Loading...
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.