
Flat wall taller than side masses
is not working well as a linking feature
That said , I unde rstand the applicant's desire to provide Class A office space with large fl oor pl ates to accommodate a
range of tenant size.
Sh o uld s taff and the P lanning Commission choose to acce pt th e applicant's chose n site plan and flo or plate direction,
I do have a few recommendatio n s, as shown below and o n the foll owing p age, to assist in reducing the visual m ass and
sc ale of th e building . Larger, partial elevatio n s are shown on the following page fo r m ore detail.
RECOMMENDED ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION CHANGES
CANNON DES IGN GROU P 700 LARK SPUR LANDING C I RCLE . SU IT E 199 . LARKSPUR. CA . 94939
405 Alben o Way
Des ign Rev iew Comments
February 22, 20 17 Page 5
Majo r change elem ents shown o n th e elevation recommendations include th e following:
1. Providing more visual variety and break up in sc ale for the building located clo ses t to Alberto Way.
Providing first and second flo or recesses and roof breaks to reduce the boxiness of the str ucture and break up
the current single bulk mass of the stru cture.
Increasing the man sard roof h eight for the p ortion of th e building closest to the intersection.
Increasing the amount o f projection for the eleva tion po p o uts at the fir st floor.
Providing more of a wall plane offset where the two-story front wall transitions to a o ne-s tory wall.
2. Reducing the visual mass of the central link of th e setback portion of the building.
Lowering the h eight o f the current 5'-6" parap e t .
Adding a significant projecting cornice canopy to match the adjacent mansard roof eave lines.
Adding brackets at the cornice can opy to add architec tural d etail .
U tilizing a coole r wall color fo r th e set back wall to di stinguish it from the other wall s and r educ e the feeling of
one large building.
P roviding so m e subtle enhancement to the vis u al prominence of th e m ain building en try.
3. Adding more a rchitectural detail. Shown o n the s tudy a re two diffe rent typ es of trelli s can opies. There is alwa ys a
tendency to d o unifo rm trellises, but in seeking a less formal approach to relate to th e smaller scale of the reside n -
tial d evelo pment, I believe th at increased va riety would be m ore success ful .
Increasing amount of projection
would be desirable
More wall plane offset here
would be desirable Type 1 trellis canopies 1 maybe wood
Use for larger 1st and 2nd floor windows
Climbing vines would be desirable
ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: LEFT HALF
ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: RIGHT HALF
CA NON DE SIGN GROUP 700 LAR KSPUR LANDING C I RC LE . SU ITE 199 . LAR KSP UR . CA. 949 39
405 Alberto Way
Design Review Comments
February 22, 20 17 Page 6
I would also note that the placement of surface parking along t he e ntire Alberto Way frontage is not consistent with the
Commercial Design G uidelines. However, given the concerns expressed about th e loss of available multi-use parking at
this site, I do beli eve that su rface parking in t hi s location could be useful and acce ptable.
Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sin ce rel y,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
CAN N ON DE SIG N G RO UP 700 LA RK SPU R LANDI NG C IR CL E . SU ITE 199 . LA RK SPUR . CA . 94 939
March 16, 2017
Ms. Jennifer T .C. Armer, AICP
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
11 0 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Phone : (408) 399-5706
Email: ja rm e r@lo sgatosca .gov
Reference: LP Acquisitions ARC TEC Inc. Job No. 153948.02
405 Alberto Way -Project Redesign
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056
Conditional Use Perm it Application U-15-009
APN 529-23-018
Cannon Design Group Comments on Redesign, 02-22-17
Dear Jennifer,
Attached please find revised plans which address Cannon Design Group 's comments
dated February 22, 2017, on the redesign package for 405 Alberto Way, referenced
above . In addition to the attached revised plans , we have prepared the following
responses to COG 's specific comments , starting on page 5 of the comment letter:
Mr. Canon 's comments are noted regarding the challenges of designing a Class A office
building with a small-town Los Gatos scale and appearance. In order to achieve the
applicant's objectives in a manner consistent with the Town of Los Gatos General Plan
policies and the Town 's Commercial Design Guidelines , the revised project incorporates
many design elements to further reduce the Project's massing , scale and elevation
compared to the surround ing neighborhood as further discussed in the Applicant
responses, below. Major change elements shown on the elevation recommendations
include the following :
1. Providing more visual variety and break up in scale for the building located
clo sest to Alberto Way.
Prov iding first and second floor recesses and roof breaks to reduce the
bo xines s of the structure and break up the current s ingle bulk mass of
the structure .
Applicant response: While we agree with and have implemented
COG's suggested design revisions, breaking up the fa~de at this
location would be inconsistent with the 11th bullet in Community
Expectations Design Guideline 1.4 because it would not maintain a
"unity of design treatment with all sides of the structure related to
the design of the primary fa~ade." Further, it would disrupt the
continuous balcony at the second floor and make the fac;ade look
too busy. In addition, the suggested recess in the building will
compete with, and thus diminish, the effect of the other recessed
areas, especially those at either side of the revised main entry
feature.
U C J EC
Arizona
2960 E. No rthern Avenue
Build ing C
Phoenix, AZ 85028
602.953.2355 t
602.953.2988 f
California
99 Almaden Boulevard
Suite 840
San Jose , CA 95113
408.496 .0676 t
408 .49 6.112 1 f
www. arctecinc. com
EXHIBIT 3 3
Ms . Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP
M arch 16, 2017
ARC TEC Inc. Job No. 153948.02
In c reasing the mansard roof he ight f or th e portion of t he b uilding clos est to t he intersection.
Applicant response: ARC TEC increased the mansard roof height on the left side
of the building closest to the intersection by 1 '-6 ", from 29'-0" to 30'-6". We agree
that COG 's recommendation helps create more differential in the massing of the
building. Furthermore, increasing the height of the mansard at this location does
not adversely impact the views of the trees and hills in the distance for the
residential neighbors, as this occurs at only the far left side of the building, across
the street from non-residential commercial development.
Inc reasing the amount of projection for the elevation pop outs at the first f loor.
Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated COG's recommendation into the first
floor elevation and i ncreased the elevation pop outs at the first floor by 8". The
amount of increase is the maximum we can achieve without impacting the zoning
and code required widths of the pedestrian walkway and parking lot. The revision
is consistent with Section 1.5.2 of the Commercial Design Guidelines which
encourage a richness of architectural fac;ade depth and style.
Prov iding more of a wall pl ane offset w here the tw o-st ory f ront wa ll trans itions to a o ne-sto ry
w all.
Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated COG's recommendation into the
revised design and increased the wall plane offset by 8 inches. The revision is
consistent with Section 1.5.2 of the Commercial Design Guidelines which
encour age a richness of architectural fac;ade depth and style.
2. Redu cing the visual m ass of the central link of the setback po rtion of the bui ldi ng .
Lowering the height of th e c urrent 5'-6" para pet.
Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated COG 's recommendation and reduced
the parapet height at the flat center portion of the front fac;ade by 2 '-6", from 30 '-0 "
to 27'-6". We may r equire a roof scr een located back from this fac;ade in order to
conceal roof mounted mechanical equipment, but this screen will be located away
from the front face. The actual design of the roof screen will be finalized during
the detailed design phase of the project, once the mechanical system for the
building is determined.
Adding a s ig ni fica nt pr ojecti ng co rn ice ca nopy to match th e adj acent man sard roof eave
lin es .
Applicant response: ARC TEC added the recommended projecting cornice canopy
to the flat center portion of the front fac;ade and at the raised main entry feature.
Adding brackets at th e co rni ce ca nopy to add architectural detail.
Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated COG 's recommendation and added
the suggested support brackets to the new projecting cornice canopy that has
been added to the flat center portion of the front fac;ade.
Utilizing a cooler wa ll co lor for the set bac k wa ll to d istinguish it from the other walls and
reduce the f eel ing of one la rge buildi ng .
Applicant response: In response to this comment, ARC TEC is proposing to use
slightly cooler warm colors at the recessed wall areas in order to help distinguish
the different planes on the front fac;ade . In additi on, we propose adding limestone
trim to further distinguish and dress up the front fac;ade of the building.
Providing som e s ubtle enh ance ment to the v is ual pro m in ence of th e main bu il ding entry .
Applicant response: ARC TEC incorporated COG 's recommendati on and
increased the height of the main entry feature from one-story to two-stories and
also made it taller than the adjacent flat center portion of the front fac;ade (29'-0 "
Ms. Jennifer T .C . Armer, AICP
March 16, 2017
ARC TEC Inc. Job No. 153948.02
verses 27'-6" at the adjacent flat center portion of the front fa~ade). The entry
feature now includes a prominent canopy over the main entry doors.
3 . Add i ng more architectural detail. Shown on the study are two different types of trell is canopies .
There is always a tendency to do uniform trellises, but in seeking a less formal approach to relate to
the smaller scale of the residential development, I believe that increased variety wou ld be more
successful.
Applicant response: To address COG's recommendation to increase trellis variety, ARC
TEC added solar shades at the second story punched window openings on the far left and
far right sides of the front fa~ade. We also added bronze colored metal trellises to the
recessed window openings at the first floor, as COG suggested to add articulation at the
windows thereby improving visual interest and further differentiating among the various
elements of the front fa~ade .
Please feel free to contact me with any additional comments or questions you may have.
Sincerely,
ARC TEC Inc.
\.b~<.~
Daniel S . Kirby , AlA , LEED GA
Principal
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
March 17, 201 7
Ms. Jennifer Armer
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 9503 1
RE: 405 Alberto Way
Dear Jennifer:
ARCHITECTIJRE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
I reviewed the revi sed project about a month ago and made a number of recommendations. The applicant ha s imple-
mented some of the recommendations, but not all . My comments on the new drawings provided las t week are as fol-
lows:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The si te is located at the corner of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-S aratoga Road, and is currently occupied by three office
buildings with office space located both below and above grade level. Photographs of the si te and surrounding build-
ings are s ho wn o n the follo\ving p age.
700 LARKSPUR LA D ING C IRCLE . SU il E 1 99 . LA RK SPU R . CA . q4939
EXHIBIT 3 4
TEL : 4 1 5.331 .3795
CDGPLAN@ P,\CBE LL. ET
Fxisting site building at the Alberto Way Corner
Ne\\ one-story retail building across Alberto Way
Adja< Pnl residential d evelopment immediately
north of 1 he site
Adja(ent residential development immediately
north oft he site
405 Alberto Way
Design Re view Com ments
March 17, 2017 Page 2
Existing building at 1 he center of the site
Corner at new one story retail building
across Alberto Way
Existing landscaping along the north edge of the site
Adjacent
across Alberto Way
t immediately
CAN NON DESI GN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIR CLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
40 5 Al beno Way
D esign Review Com ments
M arc h 17,20 17 Page 3
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES MADE TO THE PREVIOUS DESIGN APPROACH REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
The applicant has revised their design approach following clirec tion from the Planning C ommission at its public h ear-
ing on A ug u st 24'h of la st year. The Planning Commission directio n included increa sing the project's conformance with
General Plan Policy LU-1.8 (designing in kee ping with the sm all-town character of Los Gatos), le ssening the impact o n
the adjacent n eighbo rhood and inc reasing the design's confo rmance with the Town's Comme rcial Design G uidelines,
especially Sectio n 1.4 Community E xpectations. The applic ant's pro posed changes r eviewed in February included the
following:
• A reduc ti o n in the overall gross building area.
• A consolidatio n of the original two buildings into a single s tructure.
• A reduc ti o n in the s tructure's o verall building height by fi ve fee t .
• E limination o f the tower elem ents.
• A decrease in the size of second story windows.
• A n inc reased setb ack from th e north prope rty line.
• An increased se tback of the building from Alberto Way n ea r the Los Gatos-S aratoga R o ad intersection.
• An increase o f surface parking spaces al o n g the full length of the A lberto Wa y fro ntage.
A comparison o f the previ ous and c urrent site pl an s is shown below:
Previous Site Plan Currently Proposed Site Plan
FEBRUARY CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In prep aring the current d esign approach , the a pplicant h as largel y re t ained m an y of the previous elevatio n forms and
d etails while inco rp o rating the changes outlined above. I s ta ted in the Fe bruary review le tter that I b elieved it m ay b e
r athe r cliffi cult to achieve a desired sm all -town Los Gatos scale and appearance wh en s tarting with a large building and
m aking small ch an ges to it. A satis factory solutio n might b e m ore easily achievable by starting the d es ign with th e goal
o f creating multiple st ru ctures with sm all er sca le m o dules and de tail s set \vith.in a landscap ed site fram ewo rk .
While the ch an ges n o t ed ab ove have reduced sever al asp ects o f the project's p erceive d size , the project that I reviewed
in February still in m an y ways r ead as a single la rge building. Con cern s included th e foll owing.
1. The pro ject seem ed to read as one large office building without a breakdown in scal e r elated to the n eighborhoo d
o r d1 e Los Gatos exis ting sm all town scale ..
2. The building elements appear ed very much as boxes with some m an sard r o of attachments -an approach sp ecifi -
call y cli scouraged on page 8 of the guidelin es \vithin the Comnumi(y Expectations secti o n (n ext to las t bullet p o int).
3 . The d esign cli d n o t h ave the "Care ful attentio n to ar chitectur al ... d etail sinlilar to th e Town's r esidential arch itec-
ture" (Community E xpectations p age 7).
CANNON DES IC CROU P 700 l ARKSPUR l AN DI NG CIRC LE . SUITE 199. l ARKSPU R . CA . 94939
405 Alberto Way
Design Review Comments
March 17, 2017 Page 4
Flat wall taller than side masses Reads as boxes with add-on
elements which is not consistent
with the Commercial n Guidelines is not working well as a linking feature
Ide ntified Febr uary Concern s
T hat said, I did acknowledge that I understood the applicant's desire to provide Class A office space with large floor
plates to accommodate a range of tenant size.
I noted that should staff and th e Planning Commission choose to accept th e applicant's chosen si te plan and floor plate
direction, I did have a few recommendations, as shown below and on the following page, to assis t in reducing the visual
mass and scale of the building. Larger, partial elevations are shown on the following page for more detail.
Ma jor change elements sh own o n the elevation recommendations included the following:
1. Providing more visual variety and break up in scale for th e building located closest to Alberto Way.
Providing fir st and second floor recesses and roof breaks to r educe the boxiness o f the structure and break up
the current single bulk mass of the struc ture.
Increasing the mansard roof height for the portion of the building closest to the inter section.
Inc rea sing the amount of projection for the elevation pop outs at the first floor.
Providing more of a wall plane offset wh ere the two-story front wall transitions to a o ne-story wall.
2. Reducing the visual m ass of the central link of the setback portion of the building.
Lowering th e h eight of the current 5'-6" parapet.
Adding a significant projecting cornice canopy to match the adjacent mansard roof eave lines.
Adding brackets at the cornice canopy to add architectural detail.
Utilizing a cooler wall color for th e set back wall to distinguish it from the oth er walls and reduce the feeling of
one large building.
Providing some subtle enhan cement to the visual prominence of the main building entry.
3. Adding more architectural detail. Sh own on the study are two different types of trelli s canopies. There is always a
tendency to do uniform trellises, but in seeking a less formal approach to relate to the smaller scale of the residen -
tial development, I believe that increased variety would be more successful.
FEBRUARY RECOMMENDED ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION CHANGES
CANNON DES IGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA . 94939
405 Alberto Way
Des ign Review Comments
March 17,2017 Page 5
I did also note that the placement of surface parking along th e entire Alberto Way frontage was n ot consistent with the
Commercial Design Guidelines. However, given the concerns expressed abo ut the loss of ava ilabl e multi-use parking at this
site, I stated that I believed tha t surface parking in this lo cation could b e u seful and acceptab le.
Type 1 trellis canopies 1 maybe wood
Use for larger 1st and 2nd floor wi ndows
Climbi ng vines would be desirable
FEBRUARY ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: LEFT HALF
Currently proposed parapet top
---------------------!---···············-·····t·.:.:_··..:;··..:.:..·_--_
FEBRUARY ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDATIONS : RIGHT HALF
CANNON DES IGN GROU P 700 LAR KSP UR LANDI NG CIRCL E . SU ITE 1 99 . LARKS PUR . CA. 94939
405 Alberto Way
Design Revi ew Comments
March 17,201 7 Page 6
REVISED CURRENT DESIGN CONCERNS AND ISSUES
The original design r eviewed b y the Planning Commission in August, the previous d es ign that I reviewed in February
and the currently p roposed design are shown in the Alberto Way sketches and eleva tions bel ow.
Reviewed by the Planning Commission in Augu~t
Reviewed by CDC in February
Currently Proposed Alberto Way Elevation
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING C IR CLE . SU ITE 199 . LA RKSP U R . CA . 94939
405 Alberto Way
Design Review Comments
March 17,2017 Page 7
The additional changes to the design in re sponse to the recommendations contained in the February review and recom-
m endation s letter include the following:
• The mansard roof height at the portion of the building closest to the Alberto Way /Los Gatos-Saratoga Road inter-
sec ti o n was increased in height, but not as much as shown on the recommendations illu stration.
• The ground floor pop outs and wall plane offset adjacent to A lberto Way were both increased 8 inch es in depth.
• Som e trellis and sunshade elements were added, but only on the Alberto Way elevation.
• The central building link parapet was lowered .
• The color of the central building link was modified.
• A projecting cornice canopy with brackets was added to the central building link.
One change made that I feel was counter productive to a decrease in the building scale is the increased height of the
building entry element. I feel that the lower entry originally proposed with the minor changes recommended in the Feb-
ruary review letter would be more in the spirit of the Planning Commission's direction to the applicant.
I am also w1 sure whedter the trellises and canopies that have been added will be significant enough to add sufficient
smaller sca le detail e lements to the facad e. It would be h elpful for the appli cant to provide photo examples showing the
proposed m aterial s and construction of these elements.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission will need to determine if the changes SUI11ffiarized above are sufficient to sa tisfy their direc-
tion to the applicant which I unders tood to include the following :
• The Planning Commiuion gm1e specific direction to the applicant to significantlY reduce the size of the building in height, mass and floor
area.
• The Planning Commission gave specific directio n to the applicant to revise the proposed design to be more in keeping with the neighbor-
hood and small town character. Specific s1rggestions included:
1. Moving proposed 405 building awqy fro m the residential neighbors
2. Reducing the scale (height, mass and length) of th e Alberto IV" try fa fade of tbe 401 building, with additional second floor arlicula-
tion
3. Not blocking the view of mountains from neighbors
+. Change s!J•Ie of proposed buildings to be more similar to neighborhood architectural style
5. In creased co1ljormance with Commercial D esign Guitklines, specificalb•: Section 1.4 Community Expectations:
a. Careful allention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Towns residential structures.
b. The sensitive inteiface of commercial development with atfjacent restdential neighborhoods.
c. S cafe mrd character appropriate to the setting.
6. Increased conformam-e with Gmeral Plan Policies:
a. Polic)' LU-1.8: Commercial developmmt of a'!Y ()pe (office, retail, research and tkvelopment, etc.) shall be designed in keeping
with the small-town character of Los Gatos.
b. Policy LU-6.5: The type, density, and intensifY of new land use shall be co nsistent with that of the immediate neighborhood.
Should the Planning Commission condude that the changes meet their concerns, I would sugge st that they consider the
followin g changes made in the February r eview letter.
• Increase the roof height more at the building portion closet to the Alb erto Way /Los Gatos-Sara toga Road intersec-
tion.
• Add additional building articulation to the wall and roof articulation as or sinlliar to the recommendation made in
February.
• Lower the height of the entry element and conform to the he ight and continuous cornice canopy recommendations
in d1e February review letter.
• Direct staff to review the material and sca le of the proposed trellis and sunshade canopy elements.
• Withhold approval for the color of the central link until s taff has viewed and evaluated the color choices as painted
as sa mple swatches on the completed building walls.
CANNO DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
405 Alberto Way
Design Review Comments
March 17,201 7 Page 8
Jennifer, please let me know if you h ave any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
CANNON DE SIG N GROUP 700 LAR KSP U R LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LAR KSPU R . CA. 94939
-...~ ~~XAGON T ~ANS~O~TATION (ONSULTANTS, I N<.
April 5, 2017
Mr. Randy Lamb
Lamb Partners
535 Middlefield Road , Suite 190
Menlo Park, CA 94025
l~EC!E~VE D
ArF< OB 7n 11
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 1 01h and 241h Planning Commission hearings, the Planning Commissioners and
the public provided comments on the final TIA dated August 2, 2016. This letter provides
Hexagon's responses to the Commissioners and public comments .
Response to Planning Commissioner Comments
Trip Generation
The Planning Commission asked about the source of trip generation estimates and was interested
to hear whether trends in office employee density might render the nationwide ITE estimates
inaccurate for Los Gatos and/or Silicon Valley . Commissioners stated hearing anecdotal stories
about Silicon Valley employers filling buildings with more people than in the past. Hexagon has
heard such stories, but we are not aware of any published studies of employee densities in office
buildings or any other technical data prepared by traffic engineers that lend support to such
anecdotal information .
Traffic engineers complete trip generation studies by counting vehicles in and out of driveways at
peak times and comparing the counts to the office building size in square feet. Scores of such
studies are aggregated to develop a mathematical relationship between the building size and the
trip generation. It has been Hexagon 's observation that the number of employees in a building is
rarely known so this information is not used as a measurement. Also, while an employee census
might be determined (the number of employees assigned to work in the building), the actual
number of employees working on any given day is typically difficult to determine. Moreover, the
mode of transportation in and out of the site (e.g., number of vehicles versus pedestrians) may be
unknown for any given day.
The ITE data reveal that there is a very strong correlation between the size of an office building, in
square feet, and the number of trips generated . Trip generation research is published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual. Per the Town and VTA
guidelines (VTA guidelines: http ://www.vta.org/cmp/tia-guidelines, Town of Los Gatos guidelines:
http ://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/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 ITErates in accordance with the Town of Los
Gatos guidelines .
£XIDBIT 3 5
4 North Seco n d Street, Suite 400 ·San Jose, California 95113 ·phone 408 .97 1.6100 ·fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com
jii"" 4iiliiill 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 1 Size Unit Trips In Out Trips Rate Trips In Out Trips Rate
4 75 Alberto Way 30.22 ksf 37 3 40 4 37 41
16795 Lark Avenue 22.40 ksf 19 12 31 4 33 37
975 University Avenue 15.00 ksf 16 2 18 0 32 32
Total 67,62 ksf 72 17 89 8 102 110
Average Surveyed Rates 1 .32 1 .63
Average ITE Rates 2 1.56 1.49
~
1 . Trip generation surveys were co nducted in March 20 16.
2. Average ITE trip rates for general office building based on ITE's Trip Generation, 9th Edition for land us e 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 ITErates, which were used in the Alberto Way traffic
study .
Thus, the counted rates in Los Gatos were lower than the ITErates used in the traffic study. The
rates used to estimate the project trip generation for 401-409 Alberto Way are the trip rates
calculated using ITE's fitted curve equation.
Another question was how ITE office trip generation rates have changed over the years. The
current version of the manual is dated 2012. Hexagon consults the ITE manuals dating to 1997.
During that 15-year time span, the office trip generation rates have not changed.
Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
Page 3 of 8
Table 2
100-150 Winchester Cir Trip Generation Counts
• ' ~ 1 o '.t '..f.. • " ' 'Ill: ' ' ~ .-. • ·~ '" '4 f • • ' ' .., I .0. .. • ~ • ',. • ~ .~ I ' ,.; > ~,.. ·~ '-..,.. , I
· · AM Pealt'Hour · PM Peak Hour ----------------------------------------. Trips · Total Peak · Trips Total Peak
Location 1
, ·Size ·unit Trips In Out · Trips ~· Rate · Trips In 'Out Trips · 'Rate ·
'... ! ••
0
• .__. 1f • ' o • ' j " I , • ' tT I '( .J l ' . I > • 0 ··•' •
100-150 Winchester Cir
Note s :
163.03 ksf
Surveyed Rates
Rates Used in TIA
223 87
1. Trip generation counts were conducted in February 2017 .
Overall Traffic Co nditio n s
310
1.90
1 .94
114 185 299
1.83
1 .96
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 VT A 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 .
jiiJ"' 4iiiiliiil Mr. Randy Lamb
AprilS, 2017
Page 4 of 8
Pedestrians and Bikes at the Highway 17 Interchange
The Planning Commission expressed concern about the comfort and safety of pedestrians that
would walk from the site to downtown Los Gatos. They were particularly concerned about the
crosswalk across the Highway 17 northbound on-ramp. Commissioners asked whether an
enhanced crosswalk with flashing beacon could be added there.
The project voluntarily proposes to rebuild the sidewalk fronting the project site along westbound
Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to create a detached sidewalk that complies with the Town's Complete
Streets Program . The detached sidewalk would provide additional separation between vehicles
and pedestrians. Subject to Caltrans approval, the project also could install flashing beacons at
the crosswalk , as requested by the Planning Commission which was consistent with Caltrans'
suggestion in its comment letter dated June 13, 2016 .
The project voluntarily proposes to widen westbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road between Alberto
Way and the Highway 17 northbound on -ramp, which would provide room for the installation of a
future bike lane on westbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road .
Complete Streets Improvements on Alberto Way
Commissioners asked for the Town 's complete streets improvements on Alberto Way. "Complete
Streets" refers to the accommodation of all travel modes. Alberto Way already has sidewalks. The
project proposes to rebuild the sidewalk along its frontage in order to provide a detached
sidewalk , which minimizes pedestrian exposu re to traffic and enhances pedestrian safety. The
detached sidewalk would improve pedestrian comfort by moving pedestrians farther from traffic .
Alberto Way currently lacks bike lanes. At a community meeting for the proposed project,
neighbors expressed interest in installing bike lanes along Alberto Way. In response to the
Commissioners' request for complete streets improvements and neighbor interests, the proposed
project voluntarily proposes to widen Alberto Way along the proposed project frontage and install
a bike lane on southbound Alberto Way approximately 210 feet long . In addition , there currently is
no safe place for bikes wishing to turn left from Alberto Way to eastbound Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road to position themselves. The proposed project voluntarily proposes the installation of a bike
box at the intersection.
The proposed bicycle improvements along Alberto Way and the proposed street widening along
Los Gatos-Saratoga Road fronting the project site are all in conformance with the Town 's
complete streets improvements.
Parking on Alberto Way
Commissioners were concerned about the removal of parking on Alberto Way. Eight on-street
pa rking 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 s ide of the street
would be removed to provide room for a striped right turn lane at the Alberto Way/Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road intersection and to provide adequate sight distance at the southern driveway.
Under existing conditions there is a driveway at that location, and its sight distance is restricted
because of the on-street parking . Removing the on-street parking at that location as part of the
project would provide improved sight distance. Some residents in the neighborhood requested
that these spaces be removed to increase sight distance.
Jl"" ~ Mr. Randy Lamb
AprilS, 2017
Page 5 of 8
At a community meeting for the proposed project, neighbors ex pressed concern about visibility
and about difficulty turn ing 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 proj ect 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 o r
removed . The distance between the two proposed project driveways is approximately 100 feet.
This segment of 1 00-foot roadway is within the area of centerline transit ion 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 patro ns of the
Grill 57 restaurant. According to Town staff, the restaurant has sufficient parking spaces on-site to
meet the Town requirements .
Speed on Hig hway 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.
I
As a speed control measure to address ex isting traffic speeds , a s peed feedback sign could be
added halfway between Los Gatos Boulevard and Alberto Way. From the e x isting stop bar
location, it is difficult for motorists to see up the hill on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road . Th ey must
proceed with caution forward to see enough to make a right turn on red . To address the e xisting
conditions, the Town could consider moving the stop bar on Alberto Way farther out to improve
visibility.
Respo nse to Pub li c Comments
Mr. Bob Burke submitted a comment letter regarding the traffic study conducted by Hex ag o n
Transportation Consultants, Inc. Mr. Burke raised many of the same issues he previously raised
prior to the August 1 01h and August 241h Plannin g Commission meetings. Below are Hexagon's
respon ses to the main is sues rai sed by Mr. Burke .
Tri p Ge ne rat ion
Pl eas e see above response to the same c omme nt raised by the Planning Commission .
jiiJ"" 4illllli Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
Page 6 of 8
Inte rs e c tio n Traffi c Co unts
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 VT A 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
Peak Entering Volume Exiting Volume ~
Segment Hour Location Volume Location Volume Volume %of Entering
Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd EB AM Alberto
PM Way
Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd WB AM Los Gatos
PM Blw
824
851
949
820
Los Gatos
Blw
Alberto
Way
841
8 54
963
825
17
3
14
5
2%
0%
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 Cruz Ave & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 3 154 2862 -292 -9%
PM 3291 2939 -352 -11 %
University Ave & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 3021 2920 -101 -3%
PM 3102 3176 74 2%
Alberto Way & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 1976 1910 -66 -3%
PM 1863 1862 -1 0%
Los Gatos Blw & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 2454 2380 -74 -3%
PM 2351 2468 117 5%
Los Gatos Blvd & Kenne dy Rd /Caldwell Ave AM 1771 166 9 -102 -6%
PM 1860 1913 5 3 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 i ndicate 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 th is ramp . Other ramps operated well during
both the AM and PM peak hours.
jiiii"" 4iiiiilllil Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
Page 8 of 8
Table 5
Study Freeway Ramp Count Comparison
Ramp Volume
SR 17/Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd Ramps Peak Hour Caltrans Hexagon Dtfference
NB on-ramp from WB Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 1153 502 -651
PM 1017 409 -608
SB on-ramp from WB Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 104 120 16
PM 379 172 -207
NB off-ramp to EB Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 379 217 -162
PM 125 126 1
SB off-ramp to EB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 1103 432 -671
PM 758 337 -421
Notes :
1. Caltrans ramp volumes were obtained from Caltrans staff on September 17,2015. Ramp volumes
were dated August 2013 .
2 . Hexagon ramp volumes were obtained from tube counts conducted in October 2016.
Table 6
Ramp Analysis with New Counts
~~
Peak ProJect
Interchange Ramp Type Hour Capacity 1 Votume' VIC Trops Volume VIC
NB on-ramp from WB Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd Diagonal AM 900 502 0.56 3 505 0.56
PM 900 409 0.45 32 441 0.49
SR 17 & Los Gatos-SB on-ramp from WB Los Gatos-saratoga Rd Loop AM 900 120 0.13 1 121 0.13
Saratoga Rd PM 900 172 0 .19 11 183 0.2
NB off-ramp to EB Lo s Gatos-Saratoga Rd Diagonal AM 2000 217 0.11 13 230 0.12
PM 2000 126 0.06 0 126 0.06
SB off-rnmp to EB Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd Loop AM 1800 432 0 .24 39 471 0.26
PM 1800 337 0.19 0 337 0.19
~
1. Ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, and considered the free-flow spee d , and the number of lanes on the ramp . As a conservative
approach, the two on-ramps are assumed to be metered during both peak hours .
2. Ra mp lo<llumes were obtained from tube counts conducted in October 2016 .
All of this data further confirms the TIA conclusions and the analysis contained in the Final EIR.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gary K. Black
President