Attachment 36 part 2March 6, 2015 Receive,)
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council MAR - 6 2015
Town of Los Gatos
130 E. Main Street PLAN OF LOS GAT
Los Gatos, CA 95030 N1NG L)"S1ONS
SUBJECT: An Appropriate Cap for Hillbrook's Daily School Year Traffic
Dear Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector, and Council Members Leonardis, Sayoc, and Rennie:
Hillbrook repeatedly told the Council and Planning Commission that it was impossible for the school to
survive with an 880 daily limit on traffic. This is clearly not true. The data released this past Monday
showed that Hillbrook is completely capable of surviving and prospering with a limit of 880 daily trips.
Hillbrook provided data for 106 school days between June 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015. On only 4 of
these days was traffic above 880. These 4 days appear to have been days that would be included among
the 10 exception days. On only 11 of the 106 days was traffic above 840.
Hillbrook may claim that it should not be forced to accept a cap of 880 or lower as a result of the good
work it has done with traffic. The fact is Hillbrook has only now — finally— reduced its traffic to levels
called for by the 2001 CUP. Only now -14 years after the current CUP was approved —has Hillbrook
complied with the agreements it made about traffic.
In 2000 -2001, as now, Hillbrook reduced its traffic levels in an effort to get a new CUP. Once the CUP
was approved, traffic almost immediately increased to previous levels. Within a year of the CUP
approval, Hillbrook was called before the Council to explain why it was exceeding its peak period traffic
caps.
The 2001 CUP placed limits on traffic of 165 exiting cars for morning and afternoon peak periods.
Almost all traffic was supposed to take place within the peak periods. There were a small number of
children in daycare who arrived and left outside of the peak periods, and there were 44 staff members
who were expected to leave campus after 3:45. The original peak period limit was 150; it was increased at
the last minute to allow Hillbrook time to reduce its traffic.
Hillbrook agreed to require every new parent to carpool, and it agreed to institute a busing/vanpooling
program. These things did not happen, and traffic returned to previous levels within a year.
Here's the math that Hillbrook should have been complying with since 2001: Almost all students enter
and exit during the peak periods for a maximum of 660 daily trips. Some children arrive and leave
daycare outside of the peak periods, so let's add 40 trips. In 2001, there were 44 employees. They arrive
during the morning peak period, but they are required to leave after 3:45, so let's add 44 exiting trips.
With some allowance for deliveries and visitors, the daily traffic in the last 14 years should have been
way below 880 daily trips. Without any of the carpooling or busing it was supposed to implement, the
school traffic should have been roughly 800 daily trips.
Hillbrook likes to claim that it has a "right" to the amount of traffic it had in 2011. I disagree with this
claim. Hillbrook had the 2011 level of traffic (1) without requiring parents to use carpooling, busing, or
walking/bicycling; (2) after it had instituted afternoon programming not permitted or foreseen by the 2001
CUP; (3) at a time when it was overenrolled, so was creating additional traffic with extra students; and (4)
had increased employees from 44 to 60.
We have sent Council members numerous scenarios showing how Hillbrook traffic could be far lower
than even 800 daily trips if all parents were required to use busing, carpooling, or walking/bicycling. Our
scenarios show that traffic (with 315 students) can be as low as 256 daily trips; this scenario involves
every student being bused. With carpooling plus busing plus walking/biking, daily trips can be as low as
354. With latitude for carpools having 2 rather than 3 students, daily trips can still be well below 600.
Hillbrook has apparently told at least one Council member that Hillbrook has been decreasing its traffic
since last spring because it was understood that an 880 average was the traffic they would maintain with
an increased enrollment. There certainly could not have been any such understanding. In its May 2014
neighborhood meeting, Hillbrook stated that it would seek a 960 traffic average. At the September 24
Planning Commission meeting, Hillbrook asked for a 960 traffic average with a 1,200 cap. The 880
number was not discussed and approved by the Planning Commission until the October 6 meeting.
Hillbrook says it has "premitigated" so that it can increase its traffic with increased enrollment. But this
"premitigation" has finally produced a more appropriate level of traffic for our neighborhood. We would
like to see this level of traffic maintained.
Now that the data is in front of you, you know what Hillbrook can do WITHOUT mandatory busing,
carpooling, and walking/bicyling. Clearly the school could do more with a mandatory, enforced TDM
program. Please support the neighborhood by requiring Hillbrook to limit its normal daily traffic to no
more than a generous 840 daily trips. This is not greedy. This is a number that is supported by Hillbrook's
own data, the data that Hillbrook had to be forced to share.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson
Jennifer Savage
From:
Barbara Dodson <btdodson @aol.com>
Sent:
Saturday, March 07, 2015 12:26 PM
To:
Marcia Jensen; BSpector, Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc, Rob Rennie
Cc:
Jennifer Savage, Robert Schultz; Laurel Prevetti
Subject:
Request Not to Allow Third Party Use at Hillbrook
Attachments:
Letter.ThirdPartyUse.docx; LMoncharsh.Letter to PC - final. September 24, 2014.pdf
Dear Mayor Jenson, Vice Mayor Spector, and Council Members Leonardis, Sayoc, and Rennie:
I am writing to ask you to follow what the Planning Commission did and prohibit third party use of the Hillbrook campus in
the new CUP Attached are two letters: (1) a letter explaining my point of view on this issue; and (2) a letter written by our
lawyer Leila Moncharsh to the Planning Commission on September 24, 2014. Starting on page 5. Ms. Moncharsh
explains legal reasons why thirid party use of a campus like Hillbrook's is not allowed.
Thank you for your very hard work on the Hillbrook issue.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson
March 7, 2015
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
130 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
SUBJECT: Third -Party Use of the Hillbrook Campus
Dear Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector, and Council Members Leonardis, Sayoc, and Rennie:
During the February 17 Town Council, there was no mention or discussion of Hillbrook's request to
allow third -party use of the campus. The Planning Commission denied this request and prohibited third -
party use — although the Planning Commission condition contains a definition of "third party" that does
not effectively limit use. Our neighborhood group has suggested the following revision:
THIRD PARTY USE/RENTAL/LEASE: Any third party use, rental, and/or lease of
the campus is prohibited, except that Hillbrook School may provide educational
programs for its Academic Year enrolled students or Academic Year staff by
contracting with a third -party instructor to provide services for the programs and by
providing that all enrollment in any such program is counted in Hillbrook's
enrollment cap and any fees for participation in such programs are paid directly to
Hillbrook School.
We ask that Town Council, like the Planning Commission, prohibit third -party use. Hillbrook makes the
argument that `it shouldn't matter what we do on campus so long as we limit traffic.' In fact, it matters
very much what happens on campus if third parties are involved.
General Issues Relating to Third Party Use at Hillbrook
Here are some reasons why third party use at Hillbrook should not be permitted:
• Hillbrook would rent, lease, or otherwise allow use of the campus at times when the campus
would not normally be in use. These times would include periods when neighbors would look
forward to relief from traffic -- winter break, spring break, and vacation periods. Hillbrook has
already demonstrated its clear intention to hold activities outside of normal school days and a
short summer session by hosting tournaments during breaks.
• Hillbrook would not supervise third party activities. No one would be responsible for the actions
of the third parties.
• Third parties would be unfamiliar with the neighborhood's often narrow, windy streets and with
its traffic limits. This would likely lead to speeding and increase the possibility of accidents.
• Third parties would not have been educated into the rules of the neighborhood roads, which
involve the lower traffic limits and stop signs, and would not have been educated about where to
park.
• Third parties would not be part of any traffic mitigation program.
• Third -party uses would not be part of a regular schedule. Neighbors would not know when to
anticipate the traffic that these uses would create.
According to our lawyer, Leila Moncharsh, who works in Oakland where private schools similar to
Hillbrook are located, third party uses created problems for neighborhoods there. One school, Head
Royce, for example, was doing third party rentals — calling them "partnerships" as Hillbrook has done.
According to Ms. Moncharsh, third party use was very disruptive for the neighborhood due to the noise,
lack of supervision by the school, and the traffic problems. People would come to campus for what
seemed like legitimate uses, but regardless of what the stated purpose was for use of the property, would
end up having parties. Events would take place at night, and people would drive around not even knowing
where they were or where to park. The participants did not know the traffic rules, and so they would make
U -turns, speed around the neighborhood, and park wherever they felt like. They would come out of the
events late at night and make lots of noise going back to their cars. The school made money from the
events, and so it had no incentive to stop them.
Ms. Moncharsh and a community group complained to the city, and the city planner forced Head Royce
to stop because the school did not have a community activity permit.
In our own case, as has been mentioned to you frequently, Hillbrook has rented its campus to many
groups since 2009. Notably, it rented its campus to Steve & Kate's Camp during summer 2011; along
with the 900 campers at that camp, there were additional children in Breakthrough Silicon Valley and
Hillbrook's own camps. The enormous and uninterrupted traffic during that summer ruined the summer
for residents. Third party uses by the Santa Fe Leadership Center, Saso High School Prep, Way to Go
Foundation, and others also created extra traffic. The third party Breakthrough Silicon Valley program
doubles the amount of summer traffic residents were used to before 2009 and extends the hours and
weeks of campus use —and thus traffic— beyond what had previously been seen as acceptable. While
these uses were occurring, Hillbrook gave no notice to the neighborhood about when to expect extra
traffic and how much extra traffic to anticipate.
Please use the experiences at Head -Royce as well as our own experiences with third party uses to inform
your decision making. Please help the Marchmont neighborhood avoid the problems that occur when a
JK -8 school allows third parties to use its campus.
Legal Issues Relating to Third Party Use at Hillbrook
On September 23, 2014, Ms. Moncharsh sent a letter to the Planning Commission in which she discussed
why allowing third party uses would not even be legal. That letter is the second attachment to my cover
email. Ms. Moncharsh's discussion of third party use begins on page 5. In that discussion, Ms. Moncharsh
writes that "the staff correctly advised the Planning Commission against granting the request (to allow
"adult education to a general audience" and third party uses in general). Please see the letter for details.
Here are some of the main points in Ms. Moncharsh's letter:
• Hillbrook's request to allow third party uses would not be permitted under the zoning code or
would require a different CUP.
• The grant of the use permit to include third party rentals is inconsistent with the zoning code and
the General Plan.
• The grant of the use permit to include third party rentals would violate CEQA. "(T)he project
would require at least a supplemental EIR to discuss the inconsistencies between the General Plan
and allowing the Hillbrook facility to be leased by third parties."
Included in Ms. Moncharsh's letter is the table from the Town Code specifying what uses are and are not
permitted in an HR -1 zone unless there is a CUP.
Finally, I ask that the new CUP define Hillbrook as a "JK -8 private school," not broadly as "an
educational institution." The broader definition, I believe, leaves room for the school to use its campus for
purposes other than the education of JK -8 students. Here is Hillbrook's own definition of itself from its
2011 tax filing: " Hillbrook School is an independent junior kindergarten through 8d' grade school whose
program uniquely balances academic rigor with a humanistic approach to learning."
Thank you for your incredibly hard work on this issue
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson
LAW OFFICES
VENERUSO & MONCHARSH
DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.'09) 5707 REDWOOD RD., STE 10
LEILA H. MONCHARSH OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619
TELEPHONE (510) 482 -0390
FACSIMILE (510) 482 -0391
September 23, 2014
Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Conditional Use Permit U -12 -002: EIR 13 -001 — Hillbrook School
Dear Commissioners:
My law firm was retained by LG CATS to review the staff report and submit
comments to your commission regarding Hillbrook School's ( Hillbrook) application to
increase its enrollment. I am a land use attorney with a master's degree in urban planning.
Over the last 20 years, I have periodically analyzed projects where private schools have
sought agency permits for their expansion plans. The staff report demonstrates a high
level of planning skill, negotiations between Hillbrook and its neighbors, and some
understanding by the planner of the different stakeholders' needs.
In this correspondence, I will focus on the "averages" in car trip conditions 9 and
10, and on the use of the Hillbrook property for leasing and renting (condition 7).
(Exhibit 7 CUP proposed conditions). In my experience both of these requests are
problematic as they invite conflict and problems between private schools and surrounding
residents. I recommend modifying the proposed condition so that the traffic vehicle
count number is set at a specific number, not averaged, and denying Hillbrook's
request to rent or lease to third parties.
A. Background Information
As with many private schools in Northern California, there has been growing
interest by parents wishing to enroll their children in Hillbrook, as opposed to public
schools. To stay competitive with other private schools, and take advantage of that
increased interest, Hillbrook has intensified the use of its campus, especially over the last
14 years. A quick review of the permit issuance history in the staff report demonstrates
that in the 1980s there were only two Hillbrook requests for permits, none in the 1990s,
and then five permits were issued between 2001 and 2007. In 2012, neighbors raised
concerns about Hillbrook's compliance with its use permit and requested that the Town
investigate various compliance issues. (Staff report, p. 4.) On page 11 of the staff report,
the planner reported that during the EIR comment period, she verified that "in the past,
Hillbrook School did exceed their enrollment limits" under their use permit.
The above history is very familiar as it is almost identical with problems posed by
several private schools in the Oakland area. Expanding private schools in residential
neighborhoods present challenges that are not immediately apparent to planning
Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Hillbrook School
September 23, 2014
Page 2
commissioners. In the early part of the last century, most schools were "neighborhood-
serving." Children walked, or rode bikes or busses to their school, which was typically
not more than half an hour's ride from their homes. Residents not only used the local
schools around them, but they did not mind the traffic since it was fairly limited.
The older school model is no longer true with Northern California private schools,
which often compete for students outside of their own city or town boundaries. It is not
unusual for busy parents to come speeding through a neighborhood with one child in the
car, drop them off, and then speed back out of the neighborhood. In the competition for
more students, the areas immediately around private schools become saturated and in
order to attract more students, the school is forced to seek increased enrollment from
considerable distances, which then invites more single occupancy vehicle trips.
Another difference is the management model that applies to private schools. Gone
are the days when the school master lived on the campus and stood outside making sure
that the parents and children all behaved properly as they came and left the school.
Private school upper management is not answerable to a superintendent of the school
district or a school district board. The head -of- school is generally completely in charge of
day to day operations with little to no oversight. The board of trustees is limited to
"making policy decisions" and even if the head is a poor manager, their only recourse is
to fire him or her, under the school's bylaws. The board of trustees often consist of busy,
professional parents who leave the board after two or three years, which does not allow
for the kind of continuity that is necessary to really oversee operations, even if the bylaws
allowed them to do so.
By increasing enrollment, the school then increases the amount of often speeding
traffic in the morning and afternoon, the length of time for drop -off and pick -up, the
number of deliveries including the size of trucks and hours of deliveries, the number of
events, the number of staff, and the amount of noise that is experienced by the residents.
Poor management and a disinterest in the residential community around the school all
add to the school's incursion into the residential part of the neighborhood. The school in
effect "institutionalizes" the neighborhood, which defeats the General Plan goals and
policies for the residential zone.
Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Hillbrook School
September 23, 2014
Page 3
B. Traffic Management Planning Requires Using a Set Number of Vehicle
Trips, and Not Relying on "Averages"
1. The TDM Is Vague and Without Specifics; Therefore, the School Is
Not Required to Comply with Any Specific Permit Conditions Related
to the TDM
The Nelson Nygaard Transportation Design Management Plan (TDM), dated
September 14, 2012 correctly identifies a number of disincentives for parents to use
transportation methods, other than taking one or two children to Hillbrook in a car. They
include:
1. The cost of the shuttle in the form of an annual fee that is tacked on to the
already high cost of the tuition at over $28,000 per student. (TDM, pp. 2, 8,
10.)
2. Children who are too young for public transportation (TDM, p. 4.)
3. Parents wishing to have flexibility and independence (TDM, p. 8.)
4. After school activities (TDM, p. 8, 10.)
5. Inconvenient shuttle stops and slower shuttle rides than car rides (TDM p. 9.)
6. Distance between home and school is too long to walk or bike (TDM p. 9.)
The list is consistent with what we could guess using common sense will occur
when you ask busy professional parents to choose between taking children to school in
their own cars on the way to work versus using a different method. However, then the
TDM fails to provide specific solutions which can be included in conditions of approval.
For example, on page 14 of the TDM, the authors recommend "lower shuttle prices."
However, that is not an incentive to ride the shuttle and it is vague — how much lower ?"
An example of an incentive that would cause parents to put their children on the shuttle
would include a five or ten percent reduction in the tuition charge in exchange for a
commitment to use the shuttle.
Incentives also tend to work best when both the parent and child are rewarded for
using a shuttle, bus, or carpool. A discount at the school store, free tickets to sports
events, a surprise gift after riding a certain number of times on the shuttle would be
examples of incentivizing the child to turn down rides from parents and use the shuttle,
bus or carpool. None of these incentives are in the conditions, and they should be.
Missing from the TDM is a GIS map showing with dots where all of the students
live. If they all live in Los Gatos, there should not be any reason why bike, walking,
Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Hillbrook School
September 23, 2014
Page 4
shuttle service, and public transportation are not sufficient for their transportation needs.
Because that information is missing, there is no inclusion in the conditions of required
pick -up and drop -off locations for the shuttle. Nor is there any evidence in the TDM of a
carpool system that is specific enough to include in the conditions of approval.
On page 16 of the TDM, the authors suggest that Hillbrook requires flexibility to
adjust shuttle sizes and routes. However, a condition of approval could require that the
school produce a firm TDM now and provide any adjustments to the planner for review
and approval. That would be an administrative task and not normally require a new
permit. Yet, it is left up to Hillbrook as to how it chooses to adjust the shuttle sizes and
routes.
Similarly, the suggestions regarding increasing carpool use are not mandatory. An
example of a condition that would make them mandatory would require that Hillbrook
include in its contract with each parent an agreement as to how their child will arrive and
leave school 90% of the time, and that at least 40% of all parents must contract to use a
carpool as a condition of enrollment at the school. (The numbers are random for purposes
of the example.) I understand that the Head of School in 2001 promised the Town and
neighbors in writing that, "We are informing each new family to Hillbrook that we expect
that they will carpool as a part of their acceptance to the school." By now, Hillbrook
should be a 100% carpooling school.
The result of a weak TDM is evident in the number of vehicle trips allowed under
the proposed conditions. 480 vehicle trips each way appears to represent little use of non-
auto transportation. A good TDM should reduce that number significantly by at least a
third, assuming strong recommendations contained in use permit conditions.
2. Given the Weak TDM and No Specific Auto Trip Reducing
Conditions, Averaging the Trips Compounds the Traffic Problems
In Oakland, Bentley School's use permit includes an "averaging" condition very
similar to proposed Condition number 9. Our experience has been that instead of focusing
on reducing car trips to and from the campus, the school focuses on "gaming the
averages." All it takes to bring the school into compliance with the average vehicle trip
count cap is for the school to have a half -day or a closed day of school to bring itself into
compliance. The neighbors are unhappy because they see the daily violations and then
complain to the planner that the average count does not adequately reflect the negative
impact on their neighborhood from excessive car trips. It would have been far better to
have a set number for the school to use as a "no more cars" rule that it must comply with
than the averaging method.
Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Hillbrook School
September 23, 2014
Page 5
Here, the use permit condition does not meet the real goal of reducing car trips
and it allows for increasing the traffic impacts on the neighborhood. The neighbors were
already complaining that the number of cars entering and leaving their neighborhood was
inconsistent with a residential, single - family neighborhood. To add another 99 student
load on this one neighborhood is inconsistent with the Los Gatos General Plan goals and
policies:
Goal LU -1: To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in
residential neighborhoods
Policy LU -6.1: Protect existing residential areas from the impacts of non-
residential development
Policey LU -6.2: Allow non - residential activity in residential areas only when the
character and quality of the neighborhood can be maintained.
C. The Planning Department's Advice to Refuse Third Party Use, Rent, or
Lease of Hillbrook's Facility Is Correct (Condition 7)
1. Hillbrook's Request Would Not be Permitted Under the
Zoning Code or Would Require A Different CUP
Hillbrook's request to use the school facility for events outside the immediate
school community comes up twice in the staff report: page 13 — Hillbrook's request to
provide "adult education to a general audience" and on pages 16 -17 — Third Party Uses.
In both instances, the staff correctly advised the Planning Commission against granting
the request. These two requests are not consistent with the permit application and if
granted, would further add to the deterioration of the surrounding residential
neighborhood due to traffic.
I have attached the Los Gatos Municode, section 29.20.185. While I was unable
to find a code definition for "school," the code does indicate the types of uses allowed in
each area of the town. The closest category that matches allowing a nonprofit or business
to offer services to the general public would be "Community Services" and the specific
use would probably be "community center." If the rentals involved outdoor activities, it
might fall within "park." It also might qualify under the general category "Recreation"
and the specific category "commercial recreation and amusement establishment" if
Hillbrook intended to rent to organizations claiming to offer, for example, summer day
camps for children. The later category is not permitted at all in the area of the school and
the other two categories require a CUP.
Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Hillbrook School
September 23, 2014
Page 6
According to section 29.20.190, attached, Hillbrook would have to show that the
"proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone" and that they
would not be detrimental to the general welfare. The uses would also have to be in
harmony with the General Plan. Given that Hillbrook is already causing traffic
congestion for the neighborhood, it seems highly unlikely that it could meet these criteria.
2. The Grant of the Use Permit to Include Third Party Rentals Is
Inconsistent With the Zoning Code and the General Plan
As shown above, Hillbrook's request for use of its facility by third parties would
fall under a different zoning code activity designation than the designation for a school,
and the request does not meet the findings in section 29.20.190. The request is also
inconsistent with the General Plan goals and policies, listed above and on page 20 of the
staff report detailing the importance of preserving a good quality of life for the residents
living around the school.
3. The Grant of the Use Permit to Include Third
Party Rentals Would Violate CEQA
An environmental impact report (EIR) must "discuss any inconsistencies between
the proposed project and applicable general plans ..." (California Code of Regulations,
section 15125, subdivision (d).) Chapter 4, "Land Use and Planning" in the Draft EIR
(DEIR) does not cover the inconsistencies between the General Plan goals and policies
listed on page 20 of the staff report and the proposed use of the Hillbrook facility by
tenants or other third parties. There is no specific project description for this use and no
evaluation of the potential traffic impacts from allowing the use. (Endangered Habitats
League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.AppAth 777. Therefore, the project
would require at least a supplemental EIR to discuss the inconsistencies between the
General Plan and allowing the Hillbrook facility to be leased by third parties.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Very truly yours,
Leila H. Moncharsh, J.D., M.U.P.
Veneruso & Moncharsh
LHM:lm
cc: LG CATS
Municode Page 1 of 10
Sec. 29.20.145. Approval required.
Architecture and site approval is required in all zones for the following
(1) New construction of any principal building;
(2) An exterior alteration that changes the architectural style of a single - family and two -
family residence.
(3) Any exterior alteration or addition to a building excluding:
a. Alterations or additions to a single and two family dwelling that do not require
approval by the Planning Commission or Development Review Committee
pursuant to the Residential Design Guidelines or the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines;
b• Minor exterior alterations to commercial and multifamily buildings.
(4) Intensification of land use. For the purposes of this section only, intensification of land
use means all changes in use which require more parking and /or results in an
increase in peak hour trips for mixed use, multi tenant commercial, industrial or
multifamily development projects if the trips exceed the traffic generation factor
assigned to the project at the time of approval and /or an increase of five (5) or more
peak hour trips;
(5) Residence conversions;
(6) Any development in a floodplain as required by article IX of this chapter;
and as otherwise specified in this article.
(OM. No. 1316, § 5.20.030,6-7-76; Ord. No. 1328,8-2-76, Ord. No. 1493,3-17-81; Ord. No. 1521, 11 -2 -81; Ord.
No. 1680, 3- 17 -86; Ord. No. 1736, 10- 19 -87; Ord. No. 1763, § lll, 10 -3 -88; Ord. No. 1815, § 111, 3- 19 -90; Ord. No.
1832, § 1, 7.16 -90: Ord. No. 2149. § I, 5 -1 -06)
Sec, 29,20.180. Conditional use permits.
The adoption of this chapter is based on the premise that there are uses which can be
specified for each zone which, in practically all instances, will be mutually compatible. In addition,
there are other uses which might be compatible with ordinarily allowed uses if properly located and
regulated. These are called conditional uses. They are listed in section 29.20.185. However, the
listing of a conditional use does not indicate that the use must be allowed. There will be locations or
instances where a specified conditional use is inappropriate in a zone regardless of the extent of
regulation.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 5.20.200. 6 -7 -76; Ord. No 1363, 8 -1 -77)
.* t Sec. 29.20.185. Table of conditional uses.
An "X" indicates that an activity is allowed in a zone if a conditional use permit is issued.
Activities listed in this table are only allowed where a conditional use permit is Issued, or where the
activity is specifically listed in the permitted uses for the zone.
https:// Iibrary. municode. com/ print, aspx? h= &clientlD= 11760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a %2f... 9/6/2014
Municode
Page 2 of 10
https:// library. municode.com / print. aspx? h= &clientlD =l l 760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a %2f... 9/6/2014
Banks
b.
avin s and loan office
X
C..
rive -up window for
X
n business
d.
u ermarket
X
u er drugstore
X
e artment store
X
ho in center
X
h.
otel
i.
Hotel
j.
Restaurant including
X
x
X
hose with outdoor
fining areas or takeout
food
k.
Establishment selling
alcoholic beverages for
consumption on
remises
I . In
conjunction
X
ith a restaurant
Z.
Without food
ervice bar
I.
stablishment selling
X
alcoholic beverages for
onsumption off -
remises (this
rovision only applies
o establishments
ommencing or
xpanding off - premises
ales after April 23,
1981
m.
onvenience market
X
n.
ormula retail business
o.
7ormula retail business
greater than 6,000 s.f.
p.
lersonal service
usinesses (as set forth
n section 29.60.320
q.
4ew office building
X
pproved or
onstructed after May
2006
r.
ew retail sales of
firearms, ammunition
nd /or destructive
evices as set forth in
ection 29.70.100
2
Recreation
�p
a.
Zommerciat recreation
X
dh
and amusement
stablishment
b.
heater
C.
utdoor
entertainment
d.
wimming pool for
x
X
K
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
on- incidental use
x
K
x
x
x
x
https:// library. municode.com / print. aspx? h= &clientlD =l l 760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a %2f... 9/6/2014
Municode
Page 3 of 10
https:// library. municode.com /print.aspx ?It= &clientID= 11760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a° /u2£.. 9/6/2014
Private sports
[recreation club
f.
olf course
x
Ix
3
Community Sery ices
a.
1b tic building; police,
communi
X
X
X
X
enter, library, art
museum
dge, hall,
X
X
Ta al or anization
, monastery,
X
X
X
t, and other
nstitutions for
eli sous observance
d.
Aortuary,
X
olumbarium,
ausoleum
ublic transportation
X
X
and parking facilities
ar plaza,
X
X
X
la round
R.
on rofit youth arows
4
Schools
a.
Public schools or
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
X
ollege not otherwise
ecified
b.
rivate school or
x
x
K
X
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
ollege not otherwise
pecified; including a
ew private school or
ollege to be located
n grounds or within
uildings formerly
ccupied by a public
chool
C.
4ursery school /day
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
are center, provided
hat each shall be on a
ite not less than
0,000 square feet in
rea and in a building
of less than 2,000
quare feet in floor
rea
d.
mall family day care
X
ome
e.
arge family day care
Oome
f.
Vocational or trade
x
x
X
chool
g.
usiness or
X
X
rofessional school or
olle e
h.
rt, craft, music,
X
�Jancjng
school
5
Health Services
a.
os ital
https:// library. municode.com /print.aspx ?It= &clientID= 11760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a° /u2£.. 9/6/2014
Municode
Page 4 of 10
https:// library. municode .com /print.aspx ?h= &clientID= 11760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a %2f... 9/6/2014
b.
[Convalescent hospital
C.
lesidential care
acility -small family
ome
d.
lesidentiat care
K
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
acility -large family
ome
e.
esidential care
K
x
x
x
x
X
acid rou home
(6)
Transmission
Facilities /Utilities
a.
ubltc utility service
ard, station,
ransmission lines,
torage tank, drainage
r communication
acilities
b.
kntenna facilities
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
Aerated by a public or
rivate utility for
ransmitting and
eceiving cellular
elephone and other
reless
ommunications
r
C.
adio and /or
roadcast studios
(7)
Automotive (Vehicle sales,
ervice and related
activities
a.
4ew vehicle sales and
ental
b.
Jsed vehicle sales only
ncidentat to new
ehicle sales and
ental
C.
lehicle tires and
ccessories, sales,
bervicing, reca in
d.
ehicle body repair
nd aintin
ehicle repair and
x
X
ervice ara e
f.
ervice station
X
9.
arking lots or storage
arages, not accessory
o another use
h. ICar
wash
ruck terminal
lternating use of
X
X
K
x
x
X
ffstreet parking
aces
k.
ecreational vehicle
x
X
nd equipment storage
and
X
X
https:// library. municode .com /print.aspx ?h= &clientID= 11760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a %2f... 9/6/2014
Municode
Page 5 of 10
https://Iibrary.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=l 1760&HTMRequest--https%3 a %2f... 9/612014
emporary auto
torage for automobile
eaters
M.
arking lots that serve
nearby commercial
se located on a
reviously unimproved
roperty in the R -1:12
one on an arterial
treet
8
Residential
Uses
a.
One-family dwelling
X
b.
[rwo-fami[v dwettine
X
x
x
X
C.
ultiple- family
x
X
x
x
X
wellin
d,
Ooardinghouse
x
x
x
X
e.
IADartment hotel
f.
obile home park
g.
esidential
x
x
X
ondominium
h.
aretaker residence
eserved
Iwnership
onversion of a mobile
ome park to
ondominium
k.
ive /work units
X
(9)
Agriculture and Animal
Services
a.
otanical nursery
x
x
x Ix
Ix
Ix
b.
)airving
C.
leterinary hospital
x
x
X
without kennel
d.
ennel
e.
ommercial and
rivate stables and
iding academies
f.
fineries that have
een legally and
ontinuously operating
or at least 50 years or
s operated in
onjunction with a
ne and
g.
viaries and other
holesaling animal-
atsine facilities
h.
ineyards, orchards,
nd agricultural or
arming activities
reater than 3,000 s.f.
(IVI
Li ht Industrial
rge recycling
ollection facilities
b. 11
arge recycling
X
x
X
Foltection facilities
Ix
https://Iibrary.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientlD=l 1760&HTMRequest--https%3 a %2f... 9/612014
Municode
Page 6 of 10
(Ord. No. 1316, § 5.20.205, 6 -7 -76; Ord. No. 1363, 8 -1 -77, Ord. No. 1367,9-19-77, Ord. No. 1369, 10.3.77, Ord.
No. 1375, 11- 21 -77, Ord. No. 1405, 9 -5 -78; Ord. No, 1417, 2- 20 -79; Ord. No. 1476, 9- 15.80; Ord. No. 1483, 12 -2-
80; Ord. No. 1493, 3.17 -81; Ord. No. 1506, 7 -6 -81; Ord. No. 1531, 4.20 -82; Ord. No. 1546, 8- 16 -82; Ord. No. 1555,
10- 25-82; Ord. No. 1571, 3 -7 -83; Ord. No. 1596, 10- 24 -83; Ord. No. 1654, 4- 22 -85; Ord. No. 1667, 12 -2 -85; Oro'.
No. 1701, 12 -1586; Ord, No. 1724, 5 -18 -8T Ord. No. 1725, 6 -1 -87, Ord. No. 1729, 6- 15 -87; Ord. No. 1732, 7 -20-
87; Ord, No. 1737, § V, 11 -2 -87; Ord. No. 1746, 3- 21 -88; Ord. No. 1835. § Ill, 7- 16 -90; Ord. No. 1842, § 11, 4 -1 -91:
Ord. No. 1896, § 1, 4 -6 -92; Ord. No. 1961, § I, 11- 15-93; Ord. No. 1993, § 1, 1 -3 -95; Ord. No. 2006, § IIA, 11 -6 -95;
Ord. No. 2011, § 1, 3 -4 -96; Ord. No. 2107, § ll, 11 -4-02; Ord. No. 2115, § 111, 9 -1503; Ord. No. 2131, § 1, 5 -3 -04:
Ord. No. 2132, § It, 5- 17 -04; Ord. No. 2149, § 1, 51 -06; Ord. No. 2220, § I(Exh. A), 10 -7 -13, Ord. No. 2222, §I(Exh.
A), 10- 21 -13)
Sec. 29.20.190. Findings and decision.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of this chapter if it finds
that:
(1)
The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public
convenience or welfare;
(2) The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general
welfare; and
The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter.
A hazardous waste facility proposal is subject to the California Health and Safety
Code, Article 8.7, Section 25199 - 25199,14 and shall be consistent with the Santa
(5)
Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
(b) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a
conditional use permit for a formula retail business or a personal service business if any of
the following findings are made:
(1)
https:H library. municode .com /print.aspx ?h= &clientID= 11760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a %2£.. 9/6/2014
perated by a public
en
c.
ui ment rental and
X
d.
onstruction materials
and
e.
ulk fuel storage and
ales
f.
cleaning plants
X
9.
azardous waste
ana ement facility
11
Other
a.
utdoor storage
b.
hanging the activity
X
X
x
x
X
X
x
X
x
x
X
n a nonconforming
uildin
C.
4 hour businesses or
x
X
usinesses open
etween the hours of
:00 a.m. and 6:00
.m.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 5.20.205, 6 -7 -76; Ord. No. 1363, 8 -1 -77, Ord. No. 1367,9-19-77, Ord. No. 1369, 10.3.77, Ord.
No. 1375, 11- 21 -77, Ord. No. 1405, 9 -5 -78; Ord. No, 1417, 2- 20 -79; Ord. No. 1476, 9- 15.80; Ord. No. 1483, 12 -2-
80; Ord. No. 1493, 3.17 -81; Ord. No. 1506, 7 -6 -81; Ord. No. 1531, 4.20 -82; Ord. No. 1546, 8- 16 -82; Ord. No. 1555,
10- 25-82; Ord. No. 1571, 3 -7 -83; Ord. No. 1596, 10- 24 -83; Ord. No. 1654, 4- 22 -85; Ord. No. 1667, 12 -2 -85; Oro'.
No. 1701, 12 -1586; Ord, No. 1724, 5 -18 -8T Ord. No. 1725, 6 -1 -87, Ord. No. 1729, 6- 15 -87; Ord. No. 1732, 7 -20-
87; Ord, No. 1737, § V, 11 -2 -87; Ord. No. 1746, 3- 21 -88; Ord. No. 1835. § Ill, 7- 16 -90; Ord. No. 1842, § 11, 4 -1 -91:
Ord. No. 1896, § 1, 4 -6 -92; Ord. No. 1961, § I, 11- 15-93; Ord. No. 1993, § 1, 1 -3 -95; Ord. No. 2006, § IIA, 11 -6 -95;
Ord. No. 2011, § 1, 3 -4 -96; Ord. No. 2107, § ll, 11 -4-02; Ord. No. 2115, § 111, 9 -1503; Ord. No. 2131, § 1, 5 -3 -04:
Ord. No. 2132, § It, 5- 17 -04; Ord. No. 2149, § 1, 51 -06; Ord. No. 2220, § I(Exh. A), 10 -7 -13, Ord. No. 2222, §I(Exh.
A), 10- 21 -13)
Sec. 29.20.190. Findings and decision.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of this chapter if it finds
that:
(1)
The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public
convenience or welfare;
(2) The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general
welfare; and
The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter.
A hazardous waste facility proposal is subject to the California Health and Safety
Code, Article 8.7, Section 25199 - 25199,14 and shall be consistent with the Santa
(5)
Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
(b) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a
conditional use permit for a formula retail business or a personal service business if any of
the following findings are made:
(1)
https:H library. municode .com /print.aspx ?h= &clientID= 11760 &HTMRequest= https %3 a %2£.. 9/6/2014
Jennifer Savage
To:
Subject:
Tara Moseley
RE: Hillbrook CUP Application
From: Tara Moseley <taradmoseley(a?vahoo.com>
Subject: Hillbrook CUP Application
Date: March 7, 2015 at 7:43:59 AM PST
To: miensen(a)losgatosca.gov, bspector(ailosgatosca.gov,
msavoc(a)losgatosca.gov, rrennie(c)losgatosca.gov
Cc: isavage a(�losgatos.gov, Iprevetti(c)losaatosca.gov
sleonardisOlosgatosca.gov,
Dear Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector, and Council Members Leonardis, Sayoc, and Rennie:
First, I would like to extend a sincere THANK YOU to Council members for the time and attention you have
given to our issues regarding the Hillbrook CUP Application. I would also like to thank you for your time spent
in analyzing all the documentation and testimony to come up with well thought out conditions for the new CUP,
including: a daily maximum traffic cap; focused study of the use of Ann Arbor/Wollin for pedestrian, bike, and
car traffic; requirement that shuttle stops be approved as safe and suitable by the Parks and Public Works
Department; summer use limited to six contiguous weeks; real -time posting of traffic counts accessible to the
public; summer use limited to students enrolled at Hillbrook during the academic year; no pickup or drop -off on
neighborhood streets.
Second, I would like to kindly request that you consider the following points when continuing your
deliberations on March 17, 2015:
Hillbrook has repeatedly said it would not increase traffic if it increased enrollment. They should be held
to this promise and not go above the current levels of traffic.
The fall and winter levels of traffic were reached without a mandatory TDM plan. The traffic levels
could be even lower if a mandatory plan were put in place (i.e. Require grades 5 -8 to ride the bus in the
morning).
An 880 maximum daily traffic limit is completely reasonable considering the data set.
Even with an 880 maximum daily traffic limit, Marchmont Drive, and the surrounding neighborhood
streets, will continue to experience what the TIRE Index calls a "significantly impaired residential
environment." That's because upper Marchmont on its own generates roughly 324 residential home
owner trips per day. According to TIRE, the "significantly impaired residential environment" occurs
when there are more than 890 daily on a residential street. When you add 324 to 880, you already
get an unreasonable amount of traffic for a residential street.
Monetary penalties should be much greater than originally proposed by Mayor Jensen, to guarantee
compliance with a maximum daily traffic limit.
Thank you for reading this letter, and thank you for your service!
Kind regards,
Tara Moseley
Environmental Engineer
Los Gatos Resident
Jennifer Savage
From: donna.waIlerstein @comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 1:04 PM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Cc: Jennifer Savage; Laurel Prevetti; mike.wasserman @bos.sccgov.org
Subject: Hillbrook CUP deliberation
March 7th, 2015
Dear Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector and Council Members Leonardis, Sayoc and Rennie:
As residents of Marchmont Drive for the last nearly 6 years, we can attest to the daily traffic that Hillbrook school causes our otherwise relatively
navigable neighborhood. We have very real concerns about safety for all of the residents of the neighborhood and for the children at Hillbrook
who will be virtually trapped in the event of a disaster. Putting more children at the end of a one -way street is a terrible plan of action. There are
at least 3 physicians who live on Marchmont Drive and we all know that in the event of a disaster, panic will ensue. Willfully endangering lives
is not in the best interest of any plan, either for Hillbrook, Los Gatos or the residents of Marchmont Drive and the surrounding neighborhoods.
Hillbrook simply should not be allowed to increase its enrollment at all. Hillbrook should be required to strictly mitigate the amount of traffic that
they cause at all times, whether during the school year or outside the school year. Hillbrook should be held accountable for the use of their
property by third parties so that neighborhood safety is maintained to the best of our ability at all times.
We are aware that neighbors on Ann Arbor are vehemently opposed to opening the gate on their side of Hillbrook and have threatened to sue
to keep the gate closed. In the event of a disaster, if even one child could be proven to have been injured due to slowed emergency response,
the lawsuits that would occur would dwarf the threats of the neighbors. Having a plan to open the gate in the event of an emergency does not
count the time it may take to find the person with the key or the time it will take emergency personnel to break the gate down. In an emergency,
seconds count. Putting more children at the end of a one -way street is a liability for the town of Los Gatos. And since part of our neighborhood
is not the town of Los Gatos, but is the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara, that liability will likely fall on the County as well.
It is all well and good to consider fairness to all parties, but above all, do no harm.
Sincerely,
Robert Wallerstein, MD
Donna Wallerstein, MS
16557 Marchmont Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Copy to: Mike Wasserman, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Jennifer Savage
From: cvindasius @gmail.com on behalf of Cindy Vindasius <cindy @vindasius.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:21 AM
To: Marcia Jensen
Cc: Town Manager; Jennifer Savage
Subject: Hillbrook - a word on how to 'Restore the Trust'
Mayor Jensen-
I just wanted to send a short follow up to you on the upcoming neighborhood proposal response in regards to
the Hillbrook expansion issue.
As you know - my goal is for doing what it takes to "restore the trust" between the neighbors, Hillbrook and the
town and in someway to find a working solution everyone can get behind.
I was very pleased that Hillbrook finally decided to release the traffic counts as requested by the council (and
VERY pleased that the council requested these prior to going forward in making a decision). With that I have
been closely involved with the neighborhood interpretation and response. I have been very vocal with the
neighborhood that what we really need in place is an enforceable CUP where "100% compliance" is the goal. I
believe that if the MAXIMUM traffic counts are set at a reasonable level, the best measure to ensure
compliance is to implement STIFF penalties for non - compliance. In my view, I feel like people in this town
view the CUP as "guidelines" as opposed to 'requirements" as the penalties do not warrant still penalties for
non - compliance. If you miss the tax filing deadline, you have stiff penalties and fees. If you miss your credit
card payment by the due date, your credit score goes down - all penalties people want to avoid which makes
compliance within the parameters important and a priority. I want the same thing from Hillbrook.
Given the current traffic count data provided, and the fact that the school has NOT implemented a mandatory
traffic mitigation plan, I believe if the number is set at an 880 MAXIMUM, there is PLENTY of room for
Hillbrook to meet stiff compliance objectives even with an increase in student population.
What the neighborhood needs is reliability - what will make the tensions continue between the neighborhood,
Hillbrook and the town is if the data is not shared regularly and if the traffic volume continues to "hover around
the maximum" without penalty or incentive to remain compliant.
I have been very vocal with the neighborhood about sticking to the 880 MAXIMUM number in exchange for
stiff penalties for compliance. I think the sentiment of the neighborhood is one of "distrust" in that if they agree
to 880 maximum - we will not get both the number AND STIFF penalties and thus they are planning to go with
a lower proposed number so there is a basis for compromise for the council to not give in to exactly what the
neighborhood wants - to show that both sides are having to compromise.
All that being said - I feel very strongly about implementing stiff penalties in exchange for a reasonable traffic
number - which does impact the neighborhood streets unjustly but not absurdly, allows for the additional
students Hillbrook is requesting and rewards Hillbrook for its efforts in carpooling and remaining compliant.
I also do not believe the penalties imposed below and included in the neighborhood response are unreasonable
or unfair in any way - or financially detrimental if they "slip up" from time to time. However, any penalties
proposed at less that what is proposed below - will definitely not have my support.
Thank you again for all you time and effort on this matter. Hopefully we can get it resolved once and for all in
the March 17th meeting. Good Luck!
Regards -
Cindy Vindasius
215 Rosalie Court
Los Gatos, CA 95032
PENALTIES FOR EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM DAILY TRIP CAP
a. If the Town's review of the trip cap numbers at the end of any month (including either
Academic Year or Summer month) reveals that the number of trips exceeds the maximum daily
trip cap on any day, Hillbrook shall pay a penalty of $1,000.00 per day the cap is violated, plus
$100 for each excess trip per day.
b. If the Town's review of the trip cap numbers reveals that the number of daily trips exceeds the
maximum daily trip cap for a second month during that Academic Year, Hillbrook shall pay a
penalty of $5,000.00 per violation day, plus $200 for each excess trip.
c. If the Town's review of the trip cap numbers reveals that the number of daily trips exceeds the
maximum daily trip cap for a third month during that Academic year, Hillbrook shall:
1. Pay a penalty of $10,000.00 per violation day, plus $1,000 for each excess car trip,
and
2. Reduce the maximum enrollment for the following Academic Year by 10 students.
d. If the Town's review of the trip cap numbers reveals that the number of daily trips exceeds the
maximum daily trip cap for a fourth month, and in any month thereafter during that Academic Year,
Hillbrook shall pay a penalty of $10,000.00 per violation day, plus $1,000 for each excess car trip.
In the event that Hillbrook does not voluntarily agree to these or similar penalty provisions, which are largely
based on provisions the school itself submitted, as a condition of the Town granting the new CUP, the Town
Council should deny the permit application altogether.
To: Los Gatos Town Council
Joe Sordi Sr
212 Marchmont Dr
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
,jvlarch 10,2015
%'�`C
C ivFo
MAR 70 ?0
Subject: Establishment of Hillbrook School Traffic Limits ?'OKN pF %5
Ptosc
Dear Mayor Jensen and Town Council Members: ��N /NG �S OHS
A few of my neighbor have expressed a strong fear that if the Hillbrook traffic limit is an 880 average
the school would somehow find a way to circumvent the limit. While it is true that with only an
average limit there may be some days when traffic is unacceptably high, that can be remedied by
having a daily limit in addition to the average. To prevent any attempts at skulduggery by the school,
Council could require the daily publication on the Hillbrook website of both a daily count and an
average -to -date, or "running average ". With both an daily count and running average, it becomes
immediately clear if there are any irregularities in counts. An additional advantage is that one does not
have to wait until the end of a trimester to see the average. The key issues that remain are to assure that
the counts are accurate and that there are no attempts to bypass the counter.
If Council decides to use a daily limit with no average, then it is important to find a limit that reflects a
daily average of 880. The most recent counts and the counts from the Spring of 2014 both show a very
small standard deviation. In other words the counts cluster tightly around the average. This allows a
limit of about 10% over the average or in the 968 range. If only a daily limit is used, it is important
that the limit not be too high. For example, with a daily limit of 1050, it is very likely that traffic will
average higher than 880, resulting in too -high daily traffic under the limit. If necessary, the Council
could employ a traffic consultant to determine what the daily limit should be.
Finally, it should be noted that these limits apply to an enrollment approaching 414. If the enrollment
limit remains 315, then recent improved traffic mitigation means limits can be lower than an 880
average and lower than a daily limit derived from the 880 average.
Regards,
Joe Sordi Sr
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
We greatly appreciate the time and effort that the Town Council has put into the Hillbrook issue. We feel
that the Council has listened to our concerns and that we are finally on the way to creating a CUP that will
protect the neighborhood without harming Hillbrook. The proposals that Mayor Jenson presented were
particularly constructive and, if implemented in a new CUP, should protect the neighborhood from further
negative impacts while facilitating Hillbrook's educational mission.
We strongly support most of Mayor Jensen's proposals while having concerns about a few of them. We
hope the Council will vote with Mayor Jensen on the following recommendations that she made at the
February 17 meeting:
• Daily maximum traffic cap
• Times of use limited to 7:30 AM -6:00 PM except for 10 specified exception days for special
events during the Academic Year
• Hillbrook's enrollment cap remains at 315. Hillbrook can request a 33- student increase only after
it has demonstrated for at least six months that it can comply with all CUP provisions (thus
avoiding any vested right in an enrollment increase)
• Requirement that Hillbrook may receive any successive enrollment increase of up to 33 new
students, for a maximum total of 99, only after demonstrating continued compliance with the
CUP (again, to avoid any vested right in an enrollment increase)
• Focused study of the use of the Ann Arbor gate for pedestrian, bike, and car access
• Shuttle/bus stops only at locations approved by the Parks and Public Works Department as being
suitable and safe or on private properties with which Hillbrook has negotiated agreements
• Summer use limited to six contiguous weeks
• Summer use limited to students enrolled at Hillbrook during the school year
• Pickups and drop -offs not permitted on neighborhood streets
• Compliance reviews biannually for the first year and annually thereafter
• Real -time online posting of traffic counts accessible to the public
• A permanent tube counter installed at the entrance to count vehicles entering and exiting, as a
backup to the Sensys counter
• Traffic monitoring costs to be paid by Hillbrook
REQUESTS FOR CHANGES TO PROPOSALS
We have concerns about a few of the mayor's proposals. Our strongest concerns are with the maximum
number of vehicle trips permitted per day and with the penalty proposals, so we will begin with those.
REceiveD
March 10, 2015
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council
MAR 70&15
Town of Los Gatos
130 E. Main Street
7'0VjjV
P�N� NG D S 710S
Los Gatos, CA 95030
t,
Dear Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector, and Council Members Leonardis, Sayoc, and Rennie:
We greatly appreciate the time and effort that the Town Council has put into the Hillbrook issue. We feel
that the Council has listened to our concerns and that we are finally on the way to creating a CUP that will
protect the neighborhood without harming Hillbrook. The proposals that Mayor Jenson presented were
particularly constructive and, if implemented in a new CUP, should protect the neighborhood from further
negative impacts while facilitating Hillbrook's educational mission.
We strongly support most of Mayor Jensen's proposals while having concerns about a few of them. We
hope the Council will vote with Mayor Jensen on the following recommendations that she made at the
February 17 meeting:
• Daily maximum traffic cap
• Times of use limited to 7:30 AM -6:00 PM except for 10 specified exception days for special
events during the Academic Year
• Hillbrook's enrollment cap remains at 315. Hillbrook can request a 33- student increase only after
it has demonstrated for at least six months that it can comply with all CUP provisions (thus
avoiding any vested right in an enrollment increase)
• Requirement that Hillbrook may receive any successive enrollment increase of up to 33 new
students, for a maximum total of 99, only after demonstrating continued compliance with the
CUP (again, to avoid any vested right in an enrollment increase)
• Focused study of the use of the Ann Arbor gate for pedestrian, bike, and car access
• Shuttle/bus stops only at locations approved by the Parks and Public Works Department as being
suitable and safe or on private properties with which Hillbrook has negotiated agreements
• Summer use limited to six contiguous weeks
• Summer use limited to students enrolled at Hillbrook during the school year
• Pickups and drop -offs not permitted on neighborhood streets
• Compliance reviews biannually for the first year and annually thereafter
• Real -time online posting of traffic counts accessible to the public
• A permanent tube counter installed at the entrance to count vehicles entering and exiting, as a
backup to the Sensys counter
• Traffic monitoring costs to be paid by Hillbrook
REQUESTS FOR CHANGES TO PROPOSALS
We have concerns about a few of the mayor's proposals. Our strongest concerns are with the maximum
number of vehicle trips permitted per day and with the penalty proposals, so we will begin with those.
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council Hillbrook CUP 3 -10 -15
1. TRAFFIC CAPS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR AND THE SUMMER SESSION
The data Hillbrook released on March 2, 2015 demonstrates that Hillbrook is fully capable of keeping its
traffic far below an 880 cap. Furthermore, the traffic levels the data shows are finally the levels that were
promised to the neighborhood under the 2001 CUP. We have waited 14 years for Hillbrook to reduce its
traffic to levels that are acceptable. This is the maximum level of traffic that is acceptable in the
neighborhood.
Hillbrook has repeatedly made the commitment not to increase traffic even if it increases enrollment. The
current traffic levels are those that Hillbrook should maintain under any enrollment number.
We ask that Council reduce the traffic cap called for in Mayor Jensen's proposal for two key reasons: (1)
Hillbrook's March 2, 2015 data clearly demonstrates that the cap should be lower than 880; and (2) using
the proposal to allow Hillbrook 880 daily trips would allow Hillbrook to continue to significantly impair
the residential environment.
During the eight months covered by the Hillbrook data, there were 111 school days, and data was
provided for 106 of them. Traffic exceeded 880 on only 4 of the 106 days. At least 3 of these days were
exception days. Therefore, the data does not support allowing Hillbrook to routinely impose 880 trips per
day.
During the period for which we have data, Hillbrook did not have a mandatory traffic plan. Thus,
Hillbrook achieved its lower traffic this fall and winter without requiring parent participation in busing,
carpooling, and walkingibicycling.
Based on the March 2, 2015 data and the additional reduction in traffic that a mandatory traffic plan
would provide, a maximum daily traffic cap of 814 is appropriate. According to the EIR, this is the
average Hillbrook achieved by 2013 after implementing only some voluntary traffic mitigation.
According to the March 2, 2015 data, Hillbrook traffic exceeded 814 trips on only 17 days (16 %) during
the 8 -month period. Therefore, with a well- conceived mandatory traffic mitigation plan, which Hillbrook
has yet to implement, Hillbrook could, if it wished to, contain its traffic to below 814 on all days other
than the 10 exception days for special events. Hillbrook's traffic plan, we believe, should include
mandatory participation by all parents and should have targets for participation in busing, carpooling, and
walking/bicycling.
Based on Mayor Jensen's proposals, it appeared that Council would ask Hillbrook to develop and
implement and then carefully monitor and enforce a detailed traffic management plan. We believe the
school should do this. However, if the Council were hesitant about an 814 limit, it might consider the
higher traffic cap of 840 daily trips. The data received on March 2, 2015 shows that on 95 or 90% of the
106 days, Hillbrook's traffic was 840 or lower. Based on this data, with an 840 cap, the risk of exceeding
the cap would be extremely low so long as Hillbrook practiced good management. Non - compliance
should not be an issue with an 840 maximum.
See the attached analyses of the March 2, 2015 data, titled "Daily Counts, Weekdays" and "Data Shows
814 Is Achievable."
2.
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council Hillbrook CUP 3 -10 -15
Summer Traffic Cau
We ask that you require a daily traffic cap for the summer session of no more than 275 daily vehicle
trips. Summer traffic conditions should return to what they were before 2009, when Hillbrook improperly
began allowing Third Party use of the campus. At least half of the current summer traffic results from a
Third Party program, which should no longer be permitted under the new CUP.
The proposal for summer traffic with a 440 cap would actually increase levels of summer traffic beyond
what they were before 2009. The EIR failed to look at summers and came to the erroneous conclusion
that cutting school year traffic in half for summers would provide "real relief from traffic." Daily traffic
of 440 trips would be about double the summer traffic neighbors were used to. Also, before 2009,
summer sessions ended by 1:00 PM. The mayor's proposal would increase the number of hours for
summer sessions. Our proposal would make Hillbrook's summer school session consistent with the
summer school session offered by the Los Gatos Saratoga Recreation Dept. in conjunction with the Los
Gatos Union School District. We therefore ask that Council support our summer proposal.
Summer Session: During the summer session, the maximum number of vehicle trips
entering and leaving the Hillbrook campus at the Marchmont Drive Gate shall not
exceed 275. The summer session, if any, shall occur over no more than six
contiguous weeks between the end of one school year and the beginning of the
next. Summer session activities may occur only on Monday through Friday from
8:30 A.M. to 12:30 P.M.
The summer- session total enrollment shall be limited to 100 JK to 8h grade Hillbrook
students. Documentation listing the number of students enrolled at Hillbrook School in
the summer session shall be supplied to the Town at least two weeks before the beginning
of the summer session.
2. PENALTIES FOR EXCEEDING THE TRAFFIC CAP
We are concerned that the penalty provision the mayor proposed - -a $5,000 penalty for each quarter (three
month period) during which the traffic cap was exceeded on any day - -would fail to provide any protection
for the neighborhood. A penalty should act as a significant incentive to comply with the CUP Conditions.
The proposed penalty would not be an effective incentive for the following reasons:
As we understand it, the penalty would not increase based on the number of days the cap was
exceeded or based on the number of vehicles that exceeded the cap. Once Hillbrook exceeds the
daily cap by a single day during any quarter, it could continue to exceed the cap with impunity
without incurring any further penalty. We believe that the only way penalties will ensure that
Hillbrook maintains traffic under the daily cap is to have the penalties increase based on the
number of days the cap is exceeded and increase based on the amount by which the cap is
exceeded each day.
• As proposed at the March 17 meeting, the total maximum penalty per year to Hillbrook for all
violations of the daily traffic cap would amount to no more than $20,000. This seems like an
insignificant sum for Hillbrook to pay against the additional $3 million plus it will derive each
3.
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council Hillbrook CUP 3 -10 -15
year from the new 99 students enrolled. An annual maximum penalty of $20,000 would render
the daily cap meaningless.
The data received on March 2 clearly shows that 814 is a reasonable and achievable cap and that non-
compliance should not be an issue. The goal of stiff fines is not to have Hillbrook pay large penalties but
to provide a strong incentive for Hillbrook to comply with the CUP.
Further, the penalty provision should contain a penalty of an enrollment decrease of at least 10 students
for the following academic year in the event the cap is violated more than two months in the prior
academic year. This should be for the life of the CUP. Again, the goal of penalties is to ensure
compliance.
The threat of an enrollment decrease would, we believe, act as a serious deterrent that would compel
Hillbrook to remain in compliance. An enrollment decrease also makes sense because if Hillbrook is
unable to control its traffic at a certain enrollment level, that enrollment level should be decreased to the
point where traffic can be contained beneath the cap. In a meeting with Town Attorney Robert Schultz on
March 90', attorney Schultz confirmed that a decrease in enrollment as proposed below is enforceable,
after Hillbrook vests in the right to increase enrollment. Hillbrook's right to its first increase (33) would
vest once they increase above 315.
When Mayor Jensen made her penalty proposal, she said she was looking for numbers that would be
"predictable and reasonable." At a neighborhood meeting Hillbrook hosted in May 2014, Hillbrook itself
proposed much stiffer penalties -- $1,000 per car trip for the first evaluation period; $5,000 per car trip for
a second evaluation period if there were violations during the fast period, and $10,000 per cap trip for a
third evaluation period if there were violations during the previous two periods.
We believe that the Council should adopt a modified version of the penalties neighbors and Hillbrook
already proposed. One goal of the new CUP is to restore trust between the neighbors and Hillbrook. Our
new proposal reduces the penalty amount for individual car trips that exceed the daily cap while providing
a penalty for each violation day.
We ask that traffic be reported and evaluated for compliance at the end of each month, as recommended
by Hillbrook's traffic consulting firm Nelson\Nygaard. Evaluating compliance with the readily available
data would not be a burdensome process for staff. Data will be available 24/7/365, via the Sensys system,
with a backup from the tube counter, if necessary. In the event Hillbrook does not produce data for any
day, that would be considered a violation per Mayor Jensen's proposal. We concur with that position.
Data should be available for all days. The data set Hillbrook supplied on March 2nd was missing data on a
total of 10 days (5 school days). That should not reoccur if trust is to be reestablished.
We ask that the Council give serious consideration to the penalties proposed below
PENALTIES FOR EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM DAILY TRIP CAP
a. If the Town's review of the trip cap numbers at the end of any month
(including either Academic Year or Summer month) reveals that the number of
trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap on any day, Hillbrook shall pay a
penalty of $1,000.00 per day the cap is violated, plus $100 for each excess trip
per day.
El
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council Hillbrook CUP 3 -10 -15
b. If the Town's review of the trip cap numbers reveals that the number of daily
trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap for a second month during that
Academic Year, Hillbrook shall pay a penalty of $5,000.00 per violation day,
plus $200 for each excess trip.
c. If the Town's review of the trip cap numbers reveals that the number of daily
trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap for a third month during that
Academic year, Hillbrook shall:
1. Pay a penalty of $10,000.00 per violation day, plus $1,000 for each excess car
trip, and
2. Reduce the maximum enrollment for the following Academic Year by 10
students.
d. If the Town's review of the trip cap numbers reveals that the number of daily trips
exceeds the maximum daily trip cap for a fourth month, and in any month thereafter
during that Academic Year, Hillbrook shall pay a penalty of $10,000.00 per
violation day, plus $1,000 for each excess car trip.
e. Any day for which Hillbrook does not produce complete data shall be
considered a violation.
In the event that Hillbrook does not voluntarily agree to these or similar penalty provisions, which are
largely based on provisions the school itself submitted, as a condition of the Town granting the new CUP,
the Town Council should deny the permit application altogether.
3. PENALTIES FOR NON - TRIP -CAP VIOLATIONS
We believe that to deter future violations, there should be penalties for all CUP violations. We ask that the
Council give serious consideration to the condition below.
PENALTIES FOR NON - TRIP -CAP VIOLATIONS. In the event that Hillbrook
exceeds its enrollment limit for the school year or the summer session, Hillbrook shall
pay a $58,000 penalty or twice the cost of tuition for that school year, whichever is
greater, to the Town of Los Gatos for each extra student or child enrolled. In the event
that Hillbrook exceeds its nighttime school year cap of 10 nighttime activities, Hillbrook
shall pay a $5,000 (five thousand dollars) penalty per violation to the Town of Los
Gatos for each violation. All other violations shall carry a fine of $5,000 (five thousand
dollars) per violation per day.
In this case, too, in the event that Hillbrook does not voluntarily agree to these or similar penalty
provisions, which are largely based on provisions the school itself submitted, as a condition of the Town
granting the new CUP, the Town Council should deny the permit application altogether.
I. WEEKEND USE. Weekend use of the campus has always been limited to three Saturday events.
There has never been any Sunday use. We believe there should be no expansion of weekend use.
5.
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council Hillbrook CUP 3 -10 -15
There have never been weekend activities lasting until 9 PM, and these should not be permitted now.
Weekend activities should be limited to the following: Two Saturday tournaments lasting no later
than 3:30 p.m.; One Saturday Open House lasting no later than 3:30 p.m.
4. THIRD -PARTY USE
In her proposals, Mayor Jensen made no reference to third -party use. This is one Condition of the
current CUP that needs to be strengthened. The 2001 CUP was intended to preclude use of the
campus by all Third Parties. We continue to ask that no third party use be permitted on the Hillbrook
campus.
Third -party uses create the following problems for the neighborhood:
• Hillbrook could lend or rent the campus at times when the campus would not normally be in
use and cause intensification of use beyond what Hillbrook needs. These times would
include periods when neighbors would look forward to relief from traffic -- winter break,
spring break, and vacation periods. Hillbrook has already demonstrated its clear intention to
hold activities outside of normal school use by hosting tournaments, conferences and outside
programs during breaks and the summer session.
• Third parties are unfamiliar with the neighborhood's often narrow, windy streets and with its
traffic limits. This decreases safety in the neighborhood.
• Hillbrook does not supervise third party activities. No one would be responsible for insuring
compliance with the CUP.
The Planning Commission CUP included a condition prohibiting third -party use, but unfortunately
included an insufficient definition of "third- party." We ask Council to include the following
condition to prohibit third -party use.
THIRD PARTY USE/RENTAL/LEASE. Any third party use, rental, and/or lease of the
campus is prohibited, except that Hillbrook School may provide educational programs for its
Academic Year enrolled students or Academic Year staff by contracting with a third -party
instructor to provide services for the programs and by providing that all enrollment in any such
program is counted in Hillbrook's enrollment cap and any fees for participation in such programs
are paid directly to Hillbrook School. Any such Third Party instruction shall take place only
during regularly scheduled school days or during the six week summer session for Hillbrook
enrolled students.
To deal with the times of use issue that would relate to the third -party use issue, we ask Council
to consider the following condition:
TIMES OF USE. The Hillbrook campus shall be in use only during regularly scheduled school
days and for six weeks during the summer.
9
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council Hillbrook CUP 3 -10 -15
OTHER ISSUES
Specific Language. In Mayor Jensen's remarks, it was stated that no specific language was being
provided for conditions. Because of this, we would ask that when the specific language for the CUP
conditions is drafted, that neighbors be allowed to review the specific language before the Town Council
grants the permit. We believe that the "devil is in the details," and we'd like to make sure the details are
correct. For example, we would hope that the specific language would include these details:
• The names of the streets on which no Hillbrook pickups and drop -offs were permitted. A
condition that stated only that there could be no pickups and drop -offs "in the immediate vicinity
of Hillbrook" would not be specific enough to protect all the neighborhood streets. We would like
to see these streets specifically named in a condition about pickups and drop -offs: Robin Way, Hilow
Road, lower Marchmont, Topping, Cardinal, Stonybrook Road, and all of upper Marchmont and
its adjacent courts. All of these streets are places where Hillbrook parents currently park and then
walk their children the remaining distance to the school.
• The definition of Hillbrook as a "JK -8 private school" rather than as an "educational institution."
Here is the school's mission statement as presented as part of its Form 990 for 2011: Hillbrook
School is an independent junior kindergarten through 8th grade school whose program uniquely
balances academic rigor with a humanistic approach to learning.
• The specification that embedded counters count both entering and exiting traffic and that a tube
counter be used as a backup. This is to the benefit of all, since Hillbrook would be fined if no data
were made available.
Exception Days. There should be no more than 10 exception days during which traffic can exceed the
cap during any school year, and there should be no exception days during the summer. Please consider the
condition below. It allows a total of 10 exception days, but does not specify that the exception days need
to include nighttime activities. Hillbrook would choose the days it wanted to use as exceptions. These
could include days with day events such grandparents' day as well as days with evening events such as
school plays and Family Fun Night.
Exception-"Special Event Days." The school may select up to 10 days per Academic Year to
exceed the traffic cap maximum in recognition of events that are not representative of typical
daily operations, but that are Permitted Activities consistent with this Conditional Use Permit
( "Special Event Days "). On those up to 10 Special Event Days, the total number of vehicle trips
entering and exiting the campus shall not exceed 960. No days with traffic exceeding the summer
cap and no nighttime activities are permitted during the summer session. Hillbrook is to supply
the Town a list of dates for its 10 exception days for the upcoming Academic Year by August 1 of
each year.
Nighttime Activities. No more than 10 nighttime activities (activities that last past 6:00 p.m.) are
permitted during any Academic Year. No nighttime activities are permitted during the summer.
Nighttime activities on days in which the traffic cap is exceeded shall be included in the count of
Exception/Special Event Days.
VESTED RIGHTS. We are particularly worried about creating vested rights for Hillbrook. Our lawyer,
Leila Moncharsh, in a letter to Council dated January 5, 2015 cautioned Council members against
approving the phasing in of an increase in enrollment. In reference to this, we are including below some
of what Ms. Moncharsh said on page 4 of her letter.
7.
Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council Hillbrook CUP 3 -10 -15
The Enrollment Should Not be "Phased;" Instead, the Council Should Grant a Small
Number of Additional Students at this Time or Deny the Application
Hillbrook understands that the CUP currently approved by the Planning Commission would allow it
to increase its enrollment by 99 students, phased in over a three academic -years period, depending on
whether Hillbrook complies with the 880 trip limit. (Hillbrook Letter, page 2.) This method of
addressing increased student enrollment creates a legal conundrum and logistics problems for
planning staff. Once the Town grants a CUP for 99 additional students, the permission to have those
99 students becomes a "vested" property right of the school. The issue of whether it is in compliance
or out of compliance at the end of each year is always debatable, especially when relying on averages
for the 880 trip limit. Pulling back the permission in the CUP to increase enrollment by 99 students is
not legally or realistically possible without an administrative hearing that provides due process to the
school.
With enrollment phases, a school with a history of use permit noncompliance will simply increase its
enrollment when it feels like it and then argue that it has a "vested right" to do so under the phasing
provisions in its CUP. When that occurs, the planning department's only recourses are either to hold a
time consuming and expensive administrative hearing to modify or revoke the CUP, or hold a hearing
before the Planning Commission to "legalize" the over - enrollment. The better strategy would be for
the Town Council to increase the enrollment substantially less than what is requested now. Hillbrook
will have to file a new application for modification of the CUP later on - - after the Town sees how
well it does with complying with the COAs....
SUMMARY
Once again, we would like to express our appreciation to the Council for responding to neighborhood
concerns. We believe the general approach stated above allows Hillbrook to accomplish its stated
educational goals while protecting the legitimate interests of the neighborhood and Town within the
framework set by the General Plan and the Town Code.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson, Patti Elliot, Kim Vrijen, Kathleen Willey, Tara Moseley, Don Dodson, Tom
Driscoll, Reuel Warkov, and Cindy Vindasius on behalf of the neighborhood group
91
N
\V
W
V /
0
U
� V
}
T
m
T a
f9 w
T T
ro (a
T
d
v
v c
3
L
■ E
■ ■
--J-
SIOZ /SZ /ZO
�eaa8
aa�uiM
SIOZ /LI /ZO
—
SIOZ /60 /ZO
STOZ /0£ /TO
STOZ /ZZ /TO
- STOZ /bi /TO
STOZ /90/10
Se
;SIJq,
17TOZ /6Z /Zi
4TOZ /6T /ZI
--
VTOZ /TI /ZI
-
bTOZ /£0 /ZT
_
SU!A!2
1710Z /SZ /TT
j —
171OZ /LT /TT
VTOZ /LO /TT
00
17TOZ /0£ /OT
A
bTOZ /ZZ /OT
VIOZ /41 /OT
VIOZ /90 /OT
- 4TOZ /9Z/60
bTOZ /81/60
4TOZ /01/60
i
- bIOZ /ZO /60
- bTOZ /SZ /80
-bTOZ /SI /80
� -bTOZ /10/80
L
171OZ /0£ /LO
C�
- tTOZ /ZZ /LO
C
_ 4TOZ /4I /LO
=3
6TOZ /VO /LO
17TOZ /9Z/90
-:- 17TOZ /8T/90
VTOZ /OI /90
4TOZ /ZO /90
E o 8
8
8
8 8
o
E
r)
W
V
Q
V)
X
d'
3:
O
N
F 3 �
�
i
N
Lr
d
N
D
9SOZ/6T /ZT
bS02/it /Z[
N
�
m
- aTOVOT/ZT
O
D
-0
v
VTOZ/SO /21
_ - olornO /LI
- _ b[oVOZ/TT
— _ _A aroUNAT
41oz /Zr/TS
-- btoZMAT
- OTUZh E/O[
bTOZ/BZ/ol
-- -- = bt0x /eWr
_ , oTaz/oz/ol
- -� b10USTrot
_ 4107 /90/01
mzhoro[
bT07/9Z/60
btOZ /Ex/60
- -j b10Z/BZ/60
MOZ/ST /60
N
_0
N
Q
C
N
U
O
O
Q)
N
x00°4
o
a)�
A
v
=
o
.
F 3 �
�
Lr
d
N
D
9SOZ/6T /ZT
bS02/it /Z[
00
H
m
- aTOVOT/ZT
VTOZ/SO /21
_ - olornO /LI
- _ b[oVOZ/TT
— _ _A aroUNAT
41oz /Zr/TS
-- btoZMAT
- OTUZh E/O[
bTOZ/BZ/ol
-- -- = bt0x /eWr
_ , oTaz/oz/ol
- -� b10USTrot
_ 4107 /90/01
mzhoro[
bT07/9Z/60
btOZ /Ex/60
- -j b10Z/BZ/60
MOZ/ST /60
bT6L/87/Bo
- SSOZAVzO
- - SS02 /ct /LO
- - -; slozroT /Zo
sTOZ /LO/ZO
- STOZ/BuTo
— - - - -'— STOZ /[zh0
tat - STOZ/OZ /10
-- - - — -- STOZ/VL /To
STOZJBO /to
ti
� n �
t`
O O O O U)
O N H O 00
N 00
Lr� (` 00
rti
Lr
d
N
D
O
W
00
H
O O O O U)
O N H O 00
N 00
Lr� (` 00
rti
00 N N M
d oo m ri
N tD 01
N
00
O
N
�
V
r
D
O
W
00
N
00 N N M
d oo m ri
N tD 01
N
Q + x
ar
a' �
m
Q + x
ar
a' �
V /
J— J
O
U
A�
E
o �
0
`o
a _
o � g
00:£Z
00ZZ
OO:TZ
00:02
00:61
00:81
OO:LT
00:91
OO:ST
OO bT
WET
00:ZT
00:11
00:01
0060
00:80
OO:LO
00:90
0050
OO b0
00:£0
OO:ZO
OO:TO
00:00
E
T
fD
O
C
00:£Z
00ZZ
OO:TZ
00:02
00:61
00:81
OO:LT
00:91
OO:ST
OO bT
WET
00:ZT
00:11
00:01
0060
00:80
OO:LO
00:90
0050
OO b0
00:£0
OO:ZO
OO:TO
00:00
E
w
m
T
O
U
L
C
O
P-
f0
H
C
f0
u
H
d
m
f0
J
E
3
20
O
E 3
W at
W N lO O O O N W N lO O O LD N V LD O N W LD W N LD O
1n fV m m N m V. 1, N Ln M W V In W M� V1 W N c N.
c-I a-1 m y m m lD O Ln d' O O O m-zr O m 1, N r m
O O1 V V m a m h N V m N N
N c
N N lO V W O W N a' O N O N O O LD V lD O V W fV O V
7 d' cli O O O 1D O O lD N Ln O W N �y w Tt M LD
N N N N N Tt N
lD LD W LD N LO W O W O V fV N O N N lO O V LD LD W W W
N N Ln lD In O to M Ln to N 1, W N to 1\ n V N to
r m Ol m LD W Ln tV h c-I m m N N
N c c V M c-1
LD O V W lD N W LD LD N O V W W N LD lD -zr V V lD O V W
m a-I N W W 01 M M W LO M LD O O O V V Ln O N .-i w
N' N m m N
v v N�-zt lD O W a tV lD N lD O O V V W W V LD C O to
m N N o ° oho m � Ln m r, m m v N tD N v m r
N N c V m N
O O tD W O W W tV O N W N W a O W O It N W d* O V V
N N Ln 1� V m m r m n W N V O M In In 1-1 1, O N O
V W O lD W W W N c h W V r-I
rl c a-1 rl V N e
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O N N m V Ln lD h W m O c-1 N m V V1 lD 1, W m O c-I N M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . .-1 . . . . . r c . N nI tV t 4
N
01
n
01
N
M
n
N
N
O
N
N
O
01
O
N
LD
tD
O
H
N
W
Ln
N
W
ei
F0
C
f0
4l]
O
V
f'
rf8.
G p-
a
0
H
is
0
0
0
a
0
O
° S
p O,,
x
o
0
N
o 0
mo
rei
�
c N
0
00
O ry
� O
N
�
O N
a
0
H
is
0
0
0
a
0
O
° S
p O,,
x
o
i.�
O
N 00
n
p
S
0
N
Ot
i.�
n
M N
��o g
c .Ni
�o
M
O
N C
n H
e
b O
N N
N ^�
r�
—
Q.
Q
N
r-I
0
00
0
al
S
v
$
O
N
C
�
n
M N
��o g
c .Ni
�o
M
O
N C
n H
e
b O
N N
N ^�
r�
—
Q.
Q
N
r-I
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
HILLBROOK / NORTH 40 PROPOSAL
Is Hillbrook a sacred cow? Hillbrook is a BUSINESS. Los Gatos is a COMMUNITY.
Regulations that aren't enforced ... are a face.
Their CUP has been allowed to run over for far too long.
Since no verifiable information on the traffic problem seems to be forthcoming, I
Offer this suggestion: Surely someone is Los Gatos has a video (or just still
camera) equipped drone that could stream time - stamped real -time and archived
(and would give a true picture of the collateral damage in the surrounding
neighborhoods). How about streaming with the assistance of KCAT TV to Council
and Planning Commission meetings? And, why not also take advantage of how
drone imaging could properly portray /convey the daily gridlock at Lark / Los
Gatos Boulevard, and the feeder streets? Getting in / out of the North 40 — if
developed — would be — an access abscess. There is no room for driveways
between Los Gatos Boulevard and Highway 17. If drones were utilized effectively,
here would be no need for city funds wasted on surveys. At present, these two
problems are "up in the air." Launching drones would bring the 800 pound gorillas
back to earth...
RECEIVED
MAR 11 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
c
0
R
A
°� C., 9�
. � of m I m o
o m o ii t� $hy o O Fs' O
❑� K p o i a o ° m-
W- E o 7 n°p.
03 o2
O
0+0•X0 < Om t•' 'p'i�"�Q A�Jm �°-n
00 D 0 .y D
00 °
Nq
p N 0 N c+
Hillbrook
Continued from page 1
day. Hillbrook appealed
the 880 cap, asking in-
stead for a more flexible
880 average.
The school's residential
neighbors appealed, too, cit-
ing sections of the town's
General Plan that are de-
signed to preserve the quality
of life in residential neighbor-
hoods. The neighbors con-
tend increased enrollment
will increase traffic.
Council members circled
around a variety of solutions
to the controversy, but it was
clear the distrust that has in-
fected relations between the
school and its neighbors has
impacted members' thinking.
Vice Mayor Barbara
Spector, for instance, was
disturbed about making a
decision when the most re-
cent traffic data she's seen is
nearly a year old.
"Give me something I don't
have now," Spector said.
'The information rm looking
for exists. It's existed since
June 2014 and it exists right
now.,,
Councilman Rob Rennie
cited statistics provided by
I3illbrook that demonstrate
CCc Ki
O
O
A
O
N.
N v
V�O
N
0
d 0
M
O C" h
L'^•.f Fey . O
V1 V 2
� C)
GOP0
V1 CIA
the school has significantly
reduced traffic in recent
year's. L400 average daily ve-
hicle trips in 2000 dropped to
996 in 2001, 961 in 2011 868 in
2013 and 834 in spiingS014.
It's clear we've had the
right kind of progress,' Ren-
nie said.
But Councilman Steve
Leonardis was less trusting;
saying the town should pay
for an independent traffic
study. "I think we should pro-
vide the data for the next sic
months. Put a cable out there
for 24 hours a day, collect the
traffic data and find out what
it really is," I.eonardis said. "I
think the only waywe're really
goingto getunbiased data is if
we go out and collect the data
over a period of tine."
Councilwoman ManCD
Sayoc opposed having the
town shell out money for a
study, while Mayor Marcia
Jensen said going forward
she wants H11brook's traffic
counts posted on the web for
all to see.
The council voted unani-
mously to have flillbrook
release its traffic data from
June 7014 to the present
The school has two weeks to
do that The council contin-
ued the If&rook hearing to
March 17.
m
O
2
Ai
U-
DAVID LAIC
Los Gatos
How could anyone
vote for more
Hillbrook traffic?
My husband and I live in
the neighborhood surround-
ing H"illbrookwith our two
young boys, along with many
other families with young
children who have moved
here in the past five years.
Every day, rain or shine, we
walk or bike to Blossom Hill
School Therefore, I am very
concerned about a possible
enrollment increase at I-EU-
brook. Unlike all the other
schools in this area, there is
only one entrance and exit to
Hiillbrook, which vehicles and
pedestrians must share.
According to a national
study by the Safe Routes to
School program, "Pedestri-
ans are more than twice as
likely to be struck by a car
when walking in a location
without sidewalks as they
are when walking in an area
with sidewalks" There are
no sidewalks and no bike
lanes on upper or lower
Mamhmont, Englewood,
Topping, Stonybmok, Cardi-
nal or I-Bow.
In this environment, we
have neighborhood children
andHillbmok schoolchildren
trying to navigate their way
through car traffic, buses,
delivery trucks and garbage
trucks.
Even the police depart-
ment is concerned. I will
quote a letter written in 2012
by Los Gatos -Monte Sereno
IMUNITYNEWSPAPERS FEBRU,
Police Sgt Kerry Harris
"The CUP modification
application submitted by
Hrllbrook School has been
reviewed The one area of
concern to the department
is the impact on traffic and
pedestrian safety resulting
from the increase in vehicle
trips through the Englewood
and Marchmont neighbor
hoods. The department
would urge the applicant to
investigate ways to reduce
the number ofvehicle trips
through the residential
neighborhood, developing
traffic demand management
strategies to achieve that
end, or to study alternative
ingress and egress options to
the ITllbrook campus"
Even thoughtheyhave
repeatedly said they will add
enrollment without adding
traffic, during their presenta-
tion at the commissioner's
hearing in October they
showed that traffic will go
up an °average" of 40 cars
during the morning and
afternoon peaks alone They
also stated they could com-
mit to not exceed 1,200 cars
a day. Including the normal
neighborhood traffic, that
would mean 1,524 cars on a
one -way, steep street in a
day!
HWbrook is a wonderful
school, and we appreciate
the efforts of the parents who
use carpooling and busing.
However, it is inevitable that
with a 32 percent enrollment
increase, the traffic will
increase.
Please, town council, from
the perspective of safety, I
struggle to see how anyone
could vote to increase traffic
in this neighborhood.
KAmnaarr WIIaar
L,os Gatos
Y
0
0
O
z
k
0
y�
�a
m- � x S k � M ••
Ma
Er
y � � �
o�mcPY�i �eC¢ ps�°»m4
�o
18 m
c!� �r$p +fr ^ro n
c
E ° K °< !iD VpMo F . S-- J`oop C q<oo cg.{r��Q " C
5 Q K 1 l5o .
AS ' oo' -'� Rgg , a�c`�° 'o K cs
K y ip a
$ m
ppT�
P m n �8 v R g u.�(o m�
^0 m m o ; E.B. w ❑ m ,� w m .o '.
Er
i�oo.. ' N Vi w
rL
11 8 �r ;g
m bKr oxo
RLT O-0
'oo m0
xX �gsx�
�o�.��tCD' c•F'°i
w
K R':4 Mg a
�g ,off
�c.
Q. Jr Rp Rig m E5 -Hp
na m¢n5
m 01
MR t7lg
yR `� C R�dm�G �ME O..
�i FAM
M90-4 00
FL m W p iD �� 'n ti
IUD OOdK m •°i, -nm� go LO. ° �o vM
m 5..
oAamr3�F�°Twm
?'m �m.C3•`rp'S emi.�q+°o a�6p"p❑ �Fm"�
w� � R R q ±+• �" SY cf � O
tD � 4 `�m ry Riay� dad
ni O 92
m§ m n. m c at
r
x G•mp�oPRnb`�m��w m c o
m �,m d� =•�� a o clyq� RO to m 8
smoyKmmq =°r��R•o�'oamm°'�°s� tro
rn-
o o
m' R jb a E DC"
b m N H O wip dO l jo m
dS o m a•ER�. c�T.
�FLOn04 E� ¢9 R a� � A) n
mw mw
Ing
='Wd Gpq.
m d R N 0 H
/
"
1lnvs
P
9
F
F
z
Kam. xm gig 5•9
Ox °mKCm5.4�3mFo�' J O E
0 000 o a °o m °sp
mSt m m.ry�C) OMg°L.xW �(� y11W C L.
N n. m E. A
�Eycoi pe m�m.� -'Eo R,o `Dm�'d �„O ►-iO
rg'° �d$Kamoamg k R 0 x
5o0� m°�"m p`o3mm b y
or
o mo M 0,0 o n E�
M.
g 10 `A• tC�pCm Oyi"R.��nA. 5',a�.O fmDM N.
pO M
mo¢Go
o - o
Hillbrook
Continued from page 1
"It's not fair to set up a
school to fail," Hillbrook
board chairmanChuckllam.
mere said. "The 880 max
puts the school in a situation
that it will cause us to violate
the conditional use permit 34
times in one year, and that s
with 315 students. We're go-
fng to fail without even add -
ing a single extra student"
Many Marchmont Drive
homeowners don't trust
Hillbrook, as ''n. g it has re-
peatedly violated its 2001
student and traffic man
hers, and wrongfully al-
lowed summer activities.
For its part, iidlbrook has
mitigated traffic by imple-
menting a bus and carpool
program, while encouraging
students who live nearby
to.walk, hike or scooter to
school But the neighbors
say that's not good enough
"Even the environmental
impact report with its many
flaws found that Biillbrodk's
traffic currently creates a sig-
nificantly impaired residen-
tial environment on March -
mont that is the antithesis of
what should be seen as a low-
density residential zone," 20-
year Marchmont resident
Patti Elliot said "Please
reject
paHiiinbbrooies request
to would furtherde rates
the residential environment
and violate town code,, .
To change the planning
commission's decision, the
council must find that plan-
ners erred in their deci-
sion- malting, which is why
the opponents' appeal cites
sections of the town's Gen-
eral Plan that are designed
to preserve the quality of
life in residential areas.
Opponents also claim the
EIR was flawed because it
did not evaluate opening a
gate on Ann Arbor Drive
that would divert some traf-
fie away from Marchmont.
Ann Arbor residents don't
want that gate opened. So
the controversy has pitted
neighbor against neighbor.
"I am deeply troubled by
the abandonment of civility
in this Ii'dlbrook debate," ex
panston proponent Michael
Mulcahy said. "I will even be
more appalled if the town re
wards this kind of hostile be-
havior by a small selfish few.
The town ofl" Gatos should
not have to tolerate this ma-
nipulation of the political pro-
cess. The entire Los Gatos
community is watching, and
not just the connected few
that forced this showdown
for a shutdown."
Opponents contend
they're not interested in
shutting down Hillbrook, it's
the traffic they don't want
"Keep in mind we're only
talking about 220 families at
11111brook today, so why am
thereromanyt *inthefirst
place ?" Robin Way resident
Tara Moseley asked "I hope
you askyourselyes that ques-
tion during deliberations."
The council set Feb. 17
as the date to deliberate —
that's the earliest available
time on their calendar.
Town council meetings
begin at7p.m. in the council
chamber at 110 E. Main St.
They are also televised live
on %CAT TV, channe115 on
Comeast cable.
g
s
Joe Sordi Sr
212 Marchmont Dr
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
March 11,2015
To: Los Gatos Town Council
Subject: Traffic Limit Relative to Enrollment Limit
Dear Mayor Jensen and Town Council Members:
If the Council decides sets a traffic limit for the current enrollment limit of 315, with the potential for
for incremental enrollment limits of 33 up to a maximum of 414, then the Council should make clear
that either a)The traffic limit remains the same no matter what the enrollment limit, or b) the traffic
limit will increase incrementally with incremental increases in enrollment.
• If the Council choses b), then with a chosen traffic cap of 814 for 315 students, as an example,
the number of daily trips per student would be 2.58 (814 divided by 315). With an incremental
increase of 33 to an enrollment limit of 348, then the traffic cap would increase to 898
(2.58x348). If Hillbrook is eventually allowed an increase to 414 students, the traffic cap would
be 1068.
• If the Council choses a), then with an eventual enrollment of 414, Hillbrook would have to
improve traffic mitigation so that the number of trips per student would have to be under 1.96
to hold traffic under the 814 cap.
Regards,
Joe Sordi Sr
RECEIVED
MAR 1 1 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
0
HILLBROOK SCHOOL
March 11, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Mayor Marcia Jensen
And Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Hillbrook School Appeal
Dear Mayor Jensen and Members of the Town Council:
Last week, the Parks and Public Works staff released the Hillbrook School's traffic data from
June 2014 to February 2015 as requested by the Town Council. The release of this data should confirm
that the recent trip counts are fully consistent with the traffic data in the record and reveal no irregularities
as to the school's traffic trends. The data further reinforces that Hillbrook has successfully "pre -
mitigated" its traffic in order to accommodate additional students while being sensitive to the
neighborhood's concerns.
In order to contextualize the traffic data provided by Town staff, we are submitting a
Nelson\Nygaard memorandum that summarizes the traffic data and extrapolates how it corresponds to the
proposed 99 student increase. Briefly, the Nelson\Nygaard memorandum underscores the following
points:
• The 880 maximum number is an inappropriate metric because it converts the baseline
average of 880 into a hard cap that ignores the baseline trips that were over 880.
• Hillbrook's TDM program achieves approximately 95% participation; therefore, it is
unlikely that further meaningful trip reductions can be achieved through more TDM
measures.
• A trip maximum of 880 vehicles limits Hillbrook's capacity to grow.
• A trip maximum of at least 965 trips, with a minimum of 10 exclusions per semester
(some of which float), is the more reasonable, recommended approach.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Vj / n J
Mark Silver, Head of School
Attachment
Chuck Hammers, President, Board of Trustees
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
01
HILLBROOK SCHOOL
March 12, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Mayor Marcia Jensen
And Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Hillbrook School Appeal —Hours of Operation
Dear Mayor Jensen and Members of the Town Council:
We are writing to address a specific condition of approval discussed by the Town Council at the
February 17 °i hearing —hours of operation. We would like to briefly educate the Town Council as to the
practical difficulties associated with the limitation that students and staff only be allowed on campus
between 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM. We ask for your reconsideration based on the following information.
7:30 AM
As you know, Hillbrook's start time is 8:00 AM. Students begin to arrive at 7:30 AM
and enter classrooms at 7:45 AM. Busses and the majority of carpools and walkers enter between 7:45 -
8:00 AM. A 7:30 AM start time for faculty and stab simply allows no time to prepare the campus for the
school day before students arrive. Teachers, like teachers at every school, do not simply show up and
start teaching. They need time to prepare classrooms, connect with fellow teachers to coordinate the
upcoming day's activities and prepare themselves for the school day which continues with little break
until 3:45 PM. Kitchen staff need to cook meals. Maintenance staff need to unlock doors, inspect
classrooms and resolve overnight problems - such as rainwater flooding during December rains - before
students and staff arrive. To achieve this, kitchen and maintenance staff arrive between 6 - 6:30 AM.
Therefore, an arbitrary arrival time of 7:30 AM unfairly handicaps the school administration from being
allowed to operate a school and it penalizes the teachers and employees who are trying to do theirjobs
and share the common goal of nurturing and educating the students of Hillbrook.
A 7:30 AM arrival time also will make traffic more congested on Marchmont in the
morning because faculty /staff will be required to arrive within the same window as the students. This
could result in the unnecessary intensification of morning traffic into a 30- minute window, traffic which
otherwise could be dispersed over the course of the morning.
Considering these impracticalities, we ask that the Town Council allow faculty, staff, and
support services to arrive on campus before 7:30 AM. If there remains an important interest to be served
by limiting student arrivals on campus, then the Council could require that Hillbrook students arrive on
campus after 7:30 AM. This is a fair approach that lets Hillbrook function as a school with no impacts to
the neighborhood.
2. 6:00 PM
The 6:00 PM closing time is impractical because strict compliance would cause
unnecessary hardship for Hillbrook families who experience the same kind of work, traffic accident, or
health emergencies as all other Los Gatans, making timely school pick -ups challenging on occasion. The
6:00 PM closing time is overly restrictive and ignores the practical realities facing the school and its
families. For example, if a Hillbrook parent, who is a single mom, has a health emergency that makes it
impossible to pick up her child by 6 PM, would Hillbrook be in violation of its CUP such that it would
not be allowed to add a traunch of 33 students? If the Head of School is advised on a Saturday night that
there is a disturbance on campus or a pipe bursts and a building is flooded, can he/she or a maintenance
worker visit the campus on the weekend to ensure that the school property is safe? Or would that be a
violation too? Last summer following several thefts, we had a security guard patrol the grounds at night.
Would this be allowed? These are consequences — intended or unintended —that the Town and school
will be forced to address as questions arise, so a fair and practical approach now will set the right
expectations moving forward.
Similarly, the 6:00 PM closing time ignores the fact that the school has to be cleaned
every single day. It would be impossible to accomplish this critical task while children are still on
campus. The school is obligated to provide a clean, healthy environment for our students. This arbitrary
closing time interferes with this very important obligation and serves no rational purpose with respect to
somehow minimizing effects on the neighborhood.
In closing, we understand that predictability is the Council's guiding principle relative to our
CUP amendment application. However, the quest for predictability should not interfere with Hillbook's
ability to be a school - cooks need to cook, rooms need to be cleaned, teachers need to be able to teach.
Furthermore, the quest for predictability fundamentally conflicts with the modem -day unpredictable
realities of running a school: people get hurt, kids get sick, traffic accidents happen, work runs late, fire
erupts, pipes burst. Hillbrook cannot reasonably be expected to operate under conditions that fail to
recognize the need for a certain amount of flexibility to deal with life's inevitable turmoil.
We ask that the Council adopt more flexible hours of operation that let the school be a school.
There is no harm to the neighbors with this fair and practical result.
Sincerely,
Mark Silver Chuck Hammers
Head of School Chair of the Board
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester — Spring YTD 2014 -15)
MEMORANDUM
To: Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
From: Brian Conepa, Nelson\Nygaard
Date: March 12, 2015
Subject: Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer 2014 - February 13, 2015) and with Projected
Enrollment Increase
Overview
This memorandum summarizes Hillbrook School's 2014 -2015 school year (to date) daily vehicle
trips, estimates projected trips resulting from a proposed increase in enrollment from 315
students to 414 students, and recommends a future maximum daily trip count.
Background
Hillbrook School currently operates year round, with 315 enrolled students in the Fall and Spring
Semesters and considerably fewer in the summer. Fall and Spring (to date) semester trip patterns
are similar, with the Fall 2014 semester averaging 736 trips per day, versus 7s2 trips per day so
far this Spring. The summer semester volumes were lower with an average of 287 trips per day.
We understand that the Town of Los Gatos has proposed a maximum daily trip allowance of 88o,
with a certain number of exclusions for non - typical schooldays.
As we opined in our January 12, 2105 memorandum, the 88o maximum daily trip allowancehas
no real basis in the record for this application. As we noted in January, the 88o cap converts the
baseline average into a hard cap, which ignores the fact that the 88o baseline is an average ofa
data set of trip counts, half of which were under 88o trips and half of which were over 88otrips.
This puts the school in a situation where it needs to have traffic levels that are significantly lower
than the 2011 baseline count if it wants to add any students beyond the current 315. Therefore, by
imposing a maximum trip cap at 88o trips, the Town Council handicaps Hilibrook to a maximum
that, in our professional judgment, will be extraordinarily difficult to achieve.
It is worth stating here that we continue to believe that the 88o average is a methodology thatis
much more reasonable to realistically attain and still provide for less traffic. This average also will
more fairly represent typical school traffic and reflect the fluctuations inherent in the 88o average
used in the EIR.
Nevertheless, we are in full agreement with the TJKM letter dated January 7, 2015 which states
that both averages and maximums may be applied, but that in order to account for variations in
trips, "the maximum should be roughly 25 to 30 percent higher than theaverage."
Figure 1 summarizes the trip counts, as measured by the counter. Note this analysis excludes non-
school days (holidays and all- school conference days on October 24 and October 27), anddays
with nighttime events (September 5, September 9 -16, October 14, November 12, and December
17). Nine additional days were excluded due to missing data due to equipment malfunction. See
Figure 11 in Appendix A for a full list of daily vehicle volumes for days included in the analysis.
Traffic volumes are generally consistent. Ninety percent of school days have traffic that is within
1o% of the average. There is more variability in daily traffic volumes during the summer semester.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 11
Summary of Doily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester — Spring YTD 2014 -15)
Figure 1 Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips for'14.15 Summer, Fall, and Spring YTD at the HillbrookSchool
Statistic
Minimum daily trip count
Summer
122
Fall
624
Spring YTD
650
Mean (average) daily trip count
287
736
752
Median daily trip count
289
723
750
Maximum daily trip count
526
872
876
Total days counted
56
58
26
Figure 5 through Figure 10 in Appendix A provide a summary of several measures of school traffic
volumes for Summer 2014 — February 13, 2015 and as projected with 414 students, includingthe
mean, median, and maximum traffic volume levels. Individual tables and figures are provided for
the Spring semester year to date (Jan 5 — Feb 13, 2015), Fall (Aug 27 — Dec 18, 2014), and the
summer (Jun 4 - Aug 26, 2014).
Travel Demand Management
Hillbrook School's Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan has been in effect since 2012. The
addition of 11 measures in 2012 (in addition to those previously implemented by the school) have
caused a demonstrated reduction in the number of vehicle trips to and from school. Figure 2
illustrates the downward trend in maximum trip volume each month from September 2012 to
February 2015. This trend (blue dashed trend line) reflects the school's success inimplementing
its TDM plan, which includes measures such as transit shuttle service, carpooling, and kiss and
ride programs. The program currently achieves approximately 95% participation from Hillbrook
families'. Therefore, regardless of the growth scenario, it is unlikely that further meaningfultrip
reductions can be achieved through additional TDMmeasures.
Based on the school's calculations of student related trips. Estimates are based on daily monitoring of bus ridership as
well as morning and afternoon drop off trips. It estimates that only 4% of students arrive via a private automobile.
Approximately 2% walk or bike, 33% take the bus and 60% carpool (assumed 3 students pervehicle).
Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 12
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester— Spring YTD 2014 -15)
Figure 2 Maximum ADT by Month (Excluding Nighttime Events)
1120
1080
1040
1000
960
920
880
840
800
]60
720
680
640
600
Monthly Max ADT
(Excluding Nighttime Events)
'ervq Oq
o fl 0 J2 Jg ef J 41 Jam. J3 11 J3 T, J3 0f3 J,y 0 J3 ° ly " a 0 o 0
ca, y r o 6 J ^Jy `J9 Je r v � v � v
0" 04"
IMonthly Max — Proposed Max (880) -- Linear [Monthly Max)
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 13
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester— Spring YTD 2014 -15)
Approaches to Growth
Using 2014 -2015 data as a basis, this section evaluates Hillbrook School's student growth
scenario, asking:
1) How many students can the school add under the proposed 88o trip maximum with a
designated number of exclusion days?
2) What combinations of trip maximums and exclusions would allow the schoolto
expand from 315 to 414 students?
Based on Hillbrook School's assessment that 30% of existing daily trips are made by staff, faculty,
and support services, the approaches assume that trip growth will be limited to the 7o% share
made by students (see Appendix B for details). It also assumes no further reduction in vehicle trip
rates due to the existing 95% TDM participation of Hillbrook Schoolfamilies.
Student Growth within Proposed 880 Trip Maximum
As indicated in Figure 3, Hillbrook could expand by four additional students with theproposed
88o trip maximum and no exclusions. With five exclusions per semester, 39 additional students
are possible. It would take more than 25 exclusions per semester to expand to 414 students with
an 88o trip maximum. We recommend that at least half of these exclusions per semesterbe
allowed as "floaters" in order to address the unanticipated and unpredictable aberrations in
school traffic attributable to events beyond the school's control, such as bus breakdowns, weather,
illnesses, etc.
Figure 3 Number of Additional Students with the Proposed 880 trip maximum
Exclusion Scenarios with :r Trip Limit
o exclusions per semester
Additional Students
4
5 exclusions per semester
39
10 exclusions per semester
48
15 exclusions per semester
65
20 exclusions per semester
76
25 exclusions per semester
95
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 14
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester — Spring YTD 2014 -15)
Alternate Daily Max and Exclusion Scenarios
Figure 4 evaluates the daily trip maximum in the baseline Fall 2014 semester and three
anticipated growth scenarios with the top 5,10,15, 20 and 25 days excluded. There were no trips
greater than the proposed 88o daily trip maximum in the Fall 2014 semester (holidays anddays
with evening events were excluded, as described in the introduction),
Using Fall 2014 figures as a basis, the remaining columns extrapolate the daily trips with the
school increasing in increments of 33 students up to the desired expansion to 414 students. The
school would be projected to exceed the 88o limit 28 days each semester with 414 students. The
estimated daily trip maximum for Hillbrook's expansion to 414 students is 982 trips with 5
exclusions per semester. A lower maximum could be achieved with more exclusions per semester.
Figure 4 Assessment of Trip Maximums and Exclusions per Semester
Statistic
Average daily trip count
Fall 2014
(315 Students)
736
Extrapolated
.•
1 789
Extrapolated
de
843
Extrapolated
Students)
892
Maximum daily trip count
72
872 -
935
999
1,057
Number of days above 880 /semester
0
1 5
17
28
Existing and Expected Maximum Trip Counts under a Range of Exclusions
Max with 5 exclusions&mester
810
869
928
982
Max with 10 exclusions /semester
796
854
912
965
Max with 15 exclusions/semester
770
826
882
934
Max with 20 exclusionstsemester
754
809
864
914
Max with 25 exclusions/semester
728
781
834
883
Recommendation
It is our opinion that a trip maximum of 88o vehicles limits Hillbrook School's capacity to grow.
Based on the above analysis, some combination of a daily trip count maximum between 883 and
982, with a corresponding number of allowable exclusions between 25 and 5 per semester, would
allow for this growth. We believe that the vehicle trip analysis, based on widely accepted industry
standards, demonstrates that the 88o maximum trip cap is neither reasonable nor in keeping
with best practices. The EIR shows that the 88o trip figure itself represents a vastly lowertrip
rate than is considered practical and the more recent data analyzed herein confirms this.
Consequently, based on the foregoing analysis, we recommend a vehicle trip maximum of at least
965 trips, with a minimum of to exclusions per semester, some of which are allowed as floaters to
address unpredictable traffic conditions.
Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester — Spring YTD 2014 -15)
APPENDIX A
Traffic Volumes in the Spring Semester (Year to Date) 2015
Figure 5 Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (January 5- February 13, 2015 and
Projected for Same Period with 414 Students)
Statistic
Minimum daily trip count
Daily
Students)
650
Daily Trips (With 414
.,
854
Median daily trip count
750
986
Mean (average) daily trip count
752
989
Maximum daily trip count
876
1,151
Total days counted
26
Figure 6 Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School: January 5- February 13, 2015 with 315
Students, and With Projected Increase in Enrollment to 414 Students
•uary mDStwm4tasaaems) • uauy i npstwmwwswaew-rmteaeal
1400
1.200 tut
Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 16
M imm
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester — Spring YTD 2014 -15)
Traffic Volumes in the Fall Semester 2014
Figure 7 Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (August 27- December 18, 2014and
Projected for Same Period with 414 Students)
Statistic
Minimum daily trip count
Daily
Students)
624
Daily
Students-Projected)
820
Median daily trip count
723
950
Mean (average) daily trip count
736
967
Maximum daily tripcount
872
1,146
Total days counted
58
Figure 8 Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School: August 27- December 18, 2014 with 315
Students, and With Projected Increase in Enrollment to 414 Students
• Daily Trips (wft 315 Students) a Daily Trips (With 414 Students- Projected)
1.400
1.200
1,146
1.000 950 967
n
872
820
° 800
723 736
°
600
400
200 624
0
1
Minimum
Median
Mean(average)
Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17
Maximum
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester— Spring YTD 2014 -15)
Hillbrook School
Traffic Volumes in the Summer Semester 2014
Figure 9 Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (June 4- August 26, 2014 and Projected
for Same Period with 414 Students)
Statistic
Minimum daily trip count
i
Students)
122
Daily
Students-Projected)
160
Median daily trip count
289
380
Mean (average) daily trip count
287
377
Maximum daily trip count
526
691
Total days counted
56
Figure 10 Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School: June 4- August 26, 2014 with 315
Students, and With Projected Increase in Enrollment to 414 Students
■ Daily Trips (Wth 315 Students) a Daily Trips (With 414 Students- Projected)
1.400
1,200
1.000
n
H
v
Soo
i
v
600
400
i
200 180
1�0
Minimum
380
289
Median
377
28T
Wan (average)
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 18
691
52i
Maxknum
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips at the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester — Spring YTD 2014 -15)
Hillbrook School
Figure 11 Daily Vehicle Trip Counts at the Hillbrook School (Summer, Fall, and Spring YTD2014.15)
a •
6/4/2014
ADT
292
Date
7/25/2014
ADT
280
Date
9/2212014
ADT
808
Date
11/21/2014
ADT
624
Date
214/2015
. D
778
6/5/2014
250
7/28/2014
258
9/2312014
748
12/112014
708
2/5/2015
792
6/6/2014
266
7/29/2014
258
9/24/2014
810
12/212014
698
2/612015
678
6/9/2014
284
7/30/2014
274
9/25/2014
716
12/3/2014
744
2/912015
738
6/10/2014
326
7/31/2014
230
9/26/2014
660
12/4/2014
790
2/10/2015
786
6/11/2014
296
8/1/2014
182
9/29/2014
716
12/5/2014
686
2111/2015
832
6/1212014
304
8/412014
200
9/30/2014
730
1218/2014
728
2/12/2015
876
6/13/2014
318
8/5/2014
216
10/1/2014
670
1219/2014
798
2/13/2015
770
6/16/2014
402
8/6/2014
194
10/212014
716
12110/2014
698
6/17/2014
366
8/7/2014
152
1002014
728
12/11/2014
680
6/1812014
308
8/812014
122
10/612014
718
1211212014
768
6/19/2014
316
8/11/2014
164
10/7/2014
712
12/15/2014
764
6/20/2014
366
8112/2014
196
10/8/2014
660
12/16/2014
712
6/23/2014
388
8/13 12014
222
10/9/2014
796
12/18/2014
772
6/24/2014
386
8/14/2014
204
10/10/2014
638
12/19/2014
694
6/27/2014
238
8/15/2014
204
10/15/2014
770
1/5/2015
672
6/30/2014
234
8/1812014
286
10/16/2014
802
1/6/2015
712
7/1/2014
230
8/19/2014
264
10/17/2014
636
1/7/2015
824
7/212014
204
8/20/2014
286
10/20/2014
762
1/13/2015
766
7/7/2014
302
8121/2014
300
10/2112014
720
1/14/2015
736
718/2014
314
8/2212014
278
10/2212014
708
1/15/2015
844
7/9/2014
338
8125/2014
384
10/23/2014
826
1/16/2015
650
7/10/2014
378
8/26/2014
526
10/28/2014
784
1/20/2015
710
7/11/2014
342
8/27 /2014
840
10/29/2014
724
1/21/2015
746
7/14/2014
318
8/28/2014
744
10/31/2014
860
1/22/2015
762
7/15/2014
310
8/29/2014
722
11/3/2014
706
1/23/2015
694
7/16/2014
350
9/212014
758
11/11/2014
650
1/26/2015
776
7/17/2014
360
9/3/2014
726
11/13/2014
712
1/27/2015
730
7/18/2014
418
9/4/2014
788
11/14/2014
682
1/28/2015
732
7/21/2014
326
9/8/2014
798
11/17/2014
706
1/29/2015
820
7/22/2014
232
9/17/2014
846
11118/2014
694
1/30/2015
680
7/23/2014
294
9/18/2014
872
11/19/2014
684
21212015
704
7/24/2014
320
9/19/2014
754
11/20/2014
700
213/2015
754
Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 19
Summary of Daily Vehicle Trips of the Hillbrook School (Summer Semester — Spring YTD 2014 -15)
Hillbrook School
Appendix B
Additional traffic with expansion of the number of students at Hillbrook School is not expected to
increase proportionally to the number of additional students. The reason is that some types of
trips would not be expected to increase, such as staff trips, supply delivery, and overnight trips.
Based on existing data from Fall 2014 and the school's best estimate of trip types based on time of
day, Figure 12 below identifies trip types that are expected to increase proportionally with an
increase in students and those expected to remain constant. Overall, it is expected that
approximately 70% of trips would increase with each additional student while approximately 30%
would remain constant. Thus, each new student is anticipated to generate approximately 70% of
the existing number of trips per student.
Figure 12- Calculation of percent Increase in trips for each new student
Trip type
315
students
Fall 2014
Average
348
students
381
414
Morning drop-off
71
78
87
93
Increase proportionally
Parent visitation
40
44
48
53
Increaseproportionally
Support
40
40
40
40
Constant
Afternoon pickup
88
97
106
116
Increase proportionally
staff
75
75
75
75
Constant
Afterschool
41
45
50
54
Increase proportionally
Overnight
13
15
15
15
Constant
Average daily trips
736
789
843
892
% increase intrips
Baseline
7.3%
14.6%
21.3%
% increase instudents
Baseline
10.5%
21.0%
31.4%
• Increase in tripststudent
for each new student2
NA
690/0
690/0
69%
%Percent increase in trips / Percent increase in students
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 10
HILLBROOK SCHOOL
Transportation Report
February 2015
As of the end of February, the following are the transportation statistics:
Bus: We have added a number of shuttling options to our current program, and we continue to bring
significant numbers of students to and from campus by shuttle. Between the start of school and the end of
September, we have averaged 120 students on the bus in the morning and 90 students on the bus in the
afternoon. This represents about 38 percent of traffic arriving during the peak period in the morning and
about 29 percent of exiting traffic during the peak period in the early afternoon.
Bike /walk: We have had between 5 - 10 students walking or biking to school each day, depending on the
day of the week and weather. During our Safe Route sponsored Marching Mondays, we often see up to 30
- 40 students walking. This represents about 2 - 5 percent of our student population arriving in the peak
period in the morning.
Carpools: Currently, about 57 percent of families carpool in the morning, and 64 percent of families
carpool during the afternoon peak period.
Car counter: We installed a car counter at the start of the 2012 -13 school year and have been tracking our
counts each day. The average from the start of school through the end of September has been 72 cars
between 7:30 - 8:30 am and 89 cars between 2:30 - 3:45 p.m.
Over 98% of our student population participate in our Transportation Demand Program in the mornings
and approximately 93% during the afternoon peak period. The successful implementation of our
Transportation Demand Management program allows Hillbrook to be well within the peak period car
count limit of 165 cars.
Sincerely, � �%
,�\/tJJ
Mark Silver, Ph.D., Head of School
Morning Drop Off
Afternoon Pickup
7:30 - 8:30 am
2:30 - 3:45 pm
Students
Trips
Students
Trips
Walk Bike
9
3%
0
3
1%
0
Bus
120
38%
3
90
29%
4
Carpool
180
57%
60
201
64%
67
Non TDM
6
2%
9
21
7%
18
Total
315
72
315
89
Sincerely, � �%
,�\/tJJ
Mark Silver, Ph.D., Head of School
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank