Attachment 16 - Public Comments received by 1100 Oct. 12, 2017Tt1ank you!
• After - 4 hours of meetings
• Removal of most of towering elements
• Warmth of materials
• Breaking up of southern facade (caveat, added privacy problem)
• Drop of closest southern height elements
• Moved garage exhaust from property line
• Replacement of headlight screen with wall (caveat, not yet full solution)
Need more focused time for common solutions asking for input
~ RECENED I 1
MIG 05 '?017
TOVVN Of LOS GATOS. lo-I
~ PLANNING OMSION
ATTACHMENT 1 6
Concern: Size
All Neighbors prop·osed ...
• Single story, expand footprint, all
underground parking
o No, not financially viable
• Dropping building more
o No, would lose parking spaces (sq footage)
o No, would make front floor "weird"
• No Winchester entrance
o Use up/down ramp pair on Shelburne
o No, would lose parking spaces {sq footage)
.. · .. ,:. ,··
2
Concern: Size
Size that neighbors feel
• Far greater than claimed 26% (red is impacting )
• Why does the building have to max out at 35' and have elevated parking?
3
Concern: Traffic Safety on Left Turns
• 75' visibility
• At 40 mph, 1.3 seconds
• DOT requires?
o 150' @ speed limit
o 300' @ normal speed
INCREDIBLY
DANGEROUS!
4
Concern: Precedent?
For Sale Available Vacated
128-300 cars + 128-300 cars --
This
Project
256-600 cars? 5
Concern: Head in parking
• Head in parking directly opposite of bedroom and living room windows
• Wall added --helps safety
• Doesn't guarantee privacy
o Barely higher than normal headlights (42J')
o Not as high as California vehicle codes (54")
• Suggestions: Remove or
reconfigure head in parking
(-9 spaces lost)
I ... "'
~Al. SCREEN PANEL
CONl!h'UOUS CURI 2'X6" AS
l\11EEL STOI>
Concern: Safety and Security
"Stairs are outside of 1 O' buffer'' -Project Architect
• Incorrect -5' from property line!
SuG1gestions:
• Secure stairs
• Work with neighbors
on common wall
• Clearly document parking
policies for off hours I weekends
!I
Ql ii.Ir'! i lT"!.~~---
£11111.-llliLL liall'llml _,,,, ·-·---··• tit llltGNltn' 'ft> !!!MAIM
il~.T:J/ . ~
IJA.11 . .......,..._
.. ~~ ·-· r;-·--..
.:::: .t>. •.·
-·
7
~
i
t
Concern: Privacy
8
NO PRIVACY
• Added to new design "corner office"
• Trees don't help -existing grade level
• Open to entire 2nd floor lights
Concern: Traffic and Parking
Traffic
• Reports uses 3 inconsistent comparisons
o Multi-tenant, less dense
o All have better traffic flow -one has traffic light, one has straight in road, one has 5 exits
o Winchester into town is already a traffic problem
Parking
• No guarantee from applicant that parking is sufficient for all tenants
• Could be, per fire code, as many as 300 workers with 128 spots
Suggestion:
• Planning commission must be sure that ...
(a) Traffic isn't a problem and (b) parking is sufficient for usage 10
Summary
Goal LU-6 To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in
residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-6.3 Protect existing residential areas from adjacent nonresidential
uses by assuring that buffers are developed and maintained.
We encourage the application to trade off some square footage/parking to
enhance sense of place with our existing residential neighborhoods as well as
develop the required buffers (privacy, security, safety).
Backup
Half windows for hallway upstairs
Full windows for exit lobby downstairs
I --I
--:I I ----• I
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Jocelyn Puga
From: Joel Paulson
Sent
To:
Monday, October 09, 2017 8:08 AM
Jocelyn Puga
Subject FW: Clarification on comments made during the 10/3 town council meeting
FYI
•
Joel Paulson • Community Development Director
~
Community Development Department • 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Ph : 408.354.6879 • jpaulson@losgatosca .gov
www.losgatosc a.gov • https://www.facebook.co m/losgatosca
Community Development Department (COD) Counter Hours: 8:00 AM -1:00 PM, Monday -Friday
Please note the upcoming Town closure: November 23 & 24 -Thanksgiving Holiday
CONFIDENTIALllY DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination,
distribution or capyfng of the e-mail ls strldly prohlbltt!d. If you have receittd t#tls communication in error, please immediatr!ly notify us at the above e-mail address.
From: Andrew Spyker [mallto:awspyker@gmall .com]
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 11:42 PM
To: Lisa Petersen; Marcia Jensen
Cc: Council; Joel Paulson
Subject: Clarification on comments made during the 10/3 town council meeting
Town Council Members, Council Member Marcia Jensen and Lisa Petersen,
T would like to have clarification on the question asked by Council Member Marcia Jensen and answer from
town engineer Lisa Petersen during the 10/3 Town Council meeting. I tried my best to transcribe the question
and answer as follows (I added the footnotes to help formulate my follow-on questions and comments):
· · Being transcription
C. Jensen-Comments regarding calculation of trips. One was done based upon the ITE traffic manual.·One was
done based on square footage. The one that referred to as square footage was Winchester. I'm wondering if the
traffic person can explain what calculations were used on this building and if there was more than one and why?
Lisa Peterson -The town's traffic impact policy states that we are supposed to us~g ITE's rates for trip
generation from their current trip generation manual and that was what was used on the Alberto Way project.
There is also something in our traffic impact policy [1] that allows the traffic engineer to allow an alternative
method [2] such as going out there and counting trips from similar sized projects if there is a reason to do that it
seems like that would be better information to use. Now for Winchester that was done, the traffic engineer for
the developer went out and actually counted trips from similar sized office buildings [3]. They also did use the
ITE trip generation rates. They used both and showed comparison between the two [4]. The reason that they did
the alternative method was because there was concern from the planning commission [5] and also from the
public [5] that the ITE rates were not appropriately reflecting what the traffic would be coming from the new
development. So that is why it was done in the case for Winchester but specifically our traffic impact policy
says to use the ITE trip generation manual and that is what we use for every project in order to be consistent.
1
End transcription
[1] Is the traffic impact policy the document located at httos://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/8 57
(Resolution 2014-059)?
[2] In resolution 2014-0159, I see two places that call out alternatives to the ITE manual:
page 2 -"Alternatively, trip generation rates from the following resources may be used if determined by the
Town to be more appropriate than the available ITE rates: San Diego Association of Governments ( SanDAG);
California Department of Transportation
Cal trans); or the City of San Jose. A Town -sponsored or peer-reviewed traffic study may also be used to
determine trip generation rates."
page 5 -"When a use is not listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, or where ADT data is not available, the
Town Traffic Engineer shall use available Peak Hour Trip data or select the most appropriate trip generation
rate and pass -by trip classification for use in calculating ADT. Trip generation rates from alternate sources may
be used if determined by the Town Traffic Engineer to be more appropriate than the available ITE rates.
Examples of alternate sources of data include: San Diego Association of Governments ( SanDAG); California
Department of Transportation ( Caltrans); City of San Jose; comparable store /business traffic studies."
I do not believe any of the items on page 2 apply as the methodology used on Winchester was not from SanDag
nor Cal trans nor sponsored by San Jose. I do not believe any of the items on page 5 apply as this clause was
only to be used when the planned use was not listed in the ITE Manual.
[3] -As noted in previous public record, the office buildings used in traffic counts were not comparable. Please
see my email to the planning commission dated 4 /23 entitled "15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Boulevard
Updated Comments". This is included in the planning commission "Addendum and Exhibits 29-30" for the
4/26/2017 planning commission meeting. Specifically, the paragraph that starts with "475 Alberto Way" where
I documented the differences between the "comparable" office buildings and the proposed project. The hired
traffic consultant seemed to validate this concern during the 1125/2017 planning commission when he said
''there aren't many office buildings of this size in Los Gatos, we found three". In fact, they only found one non-
comparable (in use) at the same size and then estimated up for the other two (one two thirds the size and one
half the size).
[ 4] -There are two places in the traffic study for Winchester where the ITE Trip Generation Manual is
mentioned. First, it is used to estimate the current use -housing. Second, as noted in the footnote of table 7 only
the average rates were calculated with ITE Trip Generation. All of the details of AM and PM in/out/total was
only calculated with the "comparable office building" method. The "Trip Generation" section concludes with
"Trip generation using the average ITE rates for an office building would result in 7 additional project trips
during the AM peak hour, and 4 fewer project trips during the PM peak hour." This again only considers total
number of trips, not in vs. out. As I mentioned in public comment at the 9/19/2017 town council meeting this
discrepancy is 66% off in one case and 1.6x, in another case. In the worst case this could mean an
underestimation of 21 AM peak IN trips.
[ 5] - I do not believe the justification to use comparable office buildings was due to concern from the planning
commission nor the public. The traffic study in question was written in August of2016. The planning
commission first met on 1/25/2017 to discuss the project. I am quite sure none of my neighbors (the immediate
public) knew of the project in August of 2016 as none of us attended any meetings prior to first developer
meeting on 12/9/2016.
2
Given the above analysis:
1. I believe the traffic study is invalid and not supported by our traffic impact policy. Do you believe the traffic
impact policy was followed? [1and2]
2. I believe for a project of this impact with our current traffic problems, we need to follow a documented
process. Where is the proctss by which comparable office building trip generation documented? [3 and 4]
3. Whatwas the reason to use this alternative method of trip generation as opposed to using the ITE
Manual? [5]
Please add this email and its response to the public record for the "15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester
Boulevard" project.
Thanks!
Andrew Spyker
708 Winchester Blvd
Andrew Spyker (awspyker@gmail.com)
3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank