401-409 Alberto Wy - Staff Report and Exhibits 39-42
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
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 05/10/2017
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: MAY 5, 2017
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-15-056, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPLICATION U-15-009, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-16-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY. PROPERTY
OWNER: CWA REALTY. CONTACT PERSON: SHANE ARTERS, LP
ACQUISITIONS, LLC.
REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING OFFICE
BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH
UNDERGROUND PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONED CH. APN 529-23-018.
REMARKS:
The applicant has provided a supplemental response letter (Exhibit 39) which includes a matrix
summarizing public comments received, and letters from their geotechnical consultant (ENGEO
Inc.) and transportation consultant (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.). The
transportation consultant’s letter has been peer reviewed by the Town’s consultant (Exhibit 40)
and the geotechnical consultant report peer review is in progress, and will be provided in an
addendum report early next week.
Staff in the Parks and Public Works Department also prepared a Project Information Sheet with
responses to a number of the common questions asked about this project (Attachment 41).
The attached public comments (Exhibit 44) were received after distribution of the staff report
addendum for the April 12, 2017, meeting.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001
MAY 5, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AlbertoWay401-409 05.10.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 5/5/2017 8:52 AM
Previously received with August 10, 2016 Staff Report:
2. Location Map
3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
4. Required CEQA Findings of Fact (24 pages)
5. Recommended Conditions of Approval (15 pages)
6. Letter of Justification/Project Description (15 pages), received July 15, 2016
7. Project Construction Details (three pages), received August 3, 2016
8. Letter of Outreach Conducted (40 pages), received February 10, 2016
9. Second Letter of Neighborhood Outreach (26 pages), received August 3, 2016
10. Consulting Arborist’s Report (41 pages), dated September 26, 2015
11. Architectural Consultant’s First Report (five pages), received September 10, 2015
12. Architectural Consultant’s Final Report (five pages), received March 18, 2016
13. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting minutes, June 10, 2015 meeting
(four pages)
14. Public Comments
15. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated June 29, 2016
16. Development Plans (37 pages), received July 15, 2016
Previously received with August 10, 2016 Desk Item:
17. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, August 4, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Previously received with August 24, 2016 Staff Report:
18. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on
Thursday, August 18, 2016
19. Applicant’s Response Letter, received August 19, 2016
Previously received with August 24, 2016 Desk Item:
20. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
21. Applicant’s Response Letter, received August 24, 2016
Previously received with October 26, 2016 Staff Report :
22. Communication from the applicant, received October 10, 2016 and October 19, 2016
23. Public comments received from 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, August 24, 2016 to 11:00 a.m.,
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Previously received with January 11, 2017 Staff Report:
24. Communication from the applicant, received November 11, 2016
25. Public comments received from 11:01 a.m., Thursday, October 20, 2016 to 11:00 a.m.,
Thursday, January 5, 2017
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009 AND EIR-16-001
MAY 5, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\AlbertoWay401-409 05.10.17 CUP AS EIR.docx 5/5/2017 8:52 AM
Previously received with March 22, 2017 Staff Report:
26. Communication from the applicant, received February 28, 2017
27. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, January 5, 2017 to 11:00 a.m. on
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Previously received with April 12, 2017 Staff Report:
28. Revised Required Findings and Considerations
29. Revised Conditions of Approval (21 pages)
30. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, March 16, 2017 to 11:00 a.m. on
Thursday, April 6, 2017
31. Applicant’s Response Letter (23 pages), received March 17, 2017
32. Architectural Consultant’s Report on Revised Plans (six pages), received February 22, 2017
33. Applicant’s Response letter to Architectural Consultant’s Report (three pages), received
March 16, 2017
34. Architectural Consultant’s Second Report on Revised Plans (eight pages), received March
17, 2017
35. Traffic Consultant Letter (eight pages), received April 6, 2017
36. Revised Development Plans (35 pages), received March 17, 2017
Previously received with April 12, 2017 Addendum Report:
37. Communication from the applicant, received April 10, 2017
38. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday, April 6, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Received with this Staff Report:
39. Applicant’s Supplemental Response Letter, received April 24, 2017
40. Town Consultant Peer Review of Transportation Report, received April 28, 2017
41. Project Information Sheet, prepared by the Parks and Public Works Department
42. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, April 11, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Friday, May 5, 2017
Distribution:
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
April 24, 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: Planning Commission Public Hearing of May 10, 2017 -Supplemental Responses
401-409 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15 -056
Conditional Use Permit Appllcatfon U-15-009
APN 529-23-018
We have reviewed the April 6, 2017 Staff Report for the upcoming Planning Commission
meeting on May 10, 2017 for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project. Based on our review of the
comment letters Included in the April 6, 2017 Staff Report, many of the comment letters
continue to restate the comments offered at the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission public
hearing. None of the comments raise new issues or new environmental impacts.
We prepared the attached matrix containing the supplemental responses to the comments
contained in Exhibit 30 to the April 6th Staff Report on the Final Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project ("Project EIR") or new comments on the 401-409
Alberto Way Project applications referenced above that were not previously addressed In our
comments at the August 10th or August 241h Planning Commission meetings because these
comment letters were received after we submitted our responses to the Town for incJusion in
the Staff Report . Our supplemental responses are set forth in the attached matrix found in
Attachment A to this letter. Again, none of the restated comments or new comments raise
new issues regarding the Project.
I free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance.
EXIIlBIT 3 9
525 M iddlefleld Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I 650.326.1600
BN28S46208
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Comments Commenter
Aestbetic5
.. . ,·
Revised project description (PD) PLG
fails to address size & mass of Basham
buildings (PLO, 8); revised Fowler
building is nearly 2 l4 times sf of Kemp
existing office buildings and LGC
should be reduced by 113 to !h. BVV,l
size and scale not suitable for
surrounding neighborhood of
mostly senior residents.
Revised PD Allows Tenants to PLG
look into Las Casitas windows
(PLG, 8)
BN 28S23816v6
ATTACHMENT A
405 Alberto Way (Formerly 401-409) Alberto Way Project
Comment and Response Matrix
April 24, 2Q17
Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in
Comment Comment AprH 6, 2017 Staff Report
Submitted Addressed
. '
August 10, 2016; August 10, 2016 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter
August 24, 2016, and 24, 2016 Staff dated August 18, 2016 and pages 1-7 of the
Planning Report; August 19 Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
Commission and 241h Applicant 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes
Meeting Response Letters and responses to comments by Thomas
O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). Also see
Draft EIR Section 3. l which concluded the
project's aesthetic impacts were less than
significant.
New comment Not applicable The revised project has relocated the
included in April (NIA) building an additional I 0 foet away from the
6, 2017 Staff north property line, thus affording the Las
Report Casitas residents more privacy than did the
previous design and further minimizing
impacts as planned on page 2 of the
Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
2017. In addition, the revised project
eliminates the second-floor exterior balcony
on the north side of the Building. Generous.
landscape screening (trees and shrubs) has
been added into this new setback area,
further increasing the visible buffer between
. the two adiacent nronerties.
Project Document in which
Comment Addressed
fin addition to this matrix)
DEIR Section 3.1, page 3-11
addressed potential impacts of
the larger project footprint The
Applicant Response Letter dated
August 18, 2016; Applicant
Response Letter dated March 17,
2017 (Summary of Architectural
Changes and responses to
comments by Thomas
O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes)
explains how the impacts were
further reduced with project
changes and smaller footprint.
Applicant Response Letter dated
March 17, 2017 (response to
comment 1. ii. by Charles
Erekson). DEIR page 3-11
addressed potential impacts of
the larger project footprint and
concluded the impacts were less
than significant The revised
project further reduces the less~
than-significant impacts.
,__ -----------· --·-·--~··-·---------·------·----~-------------.-·-
Comments
Blocks views of Santa Cruz
Mountains (PLG, R-9)
. ----------~
Negative aesthetic impacts
(contrary to HR); con~rned
about glare and shadows and
people being able to sec into
tenants' windows (PLG, 33)
BN 28523816v6
Commenter
PLG
LGC
Original Date Original Date
Comment Comment
Submitted Addressed
--···--~--·---~ ~·--· ··~ -··--·--
August 10, 2016 August 10, 2016
and ;\ugust 24, and 24, 2016 Staff
2016 Planning Report; August 19
Commission and 24, 2016
Mt}Cting Applicant Response
Letters
Response tu New Comment included in Project Document in which
April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
-------.. --____ _ ______ (in ~~di~~n to~!!is matr!&_ __ _
Please refer to Applicant Response Letter
dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of
Arohitectural Change..'4 and respon.~es to
comments by Thomas O'Donnell and
Matthew Hudes).
DEIR page 3-10 addressed les.~
than-·significant visual impacts
of the uriginal project. The
Applicant Response I .ctter dat~d
March 17, 2017 (Summary of
Architectura1 Changes and
responses to comments by
Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew
Hudes) desl..Tibed the further
reduction in visual impact'!
associated with the reduced
·----·-·-----_,. ___ .. ·--------.
.P-r<1i~ct f~~rint. _____ _
PLG August 10, 1016
and August 24,
2016 Planning
Commis!!ion
Meeting
August 10, 2016
and 24, 2016 Staff
Report; August 19
and 24th Applicant
Response Letters
The revised project description relocated the
building an additional I 0 rc(~t away from the
north prop1.."11.y line, and has climi1111tcd the
second story balcony on the north-side of the
building, thus affording the Las Casita.~
residents more privacy than did too previous
design. The rcdcsiJ.,'11 eliminates shadows on
the property to the north, except during the
extreme winter months when shadows
would still be cast hy 1hc L'Xisting huildi.ngs
and trees on the current property. <.fouerous
land.'!cape screening (trnos and shrubs) bas
be1;m added into this new setback area,
IUrthcrr increasing the visible buffer hct.wcen
the two adjact-·nt properties. Glare off the
uorth-facin.g windows of the new building is
not possible as the sun doc." not strike the
DEIR pages 3-10 through 3·-13
ad.dressed less-than-significant
light and glare impacts of the
original pmject. Sec also
Applicant Response Lcltl..-r dated
March 17, 2017 (response to
commcut 1 . ii. by Charles
Erekson). ·
. ____ ., ___________ ,_110rtE_ side !1.f!!.•£-~~!!':!~1!&· -·---------·-·--·-·--·----------·-·----· ·--··
2
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addressed (in addition to thfs matrix)
Architecture should be in BVV,2 August 10, 2016; August 10, 2016 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Page 3-10 through 3-13 of the
keeping with existing residential August24,2016 and 24, 2016 Staff dated August 18, 2016 and pages 1-3 of the DEIR addressed less-than-
neighborhood, and lower Planning Report; August 19th Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, significant visual impacts of the
building height, etc. Commission and 2411i Applicant 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes . original project. Applicant
Meeting Response Letters and responses to comments by Thomas Response Letter dated August
O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew 18, 2016; Applicant Response
Hudes). Letter dated March 17, 2017
(Summary of Architectural
Additional recommendations from the Changes and responses to
Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design comments by Thomas
Group, have been incorporated into the most O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane
recent design submission as explained on and Matthew Hude8).
pages 1and2 of the March 17, 2017
Applicant's ~ponse Letter including:
• Providing additional visual variety and
break up in scale on the front fa9ade,
including varying the heights of the
mansard roofs, adding additional recesses
and projections at the front ~ade, and
providing more of a wall plane offset
where the two-story front wall transitions
to a one-story wan.
• Reducing the mass of the central link of
the setback portion of the building by
lowering the height of the central parapet,
adding a canopy element with supporting
brackets to the center fayade, varying the
wall colors at the center ~ade and
providing additional detail/architectural
enhancement at the main entry feature.
• Adding additional trelli s features at the
windows at the front facade.
3
BN28S23816v6
Comments
EIL<>urc that new development
reinforces ancl supports the
special qualities of the Town of
Los Gatos (PLG, 47)
Commenter 1 Original Date
Comment
Submitted -----,-----····--PLG August 24, 2016 ·
Original Date
Comment
M.c!~~sc..d._ --····
August 24, 2016
Staff Report;
August l 9 and 24th
Applicant Rc.'!!ponse
Letters
,.--------·---------·--·---·----~----------··-·---
Reflponse to New Comment included in
April 6, 2017 Staff Report
Please refer to Applicant Respon.'lC I .etter
dated August l8, 2016 and pages 1-1 of the
App ti cant Response I ,ctter dated March 17,
2017 (Swnmary of Architectural Changes
and responsc::s to comment-; hy 1homas
O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew
Hudes). 'lbe Project has incorporated
rccommendation11 from the Town's
consulting architect, Cannon Design Group,
including eliminating towr.r eJcruents,
eliminating the SCC(md-floor ext.t.T.ior
balcony on the north-side of the Ruilding.
The design retains its Mission-Style
architecture which maintains the small town
feel and resembles ()thcr nearby commercial
Project Document in which
Comment Addressed
f!!t __ adr!!_tion_ to t_~.!! -~atri!l_ ___ _
Applicant Response £ ..etrer dated
August 18, 2016;
Applicant Response Letter dated
March 17, 2017 (Summary of
Architectural Changes and
n!l>'JlOIL<>es to comments by
Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael
Kant' and Matthew Hudes).
-----~---... --~--·----··1 -~evclop_!llen~ in, I ,os Gatos~---. --·------'----~
--~---···-·-----·-·--·-· Applicant Response Please refor to th~ He.xagu11 Tnmsportati on l >raft pages 3-31 to 3-3 8 and ·--·------------··r·---·-··-------.. ---------·-----·--------·-------------------·-Impacts are understated and
mitigations inadequate (PLG,
J3-34)
• Furnace upgrade does not
reduce vehicle enrii;.'!ions
• Electric vehicle charging
systems will not reduce
emissions
• Restriping Alherto Way will
not rcdul~e congestion
• Trip reduction program is
vo1untary
• Inr.onsistent with 2010 Clean
Air Plan
• Pollutant concentrations will
affect sensitive rec(,-ptors
--·--
BN 28S23 II 16v6
PLG Gcn1..'Tlll air <Juaiity
impact comments
sohmittcd for
August 10, ?016
Planning
Conuni'!sion.
Letter dated August Consultants, Jae. April 21, 2017 Response to C:onditio11s of Approval 18-20
24, 2016 Traffic Comment~ on 401-401) Alberto Way address the tnmb'Portation
Traffic Study ("Hexagon Supplemental control measures and air quality
Rcspon~cs"), including the Ht'xagon April 5, mitigation measures that Wl>uld
20 l 7 Response to Traffic Commeut~ on 40 .I-eliminate potential conflkts with
409 Alberto Way Traffic Study ("Hexagon the Clean Air Plan. The
April 5th Responses"). As indicated in the Transportation Manar,emcn1
"Overall Traffic Conditinn-i" sel:tion of the Plan (which includes measures
Hexagon April 5th Responses, the n:-striping tn reduce vehicular trips) is not
of southbound Albcrlo Way at the voluntary; it is mandatory per
intersection would improve vehicular flow Condition 99. All air quality
and reduce queuing nu Alberto Way. With impact'! will be mitigated to a
respect to TOM measures, please sec Jess than significant level;
response to Comment 2 in the Hexagon Hexagon Response Letter.
Supplemc.'Jltal Responses. The TIA analyzed
project impacts without taking into account
further reductions due to 1DM measures.
Noncthcles..'!, 'Jl)M is a standard program for
_1 1 _____ 1 reducing ycJ.~Eularttj-e_~c.i:icra~~-·---·
4
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment incloded in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addreued (in addition to this matrix)
Hydrol02V and Water Qnality ·.· .. -. ...
Water table issues (PLG, 27) PLG New comment NIA See Response to Comments 1-10 to the DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and
• Wat.er Table is too shallow Geissler included in April Geissler Letter and Response to Comment Soils and ENGEO, Inc., 401
• Liquefaction issues 6, 2017 Staff 14, including the Response to Comment 2 Alberto Way, Los Gatos,
• Risk of Existing Fill Report to the Geissler Engineering Letter and California, Geot.echnical
• Boring completed during Alberto Way Citizens, Bob Bmke and Exploration Report dated July
drought Pueblo de Los Gatos Letters in the ENGEO 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015.
• Possible shifting of April 19th Supplemental Responses. Also ENGEO Supplemental Response
foundations due to dewatering see response to Comment lf regarding the to Public Comments dat.ed April
coffer dam and soil subsidence borings. 19, 2017inExhibit1 ("ENGEO
• Underground water diversion April 191h Supplemental
for underground parking Responses").
• Bottom of foundation of
garage would be 10-12 feet
below water table
Water table has risen PLG New comment NIA See Response to 2C to the Las Casitas Letter Section 3.5, Geology and Soils
significantly since June, 2015 Geissler, p. 5 included in April in the ENGEO April 191h Suppler,nental in the Draft EIR and ENGEO,
borings {PLG, 28). No 6, 2017 Staff Responses. Also see response to Alberto Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los
groundwater levels reported in Report Way Citizens Comments 11, 2C, 3C, 30 and Gatos, California, Geotechnical
Boring Bl orB3. the response to Geissler Engineering Exploration Report dated July
Coroment3. 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015.
ENGEO April 191h Supplemental
Responses.
5
BN 28523816v6
Comments
------· ----·····--· -··· _ .....
Hydrology jmpacts not revealed
in EIR (PLG, 29)
• Adverse impacts on
surrounding properties caused
by underground parking
• Water table was measured at
lowest possible time
• Water depth issues
• Drought recovery issue
• Storm drainage system is
overcapacity
• Address impacts to sump
pumps (also sec, BVV 4)
Likelihood of flooding due to
upstream dam failures.
RN 28523816v6
-· ----------···---------·-'· ------·.-Project Document in which
Comment Addressed
Commenter
PLO
Geissler
Kemp
LGC
BVV
Original· Date
Comment
~~!>~!ttccL_ __ .
New cormnl."Ilt
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
Original Date
Comment
Addressed -··----------·
NIA
-.-...... a-•·---------'-•-•---~ 1------·--·---
Geissler, pp. 2-
3, 8-9
New comment
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Rq1ort
NIA
6
Response to New Comment included in
April 6, 2017 Staff Report
• Section 3.8 of the Draft HR evaluated
hydrology and water quality impacts. See
Rc.-ipoll&~ to 16 to the A Wf ,C T .ctter in the
EN<iEO April 19th Response to Public
Comments. COIDilruCtion of the parking
garage would not result in any new
significant gcologic/gcotechnical,
hydroJogy or health and safety impact.~.
• The P~jcct will not burden the existing
storm drainage system, hccanse the
Prqje.ct's stonnwatcr will be collected and
conveyed through a storm drain that runs
along the we.~tcm propt~rty line, near 1hc
Caltrans right of way, along the back of
the ndghhoring parcel. Please see the
attached civil drawings prepared by Kier
+ Wright (Exhibit 2), which specifically
reference the upsilr.e from an 8" to 18"
storm drain pipe in the adjacent property.
The larger pipe is sized to accommodate
the flow from a 10-year min event, which
is the largest design rain event that the
Town's City standards require pipe
infra~tructurc to be designed to.
• The two sump pumps that will convey the
storm water ou this Project are designed
to convey the water of a 10-year storm. If
the pumps fail, the water will rise in the
pump's manhole and will spill into an
overtlow pipe which ties into the J 8'
~.!'!ldition to_~~-~atrix, 1
Section 3.8, Hydrology nnd
Water Quality in the Draft EIR
andENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto
Way, I.as Gatos, California,
Creotechnical Exploration Report
dated July 17, 2015, Rev.
August 13, 2015; ENGEO April
19th Supplemental Responses.
_ _!~rm drain pipe tha~-dr.~~-o~it~=---·--·-···-· ----·--··-_____ ,
Sec Response to Comment. 1 iI1 the h'NGEO Section 3.8, Hydrology 1md
April 19th Supple.mental Responses. The Water Quality in Draft EIR and
project site, the neighboring properties, anu ENGEO, Jue., 401 Alberto Way,
the ma,jority of the Town ofl .m1 Gatos are Los <Jatos, California,
all located in an inundation zone in the event Geotcchnical Exploration Report
of dam overflow or failure. dated July 17, 2015, Rev.
A~ust 13, 2015; ENGEO April
-------·-----------.• ..L I~__:~.PJ?Pl~~~ R~pons..£! __ _
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addre1sed (in addition to this matrix)
Geolol!V and Soils " .. ;
Soil subsidence caused by Geissler, p .2 New comment NIA See Response to Comment 2 in the ENGEO Section 3.5, Geology and Soils
temporary dewatering dwing included in April April l 91h Supplemental Responses. The in the Draft EIR and ENGEO,
construction 6, 2017 Staff risk of settlement (subsidence) due to Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los
Report temporary dewatering is low for the reasons Gatos, California, Geotechnical
stated in ENGEO's Response to Comment 2. Exploration Report dated July
17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015;
ENGEO April 19th Supplemental
Responses.
2 story underground garage in an Geissler, pp. 2-New comment NIA See Re!ponse to Comment 8 in the ENGEO Section 3.5, Geology and Soils
Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone 3 included in April April 19th Supplemental Responses. The in the Draft EIR and ENGEO,
6, 2017 Staff project site is not located within a State of Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los
Report California Fault Rupture Haz.ard Zone for Gatos, California, Geotecbnical
the reasons stated in ENGEO's Response to Exploration Report dated July
Comments. 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015.
ENGEO April 19th Supplemental
Resnonses.
2 story garage identified as an Geissler, pp. 2-New comment NIA See Response to Comment 9 in the ENGEO Section 3.5, Geology and Soils
Earthquake Induced 4 included in April April 19th Supplemental Responses. The in the Draft EIR and ENGEO,
Liquefaction Hazard Zone and 6, 2017 Staff effects of lique&ction-induced settlement Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los
combined effect of seismic Report should be mitigated by designing the Gatos, California, Geotechnical
activity, liquefaction potential foundation in accordance with ENGEO's Exploration Report dated July
make site unsuitable for geotechnical recommendations set forth in 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015.
underground garage (and its Geotechnical Exploration report. Also ENGEO April 191h Supplemental
underwater). see letter from LARGO Concrete, Inc. in Responses.
Exhibit3.
7
BN 285238 I 6v6
~ ---·----·
Comments
In the event of an earthquake,
soils under garage are likely to
result in diffon,'J1tial fowidation
settlem~'Ilt with cracking that
would allow influx of
groundwater ranging from 50
gallons per minute to 500
gallons per minute.1'eltlcmcnt of
1 inch or more. Settlement near
cofferdam. Reduced capacity of
other drainage facilities.
I-----.. --··------·----·-·
Commenter
Geissler, pp. 2-
4, 8
Original Date
Comment
.. Submitt~~-
New comment
included in April
6, 20 J 7 Staff
Ri,-port
-----r------------·------·------------Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
_A.ddress~------·----------·---------in_ addition to ~is matri!) __
NJ A See Response to Commcnt'i I l and IE and Section 3 .5, Geology and Soils
Responses to Geissler Enginc1..'ting in the Draft EJR and ENGEO,
Comments 4, 5, and 9 in the ENGEO April [nc., 401 Alberto Way, Los
19th Supplement.al Respons("~'>-The Gatos, California, Gcotechnical
Gcotcchnical Rt-:port recommend'! criteria Exploration Report dated July
for the design or the structural mat 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015;
foundation to ensure that it is rigid t-"llough to ENGE() ApriJ 19th Supplemental
span localized irregularities without Respunscs.
!>·u.ff< ... 'Ting from structural damage.
Tiic project sih: hac; been designed in
accordance with Town requircmenti;,
including to the overland release generated
by a 100-ycar flood, which will prcvllnt
water from entering the building and the
uridcrground parking wrragc. In addition,
the Pr1~ject will drain storm water along the
western property line through an 18" storm
drain pipe, which ar.comm()dates a 10-ycar
rain event Plca"le see the attached civj]
drawings prepared by Kier i Wright.
Pursuant to Puhlic Resources Code sec-1.ion
2693( c ), the EJR indkates that the Projcc,i
design has incorporated the ENGEO
Gcott:chnical Report gcotcchnical
re.commendations in order to avoid and
mitigate putential seismic hazard'! indnding
mcasun.'R that arc comiistent with
c..o;tdbli.shcd practice and that will reduce
seismic risk to acct.')'ltahlfl levels.
Long-tc..,'11ll dt~watering required Geissler, p. 2,
7-8
New comment I N/A -----+-~-~-----. ----·-------·-----·--·---·----··-. ---.. -----· ----Sec Response lo Geissler Comment.; 2 and DEIR Sccti011 3.5, Geology and
to discharge groundwater
seepage into garage and cmcked
slabs at houses in J .os Gatos
Commons, Della Vista Village,
Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las
Casitas in vicinity of the garage.
LOC, p. 2-1
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
L---.-·. ·-· ·--'---·-----~-------
BN 2~52JIH6v6
15 in the ENGEO April 191h Supplemental Soils and ENGEO, Inc., 401
Rcspom1es. Alberto Way, I .os Gatos,
California, ( rcotechnical
Exploration Report dated July
17,2015,Rev.August 13,2015.
ENCrEO April 191h Supplemental
·--''--~-----·----· ,. __ -··--··------------R.espon'lc_~_. _______ _
8
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
S•bmitted Addreued (in addition to this matrix)
Likelihood of flooding due to a Geissler, p. 2-4, New comment NIA Pursuant to Town requirements, the site has Kier+ Wright civil plans on file
125-year storm. Certain death 6, 8 included in April been designed to handle the overland release with the Town of Los Gatos
for everyone in the garage. 6, 2017 Staff generated bya 100-yearflood, which will
Chance of flooding during a Report prevent water from entering the buildina and
100-year period is 5 5%. Public the underground parking garage. As shown
safety at risk. in Exhibit 2, a ridge at the top of the ramp
that descends into the parking garage will
prevent any site water, including severe
storm water and 100-year :flOod waters, from
entering the underground parlcing garage as
the ridge directs the water toward Alberto
Way and awav from the garage entrance.
Likelihood of flooding of garage Geissler, pp. 2-New comment NIA Per the Town's Requirements, the storm . ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way,
due to storm water runoff during 4,9 included in April drain infrastructure on the site has been Los Gatos, California,
heavy rains due to inadequate LGCp. 2 6, 2017 Staff designed to accommodate a l 0-year storm Geotechnical Exploration Report
property drainage . Increase Report and will release to Los Gatos Creek without dated July 17, 2015, Rev.
percentage of pervious landscape affecting the neighboring property. Per the August 13, 2015; ENGEO April
surface and conduct hydrology Town's requirements, the site also has been 19111 S~pplemental Responses;
study of effect on neighboring designed to the overland release a 100-year
properties. EIR. fails to address flood into the Town's right of way to
possible damage to neighboring prevent any site water from entering the
properties. neighboring property, and the 100-year flood
waters will overland toward Alberto Way.
See also, Responses to Geissler Engineering
Comments 1-6 and Response to Comment .
16 in the ENGEO April 19* Supplemental
Responses. The proposed office building
will be supported on a structural mat
foundation designed in accon:Jance with the
Geotechnical Report, which is rigid enough
to span localized irregularities without
suffering from structural damage. The
Geotechnical Report recommends that
waterproofing be conducted by a
waterproofing consultant. The construction
of the parking garage will not result in any
new significant geologic/geotechnical,
hvdrology or health and safety impacts.
9
BN 285238 I6v6
------------·--··---· -
Comments
----------Construction of22-foot-d
undergrowid garage may
diversion of subswfact: se,
pattt..'1'lls which would cau:
rise in groundwater fovcls
neighboring prop'-'1'1:Y and
increased seepage flow ra
Jcading_to piping failures:
Proposed <k.·watcring and
waterproofing mitigation
measures aro insufficient
protect adjacent propertici;
·--------Require that all parking re
above grade and he designed
pervious paving to mitiga·
riiiks.
se
LgC
I
,_~lliic-~~~i8_: . ~~
The.re is no construction plan
and no plan can avoid blocking
re'!idm1t~ aru1 mncrgcucy
vehicles for extended periods of
time (PLG, 27)
-------· . --Negative impacts not identified
(PLG, 35)
Commenter
.. ·----
Gt::issler, pp. 6
Geissler, pp. l 0
·-·----·-Geissler, pp. 10
----.·.-i
PLO
P LO
------....----.. -------__ ,..______ -----------· ----------· --·-Ori~inal Date
Comment
Submitted ··-------New comment
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
New comment
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
Orig
Com
Add:
NI A
JD.al Date
ment
essed
---NIA
RcsponllC to New Comment included in
April 6, 2017 Staff Report
·---------------··---See Response to Oeissfor Engineering
Comment 4 in the ENGEO ApriJ 19th
Supplemental Rt:Sponscs.
Project Document In which
Comment Addr~ed
_(in addition to tbis .. ~..!_rj& __
h"NGEO, Inc., 401 Alherto Way,
Los Gatos, California,
Gcotcchnical Exploration Report
dated July 17, 2015, Rev.
Au~t 13, 2015; ENGEO April
19 Suppk"Tllental ~spouses
See Responses to Gcissk'T Bngfuecrlng ENGEO,-Tnc., 40TAlberto WaY,-·
Comments 4-6 and Response to Comment Los Gatos, California,
16 in the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Geotcehnical Exploration Report
Responses. The risk of crac)cing within the dated July 17, 2015, Rev.
foundation mat due to earthquakes or Auj?;'lt 13, 2015; PNGEO April
t.."Xpansive soils and the risk. of associated • 19 Suppfom'-'1ltal Responses
groundwater intrusion ~ low; tlwrcfore, the
Project does not require long-t.enu
dcwatt:ring from a ~eotcchnical standpoint.
1bc proper type of waterproofing will be
determined and !.-pecified by a W"d.t.crproofing
·-----·-··---___ . __ _ consultant per the_9~t~~cnl R~ort...:. ___ ..
New comment N I A
includt:ll in April
6, ?.O 17 Staff
Report
·-~·-~·""·'---··
August 10, 2016 August 10, 2016
and 24, 2016 Staff
Report; August I 9•h
and 241
" Applicant
Jfo.c;pousc · Letters ______ ,.__ __ , __ .. ____ _
New comment
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
NI A
As with other parking 11tructurcs constructed
in Los Gatos, any ri.<ll<.c; associated with the
undergrow1d parking garage will he
addressed hy p1oviding proper architectural,
structural and civil design thut meets all
NI A
. ..'~~cs and_':I~~~~~E.!8· __ .. J-----···------'
Conditi~~ -106 through lf :l'"roquire that the
developer submit 11 con.c;tmction
management plan prior to issuance of any
pennitc; to commence work. All
constmction traffic routes and controlc; are
sub~! to_!'~>:vv» _rcviC?~.--------·---
Dmft EIR evaluattXl potential impacts to
public services and detennined the impacts
would be less than significant .
Applicant Rc!>-pon.c;e Letter. dat"-d
August 18, 2016 and Planning
Commission testimony.
DEIR, Section3.10, Public
Services.
.______ ---· I Report ------·---·· -··---.. ---------'
10
HN 28S238 i 6v6
Comments Commenter Original Date Origirual Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
Impact to area schools is not PLG New comment NIA Page 3-140 in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR DraftEIR.
insignificant (PLG, 35) included in April explains why the impacts to area schools
6, 2017 Staff would be !~than-significant.
Reno rt
Impact to fire and emergency .PLG August IO, 2016; March 17, 2017 Page 3-179 in Section 3 .11 of the Draft EIR Applicant Response Letter;
medical services not August 24, 2016, explains why the impacts to fire and Response #2 to Matthew Hudes
insignificant (PLG, 36) Planning emergency SCJVices would not be significant.
Commission
Meet:in.2
TranR>Ortation and Traflk ·
. . . . . ····· .. . .. ... ..
; . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .
Traffic bas increased in past 6 Basham New comment NIA See response to Comment 3 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
months; need new traffic included in April Supplemental Responses. The minimal Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
analysis. 6, 2017 Staff fluctuation in traffic counts reported in the
Report Hexagon Supplemental Responses did not
alter anv of the conclusions.
Revised project fails to address PLG New comment NIA See response to Comment 4 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
VTA fundingHwy9 & 17 LGCp. 8 (C) included in April Supplemental Responses. The TIA assumes Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
Interchange before Measure B Fowler 6, 2017 Staff worst case conditions without interchange
(PLG .8) Reoort imt>rovements.
Revised project fails to address PLG August 10, 2016; August24, 2016 See response to Comments S and 6 in Hexagon Supplemental
traffic on Hwy 9 and Alberto LGC,p.4 August 24, 2016, Staff Report; Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The · Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
Way which will become Planning August 19 and 24th observed traffic conditions support the
congested (PLG, 16). Per Commission Applicant Response assumptions used for the TIA in accordance
Caltrans, project will add trips Meeting Letters with Town policy and VTA TIA guidelines.
greater than 1 % capacity; The TIA acknowledges that the project
mitigation is required . BIR is would add trips equal to 1.18% of capacity
inadequate. to SB SR 17 between Lark Avenue and Los
Gatos--Saratoga Road. The Project traffic
improvements would improve operations
compared to existin2 conditions.
Project will increase traffic on Sprandel August 10, 2016; August 24, 2016 See response to Comment 5 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
Hwy 9, NB traffic on Hwy 17 Kemp August 24, 2016, Staff Report; Supplemental Responses. Responses set forth in Exhibit 4
exiting East Los Gatos will add LGC,p.4 Planning August 19 and 24th
to traffic delays . Commission Applicant Response
Meetine: Letters
The curve in front of the project PLO August 10 See response to Comment 8 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
is a sight problem for vehicles . Supplemental Responses. Hexagon Responses set forth in Exhibit 4
(PLG,42) recommends eliminating on-street parking
aloruz proiect frontage .
11
BN 28S238 l 6v6
Comm.ents----------~Comm~-.;t;;---roriginai-na~e o riginal D~te --
Comment Comment
Submitted Addressed ~ __ ..... _______ .. ___ ~------------
Traffic congestion will impact
Alberto Way and LG in a %-mile
radius (PLG, Hi); nood
reasonable ingress/egress on
Alberto Way (BW, 3).
PUr;
Orvell
McGowan
K.1..'lllp
BW
Revised PD fails to straighten I PLG
Alberto for safoty & on-street
parking (PT,G, 15).
August 10, 2016
Staff Rt.']>Ort;
I.cu.er #7, June 13,
2016; August24,
2016
Augu.o;t 24, 2016
Planning
Commission
Meeting
August 24, 2016
Staff Report;
Augu'lt 19 a.11d 24111
Applicant Response
l.cttcrs
March 17, 2017
Response to New Comment included in
April 6, 2017 Staff Report
Section 3.11 Transportation and Traffic
address traffic and circulation impact'! of the
proposed pmjcct. Analysis indicatt.-s impacts
will be less tluin significant. The Traffic
Report con..'lidered the vehicle trips of
surrounding uses in its analysis. In the
"Overall Traffic Conditions" section of the
Hexagon Response I .etter indicates that
office traffic tu the pmjcd would mainly
flow in the counter-commute direction on
easthound I ,os Gatos" Sardt.oga Road, and
would tum left into Alberto Way, avoiding
adding traffic to the eastbound queue on l~os
Gat.011-S~!!!~~ R~ at J~~ _Ci_l!_tos Blvd. ---···
See Applicant Respon.'IC 1/2 to Matthew
Hudes in the Applicant Response Letter
dated March 17, 2017. The n...ovist"-d PD will
implcmt.-n.t the Town's Complete Street
Program. TI1c developer has proposed a
land dedication along the Alberto Way
frontage to facilitate the widening and
s1rnightening of Alberto Way by over 5 feet
'Jb.e revised design moves a majority of the
existing curb and gutt~r into the proposed
land dedication..; as well as the excess right
of way in ordt1r to have a wider and
straighter roadway. The street widening will
allow for a bike lane and a longer right turn
lam~ ontu los Gatos-Saratoga Road.
Hre department facilities will be PLG A~st i 0:-2016; --~ .. 1a~chi7~2(fr7___ -See ~ponset";<.\;-~cntl l in .. iic..'Xag;;;-
aflected by traffic (PLG, 35-37). New comment Supplemental Responses. One or two ft.re
included in April hydrantOJ would be relocated from back of
6, 2017 Staff curb. Emergency re!>'J)Otl8C times would not
Project Document in which
Comment Addressed
!~ ad~!!!!l.!!_!~_!h._is m_~!!:.~)_ . _
Final EIR, Response to
Commc..'llt Letter 7; Hexagon
Respom1c Letter dated April 5,
2017
Applicant Response J .ettcr dated
August 18, 2016; Applicant
Rc..<iponsc 1.etter dated March 17,
2017 (Response #2 lo M atth<..'W
Hudes and Response #1. v. to
Charles Erekson)
----------------llcxagun Supplemental
Rcspouses set forth in Exhibit 4
-----·-·------· -·--·----·-·-~;'iaS-:ro. 2016~ "August 24; 2oiir·---{~·.·~~~~~~h~~~~~:~~~ion iii ncx-agon·-1}1C:;(ago~ Re.~~;~se ~~r datod-
Ncw comment Staff Report; R1:1Sponse I .cttcr dated April 5, 201 7. April 5, 2017.
included in April August 19 and 24th
Fal~ Traffic Report data (Pl,G,
38, 40).
PJ.G
LGC,p.3
6, 2017 Staff Applicant Rc:c;punse
------~-~-··-'--·------· Report ··-~Let~l!f~: _____ ··---------------~---·
12
BN 28523816v6
Comments Commenter Original Date Ori~nal Date Response to New Comment included iu Project Document ha. which
Comment· Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addreued (in addition to this matrix)
·Did not consider traffic from LGC,p.4 New comment NIA See Response to Comment 13 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
475-485 Alberto Way project included in April Supplemental Responses. The 475-485 Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
6. 2017 Staff Alberto Way project had not submitted a
Report planning application at the time the 401
Alberto Wav Proiect TIA was mcnared.
Trip Generation Sensitivity PLG Angust 10, 2016 August24, 2016 See Trip Generation discussion in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
Study (PLG, 39) August 24, 2016 Staff Report; Response Letter dated April 5, 2017. See Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
August 19 and 24th Response to Comment 14 in Hexagon
Applicant Response Supplemental ~sponses. The trip
Letters generation is based on net building size, not
employment The proposed building size
has decreased compared to the original
nmiect.
Traffic fee calculation uses 700 PLG New colilIDCDt NIA See Response to Comment 14 in Hexagon Hexaaon Supplemental
additional trips ($615,800 /$879/ included in April Supplemental Responses. The final traffic Responses set forth in Exln"bit 4.
additional bip) which under 6, 2017 Staff impact fees will be calculated per the
states the fee that would be paid Report Town's requirements and Project conditions
by tenants employing 735 of approval.
neople. <PLG. 39)
The project could potentially PLG New comment June 13, 2016 See Response to Comment 15 in Hexagon Final EIR; Comments 1-3 of
increase hazards due to design included in April Supplemental Responses. The Project Santa Clara VT A Comment
features for bikes, pedestrians, 6, 2017 Staff voluntarily proposed to rebuild the sidewalk Letter #9; Hexagon Response
and transit(PLG, 40) Report front:i.Dg the Project site along westbound Letter dated April 5, 2017.
Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd to create a detached
sidewalk for additional separation between
the vehicles and pedestrians per the Town's
Complete Streets Program. The Project also
widens westbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
to accommodate a bike lane. Currently,
Alberto Way does not have bike lanes, but
the Project proposes to install bike lanes and
a bike box at the intersection of Alberto and
Los Gatos-Saratoga to allow bicyclists to
tum left safely.
MM Tl and T2 cannot be PLG New comment NIA See Response to Comment 16 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
implemented as proposed. included in April Supplemental Responses. The resbiping Responses set forth in Exln"bit 4.
Widen Alberto to 12-foot lane 6, 2017 Staff was designed based on input from the Town.
width. (PLG, 41) Reoort
13
BN 28523816v6
Comment Comment
~---~~-~---~~---~~~~-------~~--~~~~~~~-----~~--.
Response to New Comment included in
April 6, 2017 Staff Report
Project Document in which
Comment Addressed
Comments I c:ommeoter l""o~iginalDate·------~>riginal Dat~------·
-----·-------_ ~uhmi~c!_ _____ Addr~se~ _________ .
New comment N/ A r Sec Response to < :omruent 17 in Hexagon
(in additi_f!!J: to 11>:1,!.~atrix.L__
Applicant Respon11t: I .etter date<!
March 17, 2017 (Rcspum~e 2 to
Matthew Hudes); Ifoxagon
Supplemental Rcspom;es set
PLO MM Ti creates a new and
unacceptable impact on 420 &
435 Alberto Way and fails to
widen Alberto Way in front of
project site. (PLG, 41)
included in April Supplemental Respomics
6, 2017 Staff
Report Sec Respon.c;e 2 to Matthew Hudes and
Response 1 to < :harles Erekson in t11e
Applie11nt Response Lctte£ dated March 17,
2017. 'fht: revised project widen .. 'I and
str.Ughtens Alberto Way by over 5 feet
through a propni;c<l land dedication that will
allow for gre:atcr visihility on Alberto Way,
forth in Exhihit 4.
__ _____ ---··---and~ik.c)anes an<la lon~er ri_ghtturnjane. 1 ·-·--------------1
The Revised Project <lriwway r-LG I Aub'USI 24, 20161 March 17, 201 1See Response. to Comment 18 in Hexagon
and parking areas are BVV Planning Supplemental Responses. The revised site
Applicant Response Letter,
Response #1. iv. to Charles
Erekson; Hexagon Supplemental
Respon.~es set forth in Exhibit 4.
insufficient (PLG, 42) Commission plan is adequate for bus and trm:k access and
Meeting circulation. Buses aml tmcks would not
-P~je<iJ>arking should not ---TK~P
overflow to street parking on
Alhcrto Way. (BVV, 5)
-·-----·--····---·--r-:---RevL'lcd Proje1.,1 appears to have I PLG
no tum-around large enough for
buses (PLG, 42).
·---·-·]---·---August 24, 2016 August 24, 2016
Planning Staff Report;
Commissiou August 19 and 24th
Meeting Applicant Response
Letters
~---
Newcommcnl
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
NIA
Revised PD Garage is·bi~c~edl -I,LG -----~:;nlmcntlN1A ·---
while trash and recycling is included in April
picked up, backing up traffic on 6, 2017 Staff
Alberto & H wy-9 or in the PDs Report
garage while they are present
(PLG, 4_~L-....... ··-------
More jobs will creat~ demand
for more housing and secondary
dcvelopllll,"'D.t. EIR must address
all impact'! including schools
and project should contribute
$50K to 70K per tenant
employee to mitigare school
-·--·~n-·-----. ---·-------r----..... ----------we. p. 7 New comment 1 N/ A
included in April
6, 20 17 Staff
R.l.'POrl
~acts. ---·--·--·· ---···-··· _______ _
14
llN 7.8S7.3816v6
!'.Jlx.:4 to en~ th~_garag~-· -----------·----~--------------__ _
Hexagon Supplemental
Responses set forth jn Exhibit 4.
Sec Re11ponsc to Comment 19 in Hexagon
Supplemental Rcsponsell.
--·--·-------·· ,----------·-----Sec Response to Comment 18 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
Supplemental Responses. Sec rcMpon~ Responses set forth in fo:bihit 4.
ahove.
----·----~----·l!t·----·---------···---Sec Response to Comment 20 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
Supplemental Responses. Garbage trucks Rc!>11onses sel forth in Exhibit 4.
would not blm~k access to the p,amge.
-------------------------+-:-:--·
The pmject involves the n.~cvclopmc:nt of a I Draft ETR
commercially 7.oned properly and not a
residential project The projlict is subject to
the commercial developer impact fees
imposed by Loioi Gatos Union School District
of$.54/squarc foot.
--------------· --· -·----
Comments Co~enter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment Aprll 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addressed lin addition to this matrix)
No construction plan can prevent PLG Final EIR, Letter August24,2016 Section 3.11 Transportation and Traffic, and Final EIR., Response to
complete shutdown of Alberto #5, June 11, 2016 StaffReport; Section 4 Cumulative Impacts address traffic Comment Letter #5; Hexagon
Way for extended periods (PLG, August 19 and 241h and circulation impacts of the proposed Supplemental Responses set
42) Applicant Response project (including access to Alberto Way forth in Exhibit 4.
LettcB during construction activities). Analysis in
Draft ElR indicates impacts are less than
significant. Sec Response to Comment 15 in
Hexa2on Suoolemental ReSPonses.
During construction, work crews PLG August 10, 2016 August 24, 2016 See Response to Comment 22 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
of 50-l 00 will be present on the Staff Report; Supplemental Responses. Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
site at all tim:es, each arriving in August 19 and 24th
a separate vehicle; it is not Applicant Response
possible for them to all park on Letters
the Proiect nrooerty lPLG, 42)
As a Mixed-Use development, PLO Final EIR, Letter FinalEIR. Section. 2 Project Description descnbes the Final EIR, Response tn to Letter
the PD would, generate high #2, June 8, 2016 proposed use of the site as commercial use #2. Hexagon Supplemental
levels of continuous traffic that and not residential use. See Response to Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
are not disclosed in the DEIR or Comment 23 in Hexagon Supplemental
FEIR lPLG. 43) Responses
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-4: PLO "New comment NIA See Response to Comment 24 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental
Widen Hwy-9 by one lane along included in April Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 bas 2 Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
the entire length of the Proposed 6, 2017 Staff lanes along the project frontage. The project
Development on Hwy-9 to allow Report does not cause the need for further widening
safe right turns from Alberto of the highway,
Wav <PLG. 43)
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-5: PLG New comment NIA See Response to Comments 24 and 25 in Hexagon Supplemental
Widen Hwr-9 by one lane each included in April Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
direction between the Hwy-17 6, 2017 Staff Highway 9 has 2 lanes along the project
Overpass and the 2 lane sections Report frontage. The project does not cause the
on both sides to enable the EB need for further widening of the highway.
left tum pocket into Alberto to
be extended enough to prevent
AM 2ridlock <PLG 44)
15
BN 28523816v6
------·----.... ·---Comments ---· ·· ··-·--· ···----Response to New Conummt included in I Pr'oject Document in·~iii~h ··
April 6, 2017 Staff Report . Comment Addressed
Commenter Original Date
Comment
Submitted
Original Date
Comment
Addressed
f"EIR MISSING Mitigation T-6:
Reduce PD Footprint by enough
to enable the widening ofHwy-9
by one luru:: each direction
between the Hwy-17 Overpass
and the 2 lane sections on both
PLG
~~s (PLGi..45}_ ______ ~··---·
No trip generating project should I PI .G
he approved heforc Los Gatos
Blvd. is widencd.(PLO, 26)
New comment
included in April
6, 20 L 7 Staff
R.<..'POrl
-------·· NIA
New comment in I N/ A
. April 6, 2017 Staff
Report
f . . .. ··---•..,,-----,-----.---Utilities and Sel'Vice S).'.!te~-· · · ·
Project sewer crosses
neighboring properties.
New conunent
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
N/A
See R~'J)onsc to Comments 24 and 25 in
Hexagon Supplemc:ntal Responses.
HirJ1way Q has 2 lanes along the project
frontage. The project docs not cause the
need for further widening of the highway.
(in_additio!!_~ this ~~trix)
Hexagon Supplemental
Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
--·-·----·--·---·--M • ---------·------··-· 0 -------~-~-See Rci.-ponse to Comment 27 in Hexagon
Supplemental Responses. The Project
would not caus~ significant impact~ along
Los Gatos Blvd. ... ~.--~·"'-'7--"·-.:---. ,,.,.~·:·----.-..-----::-_-,~~··-::
Hexagon Supplemental
Rcsponsc.<i set forth in Exhibit 4 .
-~~--·--· ·----·-··-~
The °(;x-ist-1-. n-g-buildings-drau""i. the ;Ji-e-se-~g~···-1 EXhibit--2-to-tliis ma-tn-·X::-•···
to a 6' VCP which traverse1> through the
neighboring property. The proposed
building for the Project has capped the
traversing 6' VCJ> onsitc, and instead is
draining the scwai~e of the proposed building
directly into Alberto Way'':'. 6' VCP scw~-r
main, without traversing through a
------··--·---··--_______ ,_!~l.~boring.~~--~ea.~c sec Exhibit 2_.__, ___ _ ----··----
16
BN 28523816vG
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Projed Doc•ment in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addreaed (in addition to this matrb:)
Alternatives
.. ..
Existing square footage PLG New comment NIA Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Applicant Response Letter dated
alternative is consistent with included in April dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant August 18, 2016; Applicant
project objectives. (PLG 46) 6, 2017 Staff Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 Response Letter dated March 17,
Report (Summary of Architectural Changes and 2017 (Summary of Architectural
responses to comments by Thomas Changes and responses to
O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). comments by Thomas
O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes).
1-story garage has negative PLG New comment NIA The underground parking garage is two NIA
impacts (PLG 46). included in April floors below grade, not one. The revised
6, 2017 Staff design reduces the footprint of the
Report underground parking garage, which
decreases the required excavation and also
allows for on-site staging of all consbuction
vehicles, thus eliminating congestion on the
street during construction. Furthermore,
locating most parking below grade
significantly reduces the visual impact of the
surface parking lot and allows for additional
surface landscaping and amenity areas. Any
additional risks associated with the
underground parking garage will be 100%
mitigated thorough proper architectural,
structural and civil design that meets all
codes and Town re<1uirements.
Growth-Induclnir Impacts '. · ··: ;.:
CEQA Section 21100(b)(5) PLG New comment NIA Section 5 .1 of the Draft EIR contains a DraftEIR.
specifies that growth inducing included in April discussion of growth inducing impacts. As
impacts must be addressed in 6, 2017 Staff explained in the Draft EIR, the proposed
EIR and they were not. (PLG, Report project would not be population-inducing
36-37) and would be consistent with the General
Plan and zoning designations for the site;
therefore the Project would not have growth
inducin2 effects.
No Siimlflcant lmpacti :
BIR fails to describe why the PLG New comment NIA The EIR describes the reasons that all of the NIA
possible significant effects were included in April impacts that were evaluated in this EIR were
determined not to be significant. 6, 2017 Staff determined not to be significant.
(PLG, 37) Rimort
17
BN 28523816v6
Comments Co~menter -
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 St1tffReport <:omment Addressed
-Origiual Ii"~(;"------Original Date Response to New Comment included in -B·rroiect Document in which
_ . _ . . Submitted . . Addr~11scd. .. -.. ··-·------·--· _ .. , __ ----~--...,.-·-(in addition ~o t:!!.i.!.!!1.~!!!!1__
:~:;! ~f5if!,:: ~ihe~;-n,LG i-N~w\~ommint--·N/A______ . . The -p;O"jeciiS-rovicwabki~-~ccordancc ~th-IN/A.-·--------- ----
Reviewability (PT .G, 7) I included in April the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code anti
' . ~------1 ····---Rcvi8ed PD Design Features in
conflict with Gimcral Plan
Policfos (PLG, 46-49)
PLO
I.GC,p. 2
6. 2017 Staff application review procedm-cs just like any
~~~ ___ _ ____
1 other dcvclo~i_e_?.~P!.~.i~_!ts_ ~~~~a~l~.:__ ________ --------_
Augui;t 24, 2016 March 17, 2017 Refer to Applicant Re!!pom1c Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated
Planning August 18, 2016 and Applicant Res ponse August 1R, 2016; Applicant
Comwission T .etter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Re11ponse Letter dated March 17,
Meeting Architectuml Changt:s and responses to 2017 (Summary of Architectural
comments by Thomas O 'Donnell, I>. Changes and rcspommi; to
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). conuncnts byThon111s
Additional recommendation!\ were made by O'Doru1dl, D. Michael Kane
the T own's consulting architect, Cannon and Matthe w Hudes).
Design Group, and have bi.Xm incnrporated
into the most recent design submission a.~
discussed above _ ·
Qoestioos V.folity of Cannon I r.oc. p. 2 --Now Comment I N1A·· ---------·tib~7oo~f reduction 11ot;1i~the c~~--l"NiA. _____ ---------
report. References reduction of included in April
only 700 sf 6, 2017 Staff
Report
Desigi1 f'rroup document is incorrect The
actual reduction in ar~-a between the original
design (91,965 sf) and the current propoS<.'<l
Ens~~ tli.at;;~~d~klpment
reinforces and supp01ts the
special qualities of the Town of
Los Gatos (l>LG , 47)
BN 28523816v6
PLG August 10, 2016;
August 24, 2016,
Planning
Commission
M~ting
design (83,000 si) is 8,965 sf. Cannon
Design Group i11 the Town's peer review
consultant retained by the Town to provide
... ____ i!~ iJ1~1;-:!~nt_asiics~~-~~~!f.!he Pr<)j ~c~:-.
August 10, 2016 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter
and 24, 2016 Staff dated August 18, 20 16 and Applicant
Report; AuglL-it 19 Res ponse Letter dated March 17, 20 17
and 24th Applicant (Summmy of Architectural Changes and
Re&·pouse Letters rcspon.~s to 1:omments by 'lbomas
O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and M a tthew
Hudes). Recommendation.-; from Cannon
Design Grnup have been incorporated into
the redesil?ll-
--------~----------.. -· ------------------·---·------
18
Appiicant Rct.1><>me Let~-da~
August L8, 2016; Applicant
Rcsponiic I..e ttcr dated March 17,
2017 (Summary of Arohilectural
Changes and responses to
comments by Thomas
O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane
and Matthew Hudes).
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addresaecl (in addition to this matrix)
Northern portion of buildings LGC,p. 8 (D) New comment The revised PD has relocated the building an Applicant Response Letter dated
should be reduced to 1 story. included in April additional 10 feet away from the north August18,2016;Applicant
6, 2017 Staff property line, for a total of 25 feet of Response Letter dated March 17,
Buildings block views of Report setback, including the Town-mandated 15-2017 (Summary of Architectural
mountains. foot setback. Changes and responses to
March 17, 2017 comments by Thomas
For responses on blocking views, please O'Donnell, Michael Kane and
refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Matthew Hudes).
March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural
Changes and responses to comments by
Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and
Matthew Hudes).
Revised PD Features in conllict PLG August 24, 2016 March 17, 2017 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Applicant Response Letter dated
with LG Commercial Design Planning dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant August 18, 2016; Applicant
Guidelines (PLG, 47) Commission Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 Response Letter dated March 17,
Meeting (Summary of Architectural Changes and 2017 (Summary of Architectural
responses to comments by Thomas Changes and responses to
O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew comments by Thomas
Hudes). Additional recommendations made O'Domidl, Michael Kane and
by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Matthew Hudes).
Design Group, have been incorporated into
the most recent design submission as
discussed above.
Provide more project review and PLG New comment NIA The project is reviewable in accordance with NIA
approval predictability (PLG, included in April the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code and
47) 6, 2017 Staff application review procedures just as any
Report development project is reviewable in such a
manner. Numerous public meetings,
hearings and community workshops have
been conducted by the Town and the
applicant as summarized in the April 6, 2017
Planning Commission staff reoort .
19
BN 28523816v6
··-···----· ··-Commcnb Commenter OriKfnal Date Original l
Comment Commen1
Submitted Addresse
Plan Deficiency (PLG, 47) PLG New comment NIA
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
-----~---· -----·----· Maintain a building scale that is Pl.G August 10, 2016; August IC
consistent with the Town's small lllld 7.4, 2(
scale image (PLG, 48) Report; A
and24111. A
Response
~ ... ~-·-·----·---·· +---·--·-Reinforce the special qualities of PLG August 10, 2016; August lC
the Town's visual character August 24, 2016, and24,2<
(PI..G, 48) Planning Report; A
Commission and24tll /t,
Meeting Response
·------·-
BN 28S238l6v6
'ate I Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Addressed April 6, 2017 Staff Report
-----··-------·-----·----·--·------··-·· ~ (in ad~~toll.~9.!~s matrix
NIA·
2016
6 Staff
.gu.~t 19
.pplicant
Letters
2016
6 Staff
igui.119
,pplkant
Letters
20
Please refer to Applicant Respon.~c J .etter
dated Augu.'lt 18. 2016 and Applicruit
Rt..-spom1c Letter dated March 17, 2017
(Summll1')' of .AruhitfX:lural Changt:s and
respon.-;es to comments by Thomas
O'Donnell, Midtael Kane and Matthew
Hudes). Also, the Staff ana]ysis contained
in the various staff reports prepared for the
Project <k."Jllonstrutcs that the Pr<uect
_c9~1ics with ~-~~-P.lan!!.!l!'!~. l?.c:>licics.
Please n;for to A11plicant Response I .ctter
dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant
Rcspon.'>c Leu.er dated Man:h J 7, 2017
(Summary of Arclritecturnl Changes and
responses to conuncnts by Thomas
O'Donnell, D . Michael Kane and Matthew
Hudes). 'lhcre is no prevalent commercial
archillx:turc style in the immediaw
sum>umling area, so the revised project bas
bc<m nxksignt:".d to complement the existing
commercial ce11ters, using mission-style
architecture. The Town's Architectural
Consultant has approved th.c proposed
architectural style as in acconlance with tJ1e
-----· ·---Applicai1t Response T .ettcr dated
August 18, 2016; Applicant
Response l .etter dated March l 7,
2017 (Summary of Architectural
Changes and responses to
comments by Thomas
O'Doonell, D . Michael Kane
and Matthew Hudes).
To~~ _ _s_gom~~:~_Dcsigu Guid~~~~-~-___ . ·---··---··-----------····,
.Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Applicant Response Lctter dated
dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant August 18, 2016; Applicant
!Wspon!!C I ~ttcr dated Man:h 17, 2017 Rel\ponsc I .cttcr dated March 17,
(Swnmary of Architc<.,1uml Chanecs aud 2017 (Summary of Architectural
responses to comment-; by TI1omas Changes and responses to
O'Donnell, D . Michael Kane and Matthew comments by Thomas
Hud<..-s). Additional rccorumendation.'I made O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane
by the Town's cousultiug archite<.,1., Cannon and Matthew Hudes).
Design Group. have bcx,'ll incorporated into
the most n1Cml design submission as
disGusscd above. 'l11e design incorporate.'!.
various design clement-; from the Hotel Los
Gatos and Palo Alto Medical Foundation
of!!~~ building IOC!}ted 011 Lol!_ Gatos :1Jlvd.
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addretsed
Submitted Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
Protect property owner PLG August 10; 2016 August 19 and 24w Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Applicant Response Letter dated
investments by discouraging and August 24, Applicant Response dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant August 18, 2016; Applicant
inappropriate adjacent 2016, Planning Letters Response Letta dated March 17, 2017 Response Letter dated March 17,
development (PLG, 48) Commission (Summary of Architectural Changes and 2017 (Summary of Architectural
Meeting responses to comments by Thomas Changes and responses to
O'Donnell, D . Michael Kane and Matthew comments by Thomas
Hudes). Additional recommendations made O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane
by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon and Matthew Hudes).
Design Group, have been incorporated into
the most recent design submission as
discussed above.
To encourage signs which are in PLG August 10, 2016 Once a tenant and/or tenants have been NIA
scale and harmony with the and 24, 2016 Staff identified, the Owner will submit a Master
architecture.and the character of Report; August 19 Signage Program (MSP) that is consistent
the Town (PLG, 48) and 241h Applicant and complies with To"Wll requirements for
Response Letters exterior building and site si1?ru12e.
Maintenance of the existing PLG August 10, 2016; August 10, 2016 Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated
small to'WD feel (PLG, 48) Wagner August 24, 2016, and 24, 2016 Staff August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response August 18, 2016; Applicant
Planning Report; August 19 Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Response Letter dated March 17,
Commission and 24lh Applicant Architectural Changes and responses to . 2017 (Summary of Architectural
Meeting Response Letters comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Changes and responses to
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes), which comments by Thomas
indicates that recommendations from O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane
Cannon Design Group, have been and Matthew Hudes).
incorporated into the most recent design
submission as discussed above. The Town's
Architectural Consultant has approved the
proposed style as in accordance with the
Town's Commercial Desiim Guidelines.
21
BN 28523816v6
C~mments · -l"Commcnttt--l Orlginal Date
Comment
__ --·-··---------,----·-,.-· Submitted ___ . C.'areful attention to an:hitcctural PLG August 10, 2016;
and larui'lcape details similar to Augnst24, 2016,
the Town's residential structurCH Planning
(PLG, 48) Com.mission
Meeting
Original Date
Comment
Response to New Comment included in
April 6, 2017 Staff Report
Addr~¥d·-----~ ··--~---·---· August 10, 2016 '111e architectural details and 1and'icape
and 24, 2016 Staff design have been designed in strict
Report; August 19 compliat1cc with the Towr1's zonine
and 241h Applicant n:quiremcnl'I for the site. 'The revised design
Response Letters oflers a gl.'Ilcmus landscape amenity area in
front of the building, facing onto Alberto
Way.
Additional recommendations made by the
'l'own's consulting architect, Cannon Design
Group, have been im:orporated into the most
recent design submission which further
address the request for similar architectural
and landscape details by providing
additional visual variety and breaking up the
scale on the front fac;adc, including varying
the heights of the mansard roof11, adding
additional recesses and projections at the
front fiu;adc, and pnwiding more of a wdll
plane offset where the two-story front wall
sma11.;;;JC-hWldi0gs ,.;r,i;a·-1 PLO August IO, 2016; Aug0'110, 2016
strong pedClltria:n onentation Kemp August 24, 2016, and 24, 2016 Staff
(PLG, 48) Planning Report; Augu.'lt 19
Commission and 24th Applicant
1n1Jlsiti~g~!O. ~~-~~<_?ry _wal!:.
Plt:asc refoc to Applicant I~csponsc I .ettl.'t'
dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant
Respom1e I .ettcr dated March 17, 2017
(Summary of Architectuml Changes and
n:sponscs to \:Ollllllcntc; by 'Jbomas
O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew
Meeting Response Letk~rs
Hudes). The additional r1..-comm<.'lldations
made by the Town's consulting architect,
Cannon Design Group, buve been
incorporated into the most recent design
··-··--·--· L ·-'~!~~sion ~.~~qib~~1~~".'L. ____ _
22
BN 28523&16v6
·------------------... Project Document in which
Comment Addressed
ii!t addition ~~-~s matrix)_ __ _
Applkant Respon'!e Lcttt..'I'S
dated August 18, 2016 and
March 17, 2017.
Applicant Response Letter dated
August 18, 2016; Applicant
Response Letter dated March 17,
2017 (Summary of Architectural
Changes and n,>t.T'Onses t<,1
comments by Thomas
O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane
and Matthew Hudes).
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addre111sed
Submitted Addressed (inadclltiontothismatrb:)
The sensitive interface of PLG August 10, 2016; August 10, 2016 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Applicant Response Letter dated
commercial development with August 24, 2016, and 24, 2016 Staff dated August 18 , 2016 and Applicant August 18, 2016; Applicant
adjacent residential Planning Report; August 19 Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 Response Letter dated March 17,
neighborhoods (PLO, 48) Commission and 24111 Applicant (Summary of Architectural Changes and 2017 (Summary of Architectural
Meeting Response Letters responses to comments by Thomas Changes and responses to
O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew comments by Thomas
Hudes). The revised Project combines the O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane
two former buildings, and repositions it to and Matthew Hudes).
the rear setback. The new building is over
60 feet further away from Alberto Way than
. the former 401 building. In addition, the
tower elements and balcony on the north
side of the building have been eliminated,
which allow for better views and more
privacy to surrounding residential
neil?hborhoods.
Strong encouragement of a PLO August 10, 2016; August 10, 2016 Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated
unique Los Gatos scale and August 24, 2016, and 24, 2016 Staff August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response August 18, 2016;.Applicant
character (PLG, 48) Planning Report; August 19 Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Response Letter dated March 17,
Commission and 24t1a Applicant Architectural Changes and responses to 2017 (Summary of Architectural
Meeting Response Letters comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Changes and responses to
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). comments by Thomas
Additional recommendations made by the O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane
Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design and Matthew Hudes).
Group, have been incorporated into the most
recent design submission. The Project has
been designed so that it preserves and
promotes existing commercial centers
consistent with the maintenance and design
of a small-town Class A office center.
23
BN 28S23816v6
Comments
-·--· -------
Design to maintain and reinforce
the unique scale and character of
Los Gatos (PT .G, 48)
Break .;;eral1 bui.i<iin&~am-
into segments similar to those of
nearby structures and parcels
(.PLU,48)
--------· .. ---·----· Ct1mmenter
PI.G
PLG
Kemp
Ori2iJtlll Date
Comnient
~ubl!!_ittec.!_ _ .. _
August 10, 2016;
August 24, 2016,
Planning
Conunission
Meeting
August lO, 2016;
August 24, 2016,
Phmning
Commission
Meeting
-· ·--------------·-----------~------------Avoid design which consists
largely of boxes with applied
design element!> (Pl.G, 48)
BN 28S?J816v6
PW;C:aonon
Design Group
February 22, 20 l7
_______ _. --·-----------
Original Date
Comment
Addresst!d ----·----.--August 10, 2016
and 24, 2016 St.nff
Report; August 19
and 24th Applicant
Rcspon..~~ I .cttcrs
August 10, 2016
and 24, 2016 Staff
Report; August 19
and 24th Applicant
Response Letters
March 16, 2017--
·----~.
24
Re5ponsc to Nl'w Comment included in
April 6, 2017 Staff Report
------·--·--··-----····------
Please refer to Applicant Respomw Lcttc.-r
dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant
Respon.~ T .erter dated March 17, 2017
(Summary of Architectural Changes and
~sponscs to comments by ·n1omas
O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew
Hudes). Additional recommendations made
by the Town's consulting archikct, Cannon
Design Group, have been incorporated into
the most n:l:cnt design submission to
maintain and reinforce the scale and
character of T .os Gatos by providing visual
variety redudnA the mass of the et-"1\tr,tl link
of the sethack portion of the hui !ding and
adding additional trellis foalures at the
Project Document in which
Comment Addres!led
.(!i!_a_ddition to this matr~!L
Applicant Response Letter date d
August 18, 2016; Applicant
Response Letter datv'<l March 17,
2017 (Summary of Architectural
Changes and .responses to
comments hy Thomas
O'Donnell, Michael Kunc and
Matthew Hudes).
~nd.~ws on th_c_ fron~~dc. _____ -----··---·-··------
Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Applicant Response Letter dated
dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant August 18, 2016; Applicant
Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 R<'.sponse Letter dated March 17,
(Summary of .Architectural Chances and 20 I 7 (Sununary of Architcctur.d
n!l>ponses to comments by Thomae; Changes and responses to
O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew comments by Tb.oma.-i
Hudes). See the discnssion ahovc rcganling O'Donnell. Michael Kane and
the applicant's efforts to break up the MattbL'W Hudes); Response 1 in
massing and scale in the revised project. Arc-Tee Rc:.-ponse I.otter dalcd
March 16, 2017.
Pt.;Wie ;~fu;io ApplicMtR~~~ Lett~· Appli~t Resp~~·m J~ttL-r li;lcti
dated August 18, 2016 nnd Applicant Auf,,>uSt 18, 2016; Applicant
Response Lett.er dated March 17, 20 l 7 Response Lcttc:r dated March 17.
(Summary of Archit.cctural Changes and 20 J 7 (Summary of Architectural
responses to comments by Thomas Changes and responses to
O'Donnell, Michael Kime and Matthew comments by Thomas
Ilutk.'S). The revised dc.qign incorporclt.es O'Donnell, Michael Kane and
visual varidy and break up in scale on the Matthew Hudes); Response J in
front facade, including increa.'ling the Arc· Tee Response I .ettcr dated
man.'>llrd TO(lfbeight on the Jell side of the March 16, 2017.
building to cred.te differential in the massing,
while preventing adverse impacts to the
views of the trees and hills in the distance. ..-----·------·
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
Break facade segments into PLG;Cannon February 22, 2017 March 16, 2017 Please refer to Applicant Response Letter Applicant Response Letter dated
modules (PLG, 49) Design Group dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant August 18, 2016; Applicant
Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 Response Letter dated March 17,
(Summary of Architectural Changes and 2017 (Summary of Arohitectural
responses to comments by Thomas Changes and responses to
O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew comments by Thomas
Hudes). The design includes additional O'Donnell, Michael Kane and
visual variety and break up in scale on the Matthew Hudes); Response 1 in
front~. including varying the heights Arc-Tee Response Letter dated
of the mansard roofs, adding additional March 16,2017.
recesses and projections at the front fa~ade.
and providing more of a wall plane offset
where the tw~cy front wall transitions to
a one-storv wall.
Provide a unified design around PLG;Cannon February 22, 2017 March 16, 2017 The project's design is consistent around all Response 1 in Arc-Tee Response
all sides of buildings (PLG, 49) Design Group four sides of the building. Additional design Letter dated March 16, 2017
enhancements and detailing are pro~ded at
the front f~ade of the building facing
Alberto Wav.
Where continuity of design is PLG New comment NIA The architectural details and landscape NIA
difficult to achieve, provide included in April design are in strict compliance with the
substantial landscaping (PLG, 6, 2017 Staff Town's zoning requirements for the site.
49) Report The revised design offers a generous
· landscape amenity area in :front of the
buildimi:, facin2 onto Alberto Wav.
Integrate the screening for all PLG New comment NIA All trash and service areas on the site will be See e.g., Conditions 132-133 of
trash and service areas into the included in April properly screened from view as is required Project Conditions of Approval.
design of the buildings (PLG, 6, 2017 Staff by Town of Los Gatos zoning requirements.
49) Reno rt
Operable windows (PLG, 49) PLG New comment NI A Operable windows arc not practical due to See e.g., Condition 39 of the
Provide visual buffering of on-included in April code and Title 24 requirements which Project Conditions of Approval
site utility elements (PLG, 49) 6 , 2017 Staff mandate an energy efficient HV AC system;
Report the efficiency of which is compromised by
the use of operable windows.
Locate transformers, valves and PLG New comment NIA All service areas and on-site utility See e.g., Conditions 132-133 of
similar elements where they will included in April equipment (transformers, etc.) on the site Project Conditions of Approval.
be least visible (PI..G, 49) 6, 2017 Staff will be properly screened :from view per
Reoort Town of Los Gatos zoning reciuirements.
25
BN 28523816v6
-----,-----------..---------------··--···---....---· -·~---·-Comments Commenter Original Date
Comment
Original Date
Comment
~_ddres~d ... ---·
NIA
Response to New Comm
April 6, 2017 Staff Rep'
~nt included in Project Document in which
----------1----Subordinatt: parki11g to the PI .0
buildings. Avoid parking lots in
locations that interrupt retail
and/or structural continuity near
Submitte~I_ ____ _
New comment
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
rt
to the huildings
1derground
:e parking lots arc
-upt retail or
_ _front p~~ ~~-~!.C:t.121__
Projects with multiple tenant'l
will be required to prepHre a
Master Signage Program (PLG,
Parkinr, is "subordinate<:
witl1 the provision of an
parking garaAe. No surfi
proposl.'.J that would intc.
structwal continuity near
Pi.a ·-i NIA I NIA ··--loncca.teu;nttandiorten1
~~.!Conta$~-_____
its have been
49)
-·-·-----------1-Additional disclosures
describing work to be
BVV
....:'..-rfo1'.!Jle~_J!lVV __ 6L ___ ~-______ ,
The Project will dq>n .. -ss AlbL'rkl I }>1.G
Way Property Values both
during and after construction
(PLG,42)
-----··---·-~ ~~]!S-~~£tio_!_'!'raffic_IAir_Q_~aJt
If water is used to control
particulates during construction,
trucks exiting the site will leave
with mud on their tires, which
will be deposited in Alberto Way
~ H~>.. 0'!.G. "QL ____ _
During construction, the road
bt:ds uf Alberto Way and Hwy-1>
wilt be destroyed or ~riously
damaged by the folly loaded
PJ.G
NIA
J.cltL-r #2, June 6,
2016
NI A
identified. the Owner wi
Siguage Prop.ram (MSP:
and complies with Town
submit a Master
hat is consistent
cquircrocnts for
~~ .. -~ -~xtc.'lior buil~ and sit1
This comment doc-; not i;c a CEQA is.sue;
no flirtlu.rr response i'l requ ired •
--._.. _____ --------AuglL<it 10, :Wl6
and 24, 2016 Staff
Report; August 19
and 24th A]lplicant
This comment docs not
environmentnl issue; no
rcquirc<l.
scan
rthcr response UI
~--....,.--,-~,.L ~~-e.'lp0t~~ }_..ettcrs ·-·--~ .. -~. ·-~-,·
·------.. New comment
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
New comment
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
NIA
NIA
~EIR Section 3.2 evaluates constniction-
relatcd air qlllllity impact~. Mitigation
Measmc AQ-3 and Conditions 120 and J 31
address mensures to minimize potential for
deposition nf dust anrl mud at off-site
locations .
·condiiiOii.~-1 06 thn°iugh iufequi~e-iiiat the · ·
developer submit a construction
tn.-1nagcm(:nt plan prior to isslUUlCe of any
p~rmiL'l lo cmumencc work.
~m·~~-i;rucks (Plf!!.. 43)_. ____ _
MM T-2 call'i for a construction
contract with Los Gatos but,
-·----· PLG +.---·-·-New comment
included in April
6, 2017 Staff
Report
NIA Per conditionlOS, the di°vel<;pcr shaif~·
respon.qihle for obtaining Caltrnns approval
of a truffic control plan for work within the
Caltrans right-oJ:.way.
there is no mitigation for the
comrtruction contract with
~altnu_!s (P!&,_ 43). ---·
HN 28S2,816v6
------··· -·---·--l-------------~---
26
Comment Addressed
(in addition to this matr!!}_ _____
NIA Also sec revised project
submittal dated March 2017.
·-·-
NIA
-------··-·--··---N I A
Final EIR, Re!>-ponse to
Comment Letter #2, Rcspon.<1c
116
--·
·-----·--DEIR
DEIR
~---·-----··-----------! NIA
Comments Commenter Original Date Original Date Response to New Comment included in Project Document in which
Comment Comment April 6, 2017 Staff Report Comment Addressed
Submitted Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
200 diesel truck trips per day for Basham New comment NIA No construction would occur on weekends. NIA
1 to 2 years; some days more McDonald inclUded in April The Project construction activities are
with 6-7 ttucks at a time. 174 Fowler 6, 20 l 7 Staff designated for Monday through Friday from
round trips per day. address Report 9-4 in order to .mitigate peak traffic
truck traffic impacts due to concerns.
beach traffic. Construction
traffic imnacts to oedestrians.
Other/Miscellaneous ·
· CEQA document needs to be BVV New comment NIA The modifications descnbed above are · March 17, 2017 letter and Final
revised and recirculated. included in April feasible and represent minor revisions and EIR..
6, 2017 Staff clarifications to the overall project that will
Report not add significant new infurmation to the
Town of Los Gatos 401-409 Alberto Way
Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Report (BIR). Recirculation of the EIR is
not required because the proposed
modifications will further lessen impacts
that the Town previously found to be less
than-significant. Further the changes
incorporated into the Project would not
involve a new significant environmental
impact, a substantial increase in the severity
of a prior environmental impact, or a
feasible mitigation measure or alternative
that we declined to adopt and that will
clearly lessen any project impacts. No
information provided in this submittal
indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate
or conclusory or that the public was
deprived of a meaningful opportunity to
review and comment on the EIR.
Project negatively impacts senior LGC Letter #2, June 6, NIA This comment does not raise a CEQA issue; Final EIR, response to Comment
citizens who reside in the PLG 2016 no further response is required. Letter #2, Response #6
neighborhood (LGC, p. 5). Fails
to compensate damaged sellers
due to lower property values.
(PLG,p. 42)
27
BN 28S23816v6
Legend:
PD =-Proposed Development
PLO = Pueblo de Los Gatos Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) i ncludl.-d in April 7, 2017 Staff
Report
BVV =Bella Vista Villages Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff
Report
LC.C =Los Gatos Commons Submitted to r .os Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff
Report
28
BN 285238 I 6v6
EXHIBIT 1
GEOTECHNICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
WATER RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES --Expect Excellence· ----------·-----------
April 19, 2017
Ms. Alicia Guerra
Buchalter Nemer
55 Second Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject: 401 -409 Alberto Way
Los Gatos, California
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dear Ms. Guerra:
Project No.
12175.000 .000
At your request, we prepared this supplemental response letter to public comments for your
project at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos, California. Specifically, we are responding to
comments presented in a letter prepared by Geissler Engineering (Reference 4) as well as
comments from representatives of the Alberto Way Liaison Committee, Alberto Way Citizens,
Pueblo De Los Gatos, Bob Burke, Las Casitas, Bella Vista Village, and Neighbors of Alberto
Way included in the TO\vn of Los Gatos April 7, 2017 Staff Report on the above-referenced
project.
We previously prepared a design-level geotechnical report for the project (Reference 2), which
was peer reviewed by AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC). Our response letter to the AMEC peer
review comments (Reference 3) was accepted by the Town of Los Gatos. Both our design-level
geotechnical report and response to peer review letter were signed and stamped by a California
registered Geotechnical Engineer.
GEISSLER ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Geissler Engineering provided the following comments in their Hydrology Report dated
March 31, 2017 (Reference 4). Our responses to each of Geissler Engineering's comments are
as follows:
Geissler Engineering Comment 1
The likelihood of life-threatening flooding due to upstream dam failures.
Page 8, Upstream Dam Fa;ture Section, ':A catastrophic failure of the Lenihan Dam
would cause flooding at the project location within minutes. Underground parking
amplifies the risk of drowning in the event of a dam failure."
ENGEO Response to Comment 1
As shown on Plate 1 of the Inundation Map of Lexington Dam prepared by Santa Clara Valley
Water District (Figure 1 ), the project site, the neighboring properties, as well as the majority of
the Town of Los Gatos, are located within the inundation zone in the event of dam overflow or
failure.
SUBJECT TO A lTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
6399 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 150 •San Jose, CA 95119 • (408) 574-4900 •Fax (888) 279-2698
www.engeo.com
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way , Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
12175.000.000
Aprif 19,2017
Page2
It is the responsibility of the Santa Clara Water District {SCVWD) to perform surveillance,
inspections and maintenance to reduce the risk of dam failure and overtopping. Moreover,
SCVWD collaborates with local public agencies such as the Town of Los Gatos to provide
warnings and emergency response.
Figure 1: Plate 1 of the Inundation Map of Lexington Dam prepared by Santa Clara Valley Water
District
In December 2012, Terra/GeoPentech prepared a Seismic Stability Evaluation on Lenihan Dam
for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. According to the report, the likelihood of significant
cracks forming in the crest and other areas during the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
is considered very low, and no seismic remedial measures are deemed necessary at the
Lenihan Dam. Additionally, the report indicates that the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD)
performed their own independent analyses and concurred that no seismic remedial measures
were necessary.
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION-ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 3
Based on the information ENGEO reviewed, the risk of inundation as well as the likelihood of
life-threatening flood at the project site is low and the hazard to the project is no greater than
that of any other parcel within the mapped inundation zone in the Town of Los Gatos.
Comment 2:
Soil subsidence caused by temporary dewatering during construction.
Page 6, Dewatering Section: "First, there is likely to be slight soil subsidence in the near
vicinity of the coffer dam due to dewatering. Second, the effluent from diesel-powered
pumps must be discharged onto the street or other recewing drainage facility such as a
storm dr~in ... At a minimum, this water is added to existing drainage facilities and, in
effect, reduces the capacity of other drainage facilities (e.g. storm drains) that serve the
neighborhood... Geissler Engineering calculations suggest that all of the Las Casitas
development and Pueblo de Los Gatos developments are likely to exhibit cracked slabs
as a result of soil subsidence as a result of construction."
ENGEO Response to Comment 2
Geissler Engineering did not provide its calculations to support its letter. Temporary dewatering
during construction will drawdown groundwater in the vicinity of the excavation and result in an
increase of vertical stresses in surrounding soils. When vertical stresses increase in soil,
settlement may occur in soft compressible clayey deposits and loose sandy or gravelly deposits.
Contrary to Or. Geissler's comments, the soils encountered below the design groundwater level
of 12 feet at the project site are medium dense to very dense clayey gravels. The risk of
settlement (subsidence) in dense soil deposits as a result of temporary dewatering is low.
Please see Chapter 3.5 of the Draft EIR for a description of the existing Project site soil
characteristics.
Additionally, groundwater was encountered at a depth of roughly 21 feet in June 2015, which is
below the historic high groundwater level of 12 feet bgs. Based on this data, the project site and
vicinity has already experienced the effects of a lowered groundwater level. We are not aware of
signs of subsidence reported in the area as the groundwater level fluctuates. This also indicates
that the soils in the project area are not prone to subsidence as a result of lowered groundwater
levels.
Comment3:
Long-term hydro/ogic effects caused by diversion of subsurface flow of groundwater following
construction of the proposed 2-story underground garage.
Page 5, Groundwater Hydrology Section: "Geissler Engineering is concerned that the
construction of a 22-foot deep underground garage may cause diversion of subsurface
seepage patterns. The long-term, effects of such diversion of subsurface seepage
include a rise in groundwater levels in the neighboring properties and increased seepage
flow rates which in tum may cause piping failures in adjacent soil strata. Geissler
Engineering estimates that ... the diversion of subsurface seepage is approximately 250
feet from the underground garage _.. The permeability of the surficial clayey soils
estimated to be on the order of 1 o..a cm/sec (very low) whereas the permeability of the
gravel strata 10"5 cm/sec (very high)."
SUBJECT TO A TIORNEY DIRECTION -A TIORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
ENGEO Response to Comment 3
12175 .000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 4
Diversion of subsurface groundwater flow occurs when an impermeable structure, such as a
slurry cut-off wall, is constructed across high groundwater flow gradients, such as along the • center of a dam or levee, to increase flow p~ths and reduce the risk of piping. The groundwater
level encountered at the project site is similar to nearby areas, indicating that the hydraulic
gradient in the area is relatively flat In the absence of steep hydraulic gradient in subsurface
flow, diversion of groundwater is unlikely. The groundwater level surrounding the basement is
expected to stabilize to a level similar to the surrounding area after dewatering wells are
decommissioned.
The dense to very dense sand and gravel deposits encountered at the project site are confined
in a clay matrix. The clay matrix will reduce the permeability of site soils . Considering the
density of the soil deposits, the low permeability as a result of the clay matrix and lack of
hydraulic flow gradient, the risk of piping is very low.
It is our expert opinion that the construction of a subsurface garage will not dramatically impede
groundwater flow, and the risk of piping as described by Geissler Engineering is extremely
unlikely.
Comment4:
The likelihood of structural cracking (post-construction) of the proposed 2-story underground
garage and subsequent seepage of groundwater into the garage.
Page 3, Executive Summary Section: "In the event of an earthquake, the soils below the
2-story underground garage are likely to exhibit significant Joss of bearing capacity. Loss
of bearing capacity is likely to result in differential foundation settlement with resultant
structural cracking of the reinforced concrete structure. Cracking of the reinforced
concrete structure allows significant influx of groundwater. Geissler Engineering
estimates that the rate of flow into the (cracked) underground (and underwater) garage
structure could range from 50 gallons per minute (gpm) to 500 gpm."
Page 4, Soil Conditions Section: "Appreciate that differential foundation settlement on
the order of an inch or more shall cause significant cracking in the reinforced concrete
structure. In an underground (and underwater) garage, this is likely to allow the influx of
substantial flow of groundwater.
Page 8, Dewatering Section: "ft is significant that ENGEO recommended that concrete
slabs be 8 inches thick at the proposed development. That shows that ENGEO
appreciates the potential for cracked slabs due to seasonal groundwater variation in
expansive subgrade soils."
ENGEO Resoonse to Comment 4
The proposed office structure should be supported o n a structural mat foundation designed in
accordance with recommendations provided In the Geotechnical Report, summarized as follow:
• Tolerate up to 1 inch of total liquefaction settlements
• Tolerate up to% inch of differential liquefaction induced settlement
• Withstand an edge cantilever distance of 6 feet
• Withstand an interior·span distance of 15 feet
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 5
When designed based on the above criteria, the foundation mat is rigid enough to span
localized irregularities without suffering from structural damage. We do not anticipate severe
cracking of the structure and associated water intrusion as described by Geissler Engineering
on a foundation mat designed in accordance with the above criteria. We also note that the
above mentioned foundation design criteria are not exceptional to projects constructed in the
San Francisco Bay Area.
Seasonal moisture fluctuation on expansive soil may impact surficial secondary slabs such as
walkways, patio and driveway slabs. Since the foundation is below the water table, moisture
variations which would cause shrink and swell of expansive clay cannot occur at the foundation
subgrade level so expansive soil will have no long-term effect on the below-grade foundation.
Additionally, the 8-inch-thick slab recommendation noted by Geissler Engineering is for concrete
pavement design and is intended to provide support to traffic loads. Geissler Engineering has
misunderstood the purpose of the 8-inch-thick concrete pavement section referenced in the last
quoted statement in Comment 4 above.
Comment5:
Long-term dewater;ng required to discharge the seepage of groundwater into the garage.
Page 8, Dewatering Section: "Put simply, there is no waterproofing on the market that
will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when
differential foundation settlement due to seasonal groundwater variation cause
differential foundation settlement of~" or more."
ENGEO Response to Comment 5
As stated in our response to Comment 4 above, the risk of cracking within the foundation mat
due to earthquakes or presence of expansive soils and the risk of associated groundwater
intrusion are low. Thus, this project will not.require long-term dewatering from a geotechnical
standpoint.
The proper type of waterproofing w H1 be determined and specified by a waterproofing consultant
as recommended in our project geotechnical report. Examples of similar construction where
ENGEO was the project geotechnical consultant include the Epic Apartment Homes in San Jose
and the 201 Marshall Apartments in Redwood City.
Comment6:
Problems associated with fang-term dewatering in the vicinity of the proposed 2-story
underground garage.
Page 8, Dewatering Section: "Put simply, there is no waterproofing on the market that
will prevent the influx of groundwater into a reinforced concrete structure when
differential foundation settlement due to seasonal groundwater variation cause
differential foundation settlement of~" or more."
ENGEO Response to Comment 6
Please see our response to Comments 4 and 5.
Comment 7:
The likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm.
SUBJECT TO A TIORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401~409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
ENGEO Response to Comment 7
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page6
Comments regarding the likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm will be addressed by
Kier & Wright.
CommentB:
The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a previously
mapped Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone.
Page 5, Earthquake Risk Section: The project location is located within an earthquake
fault rupture hazard zone [Ref: California Geologic Survey, State of California
Department of Conservation]"
ENGEO Response to Comment 8
We disagree with Geissler Engineering on the statement quoted under Comment 8. The project
site is not located within State of California Fault Rupture Hazard Zone {Los Gatos Quadrangle,
1991) as shown on Figure 2.
Figure 2: State of California Special Studies Zone Map,
Los Gatos Quadrangle, 1991
··I··• .. :
" 1' '...; ''
I -t' '.-.·. • . -~ .
. . ~-. .. ": ~
. '~ "' . ': .
··.:
. · .. ·,_. ...
·J, .... . ;· . ~-. . ' . -~ . ~ .
I
K
.} '
. ,_., ·-······~ .., ...
. ·~·.
'"
.· ... , ' ., . . ~
. .. :
State of California Fault
Rupture Hazard Zone
~ . . . . ...
. -· ·.~ . ' --. .-:;.•,
..... · .. ,··-; .. ····' ·· .. ···
. .: . :.:
... -·-
• ·. !
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 7
A further description of local faults in the project vicinity and the associated ground rupture
hazards can be found in our project geotechnical report . We conclude the potential for surface
fault rupture at the site is unlikely.
Comment9:
The hazards associated with the location of the proposed garage located within a previously
mapped Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone.
Page 5, Earthquake Risk Section: The project is located li1ithin an Earthquake Induced
Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The risk of earthquake induced liquefacti on hazard has been
determined to be high by the Santa Clara Planning Department. [Ref: Santa Clara
County Hazard Mitigation Plan dated February 21 , 2012]. Plate 1.2 of the Seismic
Hazard . Zone Report for the Los Gatos Quadrangle (2002) indicated a likelihood of
liquefaction that requires mitigation measures are required as per Public Resources
Code Section 2693 (c). The ENGEO Report admits that the strata of clayey gravels soils
at the subject property ... 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar]
ENGEO Response to Comment 9
Publically available liquefaction hazard maps published by ABAG, Santa Clara County, CGS
and others are intended for screening purposes. Site-specific liquefaction exploration and
analysis is always required to properly evaluate the site risk of liquefaction and resulting ground
deformation.
ENGEO performed a thorough liquefaction evaluation, which was peer reviewed by AMEC
Foster Wheeler and accepted by the Town of Los Gatos. Based on our engineering analyses,
conservative estimates of liquefaction-induced settlement are presented. The effects of
liquefaction should be mitigated by designing the building foundation as described in our report.
ALBERTO WAY LIAISON COMMITTEE (AWLC)
Representatives of the AWLC submitted comments regarding the impact of the proposed
development on surrounding developments. Our responses to the geologic/geotechnical
comments from the AWLC are as follow:
Comment 14:
The Revised Project would result in hydrology impacts. Geissler Engineering considered the
impact of the proposed construction of a 2-story underground garage included in the reduced
Project on the existing residences on Alberto Way due ta :
(i) The likelihood of life-threatening flooding due to upstream dam failures;
(ii) Soi/ subsidence caused by temporary dewatering during construction
(iii) Longwterm 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 longwterm de wa tering in the vicinity of the proposed 2wstory
underground garage;
SUBJECT T O ATTORNEY D IRECT ION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
(vii) The likelihood of flooding due to a 125-year storm;
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Pages
(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 Uquefaction Zone;
(x) The likelihood of flooding of the proposed 2-story underground garage due to storm
water runoff.
ENGEO Response to Comment 14
Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1 to 1 O above concerning
geotechnical and seismic-related comments . ·
Comment 16:
Replace the underground parking with surface parking.
ENGEO identifies the risks of proposed mitigation measures but the proposed mitigations (e.g.,
dewatering and waterproofing) are not sufficient to protect the neighboring properties according
to Geissler Engineering. Geissler Engineering has identified a number of risks associated with
the current design. Geissler recommends that all of the parking remain above grade and be
designed as pervious paving.
The Los Gatos Commons Committee concurred with the comments. As a result of soil
subsidence, Las Casitas and Pueblo de Los Gatos will likely experience cracked slabs, and
would experience huge expense and disruption from the necessary repair work, if not cracks in
their foundations. Construction of the underground garage will cause piping failures in the
neighboring properties, very expensive and disruptive to repair. Reduced capacity of drainage
facilities in the neighborhood will create many problems, including impediment to pedestrians.
The EIR did not divulge geologic/geotechnica/, hydrology or health and safety impacts caused
by parking garage. The EIR should be revised and recirculated.
ENGEO Response to Comment 16
Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1 to 6. Construction of the
parking garage in accordance with our recommendations as forth in the ENGEO, Geotechnical
Exploration for 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California dated July 17, 2015 and revised August
13, 2015 would not result In any new significant geologic/geotechnical, hydrology or health and
safety impacts as explained above.
Comment22
The proposed building will impact Bella Vista Village.
ENGEO Response to Comment 22
Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1 to 6. It is our opinion that the
proposed building will not impose impact to Bella Vista Village from a geologic and geotechnical
standpoint. Our report recommends standard construction techniques and foundation design
criteria that are commonly used in the San Francisco Bay Area.
SUBJECT T O A TIORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
ALBERTO WAY CITIZENS, MR. BOB BURKE AND PUEBLO DE LOS GATOS
12175.000.000
April 19,2017
Page9
Representatives of Alberto Way Citizens and Pueblo de Los Gatos, as well as Mr. Bob Burke,
submitted comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on surrounding
properties. Our responses to the geologic/geotechnical comments from Alberto Way Citizens
and Pueblo de Los Gatos are as follow:
Comment2:
Contains geotechnica/ and underground hydrologic assessments that bar the site from any
buildings of the size of the ·Project based on liquefaction and settling as well as the revised
project description's underground parking, the lower level of which would be underwater.
ENGEO Response to Comment 2
Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1 to 6 .
Comment 11
Water table too shallow for a 2-level underground garage and requires boring at this time to
confirm current wet period water table . Safeway underground garage has had flooding
problems. Project technical report doesn't address potential impact to underground garage.
Impacts are insurmountable. Los Gatos Creek rerouted.
EN GEO Response to Comment 11
The design groundwater level recommended in the Geotechnical Report represent the historic
high groundwater level depicted on maps published by the State of California. Peer reviewer
AMEC Foster Wheeler and the neighbor's engineering representative , Geissler Engineering,
concur with the recommended design groundwater level of 12 feet below existing grade.
We are unable to comment on the performance of nearby structures, such as the Safeway
grocery store noted in the comment, without understanding their design criteria and
waterproofing system. ENGEO has worked on many projects in the San Francisco Bay Area
with subsurface basements or garages located below the groundwater table. The risk of
moisture intrusion and flooding generally is very low when the structural components are
designed for the anticipated hydrostatic and earth pressures, and waterproofing products are
applied properly. Numerous buildings with basements below the groundwater that do not flood,
indicating that those that do flood have this problem due to either design or construction and not
because the basement or garage is located below the groundwater table.
We reviewed aerial photographs of the subject site dating back to 1937 as part of our
geotechnical study. Additionally, we recently r~viewed historic topographic maps provided by
www.historicaerials.com for the project area dating back to 1928. Based on our review of the
aerial photographs and topographic maps, we observed that Los Gatos Creek has been
rerouted in the past. However, we did not observe Los Gatos Creek to be formerly located
within the limits of the site during our historic aerial photograph review. Therefore, the potential
for undocumented fill within the site due to the past rerouting of Los Gatos Creek does not pose
a geotechnical hazard to the project.
Comment 18
The ENGEO Geo-Tee report finds in section 4.1.4 that the PD's foundation is subject to
settlement from liquefaction during shaking or construction induced earth defect after
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 10
construction. Should the foundation crack below the waterline, no waterproofing can guarantee
that leaks won 't occur. No underground garage can remain dry with cracks. Safeway's single
level underground garage, for example, has suffered rising water flooding since the winter of
2014-2015 as an example of this phenomenon. The Revised PD does not address this risk to
the PD itself. Our hydrology expert Dr. Peter Geissler, PE, asserts that settling after construction
or liquefaction are, at some point it its life, likely to crack the foundation of the underground
parking structure, leading it to flood and need to continuous de-watering. The Revised PD does
not address this risk.
ENGEO Response to Comment 1 B
Please see our responses to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 and Geissler Engineering
Comments 4, 5, and 9.
Comment 1C
ENGEO's report finds in section 4.2 that existing fill is a settlement risk. It does not address the
existing fill on the site from the 1950's era construction of Lenihan Dam and the accompanying
Hwy 17 re-construction that filled in the former Los Gatos Creek area that was at the time
beneath the PD's property, installed the concrete swale on the other side of 17, eliminating the
LG creek channel that used to flow beneath the PD. The Revised PD does not address this risk.
ENGEO Response to Comment 1C
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11. Additionally, our review of
aerial photographs does not depict fill being placed within the development area as a result of
the construction of Highway 17. Should existing fills be encountered during grading, they will be
removed and replaced as engineered fill as described in our geotechnical report. We also note
that existing fills are not anticipated to be encountered at the foundation level, which is
approximately 20 feet below existing grade.
Comment 1D
ENGEO's report shows water level at 21 feet below elevation, 340 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL). The boring was done while the site was still in the drought.
ENGEO Response to Comment 1 D
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11. The groundwater level
considered in design was the historic high, not the level encountered during our exploration.
Comment 1E
ENGEO's report in section 5.9 recommended no de-watering beneath or around the parking
structure. De-watering will be required once the foundation cracks from either liquefaction or fill-
induced settlement.
ENGEO Response to Comment 1 E
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comments 11 and 1C as well as Geissler
Engineering Comments 4, 5, and 9.
Comment 1F
The Revised PD places the ground level of the building at 336.5 ft. AMSL, 5 feet lower elevation
than the site's 2015 Boring Logs show water at 21 feet below ground level. This means water
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENT AL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 11
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.
ENGEO Response to Comment 1 F
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 as well as Geissler
Engineering Comments 4, 5, and 9.
Comment 1G
Our hydrology expert, Dr. Geissler finds that the local dewatering in the coffer dam needed
around the underground parking structure is likely to cause ground subsidence during
construction that is large enough to shift foundations of existing buildings within an area of
influence 250 feet around the PD. This includes Las Casitas, Pueblo ·oe 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 propert;es,. Las Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, and also to Grill 57,
Satellite Health Care & the Best Western Inn at Los Gatos.
ENGEO Response to Comment 1 G
Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comment 2.
Comment1H
Our hydrology expert, Dr. Geissler finds that the underground water diversion around the PDs
underground parking structure may interfere with current underground water flow in the area.
This is covered in more detail below in Section 3.
ENGEO Response to Comment 1 H
Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comment 3.
Comment 28
ENGEO found water at 21 feet below the elevation of 82, which is 340 feet AMSL) above Mean
Sea Level). This means that the Revised PDs lowest parking level (P-2) was partially
underwater per the EIR's ENGEO report.
ENGEO Response to Comment 2B
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 as well as Geissler
Engineering Comments 4; 5, and 9.
Comment2C
At the community outreach meeting, Applicant described ... We computed the weight of the
building and of the water it displaces and should the depth to water at the North end be in the 0-
10 feet range , as illustrated in SCVWD map below, the North end of the building would be
subjected to significantly larger "Lift Forces" than the South end of the building since the weight
of the water displaced by the building is greater in that region. This Lift differential is much
more likely to cause cracks In the North end of the underground parking structure than ff
the "depth to water" is uniform. PD represents no Civil Engineering representation that
the UG Parking Structure is Immune to lift differential-induced cracks. Cracks would lead
to leaks and constant water removal, which would cause the same land subsidence
detailed in Dr. Geisler's report for construction de-watering.
SUBJECT TO ATIORNEY DIRECTION-ATTORNEYWORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
ENGEO Response to Comment 2C
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 12
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 as well as Geissler
Engineering Comments 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Although the comment above references a different
groundwater map than the State map used in design, we note that the State map incorporates
data provided by the SCVWD as well as additional sources_
We also note that the structural engineer will design the structure to resist hydrostatic uplift,
which is common practice for buildings constructed below the design groundwater table.
Comment2D
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 340 ft_ AMSL. Revised PD sheet 15 reveals that it Jowers 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 .
ENGEO Response to Comment 20
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 as well as Geissler
Engineering Comments 4, 5, and 9.
Comment2E
The DEIR made no mention of the fact that, at the time of its pub/ica'fion, the water table was
higher than the floor of lower parking level P-2. It does , however, state that the PD is likely to
suffer settling & cracking. This will lead to flooding in the parking structure and constant
pumping the water out of the parking structure as well as from around and beneath the
foundation, thereby causing foundation shifts to Las Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, Grill 57and
likely pipe breaks in water & sewer serving all communities and businesses along Alberto Way.
ENGEO Response to Comment 2E
Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9.
Comment2E
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.
EN GEO Response to Comment 2E
Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9.
Comment3A
Our expert Dr. Geissler reports that adverse impact on surrounding properties will likely be
caused by dewatering the Revised PDs underground parking structure excavation during
construction to our foundations from soil subsidence in Las Casitas and Pueblo De Los Gatos.
Both will be caused by the Revised PD's de-watering (pumping from bem:1ath its foundation
required to drain P-1 & P-2 and ground movement caused by interruption of the present water
ff ow by blockage of water flow from the area beneath the PD to around the underground parking
structure and the water flow backup to our properties caused by the underground parking
structure.
SUBJECT TO A lTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
ENGEO Response to Comment 3A
Please see our response to Geissler Eng ineering Comments 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Comment3B
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 13
Water Table level was measured by Applicant during the period of the lowest possible water
table level at the end of the 5 year drought.
ENGEO Response to Comment 38
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 and 1 D.
Comment3C
Next is a screen shot of the water depth map kept by the Santa Clara Valley Water District for
Los Gatos showing the Revised PD site and the neighbors properties to He principally in the red
0-10 feet depth to water zone with the corner near Hwy 9 & Alberto in the orange 10-20 feet
zone ... The water depth map illustrates why the PD's underground parking structure, in both the
Original and Revised designs, would move water into the surrounding properties in which
underground water is already so close to the surface. This would further elevate the surface
water in surrounding properties.
ENGEO Response to Comment 3C
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 2C as well as Geissler
Engineering Comment 3.
Comment3D
Water depth beneath Bella Vista Village (middle of tne rea 0-10 ft_ aepth to water zone) is a low
lying area so close to the water table that ten townhome, 110-132 Cuesta de Los Gatos have
sump pumps installed under their ground level concrete slabs which are on a 1. 5 foot high
perimeter foundation. This area experiences water levels at inches below ground level in wet
periods when their pumps operate. Bella Vista Village is at a high risk to elevated ground water
levels as portions of Bella Vista Village lie in a 0-10 feet below ground to water zone as does a
portion of the PD's property, all of which is represented in the EIR as being in the 10-20 below
ground to water zone.
ENGEO Response to Comment 30
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 2C as well as Geissler
Engineering Comment 3.
Comment3E
We note that the location of Boring 8-3, shown below from the EIR, lies on the 0-10 feet depth
to water zone on the map above. ENGEO did not indicate the water depth, nothing that the
boring collapsed when removing the hollow auger. We find this curious since the purpose of the
hollow auger was to extract the core intact from the auger itself: a collapse of the boring walls
would have had no impact on the core and therefore, the water depth would have been found.
When we contacted ENGEO with questions, they refused to confirm anything.
ENGEO Response to Comment 3E
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 2E.
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATIORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 14
Water levels were measured at the site at the completion of drilling, after the augers were
extracted and before the boring was backfilled. Caving of the borehole at depth during this time
would have made obtaining a depth to groundwater measurement extremely unreliable. We also
note that continuous, intact cores are not obtained when utilizing the hollow stem drilling
method. Rather, 18-inch-long samples are obtained at discrete intervals that are specified in the
field by the engineer during drilling.
Comment3F
The PD is likely to cause foundation movement or over-run these Bella Vista sump pumps '
capacities.
ENGEO Response to Comment 3F
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comments 1E, 1G, 1H, 2E, and 3A as
well as Geissler Engineering Comments 2, and 3.
Comment3G
As further evidence of the drought recovery: the Santa Clara Plain water well depth has risen
from 45 to 85 feet since the Summer of 2015 ...
ENGEO Response to Comment 3G
Please see our response to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comment 11 and 2C.
Comment3H
The storm drainage system in front of the PD is already at capacity ...
ENGEO Response to Comment 3H
Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comment 2 .
LASCASITAS
Representatives of Las Casitas submitted comments regarding the impact of the proposed
development on surrbunding developments. Our responses to the geologic/geotechnical
comments from Las Casitas are as follow:
Comment 2A
As indicated by an independent expert (see Geissler hydrology report in attachment) Las
Casitas HOA should expect:
• Foundation/slab cracking and settling to Las Casita foundations due to proposed 2 story
underground garage.
o The estimated settlement is ~ to % inch .
• Geissler expects this will result in cracked foundations/slabs at Las Casitas.
• Geissler expects this will cause pipes to burst at Las Casitas.
Cracked foundations/slabs and/or burst pipes will cause unwestimated and unmitigated financial
impact to Las Casitas. We ask you to REJECT the EIR based on the findings in the Geissler
hydrology report.
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
References to Geissler report:
12175.000.000
April 19, 2017
Page 15
• Page 3 quote: "the combined effect of... (ii) . subgrade soils subject to
liquefaction ... makes this site unsuitable for the proposed underground (and underwater)
garage."
• Page 3 quote: "Geissler holds the opinion that construction of the 2 story underground
parking ... shall cause ... foundation settlement and cracked slabs at nearby houses
in .. .Las Casitas."
• Page 7 quote: "50 feet from excavation ... 318 inch of soil subsidence."
ENGEO Response to Comment 2A
Please see our responses to Geissier Engineering Comments 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6 , and 9 .
Comment2C
Addi tional reasons why EIR is flawed:
• Water table for EIR was measured during 5-year drought in November 2014.
• Since November 2014, the Santa Clara Water tests show that the underground water
table has risen by 55 feet above MSL.
• Water runoffs through Bella Vista are so strong that sump pumps had to be installed
during project construction in several houses.
ENGEO Response to Comment 2C
While we did perform our exploration during a drought period, the groundwater used for design
is the mapped historic high groundwater table, and not the significantly deeper groundwater
observed in 2015. Please see our responses to Alberto Way Citizens etc. Comments 11, 2C,
3C, 30 as well as Geissler Engineering Comment 3.
BELLA VISTA VILLAGE
Representatives of Bella Vista Village submitted comments regarding the impact of the
proposed development on surrounding developments. Our responses to the
geotogic/geotechnical comments from Bella Vista are as follow:
Comment A
The existing plan:
• Requires an extended period of time for underground and above ground construcUon
which ultimately could cause structural damage to adjacent properties.
ENGEO Response to Comment A
Please see our response to Geissler Engineering Comments 2 .
NEIGHBORS OF ALBERTO WAY
Representatives of Neighbors of Alberto Way submitted comments regarding the impact of the
proposed development on surrounding developments. Our responses to the
geologic/geotechnical comments from Neighbors of Alberto Way are as follow:
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Buchalter Nemer
401·409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comment2:
12175.000 .000
April 19, 2017
Page 16
The draft EIR section on Geology and Soils (with Appendix CJ fails to address the impact of the
below.grade water table garage on neighboring properties, as required in the General Plan
policy (SAF 1.11). Moreover, since measurements were taken during the ENGEO study, the
water table has risen significantly due to the recent drought recovery. Any excavation would
require wholesale dewatering, making the construction phase extremely disruptive tor us. We
are concerned about negative effects of the underground garage on our properties during and
post construction and, therefore, we want all the 401-409 Alberto Way Project parking to remain
above ground.
ENGEO Response to Comment 2
Please see our responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 2, 3 , and 6.
CLOSING
We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently employed in the area.
Sincerely
ENGEO Incorporated
~~
gc/jk/rhb/bw
Attachments: List of Selected References
SUBJECT TO A TIORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
_____________ , .... i\\~GEO
Cs;~
------· Expect Exc ellence -·-·
LIST OF SELECTED REFERENCES
1. AMEC; Peer Review -Geotechnical Exploration Report; 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos,
California : November 4, 2015. AMEC Project No. 0084491960.
2. ENGEO; Geotechnical Exploration; 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California; July 17, 2015
(Revised August 13, 2015). ENGEO Project No. 12175.000 .000.
3. ENGEO; Response to AMEC Foster Wheeler Peer Review Comments; 401 Alberto Way,
Los Gatos, California; January 11, 2016. ENGEO Project No. 12175.000 .000.
4 . Geissler Engineering; Hydrology Report; 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California,
95032; dated March 31, 2017.
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
EXHIBIT 2
SURFACE FLOW EXHIBIT
401 ALBERTO WAY
LOS GATOS CA
~KIER & WRIGHT
, CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. + 3350 Sect: Boule~ard . 9Ji!ding 22 ('408) 727 €665
. Santa Clara. Cll!lfom:a 95054 faK (408) 727 5641
(
···-·-·' '--····-
.;:.·
,·
DATE APRIL 2017
SCALE NTS
DR. BY DSM
JOB A i 5062-3
SHEET NO.
1 OF l
. ~-~~=-----.l--.. l • :.. ..:..:.
~/~~: ,. :-:.--~::::.::::.
.:.::: ~ ---::;.-....
LOS GATOS
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
SEWER CONNECTION EXHIBIT
401 ALBERTO WAY
CA
' KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC.
3350 Scott Bou levard, Buflding 22 (408) 727 6665
Santa Clara, California 95054 rax (408) 727 5641
•·
DATE APRIL2017
SCALE NTS
DR. BY DSM
JOB A15062-3
SHEET NO.
1 OF l
EXHIBIT 3
"~XAGON TRANSPORTATION (ONSULTANTS, IH<.
May 2, 2017
Mr. Randy Lamb
Lamb Partners
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Subject: Response to Traffic Comments on 401-409 Alberto Way Traffic Study
Dear Mr. Lamb,
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. completed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the
proposed office development project located at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos, California. The
original TIA did not identify any significant impacts. The project analyzed in the TIA was 93,000
s.f. of office development. The project size has since been reduced to 83,000 s.f. Because the
project size is less than originally analyzed, the TIA is considered to be conservative. Since no
significant impacts were identified in the TIA, the currently proposed project would also not
generate significant impacts . The public has provided comments on the Draft EIR, Final EIR, as
well as the revised site plan. This letter provides Hexagon's responses to the most recent public
comments. Hexagon previously prepared a response-to-comments letter, dated April 5, 2017, that
responded to a previous set of public comments. Many of the comments in the most recent letters
are repeats and are denoted as such.
Comment#1:
Comment: Restriping Alberto Way will not reduce congestion. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 33-34)
Hexagon Response: Currently, vehicles leaving Alberto Way and turning right onto
westbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road can often by-pass the vehicles waiting to go through
or turn left. However, when a vehicle stops in the middle of the travel lane, right-turn
vehicles do not have the space to by-pass the stopped vehicles. The proposed restriping
would dedicate a right-tum lane to ensure right-turning vehicles can always by-pass the
through and left-turning vehicles and tum. The TIA, as analyzed per Town requirements
and VTA guidelines, did not identify significant intersection impacts. However, the striped
right turn lane would reduce queuing and delay on Alberto Way.
4 North Second Stre et , Suite 400 • San Jose, California 951la • phone 408.971.6100 • fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans .com
Mr. Randy Lamb
May2, 2017
11111....A Page 2 of 12
Comment#2:
Comment: Trip reduction program is voluntary and probably unrealistic. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 33-34)
Hexagon Response: The Town of Los Gatos does not have any adopted and active
policies regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans. We understand that
the project applicant has voluntarily offered to provide employees with commute options.
The TIA analyzed project impacts without accounting for the potential trip reduction that
could occur due to TDM measures. The TIA, per Town requirements and VT A guidelines,
did not identify significant intersection impacts. The Town has required that TDM be
implemented as a condition of project approval.
Comment#3:
Comment: Traffic has increased in the past 6 months. Need new traffic analys is (Repeat
comment)
Commenter: Basham
Hexagon Response: Hexagon conducted new traffic counts at all five study intersections
in October 2016, while schools were in session. As shown on Table 1, there were minimal
fluctuations in traffic volumes between the 2015 counts used for the study and the 2016
counts. The only intersection that had relatively larger fluctuations was the Santa Cruz
Avenue and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road intersection, but the 2016 volumes were lower than
the 2015 volumes used in the TIA and the EIR and so this fluctuation does not change any
of the conclusions regarding the project's traffic impacts as reported in the TIA and the
EIR.
Table 1
Intersection Volume Comparison
-9%
PM 3291 2939 -352 -11%
1
uniV&rsltyA\ie & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd NA 3021 2920 -101 -3%
i PM 3102 3176 74 2%
Alberto Way & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 1976 1910 -66 -3%
PM 1863 1862 -1 0%
,Los Gatos Blvd & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd PM 2454 2380 -74 -3%
' PM 2351 2468 117 5%
Los Gatos Blvd & Kennedy Rd/Caldwell Ave NII 1771 1669 ~102 -6%
PM 1860 1913 53 3%
,.. '4' Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2, 2017
Page 3of12
Comment#4:
Comment: Revised project fails to address VT A fund ing of interchange improvement.
(New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 8), Los Gatos Commons (Pg 8), Fowler
Hexagon Response: VTA has not released its design plans for the identified interchange
improvement. The project TIA assumes worst case conditions without the interchange
improvements in place . To the extent VTA proceeds with future improvements to the
interchange, VTA would take into consideration the acquisition of any additional right-of-
way needed to complete its interchange project.
Comment#5:
Comment: Revised project fails to address traffic on Hwy 9 and Alberto Way will become
severely congested. (Repeat comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 16), Los Gatos Commons (Pg 6)
Hexagon Response: Hexagon conducted additional field observations during the AM
(7:30 -8:30) and PM (5:00 -6:00) peak hours at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road. During the AM peak hour, Hexagon observed congestion along
eastbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road between 7:50 AM and 8:20 AM, during the peak
school drop-off period. Due to downstream congestion in the eastbound direction at Los
Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, the eastbound queue at the Alberto Way
intersection frequently extended to the location of the SR 17 overpass. Vehicles
sometimes required two to three signal cycles to clear the Alberto Way intersection. This
congestion is caused by feedback queues created at the Los Gatos Boulevard and
Kennedy Road intersection and at the Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road intersection. There were no observed traffic operational issues before 7:50 AM and
after 8:20 AM. As required by Town policy and VTA TIA guidelines, intersection delay and
LOS represents an average traffic condition during the peak hour. No congestion was
observed during the PM peak hour.= The field observations therefore support the
assumptions used for the TIA in accordance with Town policy and VTA TIA guidelines.
In addition, it should be noted that the observed congestion during the AM peak hour is in
the eastbound through movement on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road at A lberto Way. Project
traffic would add only to the eastbound left-turn movement turning into Alberto Way. The
project would lengthen the eastbound left-turn pocket to 250 feet and would allow vehicles
to tum out of the eastbound queue earlier, thereby improving operations compared to
existing conditions.
jilP 4ilij Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2, 2017
Page 4 of 12
Comment #6:
Comment: Per Caltrans. project wm add trips greater than 1 % capacity and mitigation is
required. EIR is inadequate. (Repeat comment>
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 16), Los Gatos Commons (Pg 4)
Hexagon Response: According to VTA TIA freeway impact criteria, which is required to
be followed per Town policy. "a project is said to impact a freeway segment determined to
have been at LOS F under the without project analysis scenario if the number of new trips
added by the project is more than one percent of the freeway capacity'.
The TIA acknowledges that the project would add trips equal to 1.18% of capacity to
southbound SR 17 between Lark Avenue and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road during the AM
peak hour. However, as discussed in the TIA, this freeway segment currently operates at
LOS D during the AM peak hour. The addition of 52 project trips would not change the
level of service on this freeway segment. According to VT A impact criteria, project trips
added to a freeway segment operating at LOS D would not create a significant freeway
impact.
Comment#7:
Comment: Project will increase traffic on Hwy 9. NB traffic on Hwy 17 exiting East Los
Gatos will add to traffic delays. (Repeat comment)
Commenter: Sprandel, Kemp , Los Gatos Commons (Pg 4}
Hexagon Response: Please see above response to comment #5.
Comment#8:
Comment: The curve in front of the project is a sight problem for vehicles. (Repeat
comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 42)
Hexagon Response: Hexagon does not believe that the curve on Alberto Way creates a
sight distance problem for vehicles traveling on Alberto Way, but it does limit sight
distance at the existing and proposed site driveways. Therefore, Hexagon recommends
that on-street parking be eliminated along the project frontage. With the implementation of
the recommendation, the sight distance at the project driveways would be adequate with
the existing roadway curve.
jiiiP ~ Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2, 2017
h A Page 5 of 12
Comment#9:
Comment: Traffic congestion will impact Alberto Way and LG in a %-mile radius. Need
reasonable ingress/egress on Alberto Way. (Repeat comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 16), Orvell, McGowan, Kemp , Bella Vista Village
(Pg 3)
Hexagon Response: Traffic impacts were analyzed per Town policy and VT A TIA
guidelines. The TIA found that the project would not generate significant traffic impacts.
Comment #10:
Comment: Revised project fails to straighten Alberto for safety and on-street parking.
(Repeat comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 15)
Hexagon Response: The project proposes to eliminate on-street parking along the
building frontage on southbound Alberto Way to address the sight distance issue. There is
no need to straighten Alberto Way.
Comment #11:
Comment: Fire department facilities will be affected by traffic. (New comment)
Comme nter: Pueblo de Los G atos (Pg 35-37 )
Hexagon Response: Traffic impacts were analyzed per Town policy and VT A TIA
guidelines. The TIA found that the project would not generate significant traffic impacts .
Thus, emergency response times would not be affected. The project proposes minor
widening of Alberto Way to provide a bike lane. One or two fire hydrants would need to be
relocated back from the curb.
Comment #12:
Comment: The TIA under-estimated trip generation and trio generation sensitivity was not
analyzed. (Repeat comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 38 , 40), Los Gat os Co mm ons (Pg 3)
Hexagon Response: This is a repeated comment. Hexagon previously responded to this
comment in our response letter dated April 5, 2017 {see attachment).
jllP" .__ Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2, 2017
hr A Page 6 of 12
Commen~ #1 3 :
Comment: The TIA did not consider traffic from 475-485 Aiberto Way project. (New
comment)
Commenter: Los Gatos Commons (Pg 4)
Hexagon Response: The 475-485 Alberto Way project had not submitted a planning
application at the time the traffic study was conducted and was thus not listed on the
Pending Project list provided by Town staff. The 475-485 Alberto Way project will need to
prepare its own environmental analysis, including a traffic study, and w ill need to include
the 405 Alberto Way office as a pending project.
Co mment #1J!.:
Comment: Traffic fee calculation uses 700 additional trips which understates the fee that
would be paid by tenants employing 735 people. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 39)
Hexagon Response: The traffic impact fee calculation is based on the estimated net
increase in daily trips. The calculation of daily trips is explained in the TIA. It is based on
net building size, not employment. The impact fee calculation is presented in the TIA for
informational purposes only. The bu ilding size has since decreased. The final traffic impact
fee will be calculated by Town staff as part of the Conditions of Approval.
Comment #15:
Comment: The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for bikes.
pedestrians. and transit during construction and demolition. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 40)
Hexagon Response: Construction details are not known at this time. Prior to construction,
the contractor will prepare and submit a detailed construction plan for Town approval. The
construction plan will indicate the days and times of construction , where workers will park,
the number and types of trucks that will access the site, whether the street or sidewalk will
be affected, and other details. The Town will require that adequate access for all
transportation modes be maintained during construction.
~ Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2 , 2017
h A Page 7 of 12
Comment #16:
Comment: MM T1 and T2 cannot be implemented as proposed. Widen Alberto to 12-foot
lane width. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 41)
Hexagon Response: The restriplng of Alberto Way was designed with inputs from Town
staff. 10-foot lanes are adequate for low volume streets and are prevalent in the Bay Area .
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)'s A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, fih Edition ind icates that local
streets may be designed with lane widths between 9 and 12 feet.
Comment #17:
Comment: Eliminating eight parking spaces causes a new and unacceptable
environmental impact on 420 and 435 Alberto Way residents and visitors. <Repeat
comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 41)
Hexagon Response: The elimination of the on-street parking along southbound Alberto
Way fronting the project site (5 spaces) is recommended to increase sight distance and to
create room for a right turn lane. The elimination of the on-street parking along northbound
Alberto Way fronting the Los Gatos Inn (3 spaces) is recommended also to create space
for the right tum lane. No on-street parking fronting the residential neighborhood is
proposed to be eliminated . It should be noted that elimination of on-street parking is not an
impact under CEQA.
Comment #18:
Comment: The revised project driveway and parking areas are insufficient for buses and
delivery trucks. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (Pg 41 , 42), Bella Vista Village
Hexagon Response: The revised site plan is adequate for bus and truck access and
circulation. Buses and trucks would not need to enter the garage.
Comment #19:
Comment: Project parking should not overflow to street parking on Alberto Way. (Repeat
comment)
Commenter: Bel la Vista Village (5 )
Hexagon Response: The project proposes parking in accordance with Town
requirements.
jlP ~ Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2, 2017
.,.., 4 Page 8of12
Comment #20:
Comment: Revised project garage is blocked while trash and recycling is picked up.
backing up traffic on Alberto & Hwv-9 or in the project's garage while they are present.
(New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (42)
Hexagon Response: Garbage trucks are expected to temporarily park just south of the
driveway while the trash bins are pushed over to the trucks for trash pick up. Garbage
trucks would not block access to the garage, and are not expected to be on-site for more
than a minute.
Co mm ent #2 1:
Comment: No construction plan can prevent complete shutdown of Alberto Way for
extended periods (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos ( 42)
Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comment 15.
Comment #2~2:
Comment: During construction, work crews of 50-100 will be present on the site at all
times. each arriving in a separate vehicle. It is not possible for them to all park on the PD
prooerty. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos ( 42)
Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comment 15.
Comment #2.3 :
Comment: As a Mixed-Use development. the project would generate high levels of
continuous traffic that are not disclosed in the DEIR or FEIR. (Repeat comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (43)
Hexagon Response: The project proposes only office land use and is not a mixed-use
development. Peak-hour trip generation is estimated in accordance with Town policy and
VTA guidelines and verified with local (Los Gatos) data (see attachment).
r .._ Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2, 2017
Page 9of12
Comment #.24:
Comment: FEIR missing Mitigation T-4: Widen Hwv-9 by one lane along the entire length
of the proposed development on Hwv-9 to allow safe right turns from Alberto Way. (New
comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos ( 43)
Hexagon Response: Highway 9 already has two lanes along the project frontage. There
is no need for further widening.
Comment #25:
Comment: FEIR missing Mitigation T-5: Widen Hwv-9 by one lane each direction between
the Hwv-17 overpass and the 2 lane sections on both sides to enable the EB left tum
pocket into Alberto to be extended enough to prevent AM gridlock. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (44)
Hexagon Response: There is no demonstrated need to widen Highway .9 over Highway
17. The project would be required to lengthen the eastbound left-turn pocket on Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road turning into Alberto Way to 250 feet long. The lengthened left-turn
pocket would contain the expected 95th percentile queue length under project conditions.
Comment #26:
Comment: FEIR missing Mitigation T-6: Reduce project footprint by enough to enable the
widening of Hwv-9 by one lane each direction between the Hwv-17 overpass and the 2
lane sections on both sides. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (45)
Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comments 24 & 25.
Comment #27:
Comment: No trip generating project should be approved before Los Gatos Boulevard is
widened. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (26)
Hexagon Response: The TIA analyzed intersections on Los Gatos Boulevard. No
significant project impacts were identified along Los Gatos Boulevard.
Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2, 2017
Page 10 ·of 12
Comment #28:
Comment: If water is used to control particulates during construction. the trucks exiting
the site will leave with caked-on mud on their tires. which will be deposited in Alberto Way
and Hwv-9. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (43)
Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comment 15.
Comment #29:
Comment: During construction. the road beds of Alberto Way and Hwv-9 will be
destroyed or seriously damaged by the fully loaded concrete trucks which weigh uo to 80
tons. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos ( 4 3)
Hexagon Response: The Town will require the project to repair/overlay the pavement
following construction.
Comment #30:
Comment: MM T-2 calls for a construction contract with Los Gatos. however. there is no
mitigation for the construction contract with Caltrans. (New comment)
Commenter: Pueblo de Los Gatos (43)
Hexagon Response: The project will be required to obtain an encroachment permit from
Caltrans for any work in the State right-of-way. Caltrans wi ll set the terms of the ·
construction.
Comment#31:
Comment: Need to address truck traffic impacts due to beach traffic. Construction traffic
impacts to pedestrians. (New comment)
Commenter: Basham, McDonald, Fowler
Hexagon Response: Please see response to Comment 15.
jiiP .._ Mr. Randy Lamb
May 2, 2017
"""rt A Page 11 of 12
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gary K . Black
President
Attachment: Response to Traffic Comments on 401-409 Alberto Way Traffic Study, prepared by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, dated April 5, 2017.
Attachment A
Hexagon Response to Comment Letter, April 5, 2017
............ "~XA~OH TRAHS~ORTATIO~OHSULTAHTS. IH<.
April 5, 2017
Mr. Randy Lamb
Lamb Partners
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Subject: Response to Traffic Comments on 401-409 Alberto Way Traffic Study
Dear Mr. Lamb,
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. completed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the
proposed office development project located at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos, California.
During the August 1 Qlh 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 wor.k 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 VfA
guidelines (VfA guidelines: http ://www.vta.org/cmp/tia-guidelines, Town of Los Gatos guidelines:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/857), project trip generation estimates should
use either trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or rates
developed from local data. The project TIA used ITE rates in accordance with the Town of Los
Gatos guidelines.
4 North Second Street, Su ite 400 • San Jose. cahfornia 951.U •phone 408.971.6100• fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com
Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
Page2of8
For an office project of 92,000 s.f., ITE's fitted curve equation calculates trip generation rates of
1.94 and 1.96 trips per 1,000 s.f. during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Hexagon also
conducted trip generation counts at three existing office buildings in Los Gatos in 2016. The
resulting rates were found to be 1.32 and 1.63 trips per 1,000 s.f. during the AM and PM peak
hours, respectively (see Table 1 ). This indicates that office buildings in Los Gatos generate trips
about at the same rate as, or less than, other office buildings included in the ITE Trip Generation
manual.
Table 1
Los Gatos Office Trip Generation Counts
475 Alberto Way
1 • •71151.ark ...... u.
975 U niversity A..enl.ie
22.40 ksf
15.00 ksf
Total 67.62 ksf
19
16
72
2 18 a 32 32
17 89 102 110
~ Average suniey&d Rates 1.32 1.63 I
Average ITE Rates 2 1.56 1.49 . . ~
Notes: I
1
1. Trip generation surveys were conducted in March 2016. I
~.:_6~~~!~~~~ate:_~~~~~~~~!~.~~,.'.:~ on ITE's Trip Gener~~ 9th Editi~:1_ f~r land use code 71 O~
The Planning Commission also asked about trip generation comparisons to the Netflix campus. At
the time of this letter, the new Netflix campus at Albright Way is not fully constructed or fully
occupied, and it would be difficult to determine the trip generation rates until the project is
completed and occupied. The original Netflix campus at 100 Winchester Circle is still fully
occupied. Hexagon conducted trip generation counts at 100-150 Winchester Circle (Netflix and
Roku buildings) in February 2017. The resulting rates were found to be 1.9 and 1.83 trips per
1,000 s.f. during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (see Table 2). The trip rates counted at
the Netflix offices are almost identical to the ITE rates, which were used in the Alberto Way traffic
study.
Thus, the counted rates in Los Gatos were lower than the ITE rates used in the traffic study. The
rates used to estimate the project trip generation for 401-409 Alberto Way are the trip rates
calculated using ITE's fitted curve equation.
Another question was how ITE office trip generation rates have changed over the years. The
current version of the manual is dated 2012. Hexagon consults the ITE manuals dating to 1997.
During that 15-year time span, the office trip generation rates have not changed.
jiii"' """" Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
Mlt.., 4 Page 3 of 8
Table2
100-150 Winchester Cir Trip Generation Counts
100-150 Winchester Cir
~
163.03 ksf 223
Sue'W)ltd Rates
Rates Used in TIA
87
1. Trip generation counts were conducted in February 2017.
Overall Traffic Conditions
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 VfA guidelines. Results show that all intersections operate at LOS Dor better under all
scenarios, which is considered "acceptable" by Town and VfA 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-tum pocket on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road turning into
Alberto Way would be 200 feet with the addition of project traffic. The lengthened tum-pocket
would accommodate the 951h percentile queue with the addition of project traffic and allow project
traffic to tum 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.
jiP ""*' Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
Page 4of 8
Pedestrians and Sikes at the H i ghway 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.
Compte'!e Stree~s ~mprovements on Alberto Way
Commissioners asked for the Town's complete streets improvements on Alberto Way. "Complete
Streets" refers to the accommodation of all travel modes. Alberto Way already has sidewalks. The
project proposes to rebuild the sidewalk along its frontage in order to provide a detached
sidewalk, which minimizes pedestrian exposure to traffic and enhances pedestrian safety. The
detached sidewalk would improve pedestrian comfort by moving pedestrians farther from traffic.
Alberto Way currently lacks bike lanes. At a community meeting for the proposed project,
neighbors expressed interest in installing bike lanes along Alberto Way. In response to the
Commissioners' request for complete streets improvements and neighbor interests, the proposed
project voluntarily proposes to widen Alberto Way along the proposed project frontage and install
a bike lane on southbound Alberto Way approximately 210 feet long . In addition, there currently is
no safe place for bikes wishing to turn left from Alberto Way to eastbound Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road to position themselves. The proposed project voluntarily proposes the installation of a bike
box at the intersection.
The proposed bicycle improvements along Alberto Way and the proposed street widening along
Los Gatos-Saratoga Road fronting the project site are all in conformance with the Town's
complete streets improvements.
Par king on A!ilerto Way
Commissioners were concerned about the removal of parking on Alberto Way. Eight on-street
parking spaces are proposed to be removed as part of the project: five on the project side of the
street and three on the opposite side of the street. The five spaces on the project side of the street
would be removed to provide room for a striped right tum lane at the Alberto Way/Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road intersection and to provide adequate sight distance at the southern driveway.
Under existing conditions there is a driveway at that location, and its sight distance is restricted
because of the on-street parking . Removing the on-street parking at that location as part of the
project would provide improved sight distance. Some residents in the neighborhood requested
that these spaces be removed to increase sight distance.
Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
l!!!t,,,, """"' Page 5of8
At a community meeting for the proposed project, neighbors expressed concern about visibility
and about difficulty turning right at the signal from Alberto Way to Los Gatos-Saratoga Road.
Under current conditions cars turning right from Alberto Way on to Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
must wait for a green light if there is a car in front waiting to turn left. The project voluntarily
proposes to restripe Alberto Way which would provide one outbound left-turn (and through} lane
and one dedicated right turn lane. Cars would then be able to turn right on a red 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 tum
lane and bike lane, the on-street parking along the project frontage would have to be modified or
removed. The distance between the two proposed project driveways is approximately 100 feet.
This segment of 100-foot roadway is within the area of centerline transition from one lane to two
lanes in the southbound direction. With the transition and to improve visibility, it is recommended
parking be restricted between the two driveways.
Hexagon studied the use of the on-street parking spaces and found that they were almost fully
utilized at night but not during the day. It appears that the spaces are being used by patrons of the
Grill 57 restaurant. According to Town staff, the restaurant has sufficient parking spaces on-site to
meet the Town requirements.
Speed on Highway 9
Commissioners were concerned about the speed of traffic traveling westbound on Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road, downhill toward the Highway 17 northbound on-ramp under existing conditions.
Speed measurements on that portion of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road are not available. However,
field observations indicate that under existing conditions motorists wishing to go north on Highway
17 and seeing a green light at Alberto Way are rushing down the hill. Motorists are able to clearly
see the signal at Alberto Way from the top of the hill. Hexagon did not observe any vehicles
running through a red light at Alberto Way.
As a speed control measure to address existing traffic speeds, a speed feedback sign could be
added halfway between Los Gatos Boulevard and Alberto Way. From the existing stop bar
location, it is difficult for motorists to see up the hill on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. They must
proceed with caution forward to see enough to make a right turn on red. To address the existing
conditions, the Town could consider moving the stop bar on Alberto Way farther out to improve
visibility.
Response to Public Comments
Mr. Bob Burke submitted a comment letter regarding the traffic study conducted by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants, Inc. Mr. Burke raised many of the same issues he previously raised
prior to the August 1 Qth and August 24th Planning Commission meetings. Below are Hexagon's
responses to the main issues raised by Mr. Burke.
Trip Generation
Please see above response to the same comment raised by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
.... A Page6of8
Intersection Traffic 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 VTA and are required to use counts in the CMP
database.
Intersection counts were all counted at the intersections as vehicles advance past the stop bars.
On roadway segments where intersection counts are collected at both ends of the segments and
there are minimal mid-segment driveways, the total inbound volumes derived from the intersection
counts at one end of the segment are very similar to the total inbound volumes derived from the
intersection counts at the other end of the segment (see Table 3).
Table 3
Existing Intersection Volume Checks
PM Way 851
I Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd WB NA Los Gatos 949
l PM Blvd 820
AA>erto
Way
854
963
825
3
14
5
0%
1%
1%
1--.......--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....i
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.
Table4
Intersection Volume Comparison
Santa Cruz Ave & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 3154 2862 -292 -9%
PM 3291 2939 -352 -11% ! University Aw & Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd /IM 3021 2920 -101 -3%
• PM 3102 3176 74 2%
AM 1976 1910 -66 -3% ' !Alberto Way& Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd
PM 1863 1862 -1 0%
,,
I I Los Gatos Bl\(j & Los Gatos-s&ratoga Rd NA 2454 2380 ~74 -3%
PM 2351 .2488 117 5%
Los Gatos Blvd & Kennedy Rd/Caldwell Ave AM 1771 1669 -102 -6%
PM 1860 1913 53 3%
........... Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
Page 7 of 8
Freeway Ramp Analysis
The traffic study analyzed four ramps at the SR 17 /SR 9 interchange. The studied ramps are
listed below:
• Northbound SR 17 on-ramp from westbound SR 9
• Southbound SR 17 on-ramp from westbound SR 9
• Northbound SR 17 off-ramp to eastbound SR 9
• Southbound SR 17 off-ramp to eastbound SR 9
There are eight ramps at the SR 17/SR 9 interchange. The four ramps identified above were
studied because the project is expected to generate traffic on these ramps. The remaining four
ramps at this interchange were not studied because they do not provide access to the project site
and are not expected to receive project generated traffic.
Freeway ramp volumes typically are obtained from Caltrans. These volumes are used for the
purpose of conducting freeway ramp analysis. Since none of the study ramps were metered at the
time of the study, the ramp volumes were used to conduct a volume-to-capacity analysis to
determine the ramps' ability to accommodate the traffic demand. The traffic study determined that
with the project traffic, all ramps would continue to operate with sufficient capacity.
Additional peak-hour freeway ramp counts were conducted in October 2016, while schools were
in session. These counts were shown to be significantly lower than the counts Hexagon
previously received from Caltrans (see Table 5). The new counts indicate that the ramp analysis
done in the project TIA was conservative in that it was based on higher volume. These new
counts show continuity in the volume along Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, which was a concern in
Mr. Burke's analysis. As shown in Table 6, all ramps would continue to operate with sufficient
capacity with the addition of project traffic.
During field observations, Hexagon observed that only the southbound off-ramp from Highway 17
onto westbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road experienced congestion during the AM peak hour. The
congestion is due to downstream merging on westbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road west of Santa
Cruz Avenue. The project would not add traffic to this ramp. Other ramps operated well during
both the AM and PM peak hours.
,........,..., Mr. Randy Lamb
April 5, 2017
Page 8 of 8
Table 5
Study Freeway Ramp Count Comparison
~ SR 17/Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd Ramps Peak Hour Galtrans Hexagon Dtffcrnnce
NB on-ramp from WB Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd AM 1153 502 -651
PM 1017 409 -608 ISB on-rampfi'cm 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 PM 1103 432 -671
PM 758 337 -421
~
1. Cattrans ramp volumes were obtained from Caltrans staff on September 17, 2015. Ramp '.()]um es
were dated August2013.
2. Hexagon ramp wlumes were obtained from tube counts conducted in October 2016.
Table6
Ramp Analysis with New Counts
l N B cr.-ramp fi"om WB Les Gatos-Saratoga Rd 900
900 ~~9 32
SR 17 & Los Gams-88 ~.,..rn~ !rem W!!I Loa ~.sera!oge I'll! LwP goe 120 1 '~1
!Saratoga R: • . 900 172 11 1113
:O.:B c"'-ram ~ :c E;!! ~os GatcS-5a'1!io~a Re Diagonal AM 2000 217 0.11 13 230
i PM 2000 126 0.06 0 126
SBo'f.fa.11p 10 es i.o. Gewe-saratoga ~ Loo. Ml <&OC 432 024 39 •11
PM 1$00 ~7 019 0 337
f:lll!n;
0.12
C.C6
c 26
0 19
1. Ra m p capacities were ottsl ~e~ l"o"l ~e Hi;;h ·,1e:. Ca~a~•:J Ma nu el 2~00, a~:I co ns idered the free-flow s~aed , and the number of la~ils on th e ra mp. As a conserwti -e
12::proach. trie i:-1.;c :::~-rar:ice e:e assur:ie:: !c ne m.etere::: :::~r ."!; cot"' ;:eakh::..:~.
12. Ram:: ·.':!L.~es ~~e!"S ::~:a~~e:::.: ~·c~ : ... re counts conductet ~~ Oct:;~a?'2 01 6.
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
EXHIBIT4
~•LARGO ~ (.'ONCRETE, INC.
l.ki:n~ il!i'.l!~<J
To Whom lt May Concern ,
I, Mark Carnathan have .been asked to comment on the hydrology report prepared on the 31s1 March by
Peter Geissler, consulting engineer. Pleas~ understand, ! am not ao engineer, soil expert or an architect
and my comments are based on 36 years of my expertence in cor.c.rete construction. All tho~e years
spent has been with construction of •Jrtderground sub-terrain parking structures and parking garages.
My opinions are obtained from practical experiences of working with the followi ng comf)anies, Wa lker
CMcrete, :daho Del-Rey Concrete, Ray Wilson Concrete, Raisch Concrete and Largo Concrete. The last
31 years, I have been with largo concrete inc as the Pres ident Northern California . Having said that, my
comments are not to be interpreted a.s Largo concrete's opinions or reports .
We have done projects in Los Gatos as well as many projects rn the South Bay with conditions similar to
this project. All these structures have been designed to accommodate viability of movement assodated
witll the expanse cf soil found in the bay area, specifi cally Las Gatos. The projects we have worked on in
the past have similar condltlons ar.d inc!ude construction methods such as dewatering, shar ing
e1'Cavatlons and are next to adjacent structures. To my knowledge, these structures and many others
with slmilar conditions have not failed. If those structures had fa iled, I would have been notifii:d either
directly or through the constructior. community. Also to my knowledge none these st ructures were
repa i red to any degree including minor structural cracking, which is no~mal am:! defini tely not any
structural failures. This report in my opinion is one sided to the degree that it loses it's credlbillty
altogether. It's not fair to tl'\e public to subject them to this type of fear mongering. To say the teast, this
is an unsubstantiated report that will alarm people without reason. If this report is acknowledged
and conceded to, it will have negative effect on future projects in this town. The new parking structure
proposed for the town may be in jeopardy.
Modern engineers utiiize finite element software that performs thousands of iterations to model the
mat foundations then determine the mat thickness and reinfordng required to absorb the movements
without damage . In addition, the waterproofing systems Incorporated into below-grade structures are
·e!astic enough and resilient enough to absorb these movements without failing. We have bu Ht
numerou! structures throughout Northern California that are below the wateNable and have
permanent wa t e rproofing.
Studies and repe>rts should be given its due wherever required but it's also necessary to understand th~t
the engineers and contractors who design and build these structures are qualified and proficient enough
to execute the projects without C:amage to the people or property.
Corporate Headquarters: 2741 Wainut Aven ue, First Floor • Tustin, CA 9278o " (714) 731-3600 •Fax: (714) 731-4800
Northern CA: 891 W. Hamilton Avenue• CampbP.11, CA 95008 • (408) 874-2500 • Fax: (408) 874 -2595
April 27, 2017
Mr. Jessy Pu , TE, PE
Town Traffic Engineer
Town of Los Gatos
Parks and Public Works
41 Miles Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Review of Traffic Responses to Comments for 405 Alberto Way
Dear Mr. Pu :
At your request, TJKM has reviewed the responses prepared by He xagon Transportation
Consultants, In c. related to comments received on the 405 Alberto Way proposed office
development. Hexagon prepared the original traffic impact analysis (TIA) and has prepared
various responses and updates to the report. TJKM was retained by the City to review the
original report and subsequent updates and responses, including material contained i n this
l etter. TJKM had severa l comments related to the original report, which were subsequently
addressed by He xagon.
At the Planning Commission project hearings on August 10 and August 24, 2016, many traffic
comments were offered, both by Comm issioners and by the public during the public comment
periods. Hexagon prepared a comprehensive summary of comments made, along with detailed
responses, regarding traffic issues related to the project. The He xagon responses are con ta ined
in an Apri l 5, 2017 letter to Mr. Randy Hahn of Lamb Partners.
TJKM has conducted a comprehensive review of the April 5, 2017 lette r and concu rs with the
Hexagon responses.
Subsequently, He xagon prepared a letter dated April 21, 2017 also addressed to Mr. Randy
Hahn. That letter addressed additional recent public comments regarding the traffic aspects of
the 405 Alberto Way project. That letter noted that the project had been reduced in size from
93,000 square feet o f office development to 83 ,000 square feet of office development. This
resu lted in the original TIA being conservative due to the decrease in the project's size and
related transportation impacts. The letter prepared responses to 31 comments received from
members of the public.
TJKM has co nd uc ted a comprehensive review of t he April 2 1, 2017 letter and concurs with the
Hexagon responses.
EXHIBIT 4 O
PLEASANTON • SAN JOSE • SANTA ROSA • SACRAMENTO + FRESNO
Corporate Office: 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 + Phone : 925.463.0611 • www.TJKM.com
DBE #40772 • SBE #38780
Mr. Jessy Pu
April 27, 2017
Page 2 of 2
Please contact me if there are any questions or comments on our review of the two letters.
Very truly yours,
Chri s D. Kinzel , P.E.
Vice President
ITEM:
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
Engineering Division
April 10, 2017
401-409 Alberto Way; APN: 529-23-018
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009
PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty
APPLICANT: Shane Arters , LP Acquisition s LLC
Project Description: Reque sting appro val to demoli sh three existing office buildings and
construct a new , two-story office build ing with underground pa r king on property zoned CH .
Q: Where is the development project?
A : The proposed development project i s located at the northwest corner of Lo s Gatos-Saratoga
Road (California State Route 9) and Alberto Way.
Q: What is the current use?
A : The property currently features three two-story multi-tenant office buildings on the project
site consi sting of approx imately 31 ,000 square feet of office space .
Q: What is the proposed use?
A: The development project proposes a new two-s tory office building featuring 83,000 square
feet of office space and an accompanying two-level subterranean parking garage .
Q: How much larger in size are the proposed buildings than the existing buildings?
A: There would be a total net increase in office space of approximately 52 ,000 square feet.
Q: Would there be any increase in traffic due to the proposed development project?
A : Ye s, there will be additional vehicle trips associated with the increased square footage;
however, the increa se in traffic would not re sult in a "significant" t r affic impact based on
th e traffic analysis conducted according to the Town's Traffic Impact Policy and General
Plan (GP).
Q: How many additional vehicle trips created by a new development triggers the Town's
requirement for a traffic impact analysis?
A : In accordan ce with Town's Traffic Impact Policy, a traffic impact analysi s {TIA) i s required for
any private development project s that are ex pected to add 20 or more vehicle trips in the
AM or PM peak hours.
.EXHIBIT 4 1
Parks and Public Works De partm ent • En gi neering Di visio n • 41 Miles Ave, Lo s Ga tos, CA 95030
408.399.5771 • www.losga t osca.gov • www.facebo ok .co m /losgatosca
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Q: Does the proposed project trigger the Town's requirement for a traffic impact analysis?
A: Yes. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program have been prepared for the project and can be found at the following link:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/2216/Pending-Pla nning-Projects. The TIA is available online via
that link as well. The TIA found that the proposal would generate more vehicle trips than
what currently occurs with the ex isting office spaces . The size of development has been
reduced to 83,000 square feet since completion of the TIA. It is estimated the currently
proposed development would result in an additional 123 vehicle trips during the AM peak
hour, and 90 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
Q: How are AM and PM peak hours selected for any given development?
A: Pursuant to the Town's Traffic Impact Policy, the AM and PM peak hours are determined
during weekdays when schools are in session for studied intersections, with the AM peak
hour occurring between 7 :00 AM and 9 :00 AM and, similarly, the PM peak period between
4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The 60-minute durations with the highest number of vehicle trips
during each of these morning and evening periods are selected as the respective peak hour
traffic times. These peak hour traffic times are used for the traffic analysis.
Q: How is the number of vehicle trips calculated?
A : The number of vehicle trips generated by a development project is determined by using the
applicable trip generation rate from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual or alternative sources in accordance with the Town's Traffic Impact
Policy. Use of the ITE trip generation rates for estimating the number of vehicle trips is a
standard practice and is also consistent with the VTA's traffic impact analysis guidelines .
Q: Is any increase in traffic from a new development considered a significant impact to the
nearby traffic intersections and surrounding area?
A: No . The Town's General Plan (GP) and Traffic Impact Policy define a significant traffic
impact based on changes to the intersection's Level of Service (LOS).
Q: What is LOS and how does it determine the impacts of project traffic on the Town?
A : Traffic engineering standards use LOS (Level of Service) to determine project traffic impacts.
LOS represents traffic intersection congestion by a letter scale that ranges from LOS A to
LOS F, with LOS A representing the least or no congestion. The Town 's Traffic Impact Policy
and General Plan (GP) do not allow for developments to drop the LOS at an intersection by
more than one level or below LOS D without requiring the development to mitigate or
provide a "fix" for the increased traffic delay. A project TIA analyzes LOS at impacted
intersections as a function of the average vehicle delay and determines the impact
significance and any required mitigation . The impacts are only considered significant if the
LOS drops more than one level or below a LOS D.
Park s and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.399.5771 • www.losga t o sca.gov • www.facebook.com/lo sgatosca
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Q: What are the TIA's findings of the LOS impact for this project?
A: For the currently proposed project, the TIA concluded that the intersections would not drop
more than one level or below a LOS D. Therefore, the project would not create a significant
impact on traffic. The intersections that were included in the analysis are: North Santa Cruz
Avenue and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, University Avenue and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road,
Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road, and Los Gatos Boulevard and Caldwell Avenue/Kennedy Road.
Q: Would the proposed project create any unsafe conditions for Alberto Way?
A: In its existing condition, Alberto Way is approximately 36 feet from curb-to-curb along the
project frontage. This width is sufficient for on-street parking and one lane of traffic in each
direction. The project has proposed dedication along the Alberto Way frontage to facilitate
an exclusive right turn lane and bike lane. The TIA has evaluated the traffic conditions on
Alberto Way and the access to the project site and has found no unsafe conditions
Q: Would the proposed development result in difficulty or unsafe conditions for emergency
services to access Alberto Way during construction?
A: The project is conditioned to provide a Construction Management Plan and Traffic Control
Plan prior to the issuance of any permit(s) for work within the public right-of-way.
Furthermore, the project is also conditioned to provide advance notification of all affected
residents and emergency services. Emergency services will have access at all times.
Q: Did the TIA evaluate the project impact to the adjacent california State Route 17?
A: Yes. The TIA analyzed the northbound and southbound segments of California State Route
17(Highway17) between Lark Avenue and Bear Creek Road. With the analysis, it was
determined that the increase in segment trips would not significantly impact the freeway
LOS. Furthermore, the TIA included a freeway ramp analysis for four affected ramps at the
interchange of Highway 17 and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to verify that the ramps would
have sufficient capacity to serve the expected traffic volumes with the project.
Q: What Is the proposed elimination of on-street parking with the proposed project?
A: The project proposes to eliminate approximately 130 linear feet of on-street parking (5
parking spaces) along the project frontage (southbound Alberto Way}, and 70 linear feet (3
parking spaces) along northbound Alberto Way in front of the Best Western.
Q: Why is this ellmination necessary?
A: Eliminating on-street parking is necessary for improving both visibility and traffic flow.
Parks and Public Works Department• Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Q: With the elimination of on-street parking in front of the restaurant/motel complex across
from the proposed project, would the street width accommodate a left turn lane into the
proposed project as well as the standard lane going north on Alberto Way?
A: With the location ofthe project's main entrance being situated near the northern property
line, a left turn lane into the project would require elimination of on-street parking in front
of the Pueblo De Los Gatos residences (420 Alberto Way), which may not be desirable. In
addition, the TIA has evaluated and found there would be sufficient gaps in traffic for
vehicles to make a left into the project site without creating significant delays to
northbound traffic.
Q: What can be done to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the project?
A: The currently proposed Conditions of Approval require a Transportation Demand
Management (TOM) plan for the development. The TOM plan will include a list of measures
for reducing single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage alternative transportation modes
such as riding bicycles, carpooling, and riding transit.
Q: What improvements have been proposed to encourage pedestrian and bike to
downtown?
A: The project has proposed to install a detached sidewalk on both Alberto Way and Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road along the project's frontage to enhance the pedestrian experience.
The project has also proposed the installation of a bike lane and bike box on Alberto Way,
widen Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd to accommodate a future bike lane, and implement a TOM
program to encourage multi-modal transportation. The project, as conditioned, will provide
crosswalk improvements for pedestrians crossing the California State Route 17 northbound
on-ramp, such as high-visibility crosswalk stripes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, a yield
line and/or appropriate signage.
Q: Would the proposed project construct any off-site improvements?
A: The currently proposed Conditions of Approval require the following off-site improvements:
• Alberto Way
o Installation of new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip,
street lights, signing, and striping.
o Removal and replacement of the existing pavement section along the project
frontage with a traffic-appropriate engineered structural pavement section from the
centerline of Alberto Way to its western lip of gutter.
o A 2-inch grind and overlay from centerline of Alberto Way to its eastern lip of gutter.
o Two travel lanes exiting Alberto Way: an exclusive right-turn lane and a shared left-
thru lane.
o A bike lane on southbound Alberto Way at the project frontage.
Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
o A bike box on southbound Alberto Way at its intersection with Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road .
o Installation of ADA-compliant curb ramps at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road.
• Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
o Installation of new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip,
street lights, signing, and striping.
o Installation of ADA-compliant curb ramps on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road at the
California State Route 17 northbound ramp.
o A 2-inch grind and overlay from the northern extent of the median island to the new
lip of gutter along the project frontage.
o Widening of the north side of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road; removal and replacement of
the existing median island along eastbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to provide for a
future bike lane and a left-turn pocket (250 feet in length) for eastbound Los-Gatos
Saratoga Road traffic turning onto northbound Alberto Way.
o Provide crosswalk improvements for pedestrians crossing the California State Route
17 northbound on-ramp, such as high-visibility crosswalk stripes, rectangular rapid
flashing beacons, a yield line and/or appropriate signage, etc.
Q: Is there a map or site plan that shows the proposed off-site improvements?
A: Yes. Please see Exhibit 1, attached.
Parks and Public Works Department• Engineering Division• 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408 .399.5771 • www.Josgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
10111210New ADA curb ramps.Remove and replace pavement section.112” grind and overlay.12Relocate pedestrian crosswalk. Add high-visibility crosswalk stripes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, yield line or appropriate signage, etc., with approval from Caltrans.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joseph Gemignani <josephtheweatherman @gmai l.c om >
Wednesda y, Apr il 12, 2017 10:07 PM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto w ay co ntinuance
Hi Jenn ifer. I won't be in town for the May 10 Planning Commission meeting. Could you please conv ey at the mee ti ng
that I am in favor of this project. If appropriate let them know that I prefer if they could ha ve kept the tower elements. It
gave the build ing some additional pizzazz .
Thanks, Joseph
Sent from my i Phone
.lEXHIBIT 4 2
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lindsay Catterton < lcatte5850@aol.com >
Monday, May 01 , 2017 8:21 AM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way
Once again!! We do not need that development!!!!
Lindsay Catterton
439 Alberto Way. #lOSA
Sent from my iPhone
To: Planning Commission
Date: May 3, 2017
RE C E~VED
MAY 0 3 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
From : Loretta Fowler, Chair, Committee on Alberto Way Project, Los Gatos Commons
Subject: Response on behalf of Los Gatos Commons to Mr. Lamb's Supplemental Response,
April 24, 2017 to "Comment Letters" submitted in The Commons's 4/6 letter (Staff report, April
6, 2017)
Mr. Lamb asserts that "none of the comments raise new issues or new environmental impacts."
In The Commons's April 6, 2017 letter we addressed the ~nvironmental impact of one 83,000
sf building at 405 Alberto Way and argued that there would be a negative impact, and we gave
supporting arguments. In August 2016 Mr. Lamb was proposing to build a 93,000 sf bu ilding,
which was a different issue. In our Apri l 6 letter we in t roduced for t he fi rst time an
environmental impact t hat would result from a two-story underground garage, namely
damage t o neighboring properties.
In the attachments Mr. Lamb responds to specific comments that he asserts are fromThe
Commons . Many are from our August 18, 2016 letter, not our April 6, 2017 l etter in which we
added new research and revised earlier comments . We take issue with many of his remarks.
Some comments he erroneously attributes to us.
AESTHETICS
Page 1 Our Comment: Size and scale of proposed building not suitable for surrounding
neighborhood. Mr. Lamb disagrees. He argues that the DEIR (3.1) concluded the project's
aesthetic impacts were less than significant at the August hearing . Yet the Planning
Commission on 8/24 asked him to reduce the square footage to between 43,000 and 61,000 sf.
Page 2 Not Our Comment : Proposed building blocks views of mountains. Mr. Lamb states that
the LGC asserted that the views of the Santa Cruz Mountains would be blocked; actually, he is
wrong in that our letter of 4/6 does not mention the view issue . The comment comes from
another development.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Pages 6 & 9 Our Comments: Hydrology impacts not reviewed in DEIR ; adverse impacts on
surrounding properties (other issues were from PLG and BVV). Mr. Lamb and ENGEO cannot
claim that the ENGEO report in the DEIR assessed the i mpact of the garage on neighboring
properties. In the ENGEO Suppleme nt of 4/19, in comments 2 and 3, ENGEO admits (pp. 3-4)
1
that there would be "low risk" (not no risk) of cracking slabs and "very low risk" (not no risk) of
broken pipes . Low risk is not no risk, so we would be at risk-ENGEO cannot predict accurately
what would happen to our properties, and our expert has argued that there would be damage .
Page 8 Not Our Comment : Cracked slabs at houses in LGC, etc. Mr. Lamb claims that LGC
stated that the underground garage would result in cracked slabs at the LGC. This is not true.
The LGC argued that the repair of cracked slabs at PLG and LC would be very disruptive for the
residents of The Commons .
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Page 11 Not Our Comment : Project fails to address VTA funding Hwy 9 and 17
interchange. Actually, our letter of April 6 does not make this assertion; there is no p. 8 in our
letter.
Page 11 Our Comment: Caltrans concluded the project will add trips greater than 1% capacity;
EIR mitigations are inadequate (LGC, 4/6, p. 4). The Hexagon Supplement concluded that the
added traffic from the project would not be significant. It seems that Caltrans and Hexagon
disagree . Mr. Lamb argued that the "improvements" would improve existing conditions. We
are not experts but think fewer cars associated with a project at 405 Alberto Way would
mitigate effects from traffic.
Page 11 Not Our Comment: Project will increase traffic on Hwy 9, NB traffic on Hwy 17 and
increase delays. Actually, our April 6 letter does not make this statement; there is no p. 6 to
that letter.
Page 12 Our Comment: False Traffic Report data. We questioned the ITE manual's use of very
old data in computing traffic patterns. Hexagon's 4/5 letter does not refute our argument that
the data in the ITE 2012 manual is very old . Hexagon also used trip generation counts at three
existing office buildings in Los Gatos, one of which is 475 Alberto Way. The count there was 37
(AM in , PM out). Hexagon asserts that trips are determined by square footage of a building.
After the 475 building was renovated the square footage did not change but over 100 car s now
come and go. We continue to be unconvinced that a project with 330 cars will not create a
negative impact for us .
Page 13 Our Comment: Did not consider traffic from 475-485 Alberto Way project. Mr. Lamb
writes that a pending application for this project had not been submitted at the time the TIA
was completed. This is not the point. The two existing buildings 475 and 478 (not the proposed
new building, which is on Pine) were remodeled to Class A status (tripling occupancy) after
Hexagon did its study. The remodeled buildings have over 100 associated cars that go up and
2
1 | P a g e
Alberto Way Citizens Rebuttal to Lamb Partne rs April 19,
2017 Comments on the Expert Peter Geissler & Bob Burke
Reports on 405 (aka 40 1409) Alberto Way
Submitted by Bob Burke on behalf of the Residents of Alberto Way
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................2
ENGEOs Responses to Peter Geissler .........................................................................................3
Geissler Comment 1 ................................................................................................................3
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 1.............................................................................4
Geissler Comment 2: ...............................................................................................................4
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 2.............................................................................5
Geissler Comment 3: ...............................................................................................................5
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 3: ...........................................................................6
Geissler Comments 4 & 8: .......................................................................................................7
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 4 & 8: .....................................................................9
ENGEO Response to BOB BURKE Comment 11 ................................................................. 10
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on BOB BURKE 11: .............................................................. 11
Traffic ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 1, 9 & 10 ................................................................. 21
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 1, 9 & 10 ................................ 21
Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 5 & 6 ....................................................................... 22
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 5 & 6 ...................................... 23
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response PDLG 5 & 6 - ITE Outdated Studies & Evidence of
higher Trip Generation .......................................................................................................... 24
Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 14 ........................................................................... 31
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 14........................................... 31
Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 27 ............................................................................ 31
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 27........................................... 32
Hexagon Response to Construction Comments 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31 .............................. 32
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on Construction Comments 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31
.............................................................................................................................................. 33
2 | P a g e
Traffic Engineers know they’re guessing “new trips generated” ............................................ 34
Los Gatos has a History o f denying developments that generate more traffic than its roads can
support .................................................................................................................................. 34
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 35
INTRODUCTION
In enacting the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000 et
seq.) in 1970, the California Legislature declared the maintenance of a quality environment to be
a matter of ongoing statewide concern. §21000(a). Public agencies considering approval of both
public and private projects must therefore give “major consideration … to preventing
environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for
every Californian.” §21000(g).
Under CEQA, public agencies cannot “approve projects as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially
lessen the environmental effects of such projects.” §21002
The Legislature designed CEQA’s review processes to publicly disclose
environmental effects and identify feasible project alternatives and mitigations. The goal
is to protect California’s environment by informing the discretionary land use decisions
of elected officials. §21002. CEQA furthers California’s environmental policies through
its procedural mandates, requiring agencies to prepare and consider environmental
documents within prescribed public review processes, and substantive mandates,
requiring agencies to impose feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to projects that
might otherwise cause significant adverse environmental effects.
Hundreds of published cases now interpret CEQA. Its overarching edict, as expressed by
the California Supreme Court in Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997)
16 Cal.4th 105, 124, is that “[u]nder CEQA, a public agency must … consider measures that
might mitigate a project’s adverse environmental impact and adopt them if feasible. (§§21002,
21081.)” The Court has repeatedly underscored “CEQA’s substantive mandate that public
agencies refrain from approving projects for which there are feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures.” Id. at 134; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247,
264; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341,
350; Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 434.
CEQA achieves its purpose of long-term protection of the environment by functioning as
“an environmental full disclosure statute, and the EIR is the method . . . [of] disclosure . . .”
Rural Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020. An EIR
should not just generate paper, but should act as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is
to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have
3 | P a g e
reached the ecological po ints of no return.” County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795,
810. The EIR provides analysis to allow decision makers to make intelligent
judgments. Guideline §15151. “. . . the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental
protection under CEQA, . . .” No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 82;
§21151.
Response to Suggestions. An EIR must respond to specific suggestions for
mitigating a significant impact unless the suggested mitigation is “facially
infeasible.” Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 1019, 1029 (EIR was required to discuss suggestion that installation of air
conditioning and filtering at two schools might prove feasible means of mitigating
significant air pollution impacts identified in the EIR); see Santa Clarita Organization for
Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1042 (EIR
contained adequate responses to measures suggested to address GHG emissions.)
In our past submissions to this Application, we’ve (PDLG, Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista
Village & Las Casitas collectively) identified both feasible Mitigations in addition to what was
identified in the FEIR, Missing Environmental Impacts and Feasible Mitigat ions to them.
This document rebuts materially false or misleading assertions made in the Supplemental April
24, 2017 submission by Lamb Partners & its contractors ENGEO and Hexagon with fact based
sources and illustrations.
We find the bulk of the remaining comments from April 24 to be without merit, or duplicitous,
needing no rebuttal.
ENGEOs Responses to Peter Geissler
Geissler Comment 1
To Geissler 1, ENGEO responds
4 | P a g e
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 1: Irrespective of the 2012 Terra/GeoPentech report,
the following Santa Clara County illustration showing the Lenihan Dam’s East side ending at a
Fault Rupture Hazard Zone and surrounded to the West by another Fault Rupture Hazard Zone is
found from this URL:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/PlansOrdinances/GeoHazards/Pages/GeoMaps.aspx
Where a click on the Fault Rupture Hazard Zones KMZ Files hyperlink:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Faults.kmz
will download this Google Earth GIS start link (install Google Earth for PC, Mac or Linux first).
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Faults.kmz (URL opens Google
Earth, then you may guide it to the Lenihan Dam South of LG) shows in pink the Earthquake
Fault Rupture Hazard Zone that abuts the Lenihan Dam and another that overlays portions of
Lexington Reservoir. The 2012 Terra-Geo Pentech Lenihan Report fails to mention the Fault
Rupture Hazard Zone or what the consequence to Lenihan Dam would be should the fault
rupture immediately beside the Dam during an earthquake.
Furthermore, in 2007, Oroville’s 50 year (1957) license to operate was renewed. Documentation
for Oroville’s Renewal show that the renewal failed to address any Dam Safety issues at all nor
any protocol to ID and correct known or latent defects. Both its primary and emergency spillway
surfaces failed in 2017, and a large evacuation ensued.
Geissler Comment 2:
5 | P a g e
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 2:
There is a substantial difference in the forces exerted on the surrounding structures between:
- groundwater level rise & fall where all structures sit on the same surface that rises to or
subsides from a similar level, driven by the water below it like boats on calm water vs.
- dewatering, where ground subsides where it’s being dewatered and does not subside by
the same amount in ground that surrounds the dewatered coffer dam. This differential in
ground level is what causes cracks. ENGEO fails to mention the differential.
The bottom line is this: the longer or wider the existing building is, the greater the difference
between the
- “before dewatering” ground level vs. the
- “after dewatering” ground level is and
- the more likely damage to our foundations will occur from the differential settling and
- the costlier the damage repair to the foundations and shifted interior walls & floors will
be since settling is increasingly pronounced with length.
Geissler Comment 3:
6 | P a g e
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 3:
Water travels beneath the Planned Development and surrounding properties where we live as
drainage travels from uphill of our properties after storms and as water is pushed uphill from the
underground water table in the liquefaction zone beneath the LG Creek bed upon which the
Planned Development is placed through fractured rock in the Rupture Hazard Zone below the
Planned Development. The most pronounced effect from its blockage is already known to be
beneath the Bella Vista Village homes on Cuesta De Los Gatos that have sump pumps in their
crawl spaces.
The reduced permeability that ENGEO notes in its response already retards water flow, and the
underground parking structure will further retard water flow, forcing it to back up beneath
neighboring properties.
7 | P a g e
ENGEO fails to recognize this predictable consequence and is incorrect in its response and
conclusion.
If underground parking is allowed, which it should not be, then we see every reason that a
presently unidentified and reasonable Mitigation to address the risk to our properties would be to
require Lamb Partners to post a Bond in the amount of about $10M that is guaranteed until after
both the next major earthquake occurs (similar to Loma Prieta) and the next major drought
recovery (similar to the current water year recovery after the 2010-2016 drought) have passed
without damages to our residences.
Geissler Comments 4 & 8:
8 | P a g e
9 | P a g e
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on Geissler 4 & 8:
ENGEO is incorrect. The Planned Development is situated on both a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone,
shown in pink below and a Liquefaction Zone, shown in blue and may be found at this Santa
10 | P a g e
Clara County URL:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/PlansOrdinances/GeoHazards/Pages/GeoMaps.aspx
Where a click on the Liquifaction Faults hyperlink will download this Santa Clara County
Geologic Hazard Zones Google Earth GIS start link (download & install Google Earth for PC,
Mac or Linux first) which shows all Fault Rupture and Liquefaction zones in the County:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Faults.kmz
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Liquifaction.kmz (opens Google
Earth, then you guide it to the Los Gatos intersection of Hwys 9 & 17 to see both zones)
ENGEO used a 1991 State Map in its response and Santa Clara County published the new one,
shown below, in 2002. ENGEO neglected to find the latest map (pink Fault Rupture Hazard
Zone overlays the blue Liquefaction zone beneath the LG Creek bed where they are both
present).
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GEO_Faults.kmz
Two of the 3 buildings presently on the PD’s property are shown to be located within the Fault
Rupture Hazard Zone.
We easily found this site and the failure to disclose it by ENGEO, in our opinion, calls into
question both the veracity of the EIR and the qualit y of ENGEOs work products. ENGEO and
Lamb Partners have economic incentives to get the project done.
We have only unacceptable Environmental Impacts and Economic Risks that have not been fully
disclosed.
ENGEO Response to BOB BURKE Comment 11
11 | P a g e
Citizen’s Rebuttal to ENGEO on BOB BURKE 11:
There has been no submission of evidence that the present Depth to Water has been discovered
through another set of borings.
This exposes us to heightened risks of Environmental Impact from:
- diversion of underground water from the area to be occupied by proposed underground parking
to beneath our properties, thereby damaging us
- extended construction interval as Lamb Partners are forced to deal with the results of the water
- potential abandonment of the development mid-project should the cost be too high for Lamb’s
financing sources or too costly to otherwise complete
ENGEO’s comment appears to say that it’s OK for either one or both levels of the proposed
underground parking to be underwater. And then if it’s not, that the depth to underground water
can’t possibly be less tha n 12 feet since they can’t find an aerial photo of the LG Creek bed on
one specific web site. Au contraire.
12 | P a g e
We searched for and easily found several Historic Photos & Maps showing that Los Gatos Creek
has both flooded and had multiple channels, including beneath the Proposed Development. They
have over the years shifted all over the flood plain that the Proposed Development lies within.
Including one we found in https://www.historicaerials.com/ which ENGEO didn’t look hard
enough to find. We didn’t purchase and download the photo, which can be found and viewed on-
line (after you set up a no cost account) with the company’s prominent watermark. The Historic
Aerials photo shows the dry LG Creek bed and several channels, some recent and deeper than
the old and shallow channels.
The flood plain was uncontrolled and flooded annually (droughts excepted), which formed the
many channels by greatly varied flows. Annual flo oding ended in 1955 when Hwy-17 & the
Lenihan Dam were both constructed.
But first, we present this current Google Earth aerial photo that clearly ident ifies the low-lying
area that confines the LG Creek bed, whose low-lying area of interest is outlined in white. The
still existing first building of LGHS is noted by the white line in the foreground as is the
Proposed Development’s property.
This next Aerial Photo shows what it looked like in 1939: LGHS is in the middle foreground and
the LG Creek Bed is dry and streaked all over by its meandering channels, which occurred
annually before the Lenihan Dam and the LG Creek re-route to its present day concrete swale on
the West side of Hwy-17 were completed in 1955.
The Planned development clearly lies within the LG Creek bed’s former flood plain.
13 | P a g e
This next illustration, fro m a May 3,1955 LG Times article, clearly shows the eastern channel of
LG Creek at the time the map was drawn located beneath the western side of the proposed
location for the Applicant’s 405 Alberto Way building. In 1955, LG Saratoga Rd was connected
to Charles Street, the 1block street between Bella Vista and LG Blvd to the east of the PD.
Comparing this map to the 1930 First National Bank map tracks how much the Eastern LG
Creek channel shifted fro m beneath the East side of the Proposed Development to 1955.
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
This next aerial photo, from 1957, shows the same area after Hwy 17 & its Hwy 9 interchange
were built in the LG Creek bed and the LG Creek channel confined to the present concrete
culvert in 1955. The 405 Alberto (aka 401-409) property clearly lies in the old creek bed and the
3 present buildings are shown in pink.
Next is a USGS topographical map that shows the same area years after Hwy 17 & its Hwy 9
interchange were built in the LG Creek bed and the LG Creek channel confined to the present
concrete culvert in 1955. The 405 Alberto (aka 401-409) property clearly lies in the LG Creek
bed, being situated at the lowest elevation presently within the creek bed at 339 -340 feet AMSL
as seen on Google Earth with its proposed foundation is at 336 feet in elevation. The only lower
area within LG Creek near the 9 & 17 interchange is the bottom of the culvert into which the
creek is diverted at 329 feet AMSL per Google Earth. This confirms its location to be within not
only the former LG Creek bed but within the former channel shown on the historic maps. The 3
present buildings are shown in pink in the former LG Creek bed immediately northeast of the
Highways 17 & 9 interchange.
16 | P a g e
Next, we present several historic maps that verify the location of 401-409 Alberto Way on the
widest area of the LG Creek Flood Plain, in which the Proposed Development lies:
1895
The area of the Proposed Development is near the lower LG Creek island in this map.
17 | P a g e
1910 Assessor’s Map
18 | P a g e
In this map, the PD lies in the LG Creek bed at the end of BL Bartletts’ property.
1930 First National Bank Map
The PD is below the shaded area of the LG Creek bed showing the channels and islands of the
day and across from LG Saratoga Rd, which is above the LG Creek bed in which the PD lies. In
19 | P a g e
1955, LG Saratoga Rd was connected to Charles Street, the 1 block street between Bella Vista
and LG Blvd.
1944 Assessor’s Map
The Proposed Development is in the LG Creek bed between LG Saratoga Rd and Charles St.
20 | P a g e
In conclusion, the PD is in the historic LG Creek bed and on top of both Fault Rupture and
Liquefaction Zones. This would not have been difficult for ENGEO to discover and in our
21 | P a g e
opinion, would have changed the prior EIR conclusion, requiring earthquake mitigation by
constructing several much smaller buildings, and without belowground parking.
Traffic
Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 1, 9 & 10
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 1, 9 & 10
There is nothing to be gained by cherry picking partial statements. Hexagon failed to show
PDLGs entire Comment 1, which is:
“Restriping the intersection at Alberto Way is not going to reduce congestion because we
currently have an unmarked right turn lane that we use and we still have long waits for a
22 | P a g e
gap in traffic [on Hwy 9]. Space for the bike box is problematic, and the extensive use of
bicycles by tenants is questionable and proven by current tenants in both 475-485 and
401-409 Alberto Way to be negligible to non-existent.”
Furthermore, Hexagon fails to identify and Mitigate the Environmental Impact to Alberto Way
Residents from the loss of On-Street Parking to make room for the PD.
What is really needed for all three commented situations is a widened Alberto Way to
accommodate the increased traffic generated by the PD, the bike box, and on-street parking for
Residents. Lamb Partners intend to replace the curb anyway and thus far refuse to widen Alberto
enough to conform to existing LG design widths, including two northbound lanes and the one
entrance lane, a needed left turn lane into the PD, the bike box and on-street parking where it
exists today a few car lengths before the intersection in front of the PD. There are today very few
left turners that block the right turn lane. Lamb Partners wants to remove 8-11 on-street parking
spaces we have today so they can avoid widening Alberto Way and will not allow us to use their
parking, all to our loss. Lamb offers damage and daily inconvenience to Alberto Way residents.
Widening Alberto Way to preserve existing on-street parking as well as improving sight is a
Reasonable Mitigation to the Unidentified Environmental Impact to Alberto Way Residents from
the proposed loss of on-street parking.
Further, the use of on-street parking is likely by tenant employees in, and vis itors to, the PD after
it is occupied, as was commented on by the Planning Commission in the August 24, 2015
Hearing.
The absence of congested weekday on-street parking is not a reason to remove it. The presence
of congested on-street parking after tenant occupation is the reason to keep on-street parking by
significantly widening Alberto Way in front of the Applicant’s property or for the PD to dedicate
as many spaces on the PD to Alberto Way residents as are removed from Residents’ use to make
room for the PD.
Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 5 & 6
23 | P a g e
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hex agon Response on PDLG Comment 5 & 6
24 | P a g e
Hexagon offset its Observation time to miss 15 minutes of each AM & PM peak hour and
therefore undercounts traffic. It furthermore did not publish the date upon which it made the
October 2016 observations. The AM Rush can be impacted by delayed openings and road or
work on buildings such as the demolition of Double D’s at Hwy-9 & Santa Cruz.
We observed four distinct rush periods on many occasions: AM, Lunch, School Ends and PM.
The actual AM rush is fro m 7:45AM – 8:45AM. This is driven by the start of LGHS (8:10AM &
Fisher Middle (8:30AM) classes, as is the School Ends (2:10PM LGHS & 2:30PM Fisher) rush
which peaks between 2:00PM – 3:00PM.
The actual PM rush is 5:15PM – 6:15PM and on many days extends to 6:30PM. It is driven by
the end of the business day. Businesses drive the 12:15PM – 1:15PM Lunch rush.
Hwy 9 has 4 weekday rush hours, which are at 7:45 – 8:45AM, 12:15 – 1:15PM, 2:00 – 3:00PM
(Schools end) and 5:15 – 6:15PM. In addition to AM & PM Rush, office buildings generate
significant traffic at lunch, which does not appear in the Applicant’s traffic studies.
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response PDLG 5 & 6 - ITE Outdated Studies &
Evidence of higher Trip Generation
ITE Trip Generation computations use Outdated Studies, Hexagon fails to acknowledge
the wide range of Trips generated based on the study results and ignores evidence of
increased trip generation we submitted to the Planning Commission for this Application
We visited Mr. Jessy Pu, the Town’s traffic engineer, to look at the ITE Trip Generation Manual
9th edition. We left with a copy of the Manual’s 5 pages for the 401-409 Alberto Way “ITE 710
Land Use,” which Mr. Pu said is for Office Buildings like 405 (aka 401-409) Alberto Way.
What follows on the next five pages from the 9th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual
define the methodology used by the ITE for trip generation.
- The first page, ITE 1250, is a high level descript ion.
- The second page, ITE 1251, clearly states that the projected trips generated by new
developments are based on studies from the 1960’s to the 2000’s.
This literally means the average date of studies used in the calculation method is 37 years old!
Office building occupancy and therefore trip generation has changed a lot since then, as we
presented in our two earlier reports, which included both new trip generation sensitivity studies
and photographic evidence showing the current congestion that Los Gatos residents & visitors
experience on Hwy 9.
Hwy 9 has 4 weekday rush hours, which are at 7:45 – 8:45AM, 12:15 – 1:15PM, 2:00 – 3:00PM
(Schools end) and 5:15 – 6:15PM. In addition to AM & PM Rush, office buildings generate
significant traffic at lunch, which does not appear in the Applicant’s traffic studies. Bob- you
said this on the prior page This further understates trips generated.
25 | P a g e
- The last three pages contain the ITE Charts & Formulas used to compute the Total Day,
AM Rush & PM Rush trips generated.
26 | P a g e
27 | P a g e
28 | P a g e
29 | P a g e
30 | P a g e
The ITE trip generation charts above all illustrate huge ranges in the number of trips
generated that were identified by the Studies. This wide range in trips generated is what we
addressed in both of our earlier trip generation sensitivity studies.
ITE notes these ranges for Office Buildings for trips generated:
Total Day: 3.58 – 28.8 Trips / 1,000 sq. ft.
At the original 92,000 sq. ft., the range would be fr om 332 to 2,648 new trips / weekday.
At 83,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 297 to 2,390 new trips / weekday.
AM Rush: 0.60 – 5.98 Trips / 1,000 sq. ft.
At the original 92,000 sq. ft., the range would be fr om 197 to 520 new trips / AM Rush Hour.
(vs: 181 trips (159 in and 22 out) Applicant Submits for the AM peak hour)
At 83,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 178 to 496 new trips / AM Rush Hour.
PM Rush: 0.49 – 6.39 Trips / 1,000 sq. ft.
At the original 92,000 sq. ft., the range would be fr om 41 to 530 trips / PM Rush Hour.
(vs: 183 trips (31 in and 152 out) Applicant Submits for the PM peak hour)
At 83,000 sq. ft., the range would be from 45 to 587 new trips / PM Rush Hour.
Applicant’s AM & PM Peak Hour figures are a small fraction of the max possible Peak
hour trip count.
We submitted this AM & PM rush hour sensitivity study for 92K sq. ft. at 370 to 735 tenant
employees:
We submitted this AM & PM rush hour sensitivity study for 83K sq. ft. at 340 to 663 tenant
employees:
401-409 Alberto Daily Trip Count
Sensitivity Study Hours
AM Tot
presently as
Filed
PM Tot
Presently as
Filed
AM in 370
employees
as filed
AM out 370
employees
as Filed
PM in 370
employees
as Filed
PM out 370
employees
as Filed
AM in 735
Employees
AM out 735
Employees
PM in 735
Employees
PM out 735
Employees
2 hours as filed (Least Possible Traffic)2 42 81 159 21 31 152 316 42 62 302
1 hour Rush 1 318 42 62 304 632 83 123 604
45 minute Rush (most likely rush time)0.75 424 56 83 405 842 111 164 805
30 minute Rush 0.5 636 84 124 608 1263 167 246 1208
405 Alberto Revised PD Daily
Trip Count Sensitivity Study Rush Period in Hours
AM Tot
presently as
Filed
PM Tot
Presently as
Filed
AM in340
employees
as Revised
AM out 340
employees
as Revised
PM in 340
employees
as Revised
PM out 340
employees
as Revised
AM in 663
Employees
AM out 663
Employees
PM in 663
Employees
PM out 663
Employees
2 hours as filed (Least Possible Traffic)2 42 81 143 19 28 152 257 38 56 302
1 hour Rush 1 287 38 56 304 570 75 111 604
45 minute Rush (most likely rush time)0.75 383 51 75 405 760 100 148 805
30 minute Rush 0.5 574 76 112 608 1140 151 222 1208
Rush Period Trip Rate in Trips / Hour
31 | P a g e
Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 14
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 14
The notion that trips are based on Building Size and not tenant employees and their visitor traffic
is patently ridiculous.
ITE just simply doesn’t perform the studies down to the root cause in the case of General Office
Buildings while it does take into account the traffic from visitors to the tenant employees for
other Land Use types that recognize the nature of the tenant employee densities and the
frequency of trips generated by various types of businesses.
Hexagon would have the Town believe that an 83K sq. ft. office building that’s occupied by 100
tenant employees generates the same number of trips that a similar office building with 700
employees would just because it’s the same size.
People generate trips, not buildings. ITE’s methodology does not go to this Root Cause for trip
generation.
If there is an approval for the PD, whether this Plan or another, it should limit Occupancy by
limiting the number of Tenant Employees to about 300 and be accompanied by a change in the
parcel’s Conditional Use Permit from Mixed Use to “Commercial Office Use.”
Hexagon Response to PDLG Comment 27
32 | P a g e
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on PDLG Comment 27
Hexagon completely misses the point of our comment. The congested 2 lane section of Los
Gatos Blvd from Main Street in front of the Town Hall to Van Meter Elementary where it
transitions to 4 lanes is the root cause of the Eastbound congestion on Hwy-9.
We view this “oversight” as a disingenuous attempt to help its client, Lamb Partners, gain
approval with a truth-free distraction.
Only widening of Los Gatos Blvd between Van Meter and Main Street can relieve the traffic.
We spent several weekdays during the four rush hours on Hwy-9 at Alberto Way. It became
clear that no rearrangement or coordination of signal lights can relieve the Hwy-9 peak
congestion.
Hexagon Response to Construction Comments 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31
33 | P a g e
Citizen’s Rebuttal to Hexagon Response on Construction Comments 15, 21, 22,
28, 29, 30, 31
We expect significant lengthening of any construction schedule stated by Applicant and Hexagon
at this time due to the high ground water level requiring the building to need the foundation to be
poured into a de-watered coffer dam during construction. This will have a prolonged impact on
us.
It is our conclusion that Lamb or Hexagon don’t share any detail from any past Construction
Plans or offer references because they know how much impact the Construction will have on us
and do not want to address these issues at all since they know how significant it is and would
otherwise try to minimize the disclosed impact magnitude.
34 | P a g e
Traffic Engineers know they’re guessing “new trips generated”
The subject of trips generated is known by the industry not to be an exact science. For example,
this article explains the study ageing and acknowledges the trip generation is a guess at best:
http://www.mikeontraffic.com/local_trip_generation_data/
This one discusses the ITE data set sample sizes and questions the validity of its use when there
is not large enough sample for the data upon which it’s built to be statistically valid:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ite-trip-generation-manual-understanding-its-limitations-
gordon-meth
Attached is a scholarly paper titled: Truth in Transportation Planning by DONALD C. SHOUP,
of University of California, Los Angeles published in 2003 in which the ITE limitations are
outed. There are dozens of similar publications. The bottom line is: ITE methodology is not
strictly reliable.
We proposed instead a sensitivity study methodology for “new trips generated” and that the
Traffic Conclusion is based on the “top of the trip generation range.” This prevents Los Gatos
from accepting lowballed new trips generated from Applicants and their consultants who have
economic incentives to under-state traffic generation by their projects and then leave the Town to
fund the infrastructure, and the citizens to suffer the consequences.
Los Gatos has a History of denying developments that generate more traffic
than its roads can support
The notable recent denial is the North 40.
This old article from the SJ Mercury illustrates the point: this development was at first denied
due to traffic impact and later approved.
35 | P a g e
Conclusion
A valid decision under law is not made if any entity makes decisions based on invalid
methodology that leaves Environmental Impacts unidentified or unmitigated.
In conclusion, it is prudent to deny the planned development based on the magnitude of existing
traffic (as illustrated by the photos of Peak Traffic we submitted on April 6, 2017) plus the traffic
36 | P a g e
generated by the Proposed Development. The dated studies used by ITE and the reduction in
square feet occupied by each tenant employee in multi-tenant Silicon Valley offices today (as
illustrated by our August 18, 2016 submission) will create inexorable congestion for all Los
Gatos residents and visitors to suffer. The EIR failed to identify the magnitude of the existing
traffic as well as the maximum magnitude and impact of the added traffic.
1
Truth in Transportation Planning
DONALD C. SHOUP
University of California, Los Angeles
ABSTRACT
Transportation engineers and urban planners often
report uncertain estimates as precise numbers, and
unwarranted trust in the accuracy of these precise
numbers can lead to bad transportation and land-
use policies. This paper presents data on parking
and trip generation rates to illustrate the misuse of
precise numbers to report statistically insignificant
estimates. Beyond the problem of statistical insignif-
icance, parking and trip generation rates typically
report the parking demand and vehicle trips
observed at suburban sites with ample free parking
and no public transit. When decisionmakers use
these parking and trip generation rates for city plan-
ning, they create a city where everyone drives to
their destinations and parks free when they get
there.
Beware of certainty where none exists.
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
INTRODUCTION
How far is it from San Diego to San Francisco? An
estimate of 632.125 miles is precise but not accu-
rate. An estimate of somewhere between 400 and
500 miles is less precise but more accurate, because
KEYWORDS: parking, regression analysis, urban planning.
2 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003
the correct answer is 460 miles.1 Nevertheless, if
you did not know the distance from San Diego to
San Francisco, whom would you believe: someone
who confidently says 632.125 miles or someone
who tentatively says somewhere between 400 and
500 miles? You would probably believe the one
who says 632.125 miles, because precision creates
the impression of accuracy.
Although reporting estimates with extreme preci-
sion suggests confidence in their accuracy, transpor-
tation engineers and urban planners often use
precise numbers to report uncertain estimates. As
examples of this practice, I will use two manuals
published by the Institute of Transportation Engi-
neers (ITE): Parking Generation (ITE 1987a) and
Trip Generation (ITE 1987b, 1991, 1997). These
manuals have enormous practical consequences for
transportation and land use. Urban planners rely on
parking generation rates to establish off-street park-
ing requirements, and transportation planners rely
on trip generation rates to predict the traffic impacts
of development proposals. Yet a close look at the
parking and trip generation data shows that placing
unwarranted trust in these precise but uncertain
estimates of travel behavior leads to bad transporta-
tion and land-use policies.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation reports the number of vehicle
trips as a function of land use. Transportation
engineers survey the number of vehicle trips to and
from a variety of locations, and for each land use
the ITE reports a trip generation rate that relates
the number of vehicle trips to a characteristic of
the land use, such as the floor area or number of
employees at a site. The sixth (and most recent)
edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1997, vol. 3, pp.
ix and 1) describes the data used to estimate trip
generation rates as follows:
This document is based on more than 3,750 trip
generation studies submitted to the Institute by
public agencies, developers, consulting firms,
and associations. . . . Data were primarily col-
lected at suburban localities with little or no
transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities, or
travel demand management programs.
ITE says nothing about the price of parking at the
study sites, but since parking is free for 99% of
vehicle trips in the United States, most of the study
sites probably offer free parking.2 Trip Generation
uses these 3,750 studies to estimate 1,515 trip gen-
eration rates, one for each type of land use. Half the
1,515 reported trip generation rates are based on
five or fewer studies, and 23% are based on a single
study.3 The trip generation rates thus typically mea-
sure the number of vehicle trips observed at a few
suburban sites with free parking but little or no pub-
lic transit service, pedestrian amenities, or travel
demand management (TDM) programs. Urban
planners who rely on these trip generation rates as
guides to design the transportation system are there-
fore planning an automobile-dependent city.
Figure 1 shows a typical page from the fourth
edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1987b).4 It reports
the number of vehicle trips to and from fast food
restaurants on a weekday. Each point in the figure
represents one of the eight studies and shows the
number of vehicle trips per day and the floor area at
a restaurant. Dividing the number of vehicle trips by
the floor area at that restaurant gives the trip genera-
tion rate at that restaurant. A glance at the figure
suggests that vehicle trips are unrelated to floor area
in this sample. The extremely low R2 of 0.069 for
the fitted curve (regression) equation confirms this
1 The airline distance between San Diego and San Fran-
cisco is calculated from the latitudes and longitudes of the
two cities. See “How far is it?” at http://www.indo.com/
distance/. “Accurate” implies fidelity to fact and freedom
from error, while “precise” implies exactness.
2 The U.S. Department of Transportation’s 1990 Nation-
wide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) asked
respondents, “Did you pay for parking during any part of
this trip?” for all automobile trips made on the previous
day. Of the responses to this question, 99% were “no.”
The NPTS asked the “did you pay for parking” question
for all vehicle trips except trips that ended at the respon-
dents’ homes, thus free parking at home does not explain
this high percentage.
3 This refers to the sixth edition of Trip Generation (ITE
1997). The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (ITE 2001, p.
10) notes that the warning “Caution—Use Carefully—
Small Sample Size” is placed on each trip generation
report if the sample includes five or fewer sites. At most
sites, vehicle trips are observed during the course of only
one day.
4 The fourth edition (ITE 1987b) is shown because this is
the date of the most recent edition of Parking Generation,
to which Trip Generation will be compared. Vehicle trips
were surveyed at McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts, Burger
Chef, and similar fast food restaurants.
SHOUP 3
impression.5 Nevertheless, ITE reports the sample’s
average trip generation rate—which urban planners
normally interpret as the significant relationship
between floor area and vehicle trips—as precisely
632.125 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor
area.6 The trip generation rate looks accurate
because it is so precise, but the precision is mislead-
ing. Few transportation or land-use decisions would
be changed if the ITE reported the trip generation
rate as 632 rather than 632.125 trips per 1,000
square feet, so the three-decimal-point precision
serves no purpose other than to give the impression
of accuracy.
The equation at the bottom of figure 1 suggests
that a fast food restaurant generates 1,168 trips (the
intercept) plus 242.75 trips per 1,000 square feet of
floor area (the coefficient), but the 95% confidence
interval around the floor area coefficient ranges
from –650 to +1,141 trips per 1,000 square feet.7
Since this confidence interval contains zero, the data
FIGURE 1 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window
(Land Use 834)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 Square Feet
Gross Floor Area
On a: weekday
CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—LOW R 2
T = AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP ENDS.
DATA PLOT AND EQUATION
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area
Average
Trip Rate
Range of
Rates
Standard
Deviation
Number of
Studies
Average 1,000
Square Feet GFA
632.125 *8 3.0
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
TRIP GENERATION RATES
X = 1,000 SQUARE FEET GFA
ACTUAL DATA POINTS
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 242.75 (X) + 1,168.0
R 2 = 0.069
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Not available.
FITTED CURVE
284.00–1,359.00
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 4th edition (Washington,
DC: 1987), p. 1,199.
5 “The coefficient of determination [R2] is defined as the
percent of the variance in the number of trips associated
with the variance in the size of the independent variable”
(ITE 1997, vol. 3, p. 19). An R2 of zero shows complete
lack of correlation between the two variables, and one
would expect some correlation in a sample by chance. The
significance test for the regression equation shows there is
a 53% chance of getting an R2 of 0.069 or higher even if
there were no relationship between floor area and vehicle
trips.
6 ITE (1987b, p. 9) divides the sum of all vehicle trips by
the sum of all floor areas to calculate the weighted aver-
age trip generation rate.
4 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003
do not show that vehicle trips are related to floor
area. Reporting the average trip generation rate
implies that larger restaurants generate more vehicle
trips, but the figure shows that the smallest restau-
rant generated the most trips, and a mid-sized res-
taurant generated the fewest. The data plot contains
the warning “Caution—Use Carefully—Low R2,”
which is good advice, but how can we carefully use
a trip generation rate derived from data that show
no relationship between vehicle trips and floor area?
Despite its precision, the average trip generation
rate (623.125 vehicle trips per day per 1,000 square
feet) is far too uncertain to use for transportation
planning.
PARKING GENERATION
Parking generation rates, which report peak park-
ing occupancy as a function of land use, suffer
from similar uncertainty. ITE’s second, and most
recent, edition of Parking Generation (ITE
1987a, p. vii–xv8) describes the data used to esti-
mate parking generation rates.
A vast majority of the data . . . is derived from
suburban developments with little or no signifi-
cant transit ridership. . . . The ideal site for
obtaining reliable parking generation data
would . . . contain ample, convenient parking
facilities for the exclusive use of the traffic gen-
erated by the site. . . . The objective of the survey
is to count the number of vehicles parked at the
time of peak parking demand.
Half the 101 parking generation rates are based on
4 or fewer studies, and 22% are based on 1 study.
The parking generation rates thus typically measure
the peak parking demand observed at a few subur-
ban sites with ample free parking but little or no
transit ridership. Urban planners who use these
parking generation rates to set minimum parking
requirements therefore shape a city where everyone
will drive wherever they go and park free when they
get there.
Figure 2 shows the page for fast food restaurants
from the most recent edition of Parking Generation
(ITE 1987a). Each point in the plot represents one
study (based on the observations at one site on one
day). For example, if parking occupancy was
observed at one restaurant for five days, this was
counted as five studies.9 Dividing the peak parking
occupancy observed in a study by the floor area at
the restaurant gives the parking generation rate for
the study. The parking generation rates in the 18
studies range between 3.55 and 15.92 spaces per
1,000 square feet of leasable floor area. The largest
restaurant in the sample generated one of the lowest
peak parking occupancies, while a mid-sized restau-
rant generated the highest. The R2 of 0.038 for the
equation at the bottom of the figure confirms the
visual impression that parking demand is unrelated
to floor area in this sample. Nevertheless, ITE
reports the average parking generation rate for a
fast food restaurant as precisely 9.95 parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet of floor area.10
Again, the precision is misleading. The fitted
curve equation at the bottom of figure 2 suggests
that a fast food restaurant generates a peak parking
demand of 20 spaces plus 1.95 spaces per 1,000
square feet of floor area, but the 95% confidence
interval around the floor area coefficient ranges
from –3 to +7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Since
this confidence interval contains zero, the data do
7 The confidence interval around the coefficient of floor
area was calculated by re-estimating the regression equa-
tion from the eight observations in the data plot.
8 ITE expects to publish a new edition of Parking Genera-
tion in 2003.
9 It appears that eight restaurants were observed for one
day, one restaurant was observed for two days, and two
restaurants were observed for four days. We are not told
the hour(s), the weekday, or the month when parking
occupancy was observed. The 18 studies of parking occu-
pancy at fast food restaurants are an unusually large sam-
ple. In contrast, consider the report on Technical Colleges
(Land Use 541). Parking occupancy was observed for one
hour on one day at one site, and on this basis the parking
generation rate for a technical college is reported as 0.82
parking spaces per student (ITE 1987a, p. 88). Parking
occupancy was observed for only one or two hours for
many of the studies in Parking Generation. Because only
the peak occupancy at a site is needed to calculate a park-
ing generation rate, the observer’s main concern is to
report the peak number of cars parked during the hour(s)
of expected peak demand.
10 The significance test for the regression equation shows
there is a 42% chance of getting an R2 of 0.038 or higher
even if there were no relationship between floor area and
parking occupancy. ITE (1987a, p. viii) divides the sum of
all parking generation rates by the number of studies to
calculate the unweighted average parking generation rate.
SHOUP 5
not show that parking demand is related to floor
area.11 The average parking generation rate of 9.95
spaces per 1,000 square feet is due mainly to the
intercept, which is independent of floor area.12
Predicting a parking demand of 26 spaces for every
restaurant in this sample—regardless of restaurant
size—produces about the same average error as
predicting a parking demand of 9.95 spaces per
1,000 square feet.13
We cannot say much about how floor area affects
either vehicle trips or parking demand, because the
95% confidence interval around the floor area
coefficient includes zero in both cases.14 This is not to
say that vehicle trips and parking demand are unre-
lated to a restaurant’s size, because common sense
suggests some correlation. Nevertheless, factors other
FIGURE 2 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-In Window
(Land Use 836)
Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs:
1,000 Gross Square Feet Leasable Area
On a: weekday
DATA PLOT AND EQUATION
CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—LOW R 2.P = PEAK PARKING SPACES OCCUPIED1 2 3 4 5 6
PARKING GENERATION RATES
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
Average
Rate
Range of
Rates
Standard
Deviation
Number of
Studies
Average 1,000 GSF
Leasable Area
9.95 3.55–15.92 3.41 18 3
X = 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET LEASABLE AREA
ACTUAL DATA POINTS
Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.95(X) + 20.0
R 2= 0.038
FITTED CURVE
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 2nd edition
(Washington, DC: 1987), p. 146.
11 The confidence interval around the coefficient of floor
area was calculated by re-estimating the regression equa-
tion from the 18 observations in the data plot.
12 Because the intercept is 20 spaces and the average floor
area is 3,000 square feet, the average parking generation
rate would be 6.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet even if the
coefficient of floor area were 0.
13 The average peak parking occupancy for the 8 studies
was 26 spaces.
14 Statistical insignificance does not imply that floor area
has no effect on parking demand or vehicle trips; rather, it
means that floor area does not reliably predict either vari-
able.
6 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003
than the floor area explain most of the variation in
vehicle trips and peak parking occupancy at these res-
taurants. Size does not matter much in these two
samples of parking and trip generation, and it is mis-
leading to publish precise average parking and trip
generation rates based on floor area.
Parking generation rates are hardly scientific, but
the authority inherent in ITE publications often
means that planners automatically regard ITE rates
as scientifically valid and do not examine them fur-
ther. ITE offers a precise number without raising
difficult public policy questions, although it does
warn, “Users of this report should exercise extreme
caution when utilizing data that is based on a small
number of studies” (ITE 1987a, p. vii). Neverthe-
less, many planners recommend parking generation
rates as minimum parking requirements. For exam-
ple, the median parking requirement for fast food
restaurants in the United States is 10 spaces per
1,000 square feet—almost identical to ITE’s reported
parking generation rate.15
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The combination of extreme precision and statisti-
cal insignificance for the parking and trip genera-
tion rates for a fast food restaurant raises an
important question: how many of the parking and
trip generation rates for other land uses are statisti-
cally significant? The fourth edition of Trip Gener-
ation (ITE 1987b) does not state a policy on
statistical significance, but it does show the plots
and equations for most land uses with more than
two data points. Nevertheless, it fails to show the
plots and equations for some land uses with more
than 10 data points. For example, consider the
report of trip generation at recreational land uses.
ITE presents 14 studies of trip generation at recre-
ational land uses but says “No Plot or Equation
Available—Insufficient Data.” The trip generation
rates in the 14 studies range from a high of 296 to
a low of 0.066 trips per acre on a weekday: a ratio
of 4,500 to 1. Given this wide range, reporting the
average trip generation rate as precisely 3.635 trips
per acre is clearly misleading.16
ITE first stated a policy regarding statistical sig-
nificance in the fifth edition of Trip Generation (ITE
1991, p. I-8):
Best fit curves are shown in this report only
when each of the following three conditions are
met:
• The R2 is greater than or equal to 0.25.
• The sample size is greater than or equal to 4.
• The number of trips increases as the size of the
independent variable increases.17
The third criterion is notably unscientific. For exam-
ple, suppose the R2 is greater than 0.25 and the sam-
ple size is greater than four, but vehicle trips
decrease as floor area increases (i.e., the first two
criteria are met but the third is not). In this case, ITE
would report the average trip generation rate
(which implies that vehicle trips increase as floor
area increases), but not the regression equation that
would cast doubt on this rate. The stated policy,
therefore, omits evidence that would contradict the
presumed relationship.
Figure 3 from the fifth edition of Trip Generation
(ITE 1991) shows how these three criteria affect the
report of trip generation at a fast food restaurant. It
shows the same eight data points from the fourth edi-
tion, but it omits the regression equation, the R2, and
the warning “Caution—Use Carefully—Low R2.”
The omitted R2 remains 0.069 because the data are
15 The Planning Advisory Service (1991) surveyed the park-
ing requirements in 127 cities. The median of 10 spaces per
1,000 square feet applies to cities that base their require-
ments for fast food restaurants on gross floor area.
16 In the fourth edition of Trip Generation, Land Use 400
(Recreational) includes bowling alleys, zoos, sea worlds,
lakes, pools, and regional parks (ITE 1987b, p. 537).
17 ITE gives no explanation for showing the regression
equation and the R2 only when all three criteria are met.
Peak Parking Occupancy vs. Parking Demand
A big difference exists between “parking occupancy”
and “parking demand.” Transportation engineers
define the former as the number of parked cars.
Economists define the latter as the functional
relationship between the price of parking and the
number of parked cars, and they define the actual
number of parked cars at any time as the quantity of
parking demanded at a specific price. Economists call
the peak parking occupancy observed at a site that
offers free parking the quantity of parking demanded
at a zero price at the time of peak parking demand.
These differing definitions show the confusion that can
result when ITE’s parking generation rates are loosely
referred to as parking demand.
SHOUP 7
unchanged from the fourth edition, but the fifth
edition is more cautious about needless precision; it
truncates the average trip generation rate from
632.125 to 632.12 trips per 1,000 square feet.18
ITE revised its reporting policy in the sixth (most
recent) edition of Trip Generation (ITE 1997, p.
19). Regression equations are shown only if the R2
is greater than or equal to 0.5, while the other two
criteria remain the same (the sample size is four or
more, and vehicle trips increase as the independent
variable increases). Figure 4 shows the sixth edi-
tion’s report of trip generation at a fast food restau-
rant. The number of studies increased to 21, and the
average trip generation rate fell to 496.12 trips per
1,000 square feet. The R2 is below 0.5, but we are
not told what it is. Since the fifth edition’s rate was
632.12 trips per 1,000 square feet, anyone compar-
ing the two editions might conclude that vehicle trips
at fast food restaurants declined 22% between 1991
and 1997. But since both the previous rate (632.12)
and the new one (496.12) were derived from data
FIGURE 3 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window
(Land Use 834)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: weekday
2 3 4
2,800
2,700
2,600
2,500
2,400
2,300
2,200
2,100
2,000
1,900
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800T = Average Vehicle Trip EndsData Plot and Equation
Trip Generation per 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
632.12 284.00–1,359.50 266.29
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Average 1,000 Sq. Feet GFA: 3
Number of Studies: 8
X = 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Actual Data Points ------Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R 2 = ****
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th edition
(Washington, DC: 1991), p. 1,308.
18 Figure 3 (from the fifth edition) also differs from figure 1
(from the fourth edition) in two other respects. First, the
directional distribution of vehicle trips was “not available”
in 1987, but for the same data became “50% entering,
50% exiting” in 1991. Second, the standard deviation was
not reported in 1987 but was reported as 266.29 in 1991.
8 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003
that show almost no relationship between floor area
and vehicle trips, this decline seems unlikely.19
The 1997 edition shows regression equations for
only 34% of the trip generation rates, which means
that 66% of the 1,515 trip generation rates fail to
meet at least one of the three criteria. This statistical
insignificance is not surprising given that circum-
stances vary enormously among different sites for
the same land use (e.g., a fast food restaurant).
Floor area is only one among many factors that
influence vehicle trips at a site, and we should not
expect floor area or any other single variable to
accurately predict the number of vehicle trips at any
site or land use.20
FIGURE 4 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window
(Land Use 834)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: weekday
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9T = Average Vehicle Trip EndsData Plot and Equation
Trip Generation per 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
496.12 195.98–1,132.92 242.52
X = 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Actual Data Points ----- Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R 2 = ****
Number of Studies: 21
Average 1,000 Sq. Feet GFA: 3
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th edition (Washington,
DC: 1997), p. 1,401.
19 If the 8 studies from the fourth (ITE 1987b) and fifth
(ITE 1991) editions are included among the 21 studies
reported in the sixth (ITE 1997) edition, the average trip
generation rate for the 13 new studies must be well below
496.12 in order to reduce the average rate for the 21 stud-
ies to 496.12. All of the 8 study sites in the fourth and
fifth editions were exactly 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 square
feet, but none of the 21 study sites in the sixth edition
matched these sizes.
20 Trip generation rates are a stripped-down version of
the gravity model for travel forecasting. The gravity
model predicts aggregate traffic between origin and desti-
nation zones as a function of zone sizes and generalized
travel cost, while trip generation rates predict traffic to
and from one site as a function of floor area (or another
variable) at that site, without reference to cost.
SHOUP 9
Although 66% of the trip generation rates fail to
meet ITE’s significance criteria, ITE nevertheless
publishes a precise trip generation rate for every land
use. For example, a report of trip generation at truck
terminals (figure 5) presents two sites, with the larger
site generating fewer vehicle trips. Nevertheless, ITE
reports the average trip generation rate as precisely
81.90 vehicle trips per acre on a weekday and plots a
line that suggests larger sites generate more vehicle
trips.
Reporting statistically insignificant estimates
with misleading precision creates serious problems,
because many people rely on the ITE manuals to
predict how urban development will affect parking
and traffic. When estimating the traffic impacts of
development, for example, developers and cities
often debate over whether a precise trip generation
rate is correct. Some cities even base zoning catego-
ries on trip generation rates. Consider this zoning
ordinance in Beverly Hills, California:
The intensity of use shall not exceed either six-
teen (16) vehicle trips per hour, or 200 vehicle
trips per day for each 1,000 gross square feet of
floor area for uses as specified in the most recent
edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ pub-
lication entitled Trip Generation.21
The precise but uncertain ITE data thus govern
which land uses the city will allow.
Parking and trip generation rates are difficult to
challenge once they are incorporated into municipal
codes. Planning is an inherently uncertain activity,
but the legal system of land-use regulation makes it
difficult to acknowledge uncertainty in planning
regulations. Calling attention to the flaws in the
reporting of the parking and trip generation rates
would expose land-use decisions to countless law-
suits from developers, neighborhood groups, and
property rights advocates, all of whom could rightly
question the legitimacy of the reasoning used to
establish off-street parking requirements and to
argue for either more or less parking. This desire for
the appearance of certainty explains why transpor-
tation engineers, urban planners, developers, and
elected officials rely on precise point estimates—
rather than ranges—to report the highly uncertain
parking and trip generation rates.
PLANNING FOR FREE PARKING
ITE’s parking and trip generation rates can create
serious problems when they are used for urban
planning. Most ITE samples are too small to draw
statistically significant conclusions, and ITE’s method
of collecting data skews observations toward sites
with high parking and trip generation rates. Larger
samples might solve the problem of statistical insig-
nificance, but a basic problem with parking and trip
generation rates would remain: they measure the
peak parking demand and the number of vehicle trips
at suburban sites with ample free parking. This situ-
ation is troubling, because ITE rates greatly influence
the outcome of transportation and land-use planning,
ultimately contributing to decisions that result in
more traffic, lower density, and more urban sprawl.
To explain how ITE’s parking and trip generation
rates influence transportation and land-use plan-
ning, consider what appears in practice to be the
six-step process of planning for free parking in the
United States.
Step 1. Transportation engineers survey the peak
parking demand at a few suburban sites with
ample free parking but no transit service, and
ITE publishes the results in Parking Generation
with misleading precision.
Step 2. Urban planners consult Parking Genera-
tion to set minimum parking requirements. The
maximum observed parking demand thus
becomes the minimum required parking supply.
Step 3. Developers provide all the parking that
planners require, and the ample supply of park-
ing drives the price of most parking to zero,
which increases vehicle travel.
Step 4. Transportation engineers survey vehicle
trips to and from suburban sites with ample free
parking but no transit service, and ITE publishes
the results in Trip Generation with misleading
precision.
21 Section 10-3.162(5) of the Beverly Hills Municipal
Code. (ITE changed its name from the Institute of Traffic
Engineers to the Institute of Transportation Engineers in
1976.)
10 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003
Step 5. Transportation planners consult Trip
Generation as a guide to design the transporta-
tion system with adequate capacity to bring cars
to the free parking.22
Step 6. Urban planners limit density so that
development with ample free parking will not
generate more vehicle trips than nearby roads can
carry. This lower density spreads activities farther
apart, further increasing both vehicle travel and
parking demand.
We come full circle when transportation engi-
neers again survey peak parking demand at subur-
ban sites that offer free parking but no transit
service and find that more parking spaces are
“needed.” Misusing precise numbers to report
uncertain data gives a veneer of rigor to this elabo-
rate but unscientific practice, and the circular logic
explains why planning for transportation and land
use has contributed to increased traffic and sprawl.
FIGURE 5 Truck Terminal
(Land Use 030)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Acres
On a: weekday
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
Data Plot and Equation
Trip Generation per Acre
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
81.90 66.27–100.08 *T= Average Vehicle Trip EndsX = Number of Acres
Actual Data Points ----- Average Rate
R 2 = ****Fitted Curve Equation: Not given
Caution—Use Carefully—Small Sample Size
Number of Studies: 2
Average Number of Acres: 14
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th edition (Washington,
DC: 1997), p. 66.
22 Transportation planners often use the Urban Transpor-
tation Modeling System (UTMS) to predict modal flows
on links between zones in a network, and the first of the
four major steps in the UTMS model is “trip generation.”
The four-step UTMS model is thus used to carry out step
5 of the six-step process of planning for free parking.
Meyer and Miller (2001) explain the UTMS model.
SHOUP 11
The ITE manuals do not cause this circular pro-
cess, which started long before ITE began collecting
data on parking and trip generation. In 1965,
economist Edgar M. Hoover described the circular
planning process in words that still apply today:
In practice, the separation of highway-building
programs from parking programs (they are in
different and quite independent bureaucracies or
authorities) introduces a still further pernicious
element. We know the story of the man who
took another piece of bread in order to finish his
butter, then another piece of butter in order to
finish his bread, and so on till he burst. Simi-
larly, every provision of new freeways into a
congested area heightens the observed demand
and the public pressure for more parking facili-
ties; every additional downtown parking garage
heightens the demand for more new freeways to
bring people to it; and so on back and forth
indefinitely. Each of the two independent public
authorities involved can argue persuasively that
it is merely trying to keep up with an undeniably
strong and growing demand. (Hoover 1965, pp.
188–189)
The main change that has occurred since 1965 is
that engineers and planners now have precise parking
and trip generation data to quantify the “undeniably
strong and growing demand” for parking and high-
ways. The interaction between transportation engi-
neers and urban planners in gathering and
interpreting these data helps to explain why planning
for parking in the United States is essentially planning
for free parking. Urban planners set parking require-
ments without taking into account the price of park-
ing, the cost of parking spaces, the local context, or
the wider consequences for transportation, land use,
the economy, and the environment.
ITE warns users to be careful when the R2 is low
(although it removed this warning from the plots of
trip generation rates in the two most recent editions
of Trip Generation). ITE also advises users to
modify trip generation rates in response to spe-
cial circumstances.
At specific sites, the user may want to modify
the trip generation rates presented in this docu-
ment to reflect the presence of public transpor-
tation service, ridesharing or other TDM
measures, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle trip-
making opportunities, or other special charac-
teristics of the site or surrounding area. (ITE
1997, vol. 3, p. 1)
Nevertheless, ITE does not suggest how a user
might modify the rates in response to any special
characteristics of a site or its surrounding area,
and the price of parking is prominently not on the
list of special characteristics that might affect trip
generation.
Data users should always ask themselves whether
the data are appropriate for the intended purpose.
Only users can misuse data, but ITE invites misuse
when it reports statistically insignificant estimates as
precise numbers. This spurious precision has helped
to establish ITE parking requirements and trip gen-
eration rates as unquestionably authoritative in the
planning profession.
CONCLUSION: LESS PRECISION
AND MORE TRUTH
Estimates of parking and trip generation respond to a
real demand for essential information. Citizens want
to know how development will affect parking
demand and traffic congestion in their neighborhood.
Developers want to know how many parking spaces
they should provide for employees and customers.
Planners want to regulate development to prevent
problems with parking and traffic. Politicians want
to avoid complaints from unhappy parkers. These
are all valid concerns, but reporting parking and trip
generation rates with needless precision creates false
confidence in the data. To unsophisticated users,
these precise rates appear to carry the rigor of scien-
tific constants.
When planners set parking requirements and
design the transportation system, they treat parking
and trip generation like established laws and ITE
estimates like scientific observations. But parking
and trip generation are poorly understood phenom-
ena, and they both depend on the price of parking,
an element not addressed by ITE in the two reports
discussed. Demand is a function of price, not a fixed
number, and this does not cease to be true merely
because transportation engineers and urban planners
ignore it. Most cities are planned on the unstated
assumption that parking should be free—no matter
how high the cost or how small the benefit.
12 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003
American motor vehicles consume one-eighth of
the world’s total oil production, and ubiquitous free
parking contributes to our automobile dependency.23
What can be done to improve this situation? Here are
four recommendations:
1. ITE should state in the report for each park-
ing and trip generation rate that this rate
refers only to suburban sites with ample free
parking but no public transit, pedestrian
amenities, or TDM programs.
2. ITE should show the regression equation
and the R2 for each parking and trip genera-
tion report and state whether the coefficient
of floor area (or other independent variable)
in the equation is significantly different from
zero.
3. ITE should report the parking and trip gen-
eration rates as ranges, not as precise point
estimates.
4. Urban planners should recognize that even if
the ITE data were accurate, using them to
set parking requirements would dictate an
automobile-dependent urban form with free
parking everywhere.
Both transportation engineers and urban plan-
ners should ponder this warning from Lewis Mum-
ford: “The right to have access to every building in
the city by private motorcar, in an age when every-
one possesses such a vehicle, is actually the right to
destroy the city.” (Mumford 1981)
Parking and trip generation rates illustrate a famil-
iar problem with statistics used in transportation
planning, and placing unwarranted trust in the accu-
racy of these precise but uncertain data leads to bad
transportation and land-use policies. Being roughly
right is better than being precisely wrong. We need
less precision—and more truth—in transportation
planning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to the University of California Trans-
portation Center for financial support. Douglas
Kolozsvari provided superb research assistance. I
am also grateful for excellent advice from Jeffrey
Brown, Leland Burns, Daniel Chatman, Randall
Crane, Melanie Curry, T.H. Culhane, Simon Fraser,
Daniel Hess, Mimi Holt, Hiro Iseki, Joshua
Kirshner, Robin Liggett, Bravishwar Mallavarapu,
Jeremy Nelson, Don Pickrell, Thomas Rice, Michael
Sabel, Lisa Schweitzer, Charles Sciammas, Patricia
Shoup, Charanjeet Singh, Alexander Smith, Manual
Soto, Brian Taylor, Florian Urban, Melvin Webber,
Richard Willson, and two anonymous reviewers.
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the
2001 Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board in Washington, DC, the 2001 World
Parking Symposium in St. Andrews, Scotland, and
the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Western Regional
Science Association in Monterey, California.
REFERENCES
Davis, S. 2000. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition
20, ORNL-6959. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
Hoover, E. 1965. Motor Metropolis: Some Observations on
Urban Transportation in America. Journal of Industrial Eco-
nomics 13(3):17–192.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 1987a. Parking
Generation, 2nd edition. Washington, DC.
______. 1987b. Trip Generation, 4th edition. Washington, DC.
______.1991. Trip Generation, 5th edition. Washington, DC.
______. 1997. Trip Generation, 6th edition. Washington, DC.
______. 2001. Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recom-
mended Practice. Washington, DC.
Meyer, M. and E. Miller. 2001. Urban Transportation Planning,
2nd edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Mumford, L. 1981. The Highway and the City. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Planning Advisory Service. 1991. Off-Street Parking Require-
ments: A National Review of Standards, Planning Advisory
Service Report Number 432. Chicago, IL: American Planning
Association.
Author address: Department of Urban Planning, Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656. Email:
shoup@ucla.edu.
23 Transportation accounted for 66.4% of U.S. oil con-
sumption in 1996, and highway transportation accounted
for 78.3% of U.S. oil consumption for transportation.
Therefore, highway transportation accounted for 52.0% of
U.S. oil consumption (66.4% x 78.3%). The United States
also consumed 25.7% of the world's oil production in
1996. Thus, U.S. highway transportation consumed 13.4%
(slightly more than one-eighth) of the world's total oil pro-
duction (52.0% x 25.7%). Highway transportation refers
to travel by cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses. See Davis
(2000, tables 1.3, 2.10, and 2.7) for the data on energy
consumption for transportation in the United States.
SHOUP 13
Discussion
CARL H. BUTTKE
Consulting Transportation Engineer
EUGENE D. ARNOLD, JR.
Virginia Transportation Research Council
Mr. Shoup’s article, “Truth in Transportation Plan-
ning,” tends to view the Institute of Transportation
Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 6th edition and
Parking Generation, 2nd edition reports as manuals
to be followed step by step rather than as informa-
tional reports to be used to help guide transporta-
tion planning and development decisions. The
intended purpose of the documents is stated in the
reports. For example, page ix of the Trip Genera-
tion User’s Guide contains the following:
ITE Informational Reports are prepared for
informational purposes only and do not include
ITE recommendations on the best course of
action or the preferred application of the data.
It is important to note that Trip Generation does
not represent a quick fix for transportation prob-
lems or a shortcut to planning procedures; rather, it
serves as a foundation on which the professional
engineer can build his or her own knowledge and
experience and apply this knowledge to any given
transportation-related situation. The intended users
who estimate vehicle trip generation or parking
demand are transportation professionals trained in
mathematics, statistics, traffic engineering, and plan-
ning fundamentals and who possess engineering
judgment.
ITE’s reports provide a compilation of available
data collected from numerous sources. In the sixth
edition of Trip Generation, data are combined from
more than 3,750 individual trip generation studies.
This information is by no means all inclusive; how-
ever, it represents the best information available at the
time of publication. ITE’s Trip Generation report is
updated regularly to include supplemental informa-
tion as it becomes available.
Some of Shoup’s commentary, examples, and
assertions are directed to the fourth and fifth editions
of Trip Generation. While many of these references
are used to make a point, some of the discussion is
not relevant as the data, assumptions, and reporting
techniques are updated and improved from edition
to edition. Further, we expect that transportation
professionals will use the latest edition to obtain the
most recent knowledge and data available.
In his article, Shoup correctly points out that
reporting statistics with “extreme precision may sug-
gest confidence in their accuracy.” He also rightfully
acknowledges that generation rates such as 623.12
could be reported as 623 and not affect the accuracy
of the calculation. However, there are also many
instances in Trip Generation where rates presented
with two decimal places are appropriate at that level
of precision (e.g., as a rate of 0.57 pm peak-hour trips
per occupied room of a business hotel, or 7.27 week-
day trips per occupied room). When developing the
first edition of Trip Generation, the Trip Generation
Committee wrestled with this issue of decimal place-
ment and decided to be consistent in reporting all
rates with two decimal places.
Shoup also notes that, from a statistical stand-
point, some of the independent variables used are
simply not related to trips (e.g., he points to an
extremely low R2 value). This may be a valid point;
however, in many instances the particular indepen-
dent variable is chosen because it is the only infor-
mation available in the early stages of development
when these analyses are often undertaken. To that
end, the Trip Generation User’s Guide (vol. 3, p. 21)
notes that: “Selecting an appropriate method for
estimating trips requires use of engineering judg-
ment and a thorough understanding of the three
methodologies….”
In reference to Shoup’s remarks regarding figure 4,
the only independent variables available for this land
use for measuring weekday trips were gross square
feet and seats. We acknowledge that it is the custom-
ers and employees who make the trips, but these data
were not available when the measurements were
14 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003
made and are rarely known when estimating pro-
posed traffic impacts. Page 14 of the User’s Guide
addresses the variation in the statistics:
These variations may be due to the small sample
size, the individual marketing of the site, eco-
nomic conditions of the business market, the
geographic location of sites studied, or the
unique character of the specific site. Accord-
ingly, judgment must be exercised in the use of
the statistics in this report.
Shoup continues with a dialogue regarding ITE’s
advice to users to modify trip rates in response to
special situations, such as the presence of public
transportation service, ridesharing, and enhanced
pedestrian facilities. We feel it is appropriate for ITE
to point out potential cautions with the use of data
without necessarily providing a solution if it cannot
be supported by current research.
In Shoup’s conclusion, he recommends that Trip
Generation data be reported as ranges and not as
precise point estimates. Current editions of Trip
Generation and Parking Generation do provide
ranges, average rates, and a data plot. This diversity
in data presentation provides the user with a more
comprehensive look at the data. Additionally, page
18 of the User’s Guide provides a detailed descrip-
tion of a sample data page.
To produce resources supporting Trip Genera-
tion, ITE relies on the voluntary submittal of data
from the transportation community. Calls for the
submission of data have been ongoing over the
years, with the intent to provide additional data to
assist transportation professionals. ITE’s openness
about the availability of data can be seen on page
one of the User’s Guide:
In some cases, limited data were available; thus,
the statistics presented may not be truly repre-
sentative of the trip generation characteristics of
a particular land use.
Such cautionary statements run throughout both
the Trip Generation and the Parking Generation
informational reports.
Trip Generation, 7th edition, and Parking Gener-
ation, 3rd edition, are slated for release in 2003.
Data collected from various sources, as well as com-
ments, including those provided by Shoup, are
reviewed and taken into consideration during the
revision process. ITE’s intent is to provide a helpful
resource that will guide transportation professionals
in their decisionmaking.
Editor-in-Chief’s Note: The discussants were chosen by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Author Addresses: Corresponding author—Eugene Arnold,
Senior Research Scientist, Virginia Transportation Research
Council, 530 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903.
Email: Gene.Arnold@VirginiaDOT.org.
Carl Buttke, Consulting Transportation Engineer, PO Box
2740, Hailey, ID 83333. Email: buttke@tripgeneration.
com.
SHOUP 15
Rejoinder
DONALD C. SHOUP
Carl Buttke and Eugene Arnold argue that nothing is
wrong with the Institute of Transportation Engi-
neers’ (ITE) Trip Generation and Parking Genera-
tion. In part, their confidence may derive from their
assumption that “the intended users . . . are trans-
portation professionals trained in mathematics,
statistics, traffic engineering, and planning funda-
mentals and who possess engineering judgment.”
But the actual users are a much broader and more
diverse group. The ITE itself says, “Trip Generation
is an educational tool for planners, transportation
professionals, zoning boards, and others who are
interested in estimating the number of vehicle trips
generated by a proposed development” (ITE 1997,
vol. 3, p. ix). Many of these people are not trained
in mathematics, statistics, and traffic engineering.
Zoning boards are rarely trained in anything—they
are elected or appointed to their positions, perform
their duties as volunteers, and rely heavily on
references such as Parking Generation and Trip
Generation. They will not realize that the reported
rates are often statistically insignificant and refer
only to suburban sites with ample free parking and
no public transit.
I would like to address three issues that Buttke
and Arnold raise, and make a recommendation.
SIGNIFICANT DIGITS
ITE’s convention of rounding every parking and trip
generation rate to two digits after the decimal point
blurs the distinction between precision and accuracy.
Buttke and Arnold agree that the two-digits-after-the-
decimal-point convention leads to inappropriate pre-
cision in some instances, but then say,
There are also many instances in Trip Genera-
tion where rates presented with two decimal
places are appropriate at that level of precision
(e.g., as a rate of 0.57 pm peak-hour trips per
occupied room of a business hotel, or 7.27
weekday trips per occupied room).
But Trip Generation’s estimate of 7.27 weekday
trips per occupied room of a business hotel is based
on only one observation.1 It illustrates perfectly the
statistical insignificance and inappropriate preci-
sion of many parking and trip generation rates.
An estimate always has some associated uncer-
tainty. The number of significant digits used to
express an estimate should reflect this uncertainty.
The least significant digit in a number is the one far-
thest to the right, and the accuracy of any number is
usually assumed to be ±1 of the least significant digit,
unless stated otherwise. In a typical engineering con-
text, one would assume that an estimate expressed
with five significant digits had been measured more
accurately than an estimate expressed with only two
significant digits. Because the number of significant
digits used to express an estimate should be related to
the uncertainty surrounding the estimate, the ITE’s
automatic two-digits-after-the-decimal-point conven-
tion is inappropriate and unscientific.
Buttke and Arnold note that the Trip Generation
Committee wrestled with the issue of decimal place-
ment in preparing the first edition of Trip Genera-
tion in 1976, and decided to be consistent in
reporting all rates with two digits after the decimal
point.2 Accuracy is more important than digits-
after-the-decimal-point consistency, however, and
one should not use more (or less) precision than is
warranted simply for the sake of uniformity.
Precision refers to the number of significant digits,
not to the number of digits after the decimal point.
1 ITE (1997, vol. 1, p. 543). The estimate of 0.57 pm
peak-hour trips per occupied room is based on only four
studies.
2 The first (1976), second (1979), and third (1983) edi-
tions of Trip Generation report some rates with no digits
after the decimal point and other rates with one or two
digits after the decimal point. The fourth (1987) edition
reports all rates with three digits after the decimal point.
The fifth (1991) and sixth (1997) editions report all rates
with two digits after the decimal point.
16 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION AND STATISTICS V6/N1 2003
MISUSE
Statistically sophisticated users understand the
extreme uncertainty of trip generation rates and can
ignore the false precision. But many users are not sta-
tistically sophisticated. To them, ITE’s trip generation
rates are the relationship between transportation and
land use. Some zoning codes explicitly specify ITE’s
trip generation rates as the basis for making land-use
decisions and as the basis for assessing traffic impact
fees, regardless of the sample size or statistical signifi-
cance of the rates.
In Signal Hill, California, for example, the traffic
impact fee is $66 per daily vehicle trip generated by
a development project. The number of trips is calcu-
lated by multiplying the size of the project times its
trip generation rate “as set forth in the most recent
edition of the Traffic [sic] Generation manual of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers.”3 The sixth
edition’s trip generation rate for a fast food restau-
rant is 496.12 trips per 1,000 square feet, so Signal
Hill’s traffic impact fee is $32.74 per square foot of
restaurant space. The uncertain trip generation rates
thus determine cities’ tax rates.
FREE PARKING
Buttke and Arnold conclude that “ITE’s intent is to
provide a helpful resource that will guide transporta-
tion professionals in their decisionmaking.” Spurious
precision is not a real impediment for this purpose,
although it is misleading.4 The real problem with
Parking Generation and Trip Generation is that they
measure the peak parking demand and the number
of vehicle trips at suburban sites with ample free
parking and no public transit. Using these precise but
poorly understood parking and trip generation rates
as a guide to planning leads to bad transportation
and land-use decisions. Parking Generation and Trip
Generation are helpful resources in designing cities
where everyone will drive everywhere they go and
park free when they get there.
RECOMMENDATION
What can be done to make the ITE reports more
reliable? The British counterpart to Trip Generation
suggests some possible improvements. The “Trip
Rate Information Computer System” (TRICS) gives
full information about the characteristics of every
surveyed site and its surroundings.5 Users can thus
estimate a trip generation rate based on sites compa-
rable to the one under consideration. In addition to
counts of vehicles, TRICS also includes counts of all
the people (pedestrians, cyclists, public transport
users, and car occupants) who arrive at and depart
from a site. By including more than vehicle trips,
TRICS takes a broader view of transportation.
When all modes are included, the person trip rates
are often much higher than the vehicle trip rates.
With its narrow focus on counting cars at subur-
ban sites with free parking, Trip Generation pre-
sents a precise but uncertain, skewed, and
incomplete measure of the relationship between
transportation and land use in the United States.
Fortunately, the ITE’s Parking and Trip Generation
Committees seek to improve each successive edition
of Parking Generation and Trip Generation. In
future editions, they should settle for less precision,
and strive for more accuracy.
3 Section 21.48.020 of the Signal Hill Municipal Code. The
code is available online at http://www.ci.signal-hill.ca.us/
homepage.php.
4 Even if everyone who refers to Parking Generation and
Trip Generation were an engineer or statistician, that does
not excuse unjustified precision. Journalists do not casu-
ally break grammar and spelling rules just because intelli-
gent readers might be able to figure out what they mean
anyway. The burden of clarity and accuracy falls on the
writer—it cannot be shifted to the reader, no matter who
one supposes the reader to be.
5 The TRICS database is available online at http://
www.trics.org/.
Page 1 of 6
PROVENCHER & FLATT, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
823 Sonoma Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Douglas B. Provencher
Phone: 707-284.2380 Fax: 707-284.2387 Gail F. Flatt
_______________________
OF COUNSEL
Janis H. Grattan
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
Roz Bateman Smith
Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos CA 95030
planning@losgatosca.gov
jarmer@losgatosca.gov
May 4, 2017
Via Electronic Delivery
RE: Comments on the EIR prepared for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project
Dear Ms. Armer and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of the Alberto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de
Los Gatos, Las Casitas and Bella Vista Village, thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the adequacy of the EIR prepared for the above named Project.
I have reviewed the EIR and the associated reports prepared for the
Project, including engineering expert Peter Geissler’s March 31, 2017 report and
the addendum to his report that will be submitted to you today, that detailed the
numerous and grave errors and omissions in the analysis of the Project’s direct
and indirect impacts. In my professional opinion, having successfully litigated
similar cases, the EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s direct and indirect
impacts related to traffic, hydrology, flooding, run off, seismic/liquefaction, and
health and safety and fails to propose adequate mitigation or consider
alternatives to the Project that would substantially reduce or avoid these impacts.
The EIR must evaluate a project’s likely secondary or indirect impacts
along with its direct impacts. (El Dorado Union High School District v. City of
Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.) Analysis should include social and economic effects
that could lead to physical environmental impacts. (Citizens for Quality Growth v.
City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433.) The amount of discussion and
analysis for an environmental impact evaluated in an EIR should be proportional
Page 2 of 6
to its severity and the probability of occurrence and correspond to the degree of
specificity involved in the project being evaluated. (Guideline §15146.)
Mr. Geissler’s reports provide ample foundation for the Planning
Commission to find that the analysis conducted for the Project is inadequate and
incomplete and fails to divulge the severity of the Project’s direct and indirect
impacts such that the EIR’s conclusions and the reports it relies upon are not
supported by substantial evidence. The EIR fails to conform to CEQA’s
requirement to function as a full disclosure document and an environmental
alarm bell that puts the public and decision-makers on notice regarding the
Project’s environmental effects so that adequate mitigation and alternatives may
be fairly considered prior to the Project’s adoption. (Rural Landowners Association
v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020; County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32
Cal.App.3d 795, 810; Guideline §15151. “ . . . the preparation of an EIR is the key
to environmental protection under CEQA, . . .” No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 82; §21151.)
Mr. Geissler demonstrates that the Project’s impacts are substantially
more severe than have been acknowledged and the feasibility of important
mitigation measures and alternatives that have not been considered as required
by CEQA. (Public Resources Code §21166(c); Guideline §15162(a)(3.) An EIR’s
analysis of environmental impacts must be sufficient to provide lead agencies
with information that will enable them to make a decision that “intelligently
takes account of environmental consequences.” (San Francisco Ecology Center v.
City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584; Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.) Here, the EIR fails to
provide the information needed to account for the environmental consequences
of the Project, including the foreseeable indirect impacts to neighboring
properties. The EIR therefore cannot be certified as proposed and should be
revised and re-circulated for comment prior to further consideration of the
Project.
Abuse of discretion in certifying an EIR is assessed in two separate
prongs, each of which presents an issue of law based on the administrative
record. The sufficiency of EIR content is reviewed as to whether it was prepared
“in the manner required by law” within statutory and regulatory requirements.
The sufficiency of the EIR’s conclusions is then reviewed for substantial evidence.
Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427, 435 (“A
Court’s task is to determine ‘whether the administrative record demonstrates any
legal error … and whether it contains substantial evidence” supporting the
agency’s findings; Association of Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107
Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391; Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215.
Page 3 of 6
Here, the EIR is insufficient under both prongs; it neither provides the required
content and its conclusions of no impact are not supported.
Mr. Geissler’s expert analyses and determinations provide, inter alia, the
following.
• The ground floor to groundwater elevation provides unsafe conditions,
therefore the Project’s impacts have not fully acknowledged and adequate
mitigation has not been proposed.
• There is no logical basis for the claim that the site is not susceptible to
liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake and
therefore the Project’s impacts have not been fully acknowledged and
adequate mitigation has not been proposed.
• ENGEO’s assertion that seasonal fluctuations in groundwater mimic the
effects of construction dewatering is false. Seasonal fluctuations in the
depth of groundwater can cause foundation settlement but not differential
foundation settlement. By contrast, construction dewatering induces
differential foundation settlement. Cracked slabs are associated with
differential foundation settlement not uniform settlement.
• ENGEO’s analysis of health and safety impacts is incorrect; ENGEO used
an outdated map dated 1991. The more recent 2002 map shows that the
proposed development is located within the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone
and the Liquefaction Zone.
• Due to Differential Foundation Settlement a mat slab foundation cannot
be uniformly supported by subgrade soils subject to liquefaction in the
event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake unless the mat
foundation exceeds 4’ in thickness. Subsequent structural cracks allow
massive influx of groundwater.
• Percolation analysis was based on the performance of a 1’ thick garage
slab floor subject to liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a
nearby earthquake which would allow the influx of approximately 500
gallons per minute into the underground garage. This amount of water
leakage cannot be controlled by the use of the Project’s proposed sump
pumps and is inadequate to ensure the public’s safety.
• The permitting of an underground garage in an area that is subject to the
inundation of floodwaters in the event of an upstream dam failure
Page 4 of 6
represents unnecessary and unreasonable risk to health and safety.
• Leniham Dam is located adjacent to the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.
Strong shaking in the Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone is likely to
cause the earthen dam to fail. The 2012 Terra / GeoPentech report does
not take into account the close proximity between Leniham Dam and the
Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. Therefore, ENGEO’s unfounded
reliance upon the findings and conclusions of the 2012 Terra/GeoPentech
Leniham report represents a failure to comply with the standard of care of
the engineering profession.
• ENGEO stated, “ . . . the construction of a subsurface garage will not
dramatically impede groundwater flow.” Geissler Engineering pointed
out that the construction of a subsurface garage necessarily impedes
groundwater flow; the flow of groundwater is diverted around the
underground parking garage. There is an increased level of groundwater
on the upstream side of the underground parking garage and a decreased
level of groundwater on the downstream side of the underground parking
garage which leads to cracked slabs in neighboring building. This is an
indirect impact that must be analyzed in the EIR.
• A 12-inch thick slab floor is too flexible to span over areas of soil
subsidence caused by liquefaction and too weak to prevent cracking. In
comparable situations in San Francisco where liquefaction causes soil
subsidence, 48-inch thick mat slabs are proposed. If the top of slab of the
underground garage is located below the groundwater then the influx of
groundwater into the cracked underground parking structure, water
floods the damaged and submerged underground garage leading to
health and safety impacts.
Alternatives
The EIR also failed to: consider a reasonable range of alternatives that
would significantly reduce or avoid the Project’s impacts; identify an
environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project alternative, and;
identify alternatives considered and excluded from EIR analysis or to provide the
reasons for their rejection. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta
II) 52 Cal.3d 553, 569; Guideline §15126.6(b). Where no alternatives are deemed
feasible, the EIR is required to disclose the reasons why possible alternatives
were found infeasible and did not do so. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association
v. UC Regents (Laurel Heights I) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) The EIR failed to
consider alternate sites as required by both public and private development
projects. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d
553, 574-575; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta I) (1988) 197
Page 5 of 6
Cal.App.3d 1167, 1179-1180. EIRs “must consider a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project.”)
An EIR must consider a “range of reasonable alternatives.” Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Residents
AdHoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274; Guideline
§15126.6(c). The range must be sufficient “to permit a reasonable choice of
alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned”; San Bernardino Valley
Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino, supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at 750-751;
Guideline §§15126.6(c), (f). Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (Public
Resources Code §21061.1; Guideline §15364.)
• Increased costs of an alternative do not equate to economic infeasibility:
“[t]he fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is
not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is
required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are
sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.”
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta I) (1988) 197
Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990)
221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736.)
Here, considering the Project’s unacknowledged impacts in the issue areas
described herein, the EIR did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives that
took into account these impacts and there is no information in the record that
could credibly provide the basis for finding that such alternatives are infeasible
based upon economic infeasibility. Since the EIR found that the Reduced Project
Alternative meets most Project objectives and should be considered as a feasible
Project alternative, it is clear that a range of alternatives that would meet most
objectives could easily be configured to reduce or completely avoid the Project’s
impacts related to the hydrology and seismic issues that have been raised by Mr.
Geissler and concerned area residents. The EIR should be revised and re-
circulated to provide an adequate alternatives analysis and to identify an
environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project alternative.
Traffic
The EIR failed to adequately respond to and incorporate mitigation
measures proposed by the Santa Clara Transportation Authority. “[C]omments
from responsible experts or sister agencies … that cause concern that the agency
may not have fully evaluated the project” may not be ignored. (Berkeley Keep Jets
over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Cmr’s. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367
quoting Cleary v. County of Stanislaus, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357.)
Page 6 of 6
For the foregoing reasons, and as articulated in the reports of Mr. Geissler,
incorporated herein by reference, the EIR should not be certified as complete.
Thank you for your consideration,
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett