Item 02 - 375 Knowles Dr -[FINAL EIR]FINAL EIR
375 K NOWLES D RIVE
R ESIDENTIAL P LANNED
D EVELOPMENT
SCH No. 2013082020
Planned Development Application
PD-13-002
General Plan Amendment
GP-13-001
PREPARED FOR
Town of Los Gatos
April 30, 2014
This document was produced on recycled paper.
375 K NOWLES D RIVE
R ESIDENTIAL P LANNED
D EVELOPMENT
Final EIR
SCH No. 2013082020
Planned Development Application
PD-13-002
General Plan Amendment
GP-13-001
PREPARED FOR
Town of Los Gatos
Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel 408.354.6875
PREPARED BY
EMC Planning Group Inc.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
james@emcplanning.com
www.emcplanning.com
April 30, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose ........................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Modifications........................................................ 1-1
1.3 Organization.................................................................... 1-2
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR................................... 2-1
2.1 CEQA Requirements ........................................................ 2-1
2.2 Comments Received ......................................................... 2-1
3.0 REVISED S UMMARY .................................................... 3-1
3.1 CEQA Requirements ........................................................ 3-1
3.2 Text of Revised Summary.................................................. 3-1
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR...................................... 4-1
4.1 CEQA Requirements ........................................................ 4-1
4.2 Changes Made.................................................................. 4-1
5.0 MITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM .. 5-1
5.1 Introduction..................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Monitoring Program ......................................................... 5-1
5.3 Monitoring Program Procedures ........................................ 5-2
List of Figures
Figure 8 Site Plan ......................................................................................... 4-8
Figure 11 Noise Mitigation.......................................................................….4-11
Figure 12 Traffic Study Intersections............................................................. 4-13
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
List of Tables
Table 1 Proposed Site Coverage...................................................................4-4
Table 19 Project Alternatives Summary..........................................................4-6
Table 20 High Density Residential and Office Development Alternatives
Comparison ....................................................................................4-7
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1-1
1.0
I NTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The Town of Los Gatos, acting as the lead agency, determined that the proposed 375 Knowles
Drive Planned Residential Development (hereinafter “proposed project”) might result in
significant adverse environmental effects, as defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15064. Therefore, the Town of Los Gatos had a draft
environmental impact report (Draft EIR) prepared to evaluate the potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts of the project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between
November 27, 2013 and January 17, 2014, and public comment was received. CEQA Guidelines
section 15200 indicates that the purposes of the public review process include sharing expertise,
disclosing agency analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public
concerns, and soliciting counter proposals.
1.2 PROJECT M ODIFICATIONS
Following the public review period, the applicant submitted modifications to the proposed
project, specifically reducing the total number of units, reducing the number of three-story units,
and positioning only two-story units adjacent to Knowles Drive and Capri Drive. These changes
are presented in Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR. Where the modified project description
resulted in significant revisions to the Draft EIR, the text and/or graphics were revised. These
changes to the Draft EIR are presented in Section 3.0 Revised Summary and Section 4.0
Changes to the Draft EIR of this Final EIR. The modifications to the proposed project resulted
primarily in reduced aesthetics impacts, and also resulted in slightly reduced air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic impacts. No additional CEQA analysis or public review is
required, because no new or increased environmental impacts resulted from the modifications.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
1.3 ORGANIZATION
This Final EIR has been prepared to address comments received during the public review period
and, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the complete 375 Knowles Drive Planned
Residential Development EIR. This Final EIR is organized into the following sections:
Section 1 contains an introduction to the Final EIR.
Section 2 contains written comments on the Draft EIR, as well as the responses to those
comments.
Section 3 contains a revised summary of the Draft EIR, identifying the changes in the
impacts and mitigation measures resulting from comments on the Draft EIR.
Section 4 contains the revisions to the text of the Draft EIR resulting from comments on
the Draft EIR.
Section 5 contains the mitigation monitoring program.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-1
2.0
C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines section 15132(c) requires that the Final EIR contain a list of persons,
organizations, and public agencies that have commented on the Draft EIR. A list of the
correspondence received during the public review period is presented below.
CEQA Guidelines sections 15132(b) and 15132(d) require that the Final EIR contain the
comments that raise significant environmental points in the review and consultation process, and
written response to those comments. Based on the comments received and the responses to the
comments, revisions have been made to the text of the Draft EIR where required. These
revisions are included in Section 3.0, Revised Summary and in Section 4.0, Changes to the
Draft EIR.
2.2 COMMENTS R ECEIVED
The following correspondence received during the public review period on the Draft EIR is
presented here in the order it was received:
County of Santa Clara Office of the County Executive (December 17, 2013)
Jeff Loughridge (January 8, 2014)
California Department of Transportation (January 9, 2014)
Iddo Hadar (January 13, 2014)
Anne Robinson (January 15, 2014)
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
J. Terry Corbet (January 16, 2014)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (January 16, 2014)
Lee Quintana (January 17, 2014)
A copy of each correspondence received during the public review period for the Draft EIR is
presented on the following pages. Numbers along the left-hand margin of each comment letter
identify individual comments to which a response is provided. Responses are presented
immediately following each letter.
A public hearing on the proposed project was held during the public review period, on
January 8, 2014. The following individuals provided verbal comments at that hearing:
Jeff Loughridge
Anne Robinson
1Glen WilliamsAsset Development ManagerCounty of Santa ClaraOffice of the County Executive70 W. Hedding St., East Wing, 11th FloorSan Jose, CA 95110(office) 408-299-5164 (cell) 310-266-3338 (fax) 408-297-4698Comment #1Comment #2Letter 1: Letter from Glen Williams (Add Letter Identifier)
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Comments from County of Santa Clara Office of the County
Executive
1. The comment corrects information regarding the ownership of the project site.
Corrections to the Draft EIR are presented in Section 3.0 Revised Summary and Section 4.0
Changes to the Draft EIR.
2. The comment suggests a correction of a typographical error. A correction to the Draft
EIR is presented in Section 3.0 Revised Summary.
Comment #1Comment #2Comment #3Comment #4Comment #5Comment #6Comment #7Letter #2 : Letter from Jeff Loughridge
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Comments from Jeff Loughridge
1. These comments address Town permit processing procedures, and do not raise
environmental issues. The description of the Planned Development and rezone is presented on
pages 2-17 and 2-18 of the Draft EIR, and the project objectives are presented on page 3-22 of
the Draft EIR. The project site is already zoned O – Office, which conditionally allows
residential uses. The proposed Planned Development in conjunction with the O – Office zoning
would allow residential uses and additionally would permit modifications to the development
standards.
2. The Town considers medical office and residential uses to be compatible on adjacent
properties. Both land uses are allowed within the Office Professional designation.
3. The Draft EIR presented two alternatives that considered the environmental
consequences of alternative land uses on the project site: high density residential and office
development. Neither alternative was superior overall to the proposed project – both were
determined to be worse in terms of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and better in terms
of noise. The Office Development alternative was also considered worse in terms of traffic. The
Office Development alternative assumed 35,000 square feet of medical office and 35,000 square
feet of general office. The Office Development alternative was estimated to generate about five
times as many daily and peak hour trips as the proposed project. Refer to page 5-10 of the Draft
EIR.
4. This comment addresses Town permit processing evaluations that do not raise an
environmental issue. Design issues are discussed in Section 3.1 Aesthetics, but judgment
decisions regarding the quality of the design will be made by the Town’s Planning Commission
and Council.
5. Under project conditions, no significant traffic impacts were identified and no mitigation
measures are required (Section 3.10, Transportation and Circulation). Under cumulative
conditions, project traffic would contribute to significant delays at the intersection of Winchester
Boulevard and Knowles Drive, but an improvement already underway when the Draft EIR was
prepared, and now completed, reduced the cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level.
6. The Town’s traffic fee was established by the Town Council and the fee can be adjusted
by the Town Council as deemed necessary in response to updated cost projections.
7. Following completion of the public review period, the applicant submitted a modified
project design that locates only the lower (two-story) units along the Knowles Drive and Capri
Drive frontages.
Comment # 1Comment #2Comment #3Comment #4Comment #5Letter 3: Letter from California Department of Transportation
Comment #6Comment #7Comment #8
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Comments from California Department of Transportation
The first five comments are directed at the transportation impact analysis, which is included as
Appendix F of the Draft EIR, but many of the comments are also applicable to Draft EIR
Section 3.10 Transportation and Circulation, and Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts.
1. The referenced street improvements were completed in January 2014 and no changes to
the transportation impact analysis or Draft EIR are needed.
2. The study intersections are identified by number on most of the other transportation
impact analysis figures. The streets and intersections are shown on Draft EIR Figure 3, Project
Vicinity, although they are not identified as traffic study intersections. The intersection locations
are adequately illustrated and no changes are necessary.
3. The addition of these intersections was requested in the Department of Transportation’s
response to the Notice of Preparation. The Town considered the request, but determined that
very few project trips would use the intersections, and that it was not necessary to include these
intersections in the transportation impact analysis. The number of project trips that would use
these intersections is below the Valley Transportation Authority’s thresholds for inclusion in
transportation impact analyses. In general, the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
recommend inclusion of Congestion Management Program intersections where 10 or more peak
hour trips would be added per lane, and where Congestion Management Program intersections
are adjacent to the project site.
The proposed project would generate a total of 34 morning peak hour trips and 45 afternoon
peak hour trips. On Winchester Boulevard south of Knowles Drive, and past or onto the State
Route 85 ramps, the proposed project would generate 16 morning peak hour trips and 21
afternoon peak hour trips. Winchester Boulevard has two lanes in each direction, so a maximum
of six peak hour trips per lane would use Winchester Boulevard near State Route 85. The
transportation impact analysis assigned 15 percent of project traffic to State Route 85. Therefore,
about five morning peak hour trips and seven afternoon peak hour trips could be expected to use
the State Route 85 ramps. The number of trips per lane at these intersections is well below the
Valley Transportation Authority standard for inclusion in the transportation impact analysis.
4. Parking requirements, including those of the Americans with Disabilities Act, are
covered by code and do not need to be addressed in the transportation impact analysis or the
Draft EIR.
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-11
5. This comment refers to trips generated when the project site was used for medical offices.
These past trips are not used to adjust the baseline conditions or to calculate a net project trip
generation. The past use trips are provided for the purpose of comparing the proposed use to the
prior use. The transportation impact analysis presents the proposed project’s full trip generation,
and uses this trip generation in calculating project effects on level of service.
In estimating the prior use trip generation, the transportation impact analysis used the trip
generation rates on the “per thousand square feet” basis, not “per full-time doctor.” This is
consistent with the past practice in Los Gatos, due to the fact that there is typically no
information on the number of doctors. The ITE trip general manual provides weekday trip rates
without morning or afternoon peak hour trip rates for the “per thousand square feet” data. The
ITE trip generation manual provides afternoon peak hour trip rates without weekday or morning
peak hour trip rates on the “per full time doctor” basis. The ITE trip generation manual provides
weekday, morning, and afternoon peak hour trip rates on the “per employee” basis. Therefore,
the traffic engineer estimated morning and afternoon trip rates “per thousand square feet,” pro-
rated with weekday trip rates of “per thousand square feet” and “per employee.”
The transportation impact analysis has been revised to present amended numbers for the prior
use traffic generation. A revised page from the transportation impact analysis is included as an
addendum to Appendix F, Traffic Report Revisions.
6. The Town has prepared a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project.
However, the Draft EIR did not identify any significant traffic impacts, so the mitigation
monitoring program does not include traffic-related measures.
7. The proposed project is a residential development within one-quarter mile of a planned
light rail station. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan includes numerous policies that
promote alternative transportation. No new policies are proposed as a part of the project.
8. No significant traffic impacts were identified for the proposed project. The proposed
project would pay the Town’s traffic impact fee to fund Town-wide improvements that benefit
the proposed project and other projects. The recently completed road improvements at the
intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive were funded in part by traffic impact
fees.
Planning Commission’s EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ / January 2013 1
Planning Commission’s EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ
Case Study: Winchester Blvd and Knowles Dr (Intersection #1)
Reports by the Planning Commission about its proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ)
proposal suggest that the plan would have a minor – even negligible – effect on local traffic. However,
upon further examination, it becomes evident that the effect would actually be dramatic. The
Commission’s reports suggest otherwise only because they are fraught with errors, false assumptions,
and misrepresentations.
To illustrate the risks of accepting this proposal, this paper will illustrate the impact of AHOZ on one the
Town’s busiest intersections: Winchester Blvd. and Knowles Dr. (aka as “Intersection #1” in various
traffic analyses of Los Gatos). This is the intersection most likely to be affected in the near future, should
the Planning Commission’s AHOZ proposal be implemented – since the potential project on the
Courthouse Site is in immediate proximity to the intersection.
Planning Commission is Understating Existing Traffic Conditions
A recent traffic study identifies Intersection #1 as one of the three worst intersections in Los Gatos, in
terms of delay during PM peak traffic hours. The level of service for the intersection is reported as “D+”
due to delay of 35.4 seconds. However, the Commission provides this finding based on obvious errors
and omissions.
Exhibit 1: PM Peak traffic conditions
Source: FEIR Addendum – Traffic Study – Technical Appendix
Exhibit 1 documents the approach used by the Commission, based on a June 2012 study. The study
documents traffic in each approach and movement in 15-minute increments, allowing analysts to easily
point the peak traffic levels in each movement. However, the analysis provided by the Commission
ignores the high-granularity data; instead, it aggregates the traffic into 60-minute segments, and sums
Approach and Movement SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL
Period used by EIR Traffic
study (1645-1745)198 716 28 96 40 192 61 499 317 362 26 243
Busiest 60 minutes 198 734 36 107 40 192 88 524 317 375 26 250
Busiest 15 minutes (x4)236 768 44 132 52 216 108 532 352 400 32 312
Required Peak Hour
Factor (PHF)0.84 0.93 0.64 0.73 0.77 0.89 0.56 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.81 0.78
PHF used in EIR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Understatement of traffic
volume -16% -7% -36% -27% -23% -11% -44% -6% -10% -10% -19% -22%
Planning Commission’s EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ / January 2013 2
traffic across all 12 movements; then it defines “peak hour” as the sixty-minute segment during which
the grand total of traffic was the highest. This ignores the fact that each movement may peak at
different points in time, and that the true level of service provided to residents is defined by conditions
during the worst 15 minute segment, not during an average over a longer time period.
For example, consider eastbound right-turn volume (captured in the column marked “EBR”). The
analysis provided in the EIR picks the 60 minutes from 4:45pm to 5:45pm as the “peak hour” based on
total traffic volume. For EBR, volume during this 60 -minute interval is 362 vehicles. However, the worst
60-minute interval for EBR is actually 4:30pm to 5:30pm, when 375 vehicles make the EBR movement.
Moreover, the worst 15-minute interval for this movement is from 4:30pm to 4:45pm, when 100
vehicles make the EBR turn in the intersection; that’s an hourly rate of 400 (100 x 4).
The software used by the Commission’s staff requires the analyst to calculate the ratio between the
60-minute segment used as input and the hourly rate during the worst 15 minute segment; this is
defined as “Peak Hour Factor” (PHF) and used to properly increase the modeled level of utilization of the
intersection. In the case of EBR, this ratio would be 0.91 (362 divided by 400). However, the
Commission’s staff has ignored these data, and assumed PHF to be 1.00 for all movements. This
erroneous assumption understates the current level of traffic through the intersection by up to 44%!
In the case of EBR, the Commission is understating the traffic volume by 10%; and, since the Commission
indirectly estimates traffic delays based on simulation models which use traffic volume as a primary
input, the Commission’s analyses significantly overstate the level of service. Delay for EBR is reported by
the Commission as 36.4 seconds; our model calculated the TRUE delay as 291.5 seconds1. Such delay in
existing traffic is worse than “F” level of service; it regularly creates a long line of cars on Knowles Drive
and impacts other movements as well – as any person actually standing on Knowles Drive during PM
peak traffic hour could easily observe.
Furthermore, the software used by the Commission ignores spillover effects across lanes, which are very
noticeable in this intersection. For example, the delays in EBR which induce the queue on Knowles Drive
affect eastbound through traffic and left turn as well – causing further degradation in the actual level of
service in Intersection #1, well below the D+ suggested by the Commission.
Were the Commission to properly calculate and report the Intersection’s level of service, it would be
obvious that adding hundreds of new units around would be a traffic disaster; however, the errors and
omissions in the Commission’s analyses serve to conceal this reality and mislead the public about the
severity of traffic conditions at Winchester and Knowles.
1 The Commission has refused to share with the residents the results of its traffic model for the direct impact of
AHOZ (before any improvements). However, we have been able to approximate its results by formulating a
classical queuing model with M/D/1 structure. The results are based on this model, by adjusting arrival rates per
the respective increases in trips through the intersection.
Planning Commission’s EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ / January 2013 6
AHOZ would Result in Unacceptable Levels of Service
Correcting the Planning Commission’s faulty assumptions can provide a more realistic projection of new
cars, and expose the overwhelming effect that AHOZ would have on local traffic.
Depending on the details of the queuing model, these increases in peak volumes would increase wait
times to unacceptable levels; and these delays would have a domino effect on the busy intersections,
ramps, and routes which feed or connect with the impacted intersections.
Exhibit 5 illustrates the cumulative impact of the Commission’s various errors and misrepresentations
for Intersection #1:
The current state (for PM Peak travel) is reported by the Commission at about a 35 second
delay, placing it at the “D+” level of service grade (as noted above, correct evaluation of the
current state would put it solidly at the “F” level of service).
The Commission calculated (in Table 4.13-5 of the General Plan 2020 draft document) that the
AHOZ (as planned in June 2010) would increase delays in this intersection to 63 seconds,
bringing it to “E” level of service (unacceptable in Los Gatos), even if the original “D+” grade
were correct.
The Commission’s decision to segregate AHOZ development to the north of Los Gatos adds to
the volume of traffic through the intersection, which the Commission understates in its FEIR
Addendum as 84 additional trips during PM Peak hours; this would raise delay to 96 seconds2,
placing the intersection solidly in the “F” level of service group.
The calculated delay is understated, since the Commission wrongly assumes that none of the
residents of the affordable housing units would own a vehicle, bringing the average vehicle per
unit (across both affordable and market-rate units) to only 1.0. Under more realistic
assumptions of 1.5 vehicles per unit, delay would grow to 267 seconds nearly 8 times longer
than today’s levels. Such delay would, of course, overflow the existing intersection
infrastructure.
If the vehicle assumption is adjusted to 1.75 vehicles per unit, traffic through the intersection
would come to effective standstill longer than 22 minutes of wait time. That, of course, would
completely block traffic throughout Knowles Drive.
2 As noted earlier: The results are based on a classical queuing model with M/D/1 structure, while adjusting arrival
rates per the respective increases in trips through the intersection.
Planning Commission’s EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ / January 2013 7
Exhibit 5: True Impact of AHOZ on Local Traffic
The impact of AHOZ as originally planned and as recently segregated on the Winchester/Knowles intersection
* * *
Models and analyses are no better than the inputs provided to them (or, more bluntly–Garbage In,
Garbage Out); the Planning Commission has provided erroneous inputs to the traffic analysis underlying
the EIR, resulting in gross misrepresentation of traffic impacts of AHOZ–for example, on Intersection #1:
The Commission has ignored detailed traffic volume data available to it, under-reporting the
current level of traffic through the intersection by up to 44%. These volumes imply that the
existing level of service in Intersection #1 is often unacceptable (below “D”).
The Commission appears to assume that none of the affordable housing residents in the
Courthouse Site would own a car (allowing the Commission to calculate average car ownership
rate of 1 per unit).
Furthermore, the Commission implicitly assumes that the great majority of cars owned by
residents in the Courthouse Site’s market-rate units would not be used during peak hour traffic;
the Commission is effectively assuming car ownership of merely 0.2 per unit.
When these inputs are corrected, simulation models clearly indicate that the Courthouse Site
development suggested by AHOZ would bring Intersection #1 traffic conditions to unacceptable levels.
35
63
96
267
1,367
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Current State
AHOZ (General
Plan 2020)
Segregation Plan: FEIR
Addendum (84 trips)
Adjusting vehicle
assumption (1.5 vs. 1.0)
Adjusting vehicle
assumption (1.75 vs. 1.5)
Delay (PM Peak, seconds)
Level of Service"E" "F"
1,400
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-18 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Comments from Iddo Hadar
1. In accordance with Town Code Section 29.80.120, a Planned Development establishes
the building placement parameters within the subject site. The standard setbacks associated with
other zoning districts do not apply. While the setbacks required for the adjoining office uses may
be 25 feet, the project has proposed an 11-foot setback along Knowles Drive. The proposed
setbacks are subject to Town approval, and would become official if the Town Council approves
the Planned Development as proposed by the applicant.
In response to concerns regarding the visual impact of the placement of three-story buildings
along Knowles Drive, the preliminary site plan has been revised to situate the two-story units
along the perimeter of the site and the three-story units in the middle of the project. In addition,
the overall site plan has been reduced by five units and small back or side yards are included
with each unit, reducing development density and increasing the sense of space between units.
The site plan for the proposed project shows 10- to 11-foot building setbacks from the Capri
Drive right-of-way, and 15-foot building setbacks from Knowles Drive. Three two-story houses
would be located adjacent to Capri Drive and two two-story homes would be situated along
Knowles Drive. Refer to revised Figure 8 in Section 4.0, Changes to the Draft EIR of this
Final EIR.
The revised site plan reduces overall site density and reduces the building presence and height
along Knowles Drive and Capri Drive. The revisions to the site plan address the commenter’s
concerns regarding visual impact to pedestrians along Knowles Drive who may perceive three-
story structures along the street front as taller than they are.
2. The Draft EIR analyzed the impacts on schools in Section 3.9, Schools, and concluded
that the payment of state-mandated fees would reduce impacts in accordance with 1998 Senate
Bill 50.
3. This comment addresses traffic at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Knowles
Drive, and an attached traffic analysis critique, prepared originally for the Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone (AHOZ), questions the methodology of the transportation impact analysis. The
transportation impact analysis for the proposed project was conducted in accordance with the
standards established by the Valley Transportation Authority. The transportation impact
analysis was reviewed by the Town’s traffic engineer, Valley Transportation Authority, and the
California Department of Transportation and no methodology concerns were raised. The
transportation impact analysis presents an accurate description of actual field conditions at the
intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive. Traffic generation rates used in the
analysis reflect the number of trips per household based on past field studies; traffic is not
calculated on the basis of automobile ownership per unit as presented in the traffic analysis
critique.
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-19
The traffic analysis critique attached to this comment letter was prepared in response to traffic
analysis for the AHOZ. Under the original AHOZ proposal, the project site (and adjacent
Courthouse site) could have been developed with 104 residential units. The project site (and
adjacent Courthouse site) are no longer part of the AHOZ program. The traffic analysis critique
does not use accepted traffic engineering methodologies, such as those provided in the Valley
Transportation Authority’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The Town does not agree
with conclusions in the traffic analysis critique that the construction of 104 new residences in the
area would increase delays from the current level (about 45 seconds) to over 1,360 seconds (over
22 minutes).
To: Suzanne Avila
From: Anne Robinson
RE: Comments on 375 Knowles Drive Draft EIR
Suzanne,
I have a few comments in regards to the DEIR for the proposed development at 375 Knowles Dr.
The setback of 11-13 ft. from Knowles Dr. and Capri Dr. were not discussed in relation to the
25 ft. setbacks for the adjacent properties on Knowles Dr. and Capri Dr., which are zoned office.
According to the below policies especially Policy CD-2.1, building setbacks shall increase as
mass and height increase. The developer is using the PD to reduce setbacks and increase density.
This proposed development with half the setbacks as the adjacent properties will not blend in
with, will not be consistent with, or harmonize with the scale and rhythm of the immediate
neighborhood. You will drive down Knowles Dr. and Capri Dr. and the proposed single-family
homes will be significantly closer to Knowles Dr. and Capri Dr. when compared to the
surrounding buildings on Knowles Dr. and Capri Dr. The height and setbacks need to be
consistent with adjacent properties. An example of these PD’s with reduced setbacks are Laurel
Mews and Swanson Ford – the homes feel like they are right on the road. The 3-story homes
need to be in the middle of the development – not on the street. Putting the 3-story homes in the
middle will allow the homes to look more in proportion with the buildings along Knowles Dr. and
Capri Dr.
Review of General Plan Goals and Policies
Policy LU-1.4
Infill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning
with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend
rather than compete with the established character of the area.
Goal LU-6
To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-6.5
The type, density, and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the
immediate neighborhood
Goal CD-1 Preserve and enhance Los Gatos’s character through exceptional community design.
Policy CD-1.1
Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood.
Policy CD-1.2
New structures, remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and
blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area.
Policy CD-1.3
Buildings, landscapes, and hardscapes shall follow the natural contours of the property.
Policy CD-1.4
Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design and construction, a positive
addition to and compatible with the Town’s ambiance. Development shall enhance the character
and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods.
Policy CD-1.5
Town staff shall evaluate projects to assess how built characteristics, including scale,
materials, hardscape, lights, and landscape, blend into the surrounding neighborhood.
LETTER # 5
Letter from Anne Robinson
Comment # 1
Goal CD-2
To limit the intensity of new development to a level that is consistent with surrounding
development and with the Town at large.
Policy CD-2.1
Building setbacks shall increase as mass and height increase
Town of Los Gatos Infill Development Policy
The infill development policy was adopted by the Town through Resolution 1993-62. The policy
requires infill development to positively contribute to the surrounding community and to fit
within the context of the surrounding development.
Town of Los Gatos Single-and Two-Family Residential Design Guidelines
The Town of Los Gatos adopted residential design guidelines in 2008 to ensure high quality
architecture and building site design. Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Policy CD-17.3
establishes a framework for Town procedures and standards for aesthetic review of proposed
projects. Design guidelines most applicable to the proposed project are presented below. The
selection includes the several sets of design principles, but focuses on the building design
policies, since the project site is not within an established neighborhood, and individual building
design has more importance in this location than neighborhood context.
General Design Principles
Encourage a diversity of architectural styles consistent with the neighborhood context.
Design to blend into the neighborhood rather than stand out.
Reinforce prevailing neighborhood development patterns.
Design street setbacks with sensitivity to the predominant street front character
Questions:
1) What is the setback of the building at 555 Knowles Dr. adjacent to the proposed
development?
2) What is the setback of the Dardanelli Medical Plaza at the corner of Knowles Dr. and
Dardanelli?
3) What are the setbacks for the office building and homes on Capri Dr. adjacent to the
proposed development?
4) How is the proposed development consistent with and blend in with the adjacent
buildings along Knowles Dr. and Capri Dr.?
5) How does the proposed development harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of
the neighborhood?
6) How do the setbacks increase as mass and height increase?
7) What is the height of the buildings adjacent to the proposed development along Knowles
Dr. and Capri Dr. and what is the height of the tallest building in the proposed
development?
Please consider my comments and respond to my questions. Thank you.
Anne Robinson
201 Charter Oaks Circle
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-410-5781
Comment # 2
Comment#3
Comment # 4
Comment # 5
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-22 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Comments from Anne Robinson
1. The setbacks and heights in relationship to the right-of-way are variable in the project site
vicinity. Much of the nearby development backs, rather than fronts, onto Capri Drive and
Knowles Drive. The fences on the south side of Knowles Drive are six to eight feet tall with a
two-foot setback from the right-of-way. Some of the El Camino Hospital buildings are 35 feet tall
and less than 25 feet from the right-of-way. The rear elevation and service entrances of the
adjacent shopping center face Capri Drive and the project site. Therefore, the Draft EIR
concluded that the project site had a very low neighborhood context, and the position of the
houses relative to the street would not significantly affect aesthetics.
In response to concerns regarding the visual impact of the placement of three-story buildings
along Knowles Drive, the site plan has been revised to situate the two-story units along the
perimeter of the site and the three-story units in the interior of the project site. As can be seen in
Figure 8 Site Plan, the extended front wall of the adjacent office building to the north meets the
corner of the northernmost proposed unit on the project site, and the building line along Capri
Drive will transition smoothly to the existing development. Along Knowles Drive, the proposed
15-foot to 23-foot setbacks are similar to those of the existing building corner nearest to the
project site to the west. Refer to revised Figure 8 presented in Section 4.0, Changes to the Draft
EIR.
2. The comment relates to documenting the setbacks of existing uses in the project vicinity
for comparison to those of the proposed project. Setbacks were estimated using Google Earth,
with measurement accuracy verified by measuring known distances on the project site. The face
of curb was assumed to be 10 feet from the property line, based on the proposed project site plan.
The El Camino Hospital building at 555 Knowles is set at an angle to Knowles Drive, and the
setback ranges from about 18 to 57 feet from the right-of-way. The Dardenelli office building is
also set at an angle to Knowles Drive, and ranges from about 25 to 78 feet from the right-of-way.
The office building adjacent to the project site on Capri Drive is about 34 feet from the right-of-
way and the residential building nearest Capri Drive is about 21 feet from the right-of-way. The
building in the vicinity that is closest to the right-of-way (about five feet) is located at the corner
of Dardenelli Lane and West Parr Avenue.
3. Visual consistency with the existing neighborhood is discussed in Section 3.1 Aesthetics.
4. Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Policy CD 2.1 states that building setbacks shall
increase as height and bulk are increased. The Town’s Residential Design Guidelines do not
provide further guidance on this policy. The Town’s zoning ordinance establishes setback and
height standards, but those are superseded by the Planned Development Overlay standards.
Under the Planned Development Overlay standards originally proposed, the first and second
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-23
stories would be 10 to 15 feet from the right-of-way, and third stories would be set back an
additional four to nine feet. In response to concerns regarding the visual impact of the placement
of three-story buildings along Knowles Drive, the preliminary site plan has been revised to
situate the two-story units along the perimeter of the site and the three-story units in the middle
of the project. Refer to revised Figure 8 in Section 4.0, Changes to the Draft EIR of this Final
EIR. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 by Iddo Hadar.
5. The preliminary site plan has been revised to situate the two-story units along the
perimeter of the site and the three-story units in the middle of the project (refer to revised
Figure 8 in Section 4.0, Changes to the Draft EIR of this Final EIR). Three two-story houses
would be located adjacent to Capri Drive and two two-story homes would be situated along
Knowles Drive. The two-story homes are 27-feet high. The tallest nearby buildings (555
Knowles Drive and the apartments accessed from West Parr Avenue) are about 35 feet tall at
their highest points. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 by Iddo Hadar.
LETTER # 6Letter from J. Terry Corbet
Comment#1Comment#2Comment#3Comment#4Comment#5
Comment#6Comment#7Comment#8
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-27
Response to Comments from J. Terry Corbet
1. The noise study is included in Appendix E of the Draft EIR. The noise study considered
the potential for project-generated traffic to affect existing noise levels, and determined that the
increase in noise from additional traffic would be less-than-significant.
2. Traffic data from the transportation impact analysis is used in preparing the noise
assessment, so there is a correlation between traffic and noise effects.
3. Noise mitigation is presented to reduce significant noise impacts. However, no
significant traffic impacts were identified, so no traffic mitigation is presented.
4. The traffic report estimates that the proposed project would add about 13 new afternoon
peak hour trips (an average of one trip every four minutes) at the intersection of Capri Drive and
West Parr Avenue, most of which would be heading to or from Winchester Boulevard. The
western segments of West Parr Avenue would receive about three afternoon peak hour trips.
This volume of traffic would not significantly affect noise levels. The existing afternoon peak
hour (commute hour) traffic at this intersection is 348 trips, so the proposed project would
increase traffic by less than four percent. An increase this small would not significantly affect the
noise environment. Morning peak hour trips were lower than afternoon peak hour trips, and
daytime trips are spread over a much longer amount of time, so the noise effects during these
times would be less than during the afternoon peak hour.
5. Parking is allowed on both sides of Capri Drive near the project site. The consultant’s
observation is that the street parking is minimally used, since other uses in the area (Vasona
Station shopping center, the office building on Capri Drive, and houses), all provide for parking
within their sites. The proposed project includes primarily on-site parking, but would also utilize
several parking spaces along Capri Drive. It is likely that mostly visitors would park along Capri
Drive, since each proposed house provides four on-site parking spaces. Some guest parking is
also provided within the project site. Parking spaces along Capri Drive are located outside the
traffic flow and do not significantly affect traffic operations.
6. Refer to the response to Comment 1 by Iddo Hadar.
7. Refer to the response to Comment 1 by Iddo Hadar.
8. The low income units are Plan 2, which would be constructed with three finish
elevations, similar to those of Plan 1 and Plan 3.
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-29
Response to Comments from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority stated that the agency had no comments at this
time. No response is necessary.
To: Suzanne AvilaFrom: Lee QuintanaRe: Comments on 375 Knowles Drive Draft EIRThe following are my comments on the Draft EIR. Three major issues raised by this project:1. Is a 100% residential project under an O:PD zoning appropriate?2. Is a residential use or a medical office use most compatible with the existingsurrounding from a land use perspective?3. Which project alternative has the most potential environmental impact?Following are my comments on the Draft EIR Page ES-2 and page 2-17: Project Description and 2.2 Project OverviewThe project description is confusing:•Is the General Plan Amendment incorporated as part of the Zone change or do theyrequire separate applications and approvals?•How does the proposed O:PD zoning differ from the Planned Development Overlay?•Approval would result in the Land Use and Zoning Maps that do not accuratelyrepresenting the use being approved. The proposed project would be consistent with aGeneral Plan to Residential designation for Medium Density Residential and a Zoningof Residential:PD 12 DU/acre.•What is the proposed density based on given Sec. 29.80.115 and that the proposedunderlying proposed General Plan Land Use Designation and does not designate adensity for residential?Page 2-17:Planned Development and Re-zoneThe Draft states a PD is being request to both allow the proposed residential uses and permit exceptions to the development standards. This raises several questions:•Are the exceptions to the office zoning standards or the residential zoning standards?•What are the requested exceptions?Chapter 3.1 AestheticsPage 3-9:Town of Los Gatos Infill Development PolicyThe Draft EIR does not explain how the project meets the infill policy.Page 3-16: Consistency with Neighborhood Context Policies•This section states “The proposed project is on a site with minimal neighborhoodcontext. The adjacent uses fronting on streets are institutional or office uses, ratherthan residential uses, thus providing minimal context for applying the neighborhoodoriented policies and guidelines to a residential project.”•Since there is only minimal context for residential development this raises the questionof whether a small lot single family residential use is compatible with the surroundingnon-residential uses.1/17/2014 Comments on Draft EIR 375 Knowles Ave. 1LETTER #8Letter from Lee QuintanaComment #1Comment #2Comment #3Comment #4Comment #5Comment #6
•When considered with the Alternative Analysis this also indicates that there may be aconflict between what is the most compatible land use for this site and what land usewill result in the least environmental impacts. This conflict is not adequatelyaddressed in the Draft.Suggest:Address the above conflicts within the DEIRChapter 5. AlternativesNeither Table 19 nor the text supports the Draft EIRʼs conclusion that, “In balance, the Office Alternative is second best after the No Project Alternative.”Page 5-8)Alternative 3. Office Development. Alternative Description.The Draft EIR states “Half of the office space is assumed to be medical office and half is assumed to be general office.” Is that either a realistic assumption or the worst case scenario given that:• El Camino Hospital and medical offices are located to the west of the project• El Camino Hospital owns the parcel to the east (therefore, it will most likely bedeveloped as medical offices)• Medical offices near hospitals typically do not split their use between medical officesand general office space office space.Suggest:Revise the Office Development Alternative Description and analysis to reflect the above.Page 5-11:Table 19:•Table 19 compares the environmental impacts of the High Density Housing and Officealternatives to the proposed project,•The table indicates both alternatives are worse for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases•In addition the Office alternative is worse for transportation/circulation impacts,•The table only indicates whether the environmental impact categories are similar,worse or better than the proposed project. Table 19 does not include quantitative dataor indicate the degree of “better” or “worse”. That information is found in pages 5-5 to5-10 (see below).•In addition, the note below the table states that the comparisons were made prior tomitigation. The inclusion of “Less Than Significant with Mitigation” in the table is notconsistent with the note.Page 5-5 to 5-10:DEIR Text on Alternatives:•The text includes the following more specific information on Air Quality, GreenhouseGases and Transportation:1/17/2014 Comments on Draft EIR 375 Knowles Ave. 2Comment #7Comment #8
Air QualityGreenhouse GasTransportationHigh Density Res.: 82DU 82DU 43PM/426 daily trips Threshold=87DU Threshold=87 Office: 70,000sf 70,000 217PM/2170 daily trips Threshold=346,000 Threshold=53,000 •For Air Quality the High Density Residential Alternative is close to the significance threshold while the Office Alternative is well below the threshold.•For Greenhouse Gas the High Density Residential Alternative is close to the threshold. However, the Office Alternative is over the threshold (potentially significant).•For Transportation the Office Alternative has 5 times more impact than the High Density Residential and will likely exceed acceptable LOS (potential significant).Suggest:•Modify Table 19 to compare potential impacts of the proposed project to be consistent with the note below the table (replace Less than Significant with Mitigation with Potentially Significant).•Change the environmentally superior alternative to the High Density Residential Alternative, or support the Draftʼs conclusion that on balance the Office Development is the environmentally superior alternative.•Analyze the proposed use, the no project, high density residential and office alternatives for compatibility with the surrounding land use as well as aesthetic impacts.The above comments do not address the proposed conceptual development for the housing development.Thank you for considering these comments.Lee Quintana1/17/2014 Comments on Draft EIR 375 Knowles Ave. 3
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-33
Response to Comments from Lee Quintana
1. The Town’s Planned Development overlay district does not specify the type or mix of
land uses. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan states that the Planned Development overlay
may include commercial, residential, or industrial uses or a combination of these uses.
2. The Town considers medical office and residential uses to be compatible on adjacent
properties. Both land uses are allowed within the Office Professional designation, and the Town
of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan land use map places the Office Professional designation adjacent to
residential designations at many locations.
3. Three alternatives are presented and analyzed in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR. The No
Project alternative was considered to have the least environmental impact, followed by the
Office Development alternative, leaving the High Density Residential alternative as the
alternative that ranked lowest.
4. The general plan amendment and the re-zone are separate actions under a combined
approval. O-PD is the same as (an abbreviated form of) Office – Planned Development overlay.
The proposed residential uses are an allowed use in an area designated Office Professional if a
Planned Development overlay is applied. The gross density of the proposed project is 13.3 units
per acre. The Planned Development overlay code specifies that the residential density not exceed
that allowed by the General Plan designation. In this case the General Plan designation is Office
Professional, and the General Plan does not state a residential density. Although there is no
specified limit on density for residential development in this case, the proposed project is within
the range that the General Plan provides for the High Density Residential designation, which is
considered an appropriate designation near businesses and transit. The project site is near both
businesses and a planned light rail station. Changes to clarify the project description are made to
the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR.
5. The infill policy has a principal purpose of requiring a proposed project to positively
contribute to the surrounding community and to fit within the context of surrounding
development. These purposes are discussed in Section 3.1 Aesthetics in the context of general
plan consistency, because the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan policies provide similar
guidance.
6. The citation is from Section 3.1 Aesthetics. There are residential uses near the project
site, including three-story apartments adjacent to the west, and single family and duplex
residential both north and south of the project site. However, these adjacent and nearby
residential uses do not contribute in a significant way toward a public aesthetic context for the
project site because they do not front on either Knowles Drive or Capri Drive, adjacent to the
project site. The lack of a strong aesthetic neighborhood character does not necessarily imply
incompatibility of the land uses; office uses are generally considered compatible adjacent to
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-34 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
residential uses, and the project vicinity development includes a mix of office, residential, and
commercial uses. The alternatives analysis indicates that although the types of impacts vary
between the high density residential and office development alternatives, on balance, the two are
relatively close in terms of overall environmental effects. Both the High Density Residential and
Office Development alternatives were determined to be compatible with nearby development
(Draft EIR pages 5-5 and 5-8).
7. The Office Development and High Density Residential alternatives are very close in
terms of environmental effects. Both have at least one environmental characteristic that ranks
them as superior to the proposed project, and both have at least two environmental
characteristics that rank them as inferior to the proposed project. Compared to each other, the
Office Development alternative was superior to the High Density Residential alternative in three
categories, and inferior in two categories; therefore the Office Development alternative was
selected as environmentally superior. A new Table 20 has been added to the Draft EIR to
provide a comparison of the High Density Residential and Office Development alternatives.
Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR.
The inclusion of both general and medical office uses in the Office Development alternative is
reasonable. The adjacent Capri Office Plaza includes several non-medical offices, including real
estate and insurance offices.
8. The CEQA Guidelines do not require the same level of detail in the analysis of
alternatives, and quantitative data is not required. The alternatives are compared to the un-
mitigated project. Draft EIR Table 19 indicates, for example, that both the proposed project and
an alternative would have an environmental impact, and that both could be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level. If the alternatives were to be compared to the mitigated project, the
proposed project would appear to have no environmental impacts, due to the mitigation.
Table 19 is designed primarily to compare the alternatives to the proposed project, not to each
other.
Refer to the response to Comment 7 in regard to comparison of the Office Development and
High Density Residential alternatives. A new Table 20 has been added to further compare the
High Density Residential and Office Development alternatives.
The alternatives analysis considered neighborhood compatibility within the aesthetics
discussion.
The table presented in the letter to compare air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic
lists an incorrect threshold for high density residential. The correct air quality threshold is 494
dwelling units rather than 87 dwelling units.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-1
3.0
R EVISED S UMMARY
3.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires that an EIR contain a brief summary of the proposed
project and its consequences. The summary must identify each significant effect with proposed
mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy
known to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and
whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. The Final EIR presents this revised summary
as a concise overview of the EIR as revised through the public comment process.
3.2 TEXT OF R EVISED S UMMARY
Beginning on the following page is a revised version of the summary from the Draft EIR.
Additions to the text are shown with underlined text (underline) and deletions are shown with
strikethrough text (strikethrough). Also refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR for other
changes to the Draft EIR.
3.0 REVISED S UMMARY
3-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
S UMMARY
CEQA R EQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires an EIR to contain a brief summary of the proposed
project and its consequences. The summary identifies each significant effect and the proposed
mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy known
to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and
whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.
P ROPOSED P ROJECT
Location and Setting
The project site consists of land owned by under contract to the applicant near the corner of
Knowles Drive and Capri Drive in the Town of Los Gatos, and identified as Assessor’s parcel
number 406-28-039 (formerly a portion of Assessor’s parcel number 406-28-032). The land was
formerly is owned by the County of Santa Clara. The project site is situated west of Winchester
Boulevard and north of State Route 85 at the northern end of the Town of Los Gatos, near the
Town’s border with the City of Campbell.
Current Site Use and Planning Designations
The 3.34-acre project site is essentially level. The project site contains a former, and currently
vacant, County Health Department office building, an associated storage shed, and parking lot.
The project site has 25 trees within the site and another 34 trees extend partially into the site
along property lines. Local electrical power/telephone lines run near the northern boundary of
the project site. The project site has a Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan land use designation of
Public and is zoned O - Office, reflecting the past use for health offices
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-3
Project Description
The proposed project is a Planned Development, which is inclusive of a General Plan
Amendment (Public to Office Professional), and a Zone Change (O - Office to O:PD Office with
Planned Development o Overlay).
Tentative Map and Architectural Site applications would follow approval of the Planned
Development. The residential subdivision would result in development of 45 40-unit single
family detached units, inclusive or of six five below market price (BMP) units. There would be
access to the proposed project from both Knowles Drive and Capri Drive via a private roadway,
and the residences would be arranged in clusters of four to seven units on a series of courts. The
main private roadway would be 20 to 24 feet wide and the courts would be 16 to 20 feet wide.
Parking would be provided in individual two-car garages, 12 private on-site parking stalls, and
seven street parking stalls on Capri Drive.
Existing site improvements and trees are proposed for removal. Construction is anticipated to
take place over a period of one to two years.
S UMMARY OF I MPACTS AND M ITIGATION M EASURES
This draft EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental impacts in several
areas as identified below. The impacts are presented in a summarized format in Table S-1,
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measure Summary, with the full text of the mitigation
measure. The full text of the environmental setting, project analysis, and impacts and the
mitigation measures can be found in Section 3.0 Environmental Effects.
Significant Project Impacts
Project-level significant impacts are anticipated in the following areas:
Aesthetics (Potential for Tree Damage if Trees are Retained)
Biological Resources (Potential Disturbance of Nesting Birds)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (Inconsistency with Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Plan)
Cultural Resources (Potential Adverse Change to Archaeological Resources)
Cultural Resources (Potential Disturbance of Human Remains)
Noise (Noise in Excess of Standards)
Noise (Construction Noise)
SUMMARY 3-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Table S-1 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measure Summary Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? Aesthetics Potential for Tree Damage if Trees are Retained AES-1 Trees designated for retention shall be identified on the project plans. All trees to be retained, including those located off-site and adjacent to the project site, shall be protected from inadvertent damage by construction equipment during project construction. The following protection measures shall be implemented: a. wrap trunks of protected trees with protective materials and provide protective fencing at least six feet from the trunk; b. no grading shall be permitted within the fenced tree protection areas, and if the resulting adjacent grading is higher or lower than natural grade at the tree trunk, adequate permanent drainage and root protection shall be provided; c. prohibit soil compaction, parking of vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of construction materials, and/or dumping or storage of materials under the drip line of trees; NO
375 KNOWLES DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-5 Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? d. bridge or tunnel under major roots where exposed. Roots should be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment. Any roots damaged during grading or excavation should be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly; e. if limbs are to be cut from trees, pruning shall be accomplished to preserve an balanced tree form, and in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture’s Best Management Practices for Tree Pruning and ANSI A300 specifications; and, f. additional measures as listed in Section 5 of the Arborist Report prepared for the project. Biological Resources Disturbance of Nesting Birds BIO-1 If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird season, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable NO
SUMMARY 3-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? nesting habitat areas on and adjacent to the site to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of disturbance/construction activities. A report documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is detected during the survey, then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall be prepared to determine and clearly delineate an appropriately-sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 75-250 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with applicable project permits.
375 KNOWLES DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-7 Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Inconsistency with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Plan GHG-1 The applicant shall submit a New Solar Homes Partnership reservation application package for a minimum of 23 of the houses within the proposed project, prior to issuance of building permits. Supporting paper work shall be submitted to the Building Official for verification of participation. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit documentation of completion from either the California Energy Commission or the electric utility company. NO Cultural Resources Potential Adverse Change to Archaeological Resources CR-1 The following language shall be incorporated into the Planned Development Ordinance and included in all permits associated with earth moving activities at the project site: In the event that any potentially significant archaeological resources (i.e., potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources) are NO
SUMMARY 3-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? discovered, the contractor shall stop work within 50 meters (about 160 feet) of the find until the find can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, notification shall be made and appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented with the concurrence of the lead agency. Cultural Resources Potential Disturbance of Human Remains CR-2 If human remains are found during construction activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. NO
375 KNOWLES DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-9 Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Noise Noise in Excess of Standards NOI-1 The project plans shall include a noise barrier along the west property lines of Lots 42, 43, 44, and 45. The project plans shall include a noise barrier along the project site boundary east of Private Drive 1 for approximately 180 feet northward from Knowles Drive. The project plans shall include a noise barrier along the south boundary of Lot 45, and between houses on Lots 38, 39, and 40. These noise barriers shall be no less than nine feet in effective height, with at least two feet of height obtained through berming of the underlying NO
SUMMARY 3-10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? ground, to reduce apparent wall height. The project plans shall include a noise barrier along the project site boundary south of Private Drive 1 for approximately 100 feet west of Capri Drive, and a noise barrier along the north property line of Lots 4, 5, and Private Drive 2. The project plans shall include a noise barrier between houses on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, and between the house on Lot 4 and the northern property line. These noise barriers shall be no less than five feet in height The noise barriers shall be constructed solidly over the face and at the base, with no openings or gaps between barrier materials or the ground. Suitable materials for barrier construction shall have a minimum surface weight of three pounds per square foot (such as one-inch thick wood, masonry block, concrete, or metal). Noise barriers shall match building architecture. Noise Construction Noise NOI-2 The applicant shall observe the following construction noise attenuation measures and practices: • Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; • Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; NO
375 KNOWLES DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-11 Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? • Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where feasible technology exists; • Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent residential land uses; • Locate staging areas and construction material storage areas as far away as possible from adjacent noise sensitive land uses; • Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. A notice shall be sent to residential addresses within 100 feet of the project site boundaries with information on the construction schedule, including how each construction phase relates to potential noise levels; • Designate a "disturbance coordinator" responsible for responding to any local complaints about
SUMMARY 3-12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Environmental Topic Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Number Mitigation Measure Significant Residual Impact? construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule; and • Acoustically shield adjacent sensitive uses from stationary equipment with temporary noise barriers or recycled demolition materials, unless noise monitoring indicates that suitable noise levels may be attained at residential property lines by other methods. Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2013
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-13
Significant Cumulative Effects
Significant cumulative impacts are anticipated in the following areas, but all are mitigated to a
less than cumulatively considerable level by Town policies and/or mitigation measures
presented in Section 3.0 Environmental Effects:
Aesthetics (Potential for Tree Damage if Trees are Retained)
Biological Resources (Potential Disturbance of Nesting Birds)
Cultural Resources (Potential Adverse Change to Archaeological Resources)
Cultural Resources (Potential Disturbance of Human Remains)
Noise (Noise in Excess of Standards)
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. All impacts
from the proposed project can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
G ROWTH I NDUCING E FFECTS
The project site is partially vacant land within an area that is almost completely developed with
urban uses. The proposed project would not induce growth in the area, because the area is
already developed.
A REAS OF C ONTROVERSY
CEQA Guidelines section 15123(b)(2) requires an EIR summary to identify areas of controversy
known to the lead agency including issues raised by agencies and the public. The lead agency is
not aware of any controversial issues relating to the proposed project.
S UMMARY OF A LTERNATIVES
Project alternatives are presented, discussed, analyzed and compared in Section 5.0 Alternatives.
The following project alternatives were analyzed:
3.0 REVISED S UMMARY
3-14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: High Density Residential Project
Alternative 3: Office Development
No Project Alternative
The “no project” alternative assumes that the existing 7,670 square-foot building would be re-
occupied with a medical office use, and the vacant portions of the project site would remain
undeveloped.
High Density Residential Project Alternative
The “High Density Residential Development” alternative would result in development of 82
residential units on the project site, the Town’s estimate of maximum residential site buildout.
The gross density would be 24.5 units per acre. The General Plan land use designation would be
amended to Office Professional, and a Planned Development zoning overlay would be applied.
Office Development Alternative
The “Office Development” alternative would include 70,000 square feet of office space in a one
to two-story building, which is the Town’s estimate for office build-out of the project site at a
floor area ratio of about 0.5. Half of the office space is assumed to be medical office and half is
assumed to be general office. The General Plan land use designation would be amended to
Office Professional.
Comparison of Alternatives
The “no project” alternative is superior in all but one environmental topic area, compared to the
proposed project.
The two remaining alternatives both have multiple topic areas in which they are worse than the
proposed project, and at least one topic area in which they are better than the proposed project.
Most notably, both the “High Density Residential Development” alternative and the “Office
Development” alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s noise impact.
In comparing the two remaining alternatives, the “Office Development” alternative is superior to
the “High Density Residential” alternative in terms of using less water, having no significant
noise impact, and not generating students for schools that are at capacity. The “Office
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-15
Development” alternative is inferior to the “High Density Residential Development” alternative
in that it would result in significant greenhouse gas and traffic impacts. The “Office
Development” alternative meets the Town’s objective to re-develop the project site, but does not
meet the applicant’s objectives of developing housing on the project site. The “High Density
Residential Development” alternative meets both Town and applicant objectives. In balance, the
“Office Development” alternative is the second best alternative after the “no project” alternative.
Table 19, Project Alternatives Summary, in Section 5.0 Alternatives, presents the impact level
for each issue area for each alternative.
3.0 REVISED S UMMARY
3-16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-1
4.0
C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines section 15132 requires that a Final EIR contain either the draft EIR or a
revision of the Draft EIR. This Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR by reference and includes
the revisions to the Draft EIR, as presented on the following pages.
4.2 REFINEMENTS AND C LARIFICATIONS M ADE
This section contains text, tables, and/or graphics from the Draft EIR with changes indicated.
Additions to the text are shown with underlined text (underline) and deletions are shown with
strikethrough text (strikethrough). Explanatory notes in italic text (italic) precede each revision.
Also refer to Section 3.0 Revised Summary for a summary of the Draft EIR that reflects changes
made as a result of the public review process.
Text changes reflecting the revised site plan have been made to the project description section of
the Draft EIR, as identified below, but not to the remainder of the EIR.
To reflect comments by the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Executive, Section 2.0 Project
Description, page 2-1 of the Draft EIR is revised to correct property ownership information.
The project site consists of land owned by under contract to the applicant near the corner of
Knowles Drive and Capri Drive in the Town of Los Gatos, and identified as Assessor’s parcel
number 406-28-039 (formerly a portion of Assessor’s parcel number 406-28-032). The land,
along with an adjacent parcel located at the corner of Knowles Drive and Capri Drive, was
formerly is owned by the County of Santa Clara, as was an adjacent parcel located at the corner
of Knowles Drive and Capri Drive. The project site is situated west of Winchester Boulevard
and north of State Route 85 at the northern end of the Town of Los Gatos, near the Town’s
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
border with the City of Campbell, which runs along West Parr Avenue. Figure 1, Location Map,
identifies the project location. Figure 2, Assessor’s Parcel Map, shows the land included in the
project site.
Section 2.0 Project Description, page 2-2 is revised to correct the zoning on an adjacent property.
The zoning for the land to the north and west is O - Office, and for the land to the northwest the
zoning is R-1:8:PD - Single-Family Residential with Planned Development Overlay. The zoning
for the land to the south is R-1:8 Low Density Residential and RM 5-12:PD - Multi-Family
Residential with Planned Development Overlay, and for the land to the east the zoning is C-1 -
Neighborhood Commercial.
To reflect comments by the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Executive, Section 2.0 Project
Description, page 2-17 of the Draft EIR is revised to correct property ownership information.
The County Health Department used to occupy the office building on the project site and the
County Superior Court used to occupy the building on the adjacent property. These uses were
re-located, and the County sold offered the properties for sale as surplus. The buildings remain
vacant and unused.
To reflect revisions to the site plan, Section 2.0 Project Description, page 2-17 of the Draft EIR is revised to
clarify the project description.
The proposed project is a Planned Development, which is inclusive of a General Plan
Amendment (Public to Office Professional), and a Zone Change (O - Office to O:PD Office with
Planned Development overlay). Tentative Map and Architectural Site applications would follow
approval of the Planned Development. The residential subdivision would result in development
of 45 40-unit single family detached units, inclusive of six five below market price (BMP) units.
To reflect comments by Lee Quintana, Section 2.0 Project Description, page 2-17 of the Draft EIR is
revised to clarify the project approvals, and to remove existing conditions information from the project
description.
The proposed project is a Planned Development, which is inclusive of a General Plan
Amendment (Public to Office Professional), and a Zone Change (O - Office to O:PD Office with
Planned Development o Overlay). The Planned Development is a combined approval that
includes the two separate actions. Tentative Map and Architectural Site applications would
follow approval of the Planned Development. The residential subdivision would result in
development of 45 40-unit single family detached units, inclusive of six five below market price
(BMP) units.
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-3
The project site is zoned O - Office, which is intended to provide a buffer between commercial
and residential uses. Residential uses are allowed in the O - Office zone district with a
conditional use permit. The zoning for the project site would be amended to add a Planned
Development o Overlay to both allow the proposed residential uses and permit exceptions to the
development standards. Town Code Section 29.80.080 states that the intent of the Planned
Development overlay is:
To reflect revisions to the site plan, Section 2.0 Project Description, pages 2-18 through 2-21 of the Draft
EIR, including Figure 8, Site Plan, are revised to clarify the project description (the revised figure is
presented at the end of this section).
Following approval of the Planned Development (inclusive of a General Plan amendment), a
tentative map would be submitted to subdivide the project site into 45 40 residential lots, 10 and
common lots for landscaped ing, common areas and for a private drives street. The 45 40
proposed detached single family units would include six five BMP units. The gross density of the
proposed project would be about 13.5 11.97 units per acre. Excluding the BMP units, the density
would be 11.7 10.48 units per acre. Exclusion of the BMP units from density calculation is
allowed by the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan (see Action HOU-1.1).
There would be access to the proposed project from both Knowles Drive and Capri Drive via a
private roadway, and the residences would be primarily arranged in clusters of four to seven
eight units on a series of courts. The units would include 19 two-story homes arranges on the site
perimeters and 21 three-story homes in the middle of the project. The main private roadway
would be 20 to 24 feet wide and the courts would be 16 to a minimum of 20 feet wide. Parking
would be provided in individual two-car garages, 12 private on-site parking stalls, ten open on
site, and seven street parking stalls on Capri Drive (provided for the benefit of the proposed
project, but also available for use by the general public). Private open space and common area
landscaping would be provided Each home will have a small backyard or sideyard, maintained
by the homeowner. Common open space will include seating, tables, creative play structure, and
an organic garden area. Storm drainage would flow to existing drain lines in Knowles Drive and
Capri Drive. Table 1, Proposed Site Coverage, summarizes the site coverage as shown on the
submitted site plan. Figure 8, Site Plan, shows the proposed layout for the development. Refer
also to the complete development plans, presented in Appendix B.
Architectural Site Review
The proposed project would also require approval of Architectural Site applications for each of
the new residences. The application includes conceptual building elevations, floor plans, and
landscaping plans. The proposed residential units would be two and three stories tall, with
between 1,647 1,985 and 1,908 2,176 square feet of living space plus a two-car garage of 441 460
to 540 552 square feet. The conceptual architectural elevations show stucco exterior walls with
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
some of the walls highlighted with rock façade. The low to medium-pitched roofs feature a short
overhang (most with corbels), and clay tile or shingles. The windows are shown with grids, and
some windows have decorative shutters. Landscaping plans show a variety of trees, shrubs,
groundcovers, and lawn. Refer to the development plans in Appendix B for additional
information.
Table 1 Proposed Site Coverage
Feature Acres Percent Coverage
Buildings and Driveways 0.97 1.09 29.06 33.00
Private Streets and Common Parking 0.89 0.87 26.77 26.00
Landscaping 0.76 22.78
Private Open Space 0.50 0.54 14.83 16.00
Common Open Space 0.22 0.84 6.56 25.00
Total 3.34 3.34 100.00 100.00
Source: Charles W. Davidson Company 20134
A new paragraph is inserted in Section 2.0 Project Description, on page 2-18 to provide details on the
requested zoning exceptions under the Planned Development zoning. This information was included in the
referenced Appendix B.
As part of the Planned Development application the proposed project requests several exceptions
to the O – Office zoning district development standards. The proposed minimum lot size is 1,985
square feet, compared to the standard 8,000 square feet. The proposed project also includes the
following minimum setback reductions: front yard from 25 feet to 15 feet; side yard from ten feet
to seven feet; rear yard from 20 feet to five feet.
To reflect revisions to the site plan, Section 2.0 Project Description, page 2-22 of the Draft EIR, is revised to
clarify the project description.
Develop 39 35 market rate residential units and six five below market price residential units.
To reflect comments by the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Executive, Section 2.0 Project
Description, page 2-22 of the Draft EIR is revised to correct property ownership information.
The Town’s primary objective is the re-development of land formerly owned and occupied by
Santa Clara County for a health services office.
To reflect revisions to the site plan, Figure 11, Noise Mitigation, presented in Section 3.0 Environmental
Effects, on page 3-105 of the Draft EIR, is revised as shown (the revised figure is presented at the end of this
section).
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-5
To illustrate the locations of the intersections studied in the traffic report, the introduction to the study
intersections in Section 3.0 Environmental Effects, on Page 3-114 of the Draft EIR is revised, and new
figure, Figure 12, Traffic Study Intersections, is added (the new figure is presented at the end of this section).
The existing level of service for six study intersections near the project site was calculated. The
existing intersection levels of service are presented in Table 10, Existing Intersection Levels of
Service, and illustrated in Figure 12, Traffic Study Intersections. Each intersection is included in
Figure 3, Project Vicinity, presented earlier. The Town’s level of service standard is LOS D. The
City of Campbell has adopted the same level of service standard as the Santa Clara County
Congestion Management Program (City of Campbell 2001, General Plan Strategy LUT-2.3a).
The 2011 Congestion Management Program establishes a level of service standard of LOS E for
roadways and intersections within the program’s network (Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority 2011, page 32).
Section 3.0 Environmental Effects, page 3-130, Figure 12 is revised to Figure 13 due to a new figure in the
traffic section (the figure is not otherwise modified, and is not presented here).
Groundwater and Water Management. Water supplies in Santa Clara County are managed by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District). Groundwater represents the largest water
source, ranging from approximately 40 to 50 percent of total water use. Treated local and
imported surface water (local run-off and imported) represents the second largest share, from 30
to 38 percent of total water use. The Water District also banks excess import supplies in wet
years as a reserve supply for dry years. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission supplies (from
the Hetch-Hetchy system) represent the third largest share, ranging from 16 to 19 percent of total
water use. Other sources include recycled water, approximately 5 percent, and other non-District
local surface water, approximately 4-5 percent (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2011,
page 2-9). Figure 12 13, Santa Clara Valley Water District Facilities, shows the general location
of major water supply infrastructure in the County. Refer to Section 3.7 Hydrology and Water
Quality for more detailed information on groundwater supplies.
Section 3.0 Environmental Effects, page 3-145, the discussion of less-than-significant land use impacts is
expanded to specifically refer to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G questions.
The proposed project is an in-fill project on a partially developed lot. The proposed project
would not result in the division of a community. The proposed project is consistent with Town of
Los Gatos 2020 General Plan policies concerning land use at the project site. The proposed project
is consistent with policies adopted for the purpose of environmental protection (refer to the
topical sections of the Draft EIR). The proposed project would not conflict with a habitat
management plan (refer to Section 3.3 Biological Resources).
A clarification is added in Section 5.0 Alternatives, page 5-7 regarding noise impacts for the High Density
Residential Development alternative.
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
The “High Density Residential Development” alternative would place residential development
in an area with noise levels that exceed both the state guidelines and the Town’s noise standards.
Specific noise effects on the “High Density Residential Development” alternative would depend
on the project layout, but the higher density project is more likely to have common open space
areas or patios, rather than individual yards. The common open space areas and patios would be
easier to shield from noise, and more shielding would occur from the larger and more
contiguous buildings. The front areas most exposed to noise would more likely be common
landscaped areas, rather than usable privately owned yard space, and the noise standards could
be applied differently to these areas. As with the proposed project, interior noise levels would be
within acceptable standards. Noise impacts from the “High Density Residential Development”
would be less than those of the proposed project.
Section 5.0 Alternatives, page 5-11, Table 19 is revised to correct an error. “PS” (potentially significant) is
changed to “LSM” (less-than-significant with mitigation).
Table 19 Project Alternatives Summary
Environmental
Topic
Proposed
Project
No Project High Density
Residential
Office
Development
Aesthetics LSM NO Better LSM Similar LSM Similar
Air Quality LS LS Better LS Worse LS Worse
Biological LSM NO Better LSM Similar LSM Similar
Greenhouse LS LS Better LS Worse LS Worse
Cultural LSM NO Better LSM Similar PS LSM Similar
Hazards LS LS Worse LS Similar LS Similar
Hydrology LS NO Better LS Similar LS Similar
Noise LSM NO Better LSM Better NO Better
Schools LS NO Better LS Similar NO Better
Transportation LS LS Better LS Similar LSM Worse
Utilities LS LS Better LS Similar LS Similar
Source: EMC Planning Group 2013
Note: NO = No impact; LS = Less than significant; LSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation: SU = Significant and
Unavoidable. Comparisons are to the unmitigated project.
A new Table 20 is added to compare the High Density Residential and Office Development alternatives, and
associated text is added to Draft EIR Section 5.0 Alternatives on page 5-12.
375 K NOWLES D RIVE P LANNED R ESIDENTIAL D EVELOPMENT F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-7
The two remaining alternatives both have multiple topic areas in which they are worse than the
proposed project, and at least one topic area in which they are better than the proposed project.
Most notably, both the “High Density Residential Development” alternative and the “Office
Development” alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s noise impact are compared in
Table 20, High Density Residential and Office Development Alternatives Comparison.
Table 20 High Density Residential and Office Development Alternatives Comparison
Environmental
Topic
High Density Residential Office Development Superior
Alternative
Aesthetics 3-story buildings, tree
removal
2-story buildings, tree
removal, large parking lot
Similar
Air Quality Emissions 17 % of threshold Emissions 20 % of threshold Similar
Biological Removes any resources Removes any resources Similar
Greenhouse GHG emissions 94 % of
threshold
GHG emissions 30 percent
over threshold
HDR
Cultural Potential disturbance Potential disturbance Similar
Hazards No or minimal impacts No or minimal impacts Similar
Hydrology Increased storm run-off Increased storm run-off Similar
Noise Noise levels exceed
residential standards
Noise levels do not exceed
commercial use standards
Office
Schools Students generated No students generated Office
Transportation 43 PM; 426 daily trips 217 PM; 2,170 daily trips HDR
Utilities 31.2 acre-feet of water 8.6 acre-feet of water Office
Source: EMC Planning Group 2014
In comparing the two remaining alternatives, the “Office Development” alternative is superior to
the “High Density Residential” alternative in terms of using less water, having no significant
noise impact, and not generating students for schools that are at capacity. The “Office
Development” alternative is inferior to the “High Density Residential Development” alternative
in that it would result in significant greenhouse gas and traffic impacts.
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
The “Office Development” alternative meets the Town’s objective to re-develop the project site,
but does not meet the applicant’s objectives of developing housing on the project site. The “High
Density Residential Development” alternative meets both Town and applicant objectives. In
balance, because it is superior in three categories and inferior in two, the “Office Development”
alternative is the second best alternative after the “no project” alternative.
A page in the transportation impact analysis is corrected as an addendum to Appendix F, Traffic Report
Revisions.
Source: Charles W. Davidson Co. 2014
Figure 8
375 Knowles Drive Residential Planned Development EIR
Site Plan
100 feet
Knowles Dr.Knowles Dr.Capri Dr.Capri Dr.Capri Dr.Project Site
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
Source: Charles W. Davidson Co. 2014, Illingworth & Rodkin 2013
Figure 11
375 Knowles Drive Residential Planned Development EIR
Noise Mitigation
100 feet
Knowles Dr.Knowles Dr.Knowles Dr.Capri Dr.Capri Dr.Capri Dr.Project Site Noise Barriers
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
Project Site
Knowles Dr.Knowles Dr.Knowles Dr.Capri Dr.Capri Dr.Capri Dr.Winchester B.vd.Winchester B.vd.Winchester Blvd.Division St
.
Division St
.
Division St
.
Vasona Ave.Vasona Ave.Vasona Ave.Dardanelli Ln.Dardanelli Ln.Dardanelli Ln.State R
o
u
t
e
8
5
State R
o
u
t
e
8
5
State R
o
u
t
e
8
5
West Parr Ave.West Parr Ave.West Parr Ave.
Source: Google Earth 2012
Figure 12
375 Knowles Drive Residential Planned Development EIR
Traffic Study Intersections
325 feet Study Intersection Location
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
Pleasanton
4305 Hacienda Drive
Suite 550
Pleasanton, CA
94588-8526
925.463.0611
925.463.3690 fax
Fresno
516 W. Shaw Avenue
Suite 200
Fresno, CA
93704-2515
559.325.7530
559.221.4940 fax
Sacramento
980 Ninth Street
16th Floor
Sacramento, CA
95814-2736
916.449.9095
Santa Rosa
1400 N. Dutton Avenue
Suite 21
Santa Rosa, CA
95401-4643
707.575.5800
707.575.5888 fax
tjkm@tjkm.com
www.tjkm.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 23, 2014
To: Jessy Pu
Town Traffic Engineer
Project No.: 021-094 T006
From: Vishnu Gandluru Jurisdiction: Los Gatos
Subject: Trip generation table correction for a traffic study of the residential development
at 375 Knowles Drive in the Town of Los Gatos
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide correction to trip generation table (Table II on
page number 8) of a traffic study dated October 23, 2013 for the proposed residential
development project to be located at 375 Knowles Drive. This memorandum is also in response
to address comments related to trip generation table as provided by Caltrans staff dated
January 9, 2014.
The trip generation rates for a previous land use - Clinic at the proposed project site are
corrected (shown highlighted) and presented here:
Table I: Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE
Code) Size
Weekday
Daily
AM Peak Hour
(between 7 and 9 a.m.)
PM Peak Hour
(between 4 and 6 p.m.)
Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Previous
Land Use:
Clinic (630)1
7.0 ksf 31.45 220 4.88 * 17 17 34 5.18 15 21 36
Proposed
Project:
Single Family
Detached
Housing (210)
45 d.u. 9.52 428 0.75 8 25 34 1.00 28 17 45
Notes: Source - ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012
1 County mental health building and clinic
* - ITE trip generation manual does not provide AM Peak hour trip rate based on gross floor area and the
rate shown in the table is estimated by employee size based ratio between the a.m. and the p.m. peak hour
generator rates [(0.81/0.86)x5.18 = 4.88].
ksf = 1000 square feet; d.u. = Dwelling Units
It should be noted that no trip discounts were taken for the previous Clinic land use category in
the traffic impact analysis. Thus, the above mentioned trip rate correction does not affect the
traffic analysis results of the subject traffic study report.
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.5-1
5.0
M ITIGATION M ONITORING
AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
5.1 INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring
programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative
declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.
The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of
project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant adverse
environmental effects.
The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures
presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project
approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and
thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and
enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is
designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions
of project approval are implemented.
5.2 MONITORING P ROGRAM
The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the project EIR.
These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental
effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures become conditions of project
approval, which the project proponent is required to complete during and after implementation
of the proposed project.
5.0 MITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
5-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
The attached monitoring program, which begins on the following page, is proposed for
monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures. This monitoring program contains
all appropriate mitigation measures in the environmental impact report.
5.3 MONITORING P ROGRAM P ROCEDURES
The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department is responsible for coordination
of the monitoring program. The Community Development Department should be responsible
for completing the monitoring program and distributing the monitoring program to the
responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation measures.
Each listed responsible individual or agency is responsible for determining whether the
mitigation measures contained in the monitoring program have been complied with. Once all
mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should
submit a copy of the monitoring program with evidence of compliance to the Community
Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been
complied with, the monitoring program should not be returned to the Community Development
Department.
The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department will review the monitoring
program to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures and additional conditions of project
approval included in the monitoring program have been complied with at the appropriate time,
e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Compliance with mitigation measures is required for
project approvals.
If a responsible individual or agency determines that non-compliance has occurred, a written
notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within 10 days, with a copy
to the Community Development Department, describing the non-compliance and requiring
compliance within a specified period of time. If non-compliance still exists at the expiration of
the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the
discretion of the Town of Los Gatos.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: _____
PROJECT: 375 Knowles Drive Residential Planned Development
PD-13-002, GP-13-001
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility
Timing and
Monitoring
3.1 Aesthetics
AES-1. Trees designated for retention shall be
identified on the project plans. All trees to be
retained, including those located off-site and
adjacent to the project site, shall be protected from
inadvertent damage by construction equipment
during project construction. The following
protection measures shall be implemented:
a. wrap trunks of protected trees with
protective materials and provide protective fencing
at least six feet from the trunk;
b. no grading shall be permitted within the
fenced tree protection areas, and if the resulting
adjacent grading is higher or lower than natural
grade at the tree trunk, adequate permanent drainage
and root protection shall be provided;
c. prohibit soil compaction, parking of
vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of
construction materials, and/or dumping or storage of
materials under the drip line of trees;
d. bridge or tunnel under major roots where
exposed. Roots should be cut by manually digging a
trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw,
vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with
sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning
equipment. Any roots damaged during grading or
excavation should be exposed to sound tissue and
cut cleanly;
e. if limbs are to be cut from trees, pruning
shall be accomplished to preserve an balanced tree
form, and in accordance with the International
Society of Arboriculture’s Best Management
Practices for Tree Pruning and ANSI A300
specifications; and,
f. additional measures as listed in Section 5 of
the Arborist Report prepared for the project.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval
Directors of
Community
Development
and Parks and
Public Works
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction
3.3 Biological Resources
BIO-1. If noise generation, ground disturbance,
vegetation removal, or other construction activities
begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to
August 31), or if construction activities are
suspended for at least two weeks and recommence
during the nesting bird season, then the project
developer shall retain a qualified biologist to
conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval
Director of
Community
Development
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans
Monitoring
prior to and
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: _____
PROJECT: 375 Knowles Drive Residential Planned Development
PD-13-002, GP-13-001
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility
Timing and
Monitoring
The survey shall be performed within suitable
nesting habitat areas on and adjacent to the site to
ensure that no active nests would be disturbed
during project implementation. This survey shall be
conducted no more than two weeks prior to the
initiation of disturbance/construction activities. A
report documenting survey results and plan for
active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be
completed by the qualified biologist and submitted
to the Town of Los Gatos for review and approval
prior to disturbance and/or construction activities.
If no active bird nests are detected during
the survey, then project activities can proceed as
scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a
native species is detected during the survey, then a
plan for active bird nest avoidance shall be prepared
to determine and clearly delineate an appropriately-
sized, temporary protective buffer area around each
active nest, depending on the nesting bird species,
existing site conditions, and type of proposed
disturbance and/or construction activities. The
protective buffer area around an active bird nest is
typically 75-250 feet, determined at the discretion of
the qualified biologist and in compliance with
applicable project permits.
To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an
active bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or
construction activities shall occur within the
protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have
fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a
second attempt at nesting, as determined by the
qualified biologist.
during
construction
3.4 Greenhouse Gasses
GHG 1. The applicant shall submit a New
Solar Homes Partnership reservation application
package for a minimum of 23 of the houses within
the proposed project, prior to issuance of building
permits. Supporting paper work shall be submitted
to the Building Official for verification of
participation. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall
submit documentation of completion from either the
California Energy Commission or the electric utility
company.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval
Director of
Community
Development
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: _____
PROJECT: 375 Knowles Drive Residential Planned Development
PD-13-002, GP-13-001
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility
Timing and
Monitoring
3.5 Cultural Resources
CR-1. The following language shall be
incorporated into the Planned Development
Ordinance and included in all permits associated
with earth moving activities at the project site:
In the event that any potentially significant
archaeological resources (i.e., potential historical
resources or unique archaeological resources) are
discovered, the contractor shall stop work within 50
meters (about 160 feet) of the find until the find can
be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If the find
is determined to be significant, notification shall be
made and appropriate mitigation measures shall be
developed and implemented with the concurrence of
the lead agency.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval
Directors of
Community
Development
and Parks and
Public Works
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction
CR-2. If human remains are found during
construction activities, no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until
the archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa
Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that
the remains are Native American, the coroner shall
contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage
Commission shall identify the person or persons it
believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD)
from the deceased Native American. The MLD may
then make recommendations to the landowner or the
person responsible for the excavation work, for
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate
dignity, the human remains and associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code section
5097.98. The landowner or his authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American
human remains and associated grave goods with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native
American Heritage Commission is unable to identify
a MLD or the MLD failed to make a
recommendation with-in 24 hours after being
notified by the commission; b) the descendent
identified fails to make a re-commendation; or c) the
landowner or his authorized representative rejects
the recommend-dation of the descendent, and the
mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval
Director of
Community
Development
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: _____
PROJECT: 375 Knowles Drive Residential Planned Development
PD-13-002, GP-13-001
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility
Timing and
Monitoring
3.8 Noise
NOI-1. The project plans shall include a noise
barrier along the west property lines of Lots 42, 43,
44, and 45. The project plans shall include a noise
barrier along the project site boundary east of
Private Drive 1 for approximately 180 feet
northward from Knowles Drive. The project plans
shall include a noise barrier along the south
boundary of Lot 45, and between houses on Lots 38,
39, and 40. These noise barriers shall be no less than
nine feet in effective height, with at least two feet of
height obtained through berming of the underlying
ground, to reduce apparent wall height. The project
plans shall include a noise barrier along the project
site boundary south of Private Drive 1 for
approximately 100 feet west of Capri Drive, and a
noise barrier along the north property line of Lots 4,
5, and Private Drive 2. The project plans shall
include a noise barrier between houses on Lots 1, 2,
3, and 4, and between the house on Lot 4 and the
northern property line. These noise barriers shall be
no less than five feet in height The noise barriers
shall be constructed solidly over the face and at the
base, with no openings or gaps between barrier
materials or the ground. Suitable materials for
barrier construction shall have a minimum surface
weight of three pounds per square foot (such as one-
inch thick wood, masonry block, concrete, or metal).
Noise barriers shall match building architecture.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval
Director of
Community
Development
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans
NOI-2. The applicant shall observe the following
construction noise attenuation measures and
practices:
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven
equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment;
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines;
• Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors
and other stationary noise sources where feasible
technology exists;
• Locate all stationary noise-generating
equipment, such as air compressors and portable
power generators, as far away as possible from
adjacent residential land uses;
• Locate staging areas and construction
material storage areas as far away as possible from
adjacent noise sensitive land uses;
Required as a
Condition of
Approval
Director of
Community
Development
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: _____
PROJECT: 375 Knowles Drive Residential Planned Development
PD-13-002, GP-13-001
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility
Timing and
Monitoring
• Prepare a detailed construction plan
identifying the schedule for major noise-generating
construction activities. The construction plan shall
identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent
residential land uses so that construction activities
can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. A
notice shall be sent to residential addresses within
100 feet of the project site boundaries with
information on the construction schedule, including
how each construction phase relates to potential
noise levels;
• Designate a "disturbance coordinator"
responsible for responding to any local complaints
about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.)
and shall require that reasonable measures warranted
to correct the problem be implemented.
Conspicuously post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the construction site and
include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding
the construction schedule; and
• Acoustically shield adjacent sensitive uses
from stationary equipment with temporary noise
barriers or recycled demolition materials, unless
noise monitoring indicates that suitable noise levels
may be attained at residential property lines by other
methods.