The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 01BL ACQ!)lSITIONS Rl:AL F'\T·\'I f DFVH01'MENT November 17, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 9503~ Phone:(408)354-6872 Email: jarmer@losgatosca.gov RE: 405 Alberto Way. Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 APN 529-23-018 Dear Ms. Armer: Pursuant to your email request of November 14 concerning the revised application submittal which is attached to this letter, attached is a copy of the Hexagon Project Trip Generation table, dated November 15, 2017 as well as the KLA Landscape Architecture Tree Sizes letter, dated November 16, 2017. If you are in need offurther information or assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Shane Arters Attachments: Jennifer Armer November 14 email, Hexagon Project Trip Generation, and KLA Landscape Architecture cc: Randy Lamb Dan Kirby Jolie Houston Alicia Guerra Gary Black Ollie Zhou Uri Eliahu Bob Boeche 535 Middlefield Road. '.iulte 190, Menlo Park, CA 94·J25 650 326.1600 EXHIBIT 1 0 Shane Arters . From: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:39 AM Shane Arters To: Cc: Randy Lamb; Guerra, Alicia Subject: RE: 405 Alberto Way Planning Application Hi Shane, Randy, and Alicia, I have completed my initial review and I have the following requests .. Please provide the following: 1. Revised traffic generation numbers: The information provided in your letter states that the trips would be reduced, but my notes from the Town Council meeting include a request for revised numbers of what the trips would be for this reduced size building. I hope to have those numbers in enough time to get them peer reviewed since this is such a sensitive issue. 2. Increase in tree size details: From my side by side review of the current plan set and the previous plan set it is not obvious to me that there has been an increase in tree sizes. Most of the trees along the street are proposed to be 36-inch box, but that was in the previous plan set as well. Would it be possible to provide some additional description of where the landscaping plant/tree sizes have been increased, or in what way the overall plan is using larger plants? Thank you again for your responsiveness so far. I hope we can continue to move this forward quickly to get a decision for you and the neighbors. Sincerely, Jennifer Alli~"-· Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP • Associate Planner 1)~, Co mmunity Devel op.me nt Department o 110 E. M ai n Street , Lo s Gatos CA 95030 ~-Ph : 408.399.5706 '> 1armer@losgatosca.gov www.losgatosca.gov e https:l/www.facebook.com/losgatosca Community Development Counter Hours: 8 :00 AM -1:00 PM, Monday-Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure: November 23 & 24 -Th anksgiving Holiday This e-mail is intended only for the use of the indivi dual(s) nam ed In this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribut ion or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibi ted; If you have received th is communicati on i n error, please immedi ately notify us at the above e-mail address . ~ Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Table 1 -Project Trip Generation crediting driveway counts IPropoeed Project cP> Original Design Studied In TIA 93.5 ksf 11.03 1,031 1.94 159 22 181 1.96 31 152 183 2nd Redesign 82.0 ksf 11.03 904 1.99 143 20 163 2 .07 29 141 170 3rd Redelsgn 74.3 ksf 11.03 820 2 .03 133 18 151 2.18 28 134 162 iettng Site Drlwway Co&mta (E) 2 Office 30.0 ksf 11.03 331 29 13 42 34 47 81 Net Project Trip GaMratton (Net :a P • E) Original Design Studied in TIA 93.5 ksf 700 130 9 139 (3) 105 102 2nd Redesign 82 .0 ksf 573 114 7 121 (5) 94 89 3rd Redeisgn 74.3 ksf 489 104 5 109 (6) 87 81 Notes: All rates are from : Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition 1. Land Use Code 710: General Office Building (averag rates for daily trips, fitted curve equation for peak hour trips, expressed In trips per 1,000 s.f.) 2. Existing site driveway counts are based on driveway counts conducted on May 5, 2015 during both the AM {7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) peak hours of commute traffic. Daily trips are estimated for existing office use using the daily trip generation rate for General Office Building {average rates, expressed in trips per 1,000 s.f.) LANDSCAPE ~CH!T.iCTUJte .. ---·--PLANNING Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Attn: Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP 11 0 E. Main Street Los Ga'.tos, CA 95030 Re: 405 Alberto Way November 16, 2017 The landscape plans for the proposed office project at 405 Alberto Way have been re\<ised to upsize the installation size of trees. We have also revised some of the species since the plans were last reviewed by the Town of Los Gatos. The trees were already sized quite large with the original submittal -most of the trees were specified to be installed at 36" box size. Following are the modifications that have been made to the landscape plans and can be found on sheet L0 .6. 1. The site has been modified to address the community and Town Council direction. A dog park was added on the north side of the site, the entry courtyard has been modified, and the parking lot at the southeast corner of the site was revised to allow for an amenity space in that comer. The modification of the site required changes to the tree layout, species, and installation sizes . 2 . All nine of the street trees in the parkway strip along Alberto Way have been changed from October Glory Maple (Acer) to Fern Pine (Podocarpus) and have been up-sized from 36" box to 48" box. (Fern 'Pines' are not really pines, just the name, they are v ery clean broadleaf evergreen shade.istreet trees that have great branch structure with really nice contrast between the smooth bark and fine textured leaves). 3. The small trees and bamboo that were originally specified have been revised to flowering cherries (Prunus) and have been up-sized. Two different species of predominately white-flowering cherries replaced the previously specified bamboo (in the courtyard) and Crape Myrtles (at the driveway entries). Additionally, white flowering cherries have been added to the southeast comer of the site (comer of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Sarato ga Road). 15 15-gallon bamboos have been replaced with 15 24" box Snow Goose Cherries and 10 24"-box Crape Myrtles have been replaced with 11 30"-box Akebono Cherries. 4. A 36" box size Fem Pine (Podocarpus) was added on the north side of the site at the dog park entry. I hope that this helps to clarify the modifications that were made to the plans to respond to the comments by the community and the Town Council. Thank y ou, Tom Holloway, ASLA, KLA, Inc. CLA#3589 Page 1 March 17,2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 405 Alberto Way Dear Jennifer: ARClilTECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the revised project about a month ago and made a nwnbcr of recommendations. The applicant has imple- ment.ed some of the recommendations, but not all. My comments on the new drawings provided last week a.re as fol- lows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located at the corner of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, and is currently occupied by three office buiktings with office space located both below and above grade level. Photogmphs of the site and surrounding build- ings are shown on the following page. 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRC LE. SUITE 199. LARKSPUR CA . 94939 EXHIBIT 1 l TEL: 415.331.3795 CDCPLAN@PACBE LL.NET Existing site building at the Alberto Way Cor11 1•1 New one-story retail building across Alberto Way Adjacent residential development immediately north of the site 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 2 f.\i,tm • iJ.1.JllJmg JI r:he center of the site fai·.t 1m• landscaping along the north edge ol r he site Adjacent residential development immediately across Alberto Way CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR Lr\NDING CIRCLE sum 199 LARKSPUR . CA -94939 405 Albcrw Wily Design Review Commcnu March 17, 2017 Pagc3 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES MADE TO THE PREVIOUS DESIGN APPROACH REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The applicant has revised their design approach following direction from the Planning Commission at its public hear- ing on August 241h of last year. The Planning Commission direction included increasing the project's conformance with General Plan Policy LU-1.8 (designing in kecpmg with the small-town c:h2racter of Los Gatos), lessening the impact on the adjacent neighborhood and increasing the design's conformance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines, especially Section 1 .4 Community Expectations. The applicant's proposed changes reviewed in February included the following: • A reduction in the overall gross building area. ~ A consolidation of the original two buildings into a single structure. • A reduction in the structure's overall building height by live feet. • Elimination of the tower clements. • A decrease in the size of second story windows. • An increased setback from the north property line. • An increased setback of the building from Alberto Way near the Los Gatos-Saratoga Road intersection. • An increase of surface parking spaces along the full length of the Alberto Way fronage. A comparison of the previous and current site plans is shown below. Previous Site Plan Currently Proposed Site Plan FEBRUARY CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In preparing the current design approach, the applicant has Wgcly retained many of the previous elevation forms and details while incorporating the changes outlined above. I stated in the February review letter that I believed it may be rather difficult to achieve a desired small-town Los Gatos scale and appearance when starting with a large building and making small changes to it. A satisfactory solution might be more easily achievable by starting the design with the goal of creating multiple structures with smaller scale modules and details set within a landscaped site framework. While the changes noted above have reduced several aspects of the project's perceived size, the project that I reviewed in February still in many ways read as a single large building. Concerns included the following. 1. The project seemed to read as one large office building without a breakdown in scale .telated to the neighborhood or the Los Gatos existing small town scale. 2. The building clements appeared very much as boxes with some mansard roof attachments -an approach speci.fi- cally discouraged on page 8 of the guidelines within the Co11111111ni'!J ExpedationJ section (next to last bullet point). 3. The design did not have the "Careful attention to architectural ... detail similar to the Town's residential architec- ture" (Community Expectations page 7). CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Co!!Unen ts Mardil7,2017 Pagc4 Reads as boxes with add-on elements which Is not consistent Flat wall taller than side masses with the Commercial Design Guidelines I I Is not working well as a linking feature I .,,,. Identified February Concerns That said, I did acknowledge that I undentood the applicant's desire to provide Class A office space \\ith latge floor plates to accommodate a .range of tenant size. I noted that should staff and the Planning Commission choose to accept the applicant's chosen site plan and floor plate direction, I did have a few recommendations, as shown below and on the following page, to assist in reducing the visual mass and scale of the building. Larger, partial elevations are shown on the following page for more detail. Major change elements shown on the elevation recommendations included the following: 1. Providing more visual variety and break up in scale for the building located closest to Alberto Way. • Providing fust and second floor recesses and roof breaks to reduce the boxiness of the structure and break up the current single bulk mass of the structure. • Increasing the mansard roof height for the portion of the building closest to the intersection. Increasing the amount of projection for the elevation pop outs at the fust floor. • Providing more of a wall plane offset where the two-story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. 2. Reducing the visual mass of the central link of the setback portion of the building. • Lowering the height of the current 5' -6" parapet. • Adding a significant projecting cornice canopy to match the adjacent mansard roof eave lines. Adding brackets at the cornice canopy to add architectural detail. C tilizing a cooler wall color for the set back wall to distinguish it from the other walls and reduce the feeling of one latge building. • Providing some subtle enhancement to the visual prominence of the main building entry. 3. Adding more architectural detail. Shown on the study are two different types of trellis canopies. There is always a tend.ency to do uniform trellises, but in seeking a less formal approach to relate to the smaller scale of the residen- tial development, I believe that increased variety would be more successful. FEBRUARY RECOMMENDED ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION CHANGES CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARK SP UR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR . CA , 94939 405 Albcno Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 ~ 5 I did also note that the placement of surface parking along the entire Albcno Way frontage was not consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines. However, given the concerns expressed about the loss of available multi-use parking at this site, I stated that I bdievcd that surface parking in this location could be useful and acceptable. Increasing amount of projection would be deslrable More wall plane offset here would be desirable Type 1 trellis canopies I m~ood CJft for IMgM 1.t Md Jnd flOOr Cllmblfll .,,,.. WOflld be..,,,,,. FEBRUARY Al.BERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDAllONS: LEFT HALF FEBRUARY ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDAllONS: RIGHT HALF CANNON DESIGN CROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR . CA • 94939 405 Alberro Way Oaign Review Co:rnmcnu March 17, 2017 Page 6 REVISED CURRENT DESIGN CONCERNS ANO ISSUES The original design reviewed by the Planning Commission in August, the previous design that I revi~d in February and the currently proposed design are shown in the Alberto Way sketches and elevations below. Reviewed by the Planning Commission in August Prevlous Alberto Way ElevaUon : Reviewed by the Planning Commlssron Currently Proposed Alberto Way Elevation I IF"Fl'~--'~--;;;;~g~:r::~~~r 1 CANNON DfSIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCl.E. SUITE 199 LARKSPUR. CA . 949 :~9 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 7 The additional changes to the design in response to the recommendations contained in the February review and .recom- mendations letter include the following: • The mansard .roof height at the portion of the building closest to the Alberto Way /Los Gatos-Saratoga Road inter- section was increased in height, but not as much as shown on the .recommendations .illustration. • The ground .floor pop outs and wall plane offset adjacent to Alberto Way were both increased 8 inches in depth. • Some trellis and sunshade elements were added, but only on the Alberto Way elevation. • The central building link parapet was lowered. • The color of the central building link was modified. • A projecting cornice canopy with brackets was added to the central building link. One change made that I feel was counter productive to a decrease in the building scale is the increased height of the building entry element. I feel that the lower entry originally proposed with the minor changes recommended in the Feb.,. rua.ry review letter would be mote in the spirit of the Planning Commission's direction to the applicant. I am also unsw:e whether the trellises and canopies that have been added will be signjficant enough to add sufficient smaller scale detail clements to the facade. It would be helpful for the applicant to provide photo examples showing the proposed materials and construction of these elements. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission will need to determine if the changes summarized above are sufficient to satisfy th~ direc- tion to the applicant which I understood to include the following: • The Planning Commi;sion §IJll speafic dinctio11 to the applicant to signiftcant!J mlNa the size of the bNilding in height, ma.rr and floor IJl'ta. • The Planni11g Co111111iuion lJllll JjJldftc dirrdin to the applitanf to rrvi11 the proporlli t/e.rilJI to b1 "'°" in leuping wilh th1 111ighbor- hood and J111ail to11111 rharacter. Speaftc .fllggtJtWIU inclNrkd: 1. Mo11i11gpropo1ed 405 bllildi11g flW'!J from the mirk11tial tuighbors 2. &ducing the sea/I (h1ight, lllM.f aJ1d length) of th1 Albmo W '!Y fa;ad1 of tlN 401 bllilding, with additional 11r:o11d floor arliada- tion 3. Not blackmg the view of 11101111tains from tuighbors 4. Change r!Jfl of proposed bNildingr to be "'""similar to neighborhood archif«tNral rtJll 5. Inmased ea11far111aJ1&e 1lliJh Co111111mial DesilJI GNirklilles, spe,;iftcal!J: S tdW11 1.4 Co111f111111itj Bxptctatio111: a. Careflll alf111tio11 to arrhilldNral and kmtkttzpe rktail.r siailar to the Town} roidential sfnK/llrr.t. b. The smsilive intltfaa of tommmial dnelop111ent with adjamit mirknlial nei1,hborboods. c. Scale amJ character appropriate to the setting. 6. Inma.fld tolljof"lllance with General Pkm Po/ims: a. Poli!] LU-1.8: Co111111m:ial d1velop111t11t of any typ1 (of!iee, rrtai/, rmarrh a11d d1r11lop111111t, 1k.) shaU b1 rksioud in kelping with the mall-to11111 chartKter of Los Gakl.r. b. Policy LU~.5: The MJe, rkn.rity, and itrtmi!J of new kmd 111e shall be t:r111si.rlent with that of th1 illlmediate neighborhood. Should the Planning Commission conclude that the changes meet their concems, I would suggest that they consider the following changes made in the February review letter. • Increase the roof height more at the building portion closet to the Alberto Way /Los Gatos-Saratoga Road intersec- tion. • Add additional building articulation to the wall and roof articulation as or similar to the recommendation made in February. • Lower the height of the entry element and conform to the height and continuous cornice canopy recommendations in the February review lettci:. • Direct staff to review the material and scale of the proposed trellis and sunshade canopy elements. • Withhold approval for the color of the centnl link until staff has viewed and evaluated the color choices as painted as sample swatches on the completed building walls. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR. CA 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comrnenu March 17, 2017 Page 8 Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CM'NON DESIGN GROuP Larry L. Cannon CANNON DES IGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR 1.1\ND IN G CI RCLE SU ITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA , 94939 10 11 12 10 Ne w A D A c u r b r a m p s . Re m o v e a n d r e p l a c e p a v e m e n t s e c t i o n . 11 2” g r i n d a n d o v e r l a y . 12 Re l o c a t e p e d e s t r i a n c r o s s w a l k . A d d h i g h - v i s i b i l i t y c r o s s w a l k s t r i p e s , r e c t a n g u l a r r a p i d f l a s h i n g b e a c o n s , y i e l d l i n e o r a p p r o p r i a t e s i g n a g e , e t c . , w i t h a p p r o v a l f r o m C a l t r a n s . EXHIBIT 1 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: RE : 401-405 Alberto Way Project Dear Jennifer, Jorge Pelon <jorgepelon@yahoo.com> Tuesday , October 03, 2017 12 :36 PM Jennifer Armer Alberto Way Project-IMPORTANT PLEASE READ! I am a resident at Los Gatos Commons (a senior living condo community) at 439 Alberto Way. I have MANY SERIOUS CONCERNS about the 401-405 Alberto Way Project. The location of this big project is at the head of a dead end small street (one way in and out). This small street contains VERY HIGH DENSITY housing, full of condo complexes, a large motel and a restaurant. I challenge you to find a dead end street in Los Gatos that has a higher density population than is present on Alberto Way. My senior housing condo complex alone contains 110 units. The size and density of the proposed project is ridiculously inappropriate for a small roadway called "Way", not boulevard or street. This project would be more appropriate on Los Gatos Blvd , NOT little Alberto Way. The congestion and pollution this project will create for the local residents is exorbitant. We will be TRAPPED during construction and afterwards. Before this (401-405 Alberto Way) location had a surface level parking lot that was more than adequate, now the developers are proposing a 2 level underground parking structure, besides surface level parking. This is indicative of the absurd degree of increased density. I am in my late sixties and suffer from respiratory conditions. The amount of pollution produced by the demo and construction phase will greatly compromise my hei:llth and quality of life. I am a working professional and punctuality is essential for my practice. The added congestion will be extremely in convenient for me to get to work. Alberto Way has been a wonderful place to live, PLEASE don't allow these GREEDY land developers to greatly deter mentally affect the quality of life for the local residents. They don't have to live here, they take their money and run. This proposed project as it stands will forever ruin the charm and beauty of this part of Los Gatos. I have absolutely no issues with renovating the old location, but PLEASE help preserve the specialness of our town and PLEASE force the developers to reduce the scope and density of their project to be similar to what was their before. This is a desperate plea for justice and humanity! Sincerely, Jorge Pelon Sent from my iPad EXHIBIT 13 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Dern <mdern@dern-ad.com> Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:49 PM voiceheard@401albertoway.com Please approve 405 Alberto Way As a local architect and resident of Los Gatos, I support the project! Sincerely, Michael Michael Dern, AIA Principal DERN Architecture + Development (415) 307-1283 mdern@dern-ad.com www.dern-ad.com Jennifer Armer On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Denny Alff <dennyalff@comcast.net> wrote: Dear Council Members, As we watched you last night at the Town Council meeting, we so hoped that you saw us, a group of green name tagged neighbors, anxious, concerned, and downright scared about our neighborhood's future . We just want our precious homes to be protected. We walk in the neighborhood, visit with each other, sitting on benches in our courtyards. We are just so thankful for the fresh air and quiet environment (in spite of proximity to hiway 17), and ---grateful for our homes, neighborhood, friends, our quality of life, and a town that has always protected us. We most sincerely ask that you will help us to continue having all that we now have . I was surprised that all conversation last night was focused on the new building's details to possibly make it less bulky and less ugly. I thought the vote was to be a more general decision on whether the new building (even modified) should even be built vs not building it. Could the 405 Alberto developer simply take his noise, his workers' trucks being parked everywhere, his air pollution while tearing down buildings, all his dug out parking spaces and his probably ineffective shuttle service and genera l neighborhood wrecking elsewhere? Could you please just send him off to terrorize another neighborhood, not ours? It would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks for reading this and cons i dering our concerns . We are truly appreciative of your considerable efforts to make the proper decision. Regards, Denny Alff Los Gatos Commons Sent from my iPhone ........ October 18, 2017 Honorable Members of the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission c/o Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Redevelopment of the Los Gatos Lodge Property Dear Members of the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission: RECEJVED OCT 2 8 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION As you might be aware, we are the owner and operator for the past 23 years of the Los Gatos Lodge which is situated on 8+ acres of property at 50 Saratoga Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos . During our ownership, we have operated the hotel, restaurant and related banquet facil ~ties to the highest standards and have renovated the rooms, common area and banquet fac!lities several times. We consider ourselves part of the community and have always appreciated our working relationship with the Town of Los Gatos and the efforts of your public service to maintain the standards that make Los Gatos a special place . During the past several years while the project at 401-409 Alberto Way has been under consideration for intensifying the office development on the site, we have been contacted on . several occasions by the optionee (project applicant} of the site and by many of the citizens involved in the discussion surrounding the project. It is our practice not to comment on other proponent's projects unless there Is some direct negative impact to our property; therefore, we have reme1ined silent. Recently, the 401.-409 Alberto Way project was appealed to the Town Council and remanded back to the Pianning Commission tor additional review and project modification . During several of the Town Council and Planning Commission meetings involving this project, there were specific comments made about the redevelopment of the Los Gatos lodge property given its low i ntensity of development (.13 or less FAR) when compared with the proposed Alberto Way office proposal with an FAR of .90+. Based upon those comments, we received an increase amount of inquiries from several community members about the future for the redevelopment of the Los Gatos Lodge property. Our priority continues to be operating the existing business as we have for the past 23 years; however, it is apparent from the community interest in the Los Gatos Lodge property and testimony observed during several public hearings, that the community needs have Town of Los Gatos October 1.8, 2017 Page 2 changed over the years . Since the Town is reviewing the Alberto Way project, perhaps it is time to consider the broader needs of the community a nd what woui d be best suited to occupy the Los Gatos lodge property in the future. As you continue your review on the 401-490 Alberto Way project, we enco urage you to envisio n the future of that intersection with something other than the Los Gatos Lodge that satisfies a need in the community. We are always available to discuss this further, but wm only pursue redevelopment of the site into something that the community supports and benefits from being redeve loped. Perhaps a broader discussion about this in relationship to the Town of Los Gatos' future goals and plans would be beneficial as our approach to redevelopment of a site will be significantly more considerate than what we have witnessed w ith the Atberto Way project. We would encourage you to identify a planner to review with us opportunities for this site. I hope this letter is helpful in communicating our response to the many fnquiries received about redevelopment of the property and you have our commitment that the existing hotel will continue to be operated until a project worthy of consideration and support by tile community is warranted. Should you wish to d iscuss this further, you are welcome to call our property representative David Bugatto at (916) 648-7718. Thank you for your service and continued efforts to further improve the quality of life in the Town of Los Gatos. Sincerely, Keet Nerhan Los Gatos Lodge LLC Cc : Jennifer Armer David J. Bugatto ~!Paulson Laurel Prevetti Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Better .... but still too BIG!!! Mary Patterson <mmpmitzi@comcast.net> Wednesday, November 08, 2017 4:41 PM Jennifer Armer Alberto Jennifer Armer From: Cheryl Huddleston [mailto:chehud@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 4:36 PM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: 401-409 Alberto Way-Revised Plans -Tentative PC Date 12/13/17 This is a way too big and way too dense of a project. Where is the open space? Where can the employees take a break, exercise, eat their lunch? Parking lots should not count as open space. Bigger frees are good but they need space also. Does the town have to guarantee a profit to all these developers that want to overbuild and overcrowd this town. Thank you, Cheryl and Stan Huddleston Jennifer Armer Attachments: IMG_2048jpg; IMG_2051jpg; IMG_E2049jpg From: Bonna Kauffman [mailto:bonnasue@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:51 PM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Fw: 401-409 Alberto Way -Revised Plans -Tentative PC Date 12/13/17 Jennifer, the enclosed photos show just one construction vehicle parked on A l berto Way; this was parked here for about 2 days or so. You can see how it obstructs the flow of traffic on Alberto Way, and how dangerous it could be . ANd this is just one truck; and just the beginning ..... Thank you for your consideration, -Bonna Kauffman 109 T reseder Ct Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Jennifer, John <jomill@yahoo.com> Thursday, November 30, 201712:54 AM Jennifer Armer Alberto W ay Development Project I am a senior resident owner in the Los Gatos Commons development on Alberto way. I have been following the Alberto Way and Hwy 9 project proposal thus far from a distance but now feel I must make my voice heard . I actually grew up in Los Gatos back in the 60's so I've seen the changes over the decades to a wonderful little town. I realize some growth and change is inevitable over time, I am not a no growth hardliner, more for reasonable growth . I have been pleased that the growth and changes over the years have been kept in check as to not get too out of line and detract or destroy the "small town" atmosphere that has made Los Gatos such a great little town. I can see why the town might be interested in a project such as the Alberto Way commercial building for the future revenue . The building size is not unreasonable for a two story office building, but it simply does not belong in that location . As you know there is already a large commercial office complex at the end of Alberto way. At least it is hidden in the trees an up against the freeway. It is barely noticeable and does not block any residents views in the area. That complex already adds a significant amount of traffic in and out of Alberto Way and I'm not even sure if that office complex is 100% occupied . The new proposed office building will add far too much traffic to that area . I just think the new Alberto Way/Hwy9 office building is more suited to an area like Winchester Blvd and Lark Ave areas where there are already a bunch of larger office buildings. Shouldn't the planners be encouraging workplace development closer to public transit VT A light rail as is being done throughout other cities in Santa Clara valley? It seems counter-intuitive to me to put a large office building at Alberto Way which is more residential (both on Alberto way and surrounding areas right up on Los Gatos Blvd and beyond .) I thin the new office building is too tall for this location. A one story building would be OK. But the massive 2 story building will just block views of the mountains which residents in Los Gatos are so blessed to have right in front of them : In other words, we don't want our neighborhood to start looking like the dense neighborhoods of San Jose, Santa Clara etc., where you only see sides of big buildings everywhere you look instead of the surrounding hills. A building misplaced like this just chips away at the quality of life in this area of Los Gatos. I implore you to reconsider the location of such a large building or dramatically reduce the size (one story) to fit into the existing neighborhood. The area can be modernized and updated without ruining it forever. Regards, John Miller 453 Alberto Way Planning Commission Los Gatos, CA December 4, 2017 Dear Commission Members, I am writing to give you an assessment of how seniors at The Commons have been and will be affected by the developer's application process, the community meetings, the hearings, and the developer's publicity about the 405 Alberto Way project. I do this from a professional perspective. I have a Ph. D. in Cultural Anthropology and worked for 30 years as a professor and researcher. One of my areas of expertise is the anthropology of aging. My publications include an article in Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology and a book, Husbands and Wives (2010) that analyzes changes over time in the cultural and social organization of the aged. For my research I received 3 research grants from the National Institute on Aging, a grant from the Sandoz Foundation for Gerontological Research, and a postdoctoral fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health. My work and teaching has examined how changes in physical, economic, social, political and religious circumstances affect the elderly and how and why they respond as they do. I live at The Commons and have observed the impact of the proposed development on the seniors and their struggle to get it reduced in size. CEQA Sec. 15131 reads that social effects may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by a project. So if construction affects a community negatively, construction is physical change but the social effect on the community would be the basis for determining that the effect would be significant. In my opinion, the proposed huge building at 405 Alberto Way, the two-level underground garage, and the increased traffic, as well as the developer's attitude toward the senior community, will have a negative impact on the senior population at The Commons. In fact, it has already begun to do so. How so? In four respects. First, the sense of self worth of the members of the Commons community is challenged. I lived at the Commons before and after the proposed project was a possibility. Now, I often hear comments that the developer thinks "we don't count"; "we don't matter;" "we helped build this town; are we going to be discarded?" After the developer distributed his brochure, I hear "Are we going to be thrown under the shuttle bus?" The developer encouraged these feelings by telling individuals at community meetings that he did not care about the residents, only the building. Second, seniors are beginning to doubt that they can remain independent, especially when it comes to driving themselves around town to their appointments and shopping. I hear "How am 1 going to get to my doctor appointments on time?" "Will my therapist be able to get through the traffic to make her appointment with me?" "Can I still drive myself if the traffic gets worse?" Third, seniors are beginning to become uneasy about maintaining social connectivity, again because of fear of traffic congestion and speeding drivers trying to get through the intersections and onto ramps to highway 17. People say to each other, "Can I get my grandchildren to school or ball practice on time? I don't want to let my family down." "Can I be on time for exercise class or my club meeting?" "Maybe I won't try it if the traffic on the street gets bad." Fourth, the residents of The Commons are beginning to worry about their safety if they continue to walk up the street to the intersection. And they especially worry about their financial independence. "Will I be able to take care of myself if the value of my property declines" or if "the problems that can come from an underground garage (broken pipes expensive to fix) occur''? "What will happen to me if I need to sell my unit and it is hard to sell because of the construction mess or, later, all the traffic"? When I moved here about 4 years ago, I heard stories, humorous anecdotes, laughter, helpful advice, and so on-a positive, happy community here at The Commons. So it is disturbing to hear this shift in attitude. Are these fears realistic? I think so. If the developer is allowed to build this 74,260 s.f. building and 2 story underground garage in defiance of the Planning Commission and the residents, the feelings of humiliation and sadness will intensify. If the 298 plus cars, on top of the 100 cars coming to and from 475 and 485 Alberto Way, cause the delays that are expected, the seniors' trips to take care of business or visit friends and family will be relegated to the times of day when traffic is light. They will be more isolated than they are during the beach traffic on the weekends. A decline in physical activity is quite possible if seniors are reluctant to walk across the busy driveways of the proposed building. Financial insecurity is a reality for people in their 70s and above. If it becomes necessary to move to a memory unit or assisted living, most people at the Commons would rely on their nest egg, their unit-where most of their savings went. If the value of these properties falls or if it becomes more difficult to sell the units because of construction or the deterioration of the quiet, low traffic, small town character of Alberto Way, it could be harder to afford a new residence somewhere else where there is professional help. Alberto Way is heavily populated by seniors-about 170 live here (half of the adult population). In my opinion, if the developer succeeds in getting approval for this huge, over 73,000 s.f. building with all its associated traffic, this change will be detrimental to individual seniors and to the senior community at The Commons. 1 urge you not to allow this to happen. Sincerely, Loretta Fowler, Ph. D. Professor Emerita of Anthropology Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: To The Planning Commission; Joan K Larson <joanklarson@aol.com> Tuesday, December 05, 2017 1:02 PM Jennifer Armer 401-409 Alberto Way This email is in regard to the safety for the residents on Alberto Way. My point being that the road is just too narrow for the size of the project that has been proposed. So many times has the on coming traffic been over the yellow line when there are parked cars along the curb. With trucks it is worse. There needs to be a traffic study done on the SAME SIZE BUILDING with the SAME TYPE OF LOCATION. A dead end curving narrow road with only one ingress/egress. There is NO alternative for the residents if road is blocked. Especially in case of emergency. How will Alberto Way be zoned so that the street parking can be held for neighboring residents? The reduction of the size of the proposed building is NOT enough. A two story underground garage is still too many cars on an already busy road and intersection. Besides the residents, the offices at 475 Alberto Way has an estimate of 100 additional cars. Thank you for attention to this matter. Joan Larson 441 Alberto Way #114 ·Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-348-6698 Sent from my iPhone Jennifer Armer From: Sent To: Subject: Attachments: CONNIE <cgdailey@comcast.net> Tuesday, December OS , 2017 4:45 PM Jennifer Armer RE: 401-409 Alberto Way Public Hearting.docx Public Hearting/Planning Commission December 13, 201 7 Architecture and Site Application 5-15-056 The project has been determined to have a significant impact on the environment. Once the project is completed, the developer will no longer be held accountable for any future underground damage to existing property or buildings. This is a serious threat to homeowners who will have to pay for the repair of damage out of their own pockets. This will bankrupt many, as they are seniors on fixed incomes. The underground parking garage is a disaster waiting to happen. Another concern about this project is the additional traffic it will bring. On any given day, current traffic backs up on Hwy 9 to University Avenue or beyond and makes it almost impossible to get in or out of the neighborhood. In an emergency, first responders will be delayed by the impasse, or those in need of help will not be able to leave due to the congestion. This project is not a good idea for this location and will not be beneficial to the town of Los Gatos. George S . Dailey 441 Alberto Way #111 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-827-4956 cgdailey@comcast.net Gerald E. and Sondra T. Hamilton 451 Alberto Way, 0153 December 7, 2017 Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner For The Attention of: Los Gatos, CA 95032 ghamilton29@gmail.com 972-890-4772 Mary Badame, Kendra Burch, Melanie Hanssen, D. Michael Kane Matthew Hudes, Thomas O'Donnell and Kathryn Janoff LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CA 95030 Re: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY Dear Jennifer and Each/All Planning Commission Members: We have not communicated with you Planning Commission Members before, only to and with Jennifer Armer and each of the Council members on this extremely consequential matter of the proposed office project on our above tiny street. We want you to know that my wife and I ARE and have been residents and owners within the Senior Citizens condominium project commonly known as "Los Gatos Commons", the outstanding development consisting of some 100 units and on-site parking for some 140 autos plus 9 guests. It is to be noteds our community does NOT complicate the dally/nightly parking on Alberto Way, which, by the way on one recent Saturday night (11/18/17), had 54 cars parked on the easterly side and 12 on the westerly side of our street! Only one or two additional cars could have been accommodated. MOST of these vehicles depart out of Alberto Way each morning. A terrific number of vehicles still ENTER our street BEFORE any new office or other structure replaces the now totally vacated office buildings on 401-409 Alberto Way! When there Is the above number of vehicles on the street, you need to think about the narrowness for the traffic flow from the northerly end of Alberto Way to the intersection of Hwy 9 to even IMAGINE the congestion of this intersection when some 300 additional vehicles might be entering and existing Alberto Way, IF such a huge office building was to be constructed as currently proposed. A large number of offsite vehicles would also be generated and just where would THEY be accommodated? Please keep in mind also; there is NO, absolutely NO public rights of way for turn arounds of cars finding no parking, except perhaps at the entrance to the existing office building at the northerly end of Alberto Way! All other driveways to the existing residential developments are PRIVATE rights of way! This could create a considerable problem, without doubt! Jennifer Armer All Planning Commission Members GEH Letter dated December 7, 2017 Page Two Most all of us who object to the proposed development predicate our position on the incredible and excess SIZE of the proposed office building AND the numbers of parking of vehicles required by zoning relative thereto. The formerly occupied and existing office buildings ONLY contained about 36,000 square feet. To even TRY to imagine a building/s containing over TWICE as many square feet and double the amount of on-site parking is hardly conceivable. Quite wisely and appropriately, you Planning Commission Members took all of the above and more into your deliberations on the then proposed 84,000 +/·structures! We applauded your decision and were very hopeful that the Town Council would support your decision, but obviously discouraged when they did NOT! However it DID wisely remand the matter back to you for reconsideration. Sondra and I have attempted to correlate the above factors to one key statement made by the proposed developer, but it just does NOT compute! He said in one of his documents "Our commitment to quality e;:tends into neighborhoods where we work side-by-side with our neighbors". It is supportable fact that this developer has almost totally ignored most all input and recommendations from the neighborhood. He has little or NO concern as to the impact of such huge building/s will have on all aspects of the life of the residents not ONLY on Alberto Way, but downtown Los Gatos, where there is a serious lack of adequate parking for the general population of not only the Town, but for visitors to the stores and restaurants in the downtown area that are in such need of parking to survive. · We believe the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission and the Council MUST evaluate whether or not the traffic congestion created by the proposed office building and its required parking has been grossly underestimated! It will impact not only Alberto Way, but also Hwy 9, the four on-and-off ramps to and from Highway 17 and the entire downtown Los Gatos community by way of east-west traffic on Hwy 9! I just know you each and all of you know and have experienced the backup of vehicles southbound on Highway 17 from as far north as Hamilton Avenue, yes? It takes more than approximately 15 MINUTES for just THIS drive and THEN when one reaches the off ramps to Highway 9, it is really congested and one can hardly reach either Los Gatos Blvd. or University or Santa Cruz Avenues without considerable delay and backups! What will it be like when approximately 300 +/-additional cars attempt to reach, then attempt to go easterly on Highway 9 to travel to the signalized intersection of Alberto Way and all try to make a left turn so as to enter the new office building project????? Whoever, at the end of the last Town Council meeting, suggested that a 74,000+/-square foot building would be more appropriate on the subject site, has since tried to clarify his statement, but has no reasonable basis for his suggestion and there is NO support anywhere that we can determine for such a minimal size reduction. It appears to be nothing more than an off-the-cuff statement and should be Ignored! Jennifer Armer All Planning Commission Members GEH Letter dated December 7, 2017 Page Three We love our residential community as do most ALL of the current owners/occupants of all of the Individual projects on Alberto Way. It is unique but under siege by a developer that insists and must believe HIS design and size of the project FITS on this unique Avenue. IT DOES NOT and we respectfully request your deliberations concur and you again deny the currently modified and minimally reduced size and character of this development. Respectfully submitted . Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: From the Los Gatos Commons Lindsay Catterton <lcatte5850@aol.com> Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:56 AM Jennifer Armer Alberto Way Mr Lamb's modifications are still not acceptable! Size was not reduced significantly and the traffic problems still exist!! What would happen if we had a wildfire and all had to get out at one time and had to contend with that amount of cars from that monstrosity as well? Please don't let him build that huge thing!!! Lindsay Catterton #lOSA the Los Gatos Commons Sent from my iPhone . I I I I lf o 1 -Lf (!> 5' A J b" r--1o ~ '114-/ of "7.e."1 f }e_~r-Jen»11j.a- . '/? S2. "./'°' r-J; ~'J YltR... C: ~o ve y ro _;'<~t lL1 t f-/i o._ J t if, R.. add~ -h a~t:t} ·-t<·t:z:f f '> a nf l/.fl...h1.;f e._ d rt~' 'ny n <!/ r ~ -f-a Ea..5-f-Lt>s G~-J\'! s o~ tf7 57 W ~~(f ha V~ Cl-.d1 :;cJ;~ vf-:f +Jh>IL -fry,..,_, J -Jr, ~SS f/w y 9 -r-h P Ur A J be Y'+o A.,,// a...y ,. ( e.-f-J. -f v r f) .. J ... a 111. o. S12-111'o~ !V--i-L~s G~'o...r G,Jl'Y" bN5 ThAnff/~3 ~au 01 .. '1~ ~ t-e._ } .Y RECEIVED ··ore Oo 2011 ~-~~ I TO~ OF LOS GATOS i Pl.ANNING DIVISION I Jennifer Armer From : Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:40 PM Jennifer Armer Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz Alberto Way Citizens Opposition Petition to November 2017 Design for 405 Alberto Way Alberto Way Citizens Opposition Petition to Nov, 2017 405 Alberto Design 11.pdf; Palo Alto dewateri ng regulations. pdf; Ca ltra ns g u ide_p reparation_ t raffic_i m pact_ stud i es.pdf Attached to this e-mail is the petition, from the signatories and its written & graphic attachments: Request for Design Changes, Design Change Illustrations, Palo Alto's De-watering Regulations, Caltrans Traffic Study Methodology. Furthermore, it has come to our attention that in addition to the Cisco office footprint per employee we placed in the record in August 18, 2016, NETFLIX fits its employees into 60 square feet and Apple is moving 900 people into an SOK sq. ft. building in Fremont. Based on these and Town Engineer's omission of material fact in all hearing on this matter that Town Policy allows multiple study methods including Caltrans, San Jose and San Diego in addition to the ITE study method, we're requesting a new traffic study be done by the Town using the Caltrans study method and modern trip generation numbers based on between 60 and 100 sq ft per tenant employee. Regards, Bob Burke 408-896-7896 "Timely action combined with market knowledge creates excellence and value in the introduction of new technology ." Pet:it'ion to the Town of Los Gatos to DENY the November '2017 Design of he Application for P:roposed Development at 401-409 AIL3rto Wa r-=~:~~---G~=~~~!EE~~~:,~~~~~::~:~=m:::::::of l t~~~~~-~!~ea __ f~~ ____ J -~e~. the u~r~~~~~~ ~;~; ~~~~~ .. ~!J~~b wh~. ~r~ ~e-Pl~n'!~~ Boar~ a_~d: 1?~~~~Y-~~~-~~-~~~~~--~6,~--~i~~~=-~~!.~~· ..... : .. J f PrlB':d~ -~L-.~ zrt:~1~~11 ~j~~~~~i~-~~:7~;~:~~~.~-, K ! ~~~~~r:~-~:;;t~. --/.~-J~~~ ;;J: I . L \. r j / . ~ , . , '' I I 1 / .... ----· .. ..... . ······-· . .···· . ..... . . . ..:, . . .. -~". . , . . I ; I . .· ' l ) .. ... .. . I I I ! ( > l . ' -. . ~-·'. \ ! . I \ ; r" t' . I l . ' . . . II ( . -: ' • . . . . .. .. . I ..). !\·•\. 1 ... ·; 1~·,\; I I , I .Lr•~ .. (-~-J..){ ·\ .{._ 1 -IJ~. \...,)Jj \; f. '''/ /.(1 ._ h>'\>·~' .... \ f'.l'.· \,.·!l\ .. ._. 1 · ·.\·· IL '.l. ,·•j .. l 1 I · • • ,., · ----· ·-· ?-· . -·------1··---------· ----------· -· -·· · · 1. ~ -•\ ,:i _ _ --·----------. I / I .J-I I . ,.. I fl ( t ~ ~~ ' ;_i·-1 'i . I I I 1r;7· . (._._ c~_;.·u.:_ Jv·· _!1.L . _ .. · l..~-..1 ---~-! r 1-~ 1 tf : \Lif.. t• _ · ~ :l·K 1fj'lv )'. __ d,_L, ).: .... ·vh.t ' .. ~.-},_ .. ~ ' ,,... · '· ·j ':. . ....-........ -_:. ,,,.. .... / ." ~-. ). ...... . ·, ' :' r .: ·•tJ"·1 1 ,:·1 · . . . j: ...... ;.-i I \. »-l....., ~.,.__' . ~-. .-.. ,. -+ .; ,. .. _.···.;-!"._.. . .. ·If . ;, [. I ·1 . ' ' . '· '" r._f;,, \. 't" j; " 'l I :• / •. · 1 I ! i .... : .. ·-· .... .; 1' -~ ----~~-(~ -:_ ___ ..':'.::__<· ----~--' . _~:__-._ ... f f ~ : ,, ~-".,, \, ,_,,~.(... . ~ .-:!..."----·~-t' ~ , i I . _ t \~(\: ', \'-'-1. ("; '" , --(_::' _ . 0/--.-. -\ A..._ _<\\ \ ~ \ \ \:. "'' \,_ J ~ '~ -\',C<Ci i'\ <, I '"\ .• ; ~--<-: \ b-fl 4 j\ U .. {Yl l ~-'~ ' 1 I 'K.\ . I ... I . . ·. J ~-.. ·.·. '! . . ,.., . < ; -,\ l \ I . .. .. I' ~---\\ x_\'W.\ __ "-::~t.~tl, .. :\u -/~~::---.• L· ,.\.. .. -1.,..\-v ;\Vy::__t• H ..... ~ .. ~:~:}I·~-·-··----------__ -1-1 1-1 .i..;/1 r 1 •·· ( 1 ) (1 / 1 I ; -. · . '. · l ; I /I . . I /l. _! • • • • . J ' • •• . • . .· • I ' ' ~ • I > • " • I "--~·:.\ t·~·,J<r _.-~,/ ___ Lrtr . · :, 111 .. , ...... ::·:_>-~ ..... L ~~·-~·.:·:! R-'. ·\. ' · "1' l_\ .. Jd i ~ 1 : I . • J .' .~ ·1 ···i . . , . , . , ! . . ,-j . . , j I { t_,. \ ( \.. ~ { t { .. \ ; / .. ·-1 · '~, 1 · ·• · f r ' ~1 . · · ,. ... i ·· · I l ·~ · .-· J .-· ~·u·..f ... .;..~:"~L~!, ... ,·_ ... :. _,, .· ____ :~ .. ~.-." : ,~ .. ~-l-'>'<p· ... ~1 ... .,,. ~ . ..__ , .. f • ';. I ~{ _-~, · ... i~ -., .. :; ' .~. ·~· . . . . . ! ., ·, _ I .. . l ,.J t I . ·).. {_:--_:-.. L ...... ··. ~ . !'r'.:.: .. '• '' }· .J J···------.~.--~··'),'-·_, ........ :.'' .. :•·.,·.'·1 ,_:~:I.· \ ..... ·_ . .',.: __ ,.'_ .. .. ' . I L Ll I. ' I) ! I :iJ /; "} l . . · / . .S:~ ~-i.·f .. N~=-._1_11 __ ~_: )jl'•:J--· . . £ '1L c /l i_. pJ I ~ ••. : __ ·~7_·:'1 -~-_.~~.\.!.~!( h~~·~.'. l~j--1ql _/. ~<i~1 __ il(.!~ (? n I .. J -·· · i'i.-1/t n · J • · J , -.. ____ .. · ·.· ·, · vl !}~ t1.11c:,-)' h !i)i1-a /!1 17 .. -4 _ l 4 (fr ~ ~ ( I,(, '-'!ill { : ~ 5 b (j ,'~n_a '._Ii) !_~•J i1_«f!:__ /:!ff j/ /; .I \ ~fmltt't .r:...:...·1n I -~· ..... ·~·.i ... i ..:. ,._ r~ \I .:.>-· !u' ,_ ··t~; ;· -... ..... ~; '·· l )I ., .. ,. I .... I ...... :-r ... . ' ..,: I ~· \: ._, l __ , .'i ··;:. ·'-... ,, _,_ ·~· ,.·.-·· ··- .- ·" . .. _, ~ ~ .;,.... . ; ..... 1 i ,~_;·-;::;_;~. --~·t /.,.,. ... _ ~I -~ ' ... i . • I ---. -: ' y . J -·------.----··=~-!----i---~: ... ---.A....'.--f': .. ~ -·- .... :; : _, )· ~--.... 'J. -~.' \.j -·-·---.-----'!'-(=-...... .·~1 r '.:.i : -- r ·; ·~: •.• 1 ~---I ...... f·· :,---" ; _,...,....·: ~-' . . I / •I 'Ji ...... · .. ~ .... ~~ '<:, :.. ! -· ~·. ~ .--..J ..... l ' ! ... . r-....._ . -~ ~i "'· ·.:' ~--; : ~· v, ·~"" ~' ~: ~= ~::t i J... ·- "J"'-i i ' p " •• ! ...... : , ~ i ,_ ! ~-i -, i ! -.r-i ~l ;...\..L ,1_ -7 .. ., .· . fJ •. c:-.. ' ; . I ''""· '· ~ ~ i · .... J., ; I ....... S! ..> .~ . . ,. :'~ ... ' ~o.J I ~I .. .,.:;:, ! ).<_ -· .. I ~ ! :.; I l \: .. ~··· ...... ~· . --· ., \ ... ... ........ -r =' .. --!~'-. ,.....,! ! ·~-;--~__;...~~·;:;. . -... -...... ._. .... ,--·----., ·- ·._ . ..,,·,. ~:.;;~ .... . ' -~~-i -,-.. ~.~!· -..!. ~-- --~ .. ' ' ....... ,,,/ -~~-.1 ._ --· · ...... -. · .. -·~ -' ......... -. = i -~· ._ .... .- ., ,; --- ·-..... -- "; : .. ·~ !"• ~- J -" ·""-' '· ... ~ . . •. ~<'-- ·,, ~:..":': '-·. _, ....... - ! .J -·· ~., -·--· .... .))----·- : .. > _.> •t.\. I' ,-~ ) .... _ ......... .i \. ' r ___ ...._ __ -:-+--. _:;:_·-~------ \\ .. ~-_-__ ) ... •'I .! ... ": -j ,;, . i ·,.,_ ·-" - , .·--.... · ' ., -··""' ·: -r----·- .>j ;.:,-· • r-...... .. -... :> ---~+ l ' ! ,. (._ ', >-J I-,.) .. ... ~; : -.. --"; -~-· . ·~.1. ·. ·-r -·· -. > _ ...... - ~·· ... -· ·~ ...... --... ·--. -.. --...) _-;E. l ·=·. ~ "",.:·· ... ''( ::.. i ----. _::;.: ' "-<" ' ·.:..!:--::J l -~; . . : ~· --r,..: -·-v ' ..._,__. -..:.) ' /-,~..l. <.'r-' .:.: £.,_} .... ..J. ~· '-'.; :'-,· ·~~-::_ ~ :·~ i . .; ,...._ \,.; ::: .J ·•:I ,,· . I ,j -. ~- -..,;.,) '""l -'"I ....... ~ ,, -. ....,. ... '. . . ... ' ... 1 .! . ' ·-··-"'~ ,,"- ~t .. . -~ .. ! ... ..; i . : . :; I ' -~ l ~·•I '· 1 I l I ·-.,.-1 !-.. ........ I . '. l • I ~ •' I , ;, -.-~ .... ~ s:.. ,.::~. -~: ~~ l ~-): ~ ~ ~ ----'-----~- ~ "':- ").. I'"'\ ~ r .~ ... ! .. .._ f, -. .--....,. ·. -· -·-------! ,---! --- i:· ' . ... :~ t ..., : ('. ·-i· ..,_ ··~ .... , "'-4 • ,, ·.~~~t.l? ... ~. -----· ... -: .... ----.. .. :_;-. . , ' ' ''· ,_, .. -;.;.. -~ .. .; '-:::1':.' ;..: I ' . .., ·) ~ \ ;..,_ . l . '· . ~· ~ -.... ,_ . -; -'·~-' ........ ' •.. '-.. ~ ,- \> . ..:: ,, "',...)-. r-...;. • ... .. .: " (" ··----------·-_____ ·-!J·_. -.·. ! 'f"' ____ ........ _._:.:_--·_.: _ _:~·::. _:,._., -__ ' ____ .;_·~·-~".'=·":.._ _ __.:-:::: __ ~ ..... ·--··· ~·· -~: I i I I I GI I . ;I I ,j;i I ftl I ~.) 1 ··~· ._I ... ..-·::I _, i! (ii I ::·. .... . I r--'-1--·~·--';...,...;... __ -·-·l ,.. --...) --i------. -./' -. --i ~i ,.. . . ... I • : I 1 ~~ .... ·--- ............... · . .. ~ .~ ,.,... .. -c ' ·•. I, . ..., . . ., ... .. /~ ~ \,.. "-!' .. j . -~--4 .. .) •. •J 1' -· ~ '' Ir,! ·1 ~-I .! .l '·, ,/. ""':· ) ......... I I ~! : =; I GJ i I&! i a1 c l j r .i ; ,-! I ~I l o .c ! : Q. I .. -· .... "" '.5' ,.--._,I ·...:.":i.- _$.-; ......... , ·-..) ,_;, "-"" -~-· _, '.i \ ·:;.; ..-. 'i ,.. ' .... • > ... ~ 1: . 1.. /j QI :./'. ·\1 r----i-1---11-~-..-· __ __:r . ...,.,--~-'-" ,. . ' I I I I ··-z.. .( ·-~ il :1 --~-. \ "' ... .:\:__ '. .. ·~. ' .i. I ' +: '-.-t ( .. : .. ii i ......_! ~i ,· . ... .._:,;.· -- ,~ .. i .,..)"' ~ '= i ~1 <:. --.. ....... ~ _,.,. .....,. __ -· _._ '.· ..• ·~; --: '"! --.i ~:::;;:_ i __ i ~i --:::,..! .. I ~ ... . • -·- ..... , . \ r~. ·? .•. \ '_., ... _ 1. __ ·. ·, ~ . .r ... .. ,. . ., ,., .. '.r.' ' ' .. , ';, ~- . ·-.~ ..... ,~ .,...._ ·. ~--; .::J --·~ ... _.,} ., s -~ l ,-...·· ., ~I t.O:. ·'· ______); ··-.-. ...-r· ,· ~ J . ·-1 ~ t: ...,. '· ..... 7'-i. • .. \ '~~-":-·, .,JJ -.'.: ~ (""' i -,_ I ~· ~'· .. ' l ·>-.. ·'-,): ..r\ -. l i __, I . ) ! ~ -"-..l _.:.. )' -' --·""1 1 ::.c~ -· .. .... ' '· ,. I .rl-<' ', ... /">•, ·.·!;;------.:......._;... ~,. ,,, -. ..,. \,· .•. ,·-: . ~--~ ...::::.,; .. ::: ,,_ ,;; -... . r~··· .. " ..=.;-~~-:> . ,,' .. ·, - .. -... ·.,·'!!;'. ( ......, .. ...... :. J ... ..... --~ ': ! t: ~ ). "· ~ ·--... ./-.;;:1 ; r:-. .r·: ... : !-. ..,. •,' ~ · . ...... ., . . :· ' ·~ .. . .. : . . ·,.:_ , ~~-= ---~~: f -' .. :.: o, _________ .., _____ _ ·-·. ~:~ .O...,_.i. ,, , .... .... . ..... ··~ .. -··: .c;r: . .... ' J:.' . -·--· ~! ---------· ... -------~--~,..-.~·.?:--.v'J "--~· .j ! · .... ! ~j ·---_J ~· . ' ·-~-1 i . ~ ;e.r· -~.,;., f . ,. ~ '/' ~· l !>.f ~! (::::. . ' ~-...... ~ ., \. ) -. ·I l -· I I I ·1 :j . ; ... "'; ·-.. '11 r •• ' ' ..,j -i) c ! ·1 ~ ~I .·1 '-.£ .. Et 'l Oi ~ , V i I "-\ · -~-- - ' or ·1· I ~!~ • --· I t: '-'\... ~; :•,; I 0: I ""-... -. • ..... ,,. . .r:: I .t '--\:.-·.. --·· • ! Ai ! ~~ ·~ •• -) ) 1..;.; ~ 1 ••1 . I ftS I . ,...:. ·~ . E I ~ '-.: l •i ~ 111 !, . -~3'..--....... -..,.-_,_-_..,.,...., ___ . -·-.· -------.-,...----:-.~ ' i ~i ~ I "I j j I I ·1 IP! . . . ' . I .... ·.:' . \ . .... _, · ... l .: I .,-.... -.1 ',I I .. ~· !I i 1i .. i t: . ~l§Pl .-~ •.. ! 'U) I • ..,___,··'.' ' --.i.-1: ~~ f .. .,'r -· .. -, \ '. .:-~! · . . .. • ·-. _, I -· . ·. , ..... -. ~ \ ~ .. -.. ·-· ....... _...,;i __ ... _,, ... · . . ' f\.\. ;.A ·, I . _...__. _______________ ... ..,_~~~j.o" -----~=--- .. - '··' j r .. r <' . .. -~ ,~, ·~ '-.::., . ·,. ''-Xl ·-.: 1': ---~ ~-\ --~~~ '. -~ ·,:_':\ .... ·~ ·. : ~ .·' ! ~. . ·.._J } . ,...,. \ .. • t ,_t "'\.;' ~-I ~ . !\' \,' ·---.... ----, .Alberto w ·ay Citize11s _Petitio11 Req·uest for Cl1an.ges to I-1a111IJ }Ja_rt11ers' Noven1ber 2017 405 AllJerto ·\Ala~\' design ·-· -··-··-· -·---..... ----···-·---------·---··---····---- Mass Mitigation Measures: Reduce the total size to below 56K sq. ft. The November 2017 footprint can achieve this with the portion of the building to the south of the central entrance at 2 stories with the portion to the North of the central entrance at 1 story. This element alone enables t h e remaining issues to be solved . Applicant still requests a mass that violates the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines . A lawsuit has been filed by three members of the Bella Vista Village HOA, against LG seeking to reverse the 339-341 Bella Vista Ave approval by the Town Council on grounds that the approval violated both the LG General Plan & Commercial Design Guidelines as well as State laws. We don't want the Town to encourage a repeat by violating any of its legal obligations. View Preservation Measures: Allow no large trees on the 405 property that will grow tall enough to again block the Public Views from any point at 4 .75 ft. high (eye level for a 5 ft. tall person) along the West side Sidewalk on Alberto (fronts the 405 property). Improve public views from along Alberto Way instead of degrading them by requiring Applicant to get permission from Cal-Trans to top the trees behind the Northern end of the building so they don't protrude above the North of the Building's 1 story roof, and continue topping them every year or two to keep them at or below the N building. Keep current base elevation (in feet above mean sea level) for the 405 Alberto Way building(s) as proposed in the last design, which lowers the roof line. If a 2nd floor is approved for the N. portion of the Building then the second floor should have no north facing windows, doors or balconies to prevent view into Las Casitas bedrooms. Damage to Surrounding Property Mitigation Measures: Drill new boring between Janl-March 31, 2018 on N end of the property to discover the actual depth to water. Since Applicant did the prior borings at the worst part of the drought, the normal water level has not been reported. Applicant's borings reported no depth to water in the northern most boring and claimed a collapse in the hole prevented it. This is suspicious since a hollow core drill bit was used so that the core could be read and the hole is within the 0-10 feet to water zone shown in the SCVWD depth to water illustrations we submitted (northern 2/3rd of 405 property}. Restrict parking to either surface only or 1 underground level to prevent the differential settling beneath the 250 foot radius from the foundation that our Hydrologist Dr. Geissler specified. This is the zone in which de-watering during construction (pumping water out of the foundation excavation) that is likely to cause ground subsidence followed by foundation settling & cracking at Las Casitas & the Pueblo de Los Gatos. Pipe breaks er misalignments are also possible from ground subsidence beneath Las Casitas & PDLG. When questioned at the Town Council meeting about ground movement by Mr. Rennie, Applicant's consultants replied only on ground movement during construction and that the excavation would be shored up. This was a half-truth. Ground subsidence caused by dewatering was not mentioned and our comment period was over, so we raise this aga i n now. Safety Issue Mitigation: Straighten out Alberto to enhance vision along the Applicant's property and take enough to eliminate the curve on the East side of the 405 Alberto property. Bike Lane -the design as currently proposed is not safe for bike riders: it doubles their exposure to being hit by autos (2 x lanes vs 1). Move the planned Alberto Way bike lane to far right of the Southbound exit from Alberto. California motorcycle driver education warns them to avoid riding between lanes to avoid such double exposure. On-street Parking Mitigation Measures: Residents oppose removal of any on-street parking as it is needed for residents and guests. The above ground parking at 405 was presented as a means of providing additional parking for residents and Grill 57, not just Grill 57, and we would like that to be "codified" as well. This would compensate the Pueblo and Las Casitas for loss of on-street parking - guarantee that Alberto Way residents can use the 405 surface parking 24x7x365 . Otherwise, keep on-street parking as- is. Surface parking at 405 Alberto can be any Alberto Way resident, not just Grill 57. Best Western needs it too and overflows to Alberto on full or nearly full nights. Grill 57 patrons take up the majority of the Best Western's parking lot on many nights. Establish Permit-Only Res i dent only parking to be implemented on Alberto -no commercial (i.e. Grill 57 or Best Western, 405 Tenants, etc.) or carpoolers (non-residents are presently parking cars on Alberto and carpooling with others). Traffic Mitigation Measures: A new Traffic Study is called for due to new information as follows. NETFLIX allots 60 square feet per employee in its new Los Gatos buildings. This was not known before now. Apple plans to house 900 employees in an SOK sq. ft. building in Fremont. This trend, which Alberto Way and other Los Gatos residents brought up during several PC and TC meetings call for a new traffic study to be done on 405 Alberto Way using the Caltrans study method. The LG Policy that the Caltrans, San Jose and San Diego study methods were withheld from us in several Pub!i::: Hearings by the Town Engineer. The Town is still massively under-collecting trip charges as they would be calculated under the other methods. The main source on Hwy 9 traffic congestion is caused by the 2 lane section of LG Blvd. Los Gatos Blvd exceeds its capacity during three of the four rush hours (morning, after school & evening). LGB needs to be widened to relieve the EB Rush Hour traffic failure at and between Alberto Way & Los Gatos Blvd on Hwy 9. It is folly to expect any signal timing between Alberto and LG Blvd can relieve this . Neither can extension of the EB Hwy 9 left turn pocket overcome the heightened traffic in the AM rush that the PD will bring. We have submitted photographic proof that LG B's 2 lane section is the cause of the congestion. A!low traffic exiting 405 Alberto to northbound Highway 17 to exit directly from the W side of the 405 property directly onto the Northbound 17 Ramp -not via Alberto & Highway 9: let the remainder of the traffic exit from Alberto via Hwy- 9. lf no direct entry is permitted by Caltrans from WB Hwy 9 into 405, then Alberto's widening needs a Center Turn lane (for motorists to be able to turn left going either north or south on Alberto) from the first driveway entry at Grill 57 /405 to the last entry at 405, with the land to provide the turn lane to be donated by 405, so that further on street parking is not taken away from residents. Widen Alberto enough so that the maximum length commuter bus allowed into 405 can turn South on Alberto from 405 to exit onto Hwy-9 without blocking incoming traffic from Hwy-9. "The Cat" blocked NB Alberto traffic from Hwy 9 proceeding as it exited the 405 property. Any Shuttle the developer wants to provide at 405 needs to operate at any time that the occupancy of 405 equals or exceeds 31,000 square feet. No sh.uttle circulator should be allowed outside of lunch hours. There is no public parking made available by Applicant to non-tenant riders. Another exit for Alberto Way residents & 405 Alberto employees from behind 475-485 to Pine could be provided: approve and fund an extension of the street at the end of the 475-485 parking lot to Pine Vista above so that we have another way out and are not trapped during and after construction. Approval to start demolition of existing structures needs to be contingent on: -the LG approval for LGB widening (since LGB exceeds capacity now between LGHS and Van Meter Elementary), -the approval of plans by Caltrans for the Hwys 9 & 17 Intersection renovation & the Hwy 17 widening from Lark to S Santa Cruz so that ROW needed from 405 Property is known and new building(s) on 405 are designed to accommodate the widening & intersection rebuild. -the approval by Caltrans for a right turn directly into the 405 Alberto property from Westbound Highway to reduce the increase of traffic on Alberto. There is sufficient room in the unused Hwy 9 ROW between 405 Alberto and the Hwy-y sidewalk to reconfigure this as the 405 entrance. Alberto Way Citizens Design \ \ !blic Mtn View Preservation & COL Compliance (n o viewing into las Casitas bedroom windows) ' Remove this 2nd Floor & lower root : . . I Th ese t rees to be removed for exit ram p and/or kept trimm e~ Calt ran s RO W prox rntn vie w ms;· --·2w ;-c ta fnedJrom ..tb·is xw::: · -~ No large trees-that eventually destroy the view and keep both front & rear trees trim med i'n perpet uity " PALO ALTO Cm..-'l'Vl.W Guidelines fOr Dewaterfng Du.ring, Bllsement Or· Below Ground G-arage Construction May -2017 Oo Febr:u_ary 1:. 2016, Palo Alt() ,~ity CooF'tll strel'l&tilened re(iuirem&pts ·-<!esigoe(f tu rmnimltt the ~ping and discharge of $R>urtch-Yater from basement,or :below .• t<l.lind garage} deWatetiJ'.18 during constructiOo. J>utnplnci of fP'Oand'h'itM after the COinpletiOn of ba$ement construction has not been permitted for-ewer il d~de~ :n rece11t. '"J$. cqntfftlS, that ~"sirJttiOn ~twaterl.og mav be wasti03 ~ttr, potenuanvdam~stng .mewres, trees :an(.t ·vegetaiion, and *'Pleting or aiterma t'* flow of.sroundwate~~ haVe arisen. Therefore Palo Alto·~ new.req!!iren"!er.ts. F>1bf:C woff<!i ontv atrows drawdot-m weU dewate.rlng _of ~muriawater~ Open pit dewitering.orpndwater ~ d~ltowed. Qpen_ pit de\'iat~rr111b•j~ fqr 111~ th•~ m.ay ~~mu late ~t the Qottomofan effi".avatioo, ifwater quaiiw itmJts are met~ Grouh~••d~'if'l!.3 o•,.f\! aU«n~d ~m Aprlf '--th~~ .... Octobe:--!1 riue~o lrnmequate capaclfyln t~ Chy'~ $tomrdraln5l)Stem. Open plt.dewateringofrainwater Is .1rowe,Hhto~:.rt tbe year, but must mt~l .water q11.i:ty r~uirem.~nt$. After ~ssing the re$9lts of"new~.:vftering regulation$ tf<>m ·t~ 201g Constr~tiOn Seascm,. ~he City Council-approved s£w.e~fe:nha~-n~s to toe4e-wat~rin& pofky·ihat hM! ~n codified io ealo Aito M~nkipal .ta~ ~nd go into ~ffi!c.t M~ 4, 2011~ The.2017 -eoha11tements indude lmproving iiU station perfo:rma~;. ensuring wa1ett"8,Q¥ ad,.cent ~~ng ~aetatic>'1,. mcnY.t1;1ring actual 1rc>u~er elevatiOn-chcngts, darttvms reportir-WJ, ar.d enhancing ate H)'dr~~al Study~ t~ffl ~ addins an e-~'llrnf'i~ w& ~~· lf_:p'Out'=-"t;q~ pa!rnr:ms ~n heilmlted io-SC :ur,.1 arlBS-usina tfldmlques such • ·wt~ !.~m_51 d~~. Resfciential sttfi·,~re now ogty a(l(n:• ~ •a~r f?r c;. !~~ ilme ~riod t"Y1th a 2_...ek st•t:tup per~. At the eod -ohiie twq-wetk stirtup per:fQd, compua"tew1r.1·aJ1 _perfor~l:'ite stan.d-.rd$ antt -watt!t qu•lity standards sNiH ~-demonstr.a~. ln atidltiori; cr.ooociwafer can cnty be _pumped up to a maximum of 3 ·feet be.tow the ~~~nt ~b ce~r. fo!tOWins the two~ $tart !Jp-pe~d. ·ont@ tile silb ~pouted~ tbe d~~h to the ~nter of tf\e .sr,& shaU -~· 1 fo·o.t. _A geotechnic~J r•"°rt ~µsi-b~ s~.~·~ (Qr ~ Sitt! (~ara~ i't:t>m-:the Geotechn~l Stulfy described beiovt),.and must Ust t'le t\igltest anticipated ·sroun<Jweeer: level. PubliC.WorlI! rf!Commt!nds apiezometer.to be 1nsm.lrec:J In ~ sotl boring. ~ cqritAttor _must detenn~ne •tw depth tp gt'.C)Undwatqr immed•tcrv prior to e~tavatioftbifusin' thepie~roeter ctt by dolling an e~p,toraiory-~ 11 ~ dee,estexr..iVitlOr\'wlll be withtn l feet ofthe-hlah.est ar.ticlpated trowldi~1tter ~l tf &rounti~ter lsfoutad to be w fthil\ 2. feet of the deepe~ e~~on, ~ draw<lownweU c:i~tt!rJn& ~m or ~utpff Wl!I mµst r;>e instalied; or, a_lter(lsti~ the con~ctor can~~ate for the be$efne.nt *1ih<1L'1 a de-V.~termc ~m ln place and hope nouo. hit 8rQ(MdWater. H'Qwtv~r, If sro:t1nd~ter ts·htt, -tho c;ontra~(lt must-lmmediat•tv stOP aJi-wpr~ ~nd mµst meet au orthe fOfk>wiifg requi rei rri2nU-prlor to re$t.m tns work. PubiitWorkS may reqlJire watt!r.to DfBt51ed for -contaminarrtS ptiortc> in~b.al dischatle arkl atintervats during dewatering; lf te!ting.is h!quited1 the contraetor must retain .an independent testing firm to ·test-the· dlsdlar1e water fQr the contaminllOts Pub1Jc Wor~ specl\l'le$.and Stibml~ the results to Public W~:uts. Betow IS a·summary of the pre'1!Mistfng requirements, wlth the recently adapted requirements ind\lded. The ave@flpt is to·mimmlze the dis~l'ft of gto.undwaterftOm b~se~ent con$tru~i0n (.lewatel'in1. The reqUirements fall ii.'lta mur-tate'3ories:cl) ttm stfitlons 'ate requf~o so UtaU>therS may fllr watettrudts·or a>nnect garoen hoses forfrrlj~011; 2} use ·plan$ars requlred .todemonstratethat,he appflcant/bulider is zrrangina fonJ$e ~f •$ rnuc" ~(the pumped: ·wa~r as pa,sibJe. a:1d.minihlfai"'8 $h>rm d .t:ali~ diseharse; ~l A G!at•chnlci:I StudY ts~ire~ to determine ariy potential •ffects and 'nffded avoidcifnce measures; and 4) Strei!t: Woifc/Oe~t'ermg permits a.r-e rac:uiied (and are1ssoed after requirements #1, #i ai:rciJ#3 are completed). l . Fib StatiOn Requfre!OO!tS fill Sl?don ~ulre~nt$ ere .ra~plJine~ in the auac:Mc:t •Fnl s~tjon 'Wqu(remen~ a~ are summertzec:t in .~~e eh~.:;i$t shOwn he!'1w; No.te: wt:en ·.fue .Cify,determinj's thtif the ·site t$ toodosE to aa, area of around water cmitamlnation, no fill station .Ii be Pft>llltfe4..) al Locate thf! fill -Station i>o:fotttiide the fenca to a11ow -24.:hour ~r dily access;: b) P!'QVfc=e 2 )$~· -~vtrant fitting hose co.nnec:t10~1 wit_h ~ SO-foot t:nlnlmum ) ~'•· AppOcaot n:u.:st ~~nstrate ma>d¢um 10'-mmvte fill tinte-~Ot " "?.7-0.0 ption wate.r ttudt cl Pm\tkie at ieut ~o l&IY •hoSes cfutstde t he ·flit station bOx, 10 gaUon5 pet mfa~te· (&pm) deliveries (sirn~tmn~f.J~)~) ~uring the tWo '.~(t~ ~'4h~ up per~ · · · · · d} Design.the tank ·~·satket :t~ stoti::f~ ~~rt !salwaysateeaitone~natffull; ~) GFloutrot instde orelectrica~ conn«tion ot1~Side ·~ha bei:;= f) •111 .. vse" covet ouer $Witth/oudet m bd~t; :d Provfde .;t .«water ~iltilyg Statbn")ign on -~he fl;I s'°~" lJox; h} Ptovid~ a "f\JGn~Potable ~'le"' ,tlgn Ott th~ dlsdw. ~O.ii:it !) "No H:ilSe!i Cros5:1l8 Streat and Skfewalft' Sign -at hose bibs; JJ Sµw1v·~ 5..,et$,, ·ant: a ~"' ftJSlde ~ bo~ ~'tnff.:ket$ to ~w d~te and a:mount:offiflJng~ !t} Pt:lvltb ~ ftli statton bOJ\, c<>mbinatfe:n :totlt (<om·bJoatton s-'lot.Jld ba z. 4,.6, B) ~) Provide .suffiC:lent flow meters andciata·:omers to de~ne OOdl ?he water used throughthe·fiH statlo!1 &11q the· to~! wa~r purn~"· froJTt th4; a~uad;. ml Ptotett e~it'lst · t-tip hazan:t5:Witbsldewin: btid~,el and f)J>PrO·pnattutsnage as needed;. n) OAC:e water ts in• tanlc;. cail Water~ Pr:>tectian t.65.0-32s-.24~/~U2) for water qualify.testing; o) When frfl .St~tkm ls &ady; ct)Qt'pbi~ Wo~ er41'.-11ng ~o~ (~96~929} fOrirtspectk>n and ·tatJ S~173 for ~e.ctncat Safety,Checlt; p) Fk>w rMte~-ShOukburt. £t zer0. ··ShoWd be easl~ readable and in ·a safe loatlon at the outtet of t."'H! sa~I~& tanfc; tt> Pump .a~ '1oJe=bil;l ~ ~"..-ior~~;. ct i\pptfcant wili "required to ~.QJ1att11\et.:Sur~_nts and. re.q~ments (reports due at the, enc; of the ~lt$tart~p ·peri~d~ the,n .. bj.;we~!dy,.a-nd then .a fihaf re·pon at the end of pumi)llng}. 2. YaPlans. A brief gmundwatet use -plan must,be pt3pared to show ,how the groundwater will be used to the ma~mum~::tePt ~~t :t Sh:~I b.41! s_.Dni~ with rn~ s~ wurk,/~terina Permtt Application1 and shall al.ntai n the talkw.rint .minrn"tum proviSlorts:. a) AppJN:an~ di$tributio11 Qf Cit\'•:>roviaed dODt-:itan~etfto advertls& the avaltabditY e>f war.r; thes~rare · to be .. co:lected !htUI !t:j:>parent ~her 24 hout~· b) Ap:;ilic;mt watering ~f (J_A".$ite,·and neigh~clng ve:e~tJOrl.i t~ ~e ~~t desi~d by owners~ tl Applidlnt J:1iplng wateJ ttt •nY tieert>y pal'lc$ and $Chools as req)Je$ted by Clty; dl Ap,1itarit tnieking watel' trie tutl"<fey per ~~k fuJriigatio n sites ts direc.~d by the City; e}. 19;;1~ usi~ "'ater on~sit• for ~t1Usu9p~ssiori end other cqhSt1~ron neMs· 3~ Geotec hnk&t studv l De ierminat!ort of i ffecl t anti Motiated Avplclancq ;Me1!1S9res: ?!m: 5!Jpilcams a ra.e::e~tJ!rtrn,m ·~'111 r~~w.amentff ~~~r@lt:'mpln;-call be:llmltcci to 30 epr.i or Im wl:te ~1 ntqi,~$ui:b.ut~t •ff YJ~~i a~~ condu~t• taeotechntcal study t~ d~termine tb~ tadius r;{ ihfmence tr;ei e¥tertt af tone of depression} from each dewaterintrweH asa functJon ·of tt.m~~ IJa"° on localsqihmdgrqundwater ~nd1tloos . .AU tt1ells and b.tf'ler ctewaterlng sl~e.s wttnln a 4.C-O-foo1 ·qdfus (rooghly one City blotk}.of. 'ttta ·property that may itlter ~ct.wt~h dewatertng '*tivit;y~ U5l"i inf9rtnitl0n •vaila·blt fn.Jm tlJe Q.~A she,ltbt! lnctudedJn the study. $tate or s~w tile exacUoca~ion. ~f ttTe·se ~aw~tel'tn~ site~. Prepa."'e· .~ ffl~P and C'1JSS ~~~loM of~ coi't.e{~.of d~prei'isfoo. 1be key dlanie' for 2011 J$·af)l)iit:•M$ )re ~w re~u~ to vefifv the·a.nticipated dtawdawn cu~ with ·a pumptest using a~~a;~ns.t.Q11~ ~~e®rn,terTSJts .(~PT)an; ~~encoµragedtl) verifysoifs:cjat.a . The ©ttL~J.pumpiha ra~ fo!k>wfng th.ca two wee~ start.,.up perlOd~ shaA be lknited to the rates caltulated in tbe:verifka~n,. lk! '™'"'n'ium amount of w&tttr pumf)ed .tlVer the'lO-W~~~ Plrio:d -sball ~· lfmited tothat ,c;tcu1atKS dunng ~catkm to supper~ thls:wor~, mew.;i~ tt.grQul\¢ water 1cw,1~t a dtstan~ repi'effntathte of the dfstanci.'l to the nec:rest stru.£:t1.1re on a11 adjaunt pih'Cet, Qt farthest feasible po:int on tt\e sub~ i1te~ this monitorir;g ~-..au r. daw far !:oe, tir$ti.~iee~ 1tt ·~11 \\tiiifv. thereafter. Al the. end qf the · 2 weef: ~"1:·.UP period Of ~tf~~er, ifd~wtfown ~tts Jre gre1t~r ~.n ~n ~dpa~d~ $.Ub~iU revised Geotect:Jnkat. StUd;' ahd .any reviffd tont(USlo'fi s on-1mpa.cu of the ar.oondw•t&r dr&wdoWii. Survey and marff land etev~tJon$on $.t rutt.i;h"es on edj•c;2ot parcels (obt•Jn p~nn!ssktn first) priot" to any pumphiS and weekly~~er. · · State . ~"it~r I.tis rea5onab!ylikel\f that ttia proJK>Sl!d.dewat:arinl wm cause effects (ir1cludina .settlement or movero•nt) Of\_ oif ..s~te ,,,Nate qr puhtt= struetum .or .infrastructure, itttludint :ttle right Of viav~ e~semcmur £11d ~litieS.t,\lithin putmi; ~ilitv ~a~e,n~~ ·State ~hf!~i it ls ra•nab.tyfikely thilt the proposed de\~·atering wm reouce the 1•u'1t of water taken u~.bv wietation or trees to a 1~1 that w.1l -~~ ttie hea ~tin1r~ie&ilit~ of the. vetetatkm or ~•t Vti lite·a Certified Atboris\ Sub Cc>nsilltant to verify aP.i such ~ect on ir~;: · To the me;1t ihaHhe 4,aalafied ?n)fessional States that.off--5itfu!!ffec:ti are re :isonabtir lifu!ly to occur, ldeJ!tify a¥Qff"Jance ~e~SU.~$ tQ be i;n~_ment~that wid ~litilnuze the ~ and~t\' of those effects;_ ·A~idance ~e11ures ,a1' a1so tQ be elrJJ;lilOYe<i t() the mi!!~t!'Ulll e~•nlpl'lctl¢al '. to ntlr1lmiie the flolN rate and .duratttm of the pumpin g~ e¥en, whan of#slte ~cts.are not s~ecfftcanv identified. Avotdance measu~l mav indude, fQr e~pte : optirruz1ng weii c.ou.nJ, wetl depth, weu toc:ailQn,. pumptnu-hlte,.. anG/or durattorf 'e>1 P~P(ntu Sl!PP(ementa1 htlpt~n ofi:rees or ~tatiQn, ·sori am®dment,or other p.lant protet.tion methods recommerided by a certlfled arborist; alternative deWlterlng or construction m~thbds~.Devek>p a monitorln:-.P.1an to asst$5 anv •ctU.al .effects QJl vese~titm,. trees, strUc:tu~ and ,lofrasttuttt.tte. Tf\t deQted1.nql $fu~v and de:wiptl(>n ;.l)d ~e9'? Qf tbe cone of. ctepre$sion must·~ stamped by a·-talifomra. Hcense.d Geotechi11Car Entineer and submitted to the City, and wilr be· made ;iwilable .1ot pubttc revrew.; A:Geotechnlcal-Stu.dy Wt)r!csheet ls •ttach~. 4~ Grar:ing Ptrm!t/St!fet Work/Oewatmjiw Permht\iJ!JliC,ption l)ewatermg Will nQw iletavi~-wed.as·part of the Gradiaµ Petl'T\ihThe Gradh:~g Permit for a prc:>jec~ willnat be issue(I until ill reCU!ff'ed sobmi.tt•l5 ~la~•9 to ~w11t-rfng have b~~n subm1tted; rceviewed and apptoveti by PubficWorb. Once eU;:equTred submlttafShavel>Mri reviewed and approved by Publff: WorkS, a D~taniig "P-2rmit and Street Wot!t Permit. must be o~~fned ~re cny di$C'-tseJrom the site occurs. Oev.,raterlng disch•m' tD tbs storm drain system q1nnptO(CUr ~en ·Ottober :n and April 1 to ensure that the ftdi Ciifladty ·Of ~he. storm drain 'S\fSteni rs -~allabt2 fOr storm flows. lfilie applicant ean demottt~.te thil~ theY c1m maintain !Os~ .flow.t ~ •~ect StreetWotic/Dewater'ina Permit ,t.pptk:ation Chetfdist ~s-t~ OP-e~ wofk$'1eei ('5 q~d ·t.~-thaGec:tiedlnkai study worksheet)., A Res.~entfal $tre-et WOfk/~w~~ttng Pe.rrnit _witl · tte ·1~d «>ra mc;~ijinum period of 10week$ to en~~ tha~ miniR'mtinn ·Cf pum?ic.s ~uratian Oc:wrs~ Ad.mlntsti'atwe pen-aith:?s sha1l.atcri.ie. foll0t=1ini the permit expirati~n .tiale~ if-pl;.rnf>in~ a.nd/pt tll~r~ t'Qritinu~. GUIDE FOR THE PREPARATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STlJDIES STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 2002 PREFACE The California Department of Transportation (Ca/trans) has developed this "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" in response to a survey of cities and counties in California. The purpose of that survey was to improve the Ca/trans local development review process (also knnwn as the Intergovernmental Review/California Environmental Quality Act or IGRICEQA process). The survey indicated that approximately 30 percent of the respondents were not aware of what Ca/trans required in a traffic impact study (TIS). In the early 1990s, the Ca/trans District 6 office located in Fresno identified a need to provide better quality and consistency in the analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and land use change proposals that effect State highway facilities. At that time, District 6 brought together both public and private sector expertise to develop a traffic impact study guide. The District 6 guide has proven to be successfal at promoting consistency and uniformity in the identification and analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and land use changes. The guide developed in Fresno was adapted for statewide use by a team of Headquarters and district staff. The guide will provide consistent guidance for Cal trans staff who review local development and land use change proposals as well as inform local agencies of the information needed for Ca/trans to analyze the traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The guide will also benefit local agencies and the development community by providing more expeditious review of local development proposals. Even though sound planning and engineering practices were used to adapt the Fresno TIS guide, it is anticipated that changes will occur over time as new technologies and more efficient practices become available. To facilitate these changes, Ca/trans encourages all those who use this guide to contact their nearest district office (i.e., IGRICEQA Coordinator) to coordinate any changes with the development team. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The District 6 traffic impact study guide provided the impetus and a starting point for developing the statewide guide. Special thanks is given to Marc Birnbaum for recognizing the need for a 11S guide and for his valued experience and vast knowledge of land use planning to significantly enhance the effort to adapt the District 6 guide for statewide use. Randy Treece from District 6 provided many hours of coordination, research and development of the original guide and should be commended for his diligent efforts. Sharri Bender Ehlert of District 6 provided much of the technical expertise in the adaptation of the District 6 guide and her efforts are greatly appreciated. A special thanks is also given to all those Cities, Counties, Regional Agencies, Congestion Management Agencies, Consultants, and Ca/trans Employees who reviewed the guide and provided input during the development of this Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. ii I. II. Ill. IV. v. VI. TABLE OF CON TE NTS Contents PREFACE and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS NEEDED A. Trip Generation Thresholds B. Exceptions C . Updating An Existing Traffic Impact Study SCOPE OF TRAFFIC IMP ACT STUDY A. Boundaries of the Traffic Impact Study B. Traffic Analysis Scenarios TRAFFIC DATA A. Trip Generation B. Traffic Counts c. Peak Hours D. Travel Forecasting (Transportation Modeling) TRAFFIC IMP ACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES A. Freeway Sections B. Weaving Areas c. Ramps and Ramp Junctions D. Multi-lane Rural and Urban Highways E . Two-lane Highways F . Signalized Intersections G. U nsignalized Intersections H. Transit Capacity I. Pedestrians J. Bicycles K . Cal trans Criteria/Warrants L. Channelization MITIGATION MEASURES Appendix "A" Minimum Contents of Traffic Impact Study Appendix "B" Methodology for Calculating Equitable Mitigation Measures Appendix "C" Measures of Effectiveness by Facility Type Page Number 11 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 lll I. INTRODUCTION Caltrans desires to provide a safe and efficient State transportation system for the citizens of California pursuant to various Sections of the California Streets and Highway Code. This is done in partnership with local and regional agencies through procedures established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other land use planning processes. The intent of this guide is to provide a starting point and a consistent basis in which Caltrans evaluates traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The applicability of this guide for local streets and roads (non-State highways) is at the discretion of the effected jurisdiction. Caltrans reviews federal, State, and local agency development projects 1, and land use change proposals for their potential impact to State highway facilities. The primary objectives of this guide is to provide: o guidance in determining if and when a traffic impact study (TIS) is needed, D consistency and uniformity in the identification of traffic impacts generated by local land use proposals, o consistency and equity in the identification of measures to mitigate the traffic impacts generated by land use proposals, a lead agency2 officials with the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding the existing and proposed transportation infrastructure (see Appendix A, Minimum Contents ofa TIS) D TIS requirements early in the planning phase of a project (i.e., initial study, notice of preparation, or earlier) to eliminate potential delays later, o a quality TIS by agreeing to the assumptions, data requirements, study scenarios, and analysis methodologies prior to beginning the TIS, and o early coordination during the planning phases of a project to reduce the time and cost of preparing a TIS. II. WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS NEEDED The level of service3 (LOS) for operating State highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOEs). These MOEs (see Appendix "C-2") describe the measures best suited for analyzing State highway facilities (i.e., freeway segments, signaFzed intersections, on-or off-ramps, etc.). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" (see Appendix "C-3") on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS . If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained. 1 "Project" refers to activities directly undertaken by government, financed by government, or requiring a permit or other approval from government as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15378 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 "Lead Agency" refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Defined in Section 21165 of the Public Resources Code, the "California Environmental Quality Act, and Section 15367 of the California Code of Regulations. 3 "Level of service" as defined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. A. Trip Generation Thresholds The following criterion is a starting point in determining when a TIS is needed. When a project: 1. Generates over 100 peak hour trips assigped to a State highway facility 2. Generates 50 to 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility -and, affected State highway facilities are experiencing noticeable delay; approaching unstable traffic flow conditions (LOS "C" or "D''). 3. Generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway faci lity -the foll owing are examples that may require a full TIS or some lesser analysis4 : a . Affected State highway facilities experiencing significant delay; unstable or forced traffic flow conditions (LOS "E " or "F"). b. The potential risk for a traffic incident is significantly increased (i.e., congestion related collisions, non-standard sight distance considerations, increase in traffic conflict points, etc.). c . Change in local circulation networks that impact a State highway facility (i.e., direct access to State highway facility, a non-standard highway geometric design, etc.). Note: A traffic study may be as simple as providing a traffic count to as complex as a microscopic simulation. The appropriate level of study is determined by the particulars of a project, the prevailing highway conditions, and the forecasted traffic. B. E xceptions Exceptions require consultation between .the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS. Whe n a project's traffic impact to a State highway facility can clearly be anticipated without a study and all the parties involved (lead agency, developer, and the Caltrans district office) are able to negotiate appropriate mitigation, a TIS may not be necessary. C . Updating An E xisting T raffic lmpa ct Study A TIS requires updating when the amount or character of traffic is significantly different from an earlier study. Generally a TIS requires updating every two years. A TIS may require updating sooner in rapidly developing areas and not as often in slower deve loping areas. In these cases, consultation with Caltrans is strongly recommended. III. SCOPE OF TRAf'FIC IMPACT STUDY Consultation between the lead a gency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS i s recommended before commencing work on the study to establish the appropriate scope. At a minimum, the TIS should include the following: A. Boundarie s of the T raffic Impact Study All State highway facilities impacted in accordance with the criteria in Section II should be studied. Traffic impacts to local streets and roads can impact intersections with State highway facilities. In these cases, the TIS should include an analysis of adjacent local facilities , upstream and downstream, of the intersection (i.e., driveways, intersections, and interchange s) with the State highway. 4 A "les ser analys is" m ay include obtaining traffic counts, prC}Jaring signal warrants, or a fo cused TIS , etc . 2 B. Traffic Analysis Scenarios Caltrans is interested in the effects of general plan updates and amendments as well as the effects of specific project entitlements (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, sub- divisions, rezoning, etc.) that have the potential to impact a State highway facility. The complexity or magnitude of the impacts of a project will normally dictate the scenarios necessary to analyze the project. Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS is recommended to determine the appropriate scenarios for the analysis. The following scenarios should be addressed in the TIS when appropriate: 1. When only a general plan amendment or update is being sought, the following scenarios are required: a) Existing Conditions -Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis of effected State highway facilities. b) Proposed Project Only with Select Zone5 Analysis -Trip generation and assignment for build-out of general plan. c) General Plan Build-out Only -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis. Include current land uses and other pending general plan amendments. d) General Plan Build-out Plus Proposed Project -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis. Include proposed project and other pending general plan amendments. 2. When a general plan amendment is not proposed and a proposed project is seeking specific entitlements (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, sub-division, rezoning, etc.), the following scenarios must be analyzed in the TIS: a) Existing Conditions -Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis of effected State highway facilities. b) Proposed Project Only-Trip generation, distribution, and assignment in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. c) Cumulative Conditions (Existing Conditions Plus Other Approved and Pending Projects Without Proposed Project) -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. d) Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Project (Existing Conditions Plus Other Approved and Pending Projects Plus Proposed Project) -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. e) Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Phases (Interim Years) -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the years the project phases are anticipated to complete construction. 3 . In cases where the circulation element of the general plan is not consistent with the land use element or the general plan is outdated and not representative of current or future forecasted conditions, all scenarios from Sections III. B. 1. and 2. should be utilized with the exception of duplicating of item 2.a. 5 "Select zone" analysis represents a project only traffic model run, where the project's trips are distributed and assigned along a loaded highway network. This procedure isolates the specific impact on the State highway network. 3 IV. TRAFFIC DATA Prior to any fieldwork, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS is recommended to reach consensus on the data and assumptions necessary for the study. The following elements are a starting point in that consideration. A. Trip Generation The latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) TRIP GENERATION report should be used for trip generation forecasts. Local trip generation rates are also acceptable if appropriate validation is provided to support th.em. 1. Trip Generation Rates -When the land use has a limited number of studies to support the trip generation rates or when the Coefficient of Determination (R2) is below 0 .75, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended. 2. Pass-by Trips6 -Pass-by trips are only considered for retail oriented development. Reductions greater than 15% requires consulta~~:m and acceptance by Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 15% reduction should be discussed in the TIS. 3. Captured Trips7 -Captured trip reductions greater than 5% requires consultation and acceptance by Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 5% reduction should be discussed in the TIS. 4. Transportation Demand Management (TOM) -Consultation between the lead agency and Caltrans is essential before applying trip reduction for TDM strategies. NOTE: Reasonable reductions to trip generation rates are considered when adjacent State highway volumes are sufficient (at least 5000 ADT) to support reductions for the land use. B. Traffic Counts Prior to field traffic counts, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to determine the level of detail (e.g., location, signal timing, travel speeds, turning movements, etc.) required at each traffic count site. All State highway facilities within the boundaries of the TIS should be considered. Common rules for counting vehicular traffic include but are not limited to: 1. Vehicle counts should be conducted on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays during weeks not containing a holiday and conducted in favorable weather conditions . 2. Vehicle counts should be conducted during the appropriate peak hours (see peak hour discussion below). 3. Seasonal and weekend variations in traffic should also be considered where appropriate (i.e., recreational routes, tourist attractions, harvest season, etc.). C. Peak Hours To eliminate unnecessary analysis, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended during the early planning stages of a project. In general, the TIS should include a morning (a.m.) and an evening (p .m.) peak hour analyses. Other peak hours (e.g., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p .m., weekend, holidays, etc.) may also be required to determine the significance of the traffic impacts generated by a project. 6 "Pass-by" trips are made as intermediate stops between an origin and a primary trip destination (i.e., home to work, home to shopping, etc.). 7 "Captured Trips" are trips that do not enter or leave the driveways of a project's boundary within a mixed-use development. 4 D. Travel Forecasting (Transportation Modeling) The local or regional traffic model should reflect the most current land use and planned improvements (i.e., where programming or funding is secured). When a general plan build- out model is not available, the closest forecast model year to build-out should be ust>.cL If a traffic model is not available, historical growth rates and current trends can be used to project future traffic volumes. The TIS should clearly describe any changes made in the model to accommodate the analysis of a proposed project. V. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1\-IETHODOLOGIES Typically, the traffic analysis methodologies for the facility types indicated below are used by Caltrans and will be accepted without prior consultation. When a State highway has saturated flows, the use of a micro-simulation model is encouraged for the analysis (please note however, the micro-simulation model must be calibrated and validated for reliable results). Other analysis methods may be accepted, however, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to agree on the data necessary for the analysis. A. Freeway Segments -Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)*, operational analysis B. Weaving Areas -Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) C. Ramps and Ramp Junctions-HCM*, operational analysis or Caltrans HDM, Caltrans Ramp Metering Guidelines (most recent edition) D. Multi-Lane Highways -HCM*, operational analysis E. Two-lane Highways -HCM*, operational analysis F. Signalized Intersections8 -HCM*, Highway Capacity Software**, operational analysis, TRAFFIX™**, Synchro**, see footnote 8 G. Unsignalized Intersections -HCM*, operational analysis, Caltrans Traffic Manual for signal warrants if a signal is being considered H. Transit -HCM*, operational analysis I. Pedestrians -HCM* J. Bicycles-HCM* K. Caltrans Criteria/Warrants-Caltrans Traffic Manual (stop signs, traffic signals, freeway lighting, conventional highway lighting, school crossings) L. Channelization-Caltrans guidelines for Reconstruction oflntersections, August 1985, Ichiro Fukutome *The most current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transpo~tion Research Board, National Research Council, should be used. **NOTE: Caltrans does not officially advocate the use of any special software. However, consistency with the HCM is advocated in most but not all cases. The Caltrans local development review units utilize the software mentioned above. If different software or analytical techniques are used for the TIS then consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended. Results that are significantly different than those produced with the analytical techniques above should be challenged. 8 The procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual "do not explicitly address operations of closely spaced signalized intersections. Under such conditions, several unique characteristics must be considered, including spill-back potential from the downstream intersection to the upstream intersection, effects of downstream queues on upstream saturation flow rate, and unusual platoon dispersion or compression between intersections. An example of such closely spaced operations is signalized ramp terminals at urban interchanges. Queue interactions between closely spaced intersections may seriously distort the procedures in" the H9M. 5 VI.MITIGATION MEASURES The TIS should provide the nexus [Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987, 483 U.S. 825 (108 S.Ct. 314)] between a project and the traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The TIS should also establish the rough proportionality [Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994, 512 U.S. 374 (114 S. Ct. 2309)] between the mitigation measures and the traffic impacts. One method for establishing the rough proportionality or a project proponent's equitable responsibility for a project's impacts is provided in Appendix "B." Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to reach consensus on the mitigation measures and who will be responsible. Mitigation measures must be included in the traffic impact analysis. This determines if a project's impacts can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance. Eliminating or reducing impacts to a level of insignificance is the standard pursuant to CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The lead agency is responsible for administering the CEQA review process and has the principal authority for approving a local development proposal or land use change. Caltrans, as a responsible agency, is responsible for reviewing the TIS for errors and omissions that pertain to State highway facilities. However, the authority vested in the lead agency under CEQA does not take precedence over other authorities in law. If the mitigation measures require work in the State highway right-of-way an encroachment permit from Caltrans will be required. This work will also be subject to Caltrans standards and specifications. Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS early in the planning process is strongly recommended to expedite the review of local development proposals and to reduce conflicts and misunderstandings in both the local agency CEQA review process as well as the Caltrans encroachment permit process. 6 APPENDIX ''A'' MINIMUM CONTENTS OFA TRAFFIC IMP ACT STUDY MINIMUM CONTENTS OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REPORT I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IL TABLE OF CONTENTS A. List of Figures (Maps) B. List of Tables III. INTRODUCTION A. Description of the proposed project B. Location of project C. Site plan including all access to State highways (site plan, map) D . Circulation network including all access to State highways (vicinity map) E. Land use and zoning F. Phasing plan including proposed dates of project (phase) completion G. Project sponsor and contact person(s) , H. References to other traffic impact studies IV. TRAFFICANALYSIS A. Clearly stated assumptions B. Existing and projected traffic volumes (including turning movements), facility geometry (including storage lengths), and traffic controls (including signal phasing and multi- signal progression where appropriate) (figure) C. Project trip generation including references (table) D. Project generated trip distribution and assignment (figure) E . LOS and warrant analyses -existing conditions, cumulative conditions, and full build of general plan conditions with and without project V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. LOS and appropriate MOE quantities of impacted facilities with and without mitigation measures B . Mitigation phasing plan including dates of proposed mitigation measures C. Define responsibilities for implementing mitigation measures D. Cost estimates for mitigation measures and financing plan VI. APPENDICES A. Description of traffic data and how data was collected B. Description of methodologies and assumptions used in analyses C. Worksheets used in analyses (i.e., signal warrant, LOS, traffic count information, etc.) 2 APPENDIX ''B'' METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING EQUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURES METHOD FOR CALCULATING EOUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURES The methodology below is neither intended as, nor does it establish, a legal standard for determining equitable responsibi1ity and cost of a. project's traffic impact, the intent is to provide: 1. A starting point for early discussions to address traffic mitigation equitably. 2. A means for calculating the equitable share for mitigating traffic impacts. 3. A means for establishing rough proportionality [Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994, 512 U.S. 374 (114 S. Ct. 2309)]. The formulas should be used when: • A project has impacts that do not immediately warrant mitigation, but their cumulative effects are significant and will require mitigating in the future. • A project has an immediate impact and the lead agency has assumed responsibility for addressing operational improvements NOTE: This formula is not intended for circumstances where a project proponent will be receiving a substantial benefit from the identified mitigation measures. In these cases, (e.g., mid-block access and signalization to a shopping center) the project should take full responsibility to toward providing the necessary infrastructure. EQUITABLE SHARE RESPONSIBILITY: Equation C-1 NOTE: TE< Ta, see explanation for Ts below. T p Where: P = The equitable share for the proposed project's traffic impact. T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during the peak hour of adjacent State highway facility in vehicles per hour, vph. Ts = The forecasted traffic volume on an impacted State highway facility at the time of general plan build-out (e.g., 20 year model or the furthest future model date feasible), vph. TE = The traffic volume existing on the impacted State highway facility plus other approved projects that will generate traffic that has yet to be constructed/opened, vph. EQUITABLE COST: Equation C-2 Where: C = The equitable cost of tratlic mitigation for the proposed project, ($). (Rounded to nearest one thousand dollars) P = The equitable share for the project being considered. CT = The total cost estimate for improvements necessary to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand on the impacted State highway facility in question at general plan build-out,($). NOTES 1. Once the equitable share responsibility and equitable cost has been established on a per trip basis, these values can be utilized for all projects on that State highway facility until the forecasted general plan build-out model is revised. 2. Truck traffic should be converted to passenger car equivalents before utilizing these equations (see the Highway Capacity Manual for converting to passenger car equivalents). 2 3. If the per trip cost is not used for all subsequent projects, then the equation below will be necessary to determine the costs for individual project impact and will require some additional accounting. Equation C-2.A Where: C = Same as equation C-2. P = Same as equation C-2. CT = Same as equation C-2 . Cc = The combined dollar contributions paid and committed prior to current project's contribution. This is necessary to provide the appropriate cost proportionality. Example: For the first project to impact the State highway facility in question since the total cost (CT) estimate for improvements necessary to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand, Cc would be equal to zero. For the second project however, C would equal P2(CT-C 1) and for the third. project to come along C would equal P3[CT -(C1 + C2)] and so on until build-out or the general plan build-out was recalculated. 3 APPENDIX ''C'' MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS BY FACILITY TYPE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS BY FACILITY TYPE TYPE OF FACILITY MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOE) Basic Freeway Segments Density (pc/mi/In) Ramps Density (pc/mi/ln) Ramp Terminals Dela _(se~veh) Multi-Lane Highways Densicy (£_".fmi/ln) Two-Lane Highways 1 Percent-Time-Following ··---·· Average Travel Speed (mi/hr) Shroalized Intersections Control Delay per Vehicle (scc/veh) U nsignalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) Urban Streets Average Travel Speed (mi/hr) Measures of effectiveness for level of service definitions located in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2 Transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" Criteria (Reference Highway Capacity Manual) BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS @ 65 mi/hr LOS I Maximum Minimum Maximum I Maximum I Density Speed v/c I Service I (pc/mi/In) (mph) Flow Rate , I (oc/hr/ln) A 11 I 65 .0 0.30 I 710 B 18 65.0 0.50 1170 c 26 64 .6 0.71 1680 ..,,..........,,..,,-.-..-r·~-··w-:.'f"il"'l("'T"(~~ ·~~~-l""O"I.-..:.-~ ............. ,..-... ~i.;-.. -,..,--i:1"'i:-tf"l" "'"'"2090",.·"~· ' D 35 59.7 0.89 E 45 52.2 1.00 '2350 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS and RAMP TERMINALS LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) A ::s; 10 B > 10-20 c > 20-35 ~ ~ u " ... c ~~ • " ~",~~~·~·~•8WU ~~c s c ~~ D > 35-55 E > 55-80 F >80 MULTI-LANE HIGHWAYS @55 mi/hr LOS Maximum Minimum Maximum Maximum Density Speed v/c Service (pc/mi/In) (mph) Flow Rate I 1 (oc/hr/ln) A 11 55.0 0.29 600 B 18 55.0 0.47 990 c 26 I :t ~ !:•· ?.1·~". ~ ~., .. u ... g~?-~ ·~·. I .~" ~,.1.1~!!~ •c.. ~ , ". ;1 ~. "1 . l't .,lllC ~4 ••:.i ::.•"~0 • D 35 52.9 0.88 1850 I tt.•• "". E 41 51.2 1.00 2100 ••••• Dotted line represents th~ transition between LOS "C" and LOS "Di; 3 TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS LOS Percent Average Travel Speed Time-Spent-Followine; (mi/hr) A 35 >55 B > 35-50 > 50-55 . 'l'Q ll !;n,·•• "•,. tiR . ~•u >, 5.0 r.i"7l ti.5 r. • • .. ** •:. • • • n• 1111 •=-1.:.11:• ~J&S.o S.Q c •• 0:4.• ""~• a ••• o ~ I D > 65-80 I > 40-45 --1 E >80 40 URBAN STREETS Urban Street Class I II III IV Rane;e of FFS 55 to 45 mi/hr 45 to 35 mi/hr 35 to 30 mi/hr 35 to 25 mi/hr TypicalFFS . r 40 mi/hr 35 mi/hr 30 mi/hr LOS A vera2e Travel Speed (mi/hr) A >42 >35 >30 >25 B > 34-42 > 28-35 > 24-30 > 19-25 c > 27-34 > 22-28 > 18-24 > 13-19 .... ~;.""">!"!!~:-'-:-.,.,~_;-,o;-_ ... .,nii.-_~,a---.-.-r-. ::c.-~~;-~..rzir~~ ~~~~-... __ .,._ .... _<'l•~~-"·t -~ .... ... . .,~ ~;~9 ·_.:;i·3 ~-... D > 21-27 > 17-22 > 14 -18 E > 16-21 > 13 -17 > 10-14 >7-9 F 16 13 10 7 ••••• Dotted line represents the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" 4 GRAY DAVIS Governor MARIA CONTRERAS-SWEET Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency , JEFF MORALES Director California Department of Transportation RANDELL H. IWASAKI Deputy Director Maintenance and Operations JOHN A. (Jack) BODA Chief Division of Traffic Operations BRIAN J. SMITH Deputy Director Planning and Modal Programs JOAN SOLLENBERGER Chief Division of Transportation Planning Additional copies of these guidelines can be copied from the internet at, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/operationalsystems/ Planning Commission 11 OE Main Street Loa Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Commissioners, RECEIVED DEC 07 2017 TO\NN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I want to tell what happened to me so you can understand why I am so frightened of this new Development at 405 Alberto Way and the traffic It wlll bring. I am a resident of Los Gatos Commons. In 2014, I became very short of breath; a neighbor saw me pass out and called 911. The EMR was here In five minutes. When I woke up, the ER doctors said I was very lucky that I got In so qulckly as two more minutes delay, I would have been deadll I am so worried about myself and other Ill residents here at the Commons. The traffic and congestion on our once quiet street has me very worried as my chronic problems and those of my neighbors are complicated and often need quick response. Please make the size and the traffic of the development In keeping with a street full of seniors who have medlcal problems. Thank You Kathy Figueroa, , Resident of the os Gatos Commons Planning Commission 110 E Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Commissione"5, RECEIVED ·ofc 07 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATO" PLANNING DMSIOi~ I became involved in the 405 Alberto Way project July, 2016 when all the residents at The Los Gatos Commons received the enclosed notice; the first public outreach from the developer to anyone at the Los Gatos Commons. We had already passed apparently the deadline to comment on the EIR as we were all new to this process. I wrote to the Vice Mayor Sayoc about our limited abilities to fight this out of scale development to our quiet dead end street on 9/2116 and again on 3/17/17, (letters included). The reply was "Let me give thought on who would be best to help you and your neighbors" Since that was the last communication, our committee started to work using our own resources. Los Gatos Commons is our home and many of my neighbors are in no condition to help to defend their homes. All the neighbors on Alberto Way are all working for the common good including for the developer and this project. To help the Town of Los Gatos and the Project come to a WIN-WIN conclusion the following must be considered: The building must come down in square footage to be in scale with 475- 485 Alberto Oaks( approx. 56,000 sq.ft.) and to be in scale with the two wings of Pueblo de Los Gatos (approx. 55,000 sq.ft .. ) .. The reduced square footage would bring less traffic, less excavation, and less cost to the .. developer. The reduced square footage would mean no need to excavate two levels for the garage thus eliminating the risk of cracked pipes for adjaceht properties. I walk most days downtown using the creek trail and the real treat is looking up at the Santa Cruz Mountains from the sidewalk. The new design continues to block the public view of the mountains. H there was an 80 foot set back on the far north property line adjacent to Las Casitas then at least we would have some mountain view. Our requests are simple: reduce the size to reflect the neighborhood, therefore around 56,000 sq.ft., dig for just one level underground garage, and protect the existing public view. Thank you for all your hard work on this. projeet Sincerely, Marilyn Basham Resident of Los Gatos Commons LjO(~ tjtJ~ Neighborhood Open I-louse As many of you already know, LP Acquisitions, LLC is p1anning to constru new office buildings at 401-405 Alberto Way. We would like you to Join us for an evening of information sharing and community input! lt. will be an interactive, open house format, where you w have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Yo input is welcome. Our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two new two-story Class up.:' office buildings, totaling 91 ,965 square feet. Parkhg would be provided in two fevels of underground parking with eight su.-'face parking spaces provided for visitor parking . We have taken great care in developing a concept for redevelopment of this well-located property that wm fully comply with the Town's General Plan, goals and policies . P··ofessional office tenants will occupy the building; just a.s they do today but with the added benefit of sustainable and energy-efficient building rr.aterials and systems. The Town of Los Gatos will be meeting in August to evaluate the project. You will see "Story Poles" installed at the site later this wee!<. as required by the Town in it's review process. Story Poles are poles that tell a story by ,. depicting the bulk and mass of a proposed structure or project. For more information please visit our website at www.401 albertoway .com Rt: /t1 /,JD~-;e: .,L/-UG ().5 T /OW/\/ /L1EETtN{; OM WED . , /0 l+T 7:00PM /A/ T~WA/ ,.. .. ~ .. ~ c-,p c (AJ6t.i ro i7K LC Lt1!3JC;J-ie.y) From: Marilyn Basham marilynbasham @mac.com Subject: ' a Senior Advocate? NEW DRAFT COMMUNICATION Oa March 2, 2017 at . :43 AM To: Fowler lorettakfowler@gmail.co m Cc: John R Mittelstet jmitt@comcast.net, mariettariney mariettariney @gmail.com, Shirley Ryan shirleyryan2001@gmail.com, Suzanne Currie Noble suzannecurrle@ mac.com, Jean Jones jfjones39@ yah oo .com Dear Ms Sayoc, I have been slow to fotlow up on request for help, bUt I would like to know what are the resources that we seniors can look to for help. Since I wrote the stress and anxiety level in our community has ramped up to very high levels. This is partially true as seniors contemplate the isolation this massive project( rooking just at 401-409) is going to cause both physically and socially. We live on a dead street, we have no others options to get groceries or get to medical appointments except through a construction zone with upwards of 150-200 diesel truck trips a day. H this project goes through even beyond the construction phase we will see out of proportion traffic density and disruption such that quality of life for us will continue to diminish. One could almost make a case far "Elder Abuse". I know this a huge statement but the stress of potential physical and social ISOLATION weighs heavily on my community. Please help me find resources. Thank You Manlyn Basham Begin forwarded message: From: Marica Sayoc <MSa~losqatosca .qov > Subject: Re: How to find a Senior Advocate? Date: September 2, 2016at1 :44:53 PM PDT To: Marilyn Basham <marilynbasham@mac.com> Hi Marilyn - Let me give thought on who would be best to help you and your neighbors. ***************************************** Marico Sayoc Vice Mayor,Town of Los Gatos ***************************************** 12:41 PM, Marilyn Basham <marilY.nbasham@mac.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Sayoc, First of all : I am not asking for comment on 401-409 Alberto Way Project as it being considered by the Planning Commission. I am asking for help for the seniors of Alberto Way including myself to help us add a voice to the invasion of our quiet dead end street by possibly TWO MEGA (401-409 and 475-485 Alberto Way) developments. Unlike the outside developer, we don't have a staff of lawyers, technical advisors or unlimited resources. We are seniors like myself who have worked hard, paid 30+ years of property taxes to Los Gatos and business taxes to Los Gatos ( I own a small medical building) and now recently retired in town to be close to grandchildren. What's a senior to do? I am a resident of the Los Gatos Commons : it is a rare +55 and over complex of independent condos within walking distance of town. I worry about my neighbors on walkers , canes, and motorized wheelchairs who won't be able to walk or get out because of the traffic, air, and noise pollution let alone the difficulty for the EMA response time. Please let me know where I can find someone to help us navigate this huge challenge to our quiet dead end street and to our quality of life. Sincerely, Marilyn Basham 439 Alberto Way A207 Los Gatos, CA 95032 ·--..·····--.. , ........ - Jennifer Armer From: Serit: To: Subject: December 7, 2017 To The Planning Commission: Jean Farren Jones <jfjones39@yahoo.com> Thursday, December 07, 2017 9:52 AM Jennifer Armer Project at 405 Alberto Way The boards of Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas, and the Los Gatos Commons wish to notify you that we have broad agreement on the three principles that should be applied to the 405 Alberto Way project. These are: 1.) A building size less than 62,000 sq. ft. 2.) Surface parking or no more than a one level underground parking garage. 3.). Protection of the existing public views on the north corridor of the site. Sincerely, Jean Farren Jones, Pres. Los Gatos Commons Sent from my iPhone TO : The town of Los Gatos Planning Commission From : The residents of Pueblo de Los Gatos Date: December 7, 2017 RECEIVED UtL _ / Z017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Please see attached petition from the Residents of Pueblo de Los Gatos regarding the 405 Alberto Way Project. This petition supports the overall neighborhood concerns of all residents of Alberto Way. This petition has been signed by all (5) Board members of Pueblo de Los Gatos: Jannette Scott , unit 18 Charles Bawden unit 40 Alex Granas unit 41 Cathy Cathey unit 44 Janet Prince unit 52 Thank you, Cathy Cathey To : The Planning Commission From: The Residents of Pueblo De Los Gatos Date: December I , 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: #1 #2 #3 I. A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2017 hearing (less than .62,000 S. F.). 2 . PreServation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. 3. A one-story underground garage. Unit Print name Signature . . #4 #5 #7 #9 #IO #11 #14 . . #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 VQLC. ~ #21 1z/or / /·7 j #23 ZtJna fe le r-s~n /'2-¥-17 #24 ;:i -s--r:;. #11 '2] clolie'Th~ #28 #29 '1' (b..C: <Mr #30 #32 ~ #33 , x\ "'.YW>tAJ H ·V\ ·· ~ #34 • I ,. #37 -lf?r ~" #39 4f }f Sh, vSJ JtvU ~ #40./f 1o [' ~ML-k7 g~~ #41 ttl.f; ~ #42 -uc_.} A),~ &. ~y~ ~1zfofzo0- /t: · rz/s /!:1 #44 L\Y C0v-t\-.'j ~e,6 ~ _l 1.. \ \ \ 1 / ~ \"'\\C-'1'"'~\ c~nn \l..-L.Gro #4s ~ "-\S ~'v<~\q· ~qr ~2-/ \ / 1:1 #47 ctlA-Q #48 #49 #50 #51 #53 TO: The Planning Commission FROM: The Los Gatos Commons and its Board of Directors DATE: December 6, 2017 Please accept this petition regarding the 405 Alberto Way project. It is signed by virtually all our residents. To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 utt_ / zo u TOWN OF LOS .~ ·· ...-,..,.-p ',. .. - LANNING D IV;~.~·,-.J· We request th.at you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing (less than 62,000 S.F.). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains· on the north corridor of the site. A one-story underground garage. . :·;' . .... ts::.·.·: ... .. . . . . . . . . :. . . .. ': ·. ·. ·.· .. . : . : .-·.: . : •·. ~. . :. . : ·.: .. : ... ·, .· .. ·.· :: .. · .. . ·.· .. ··:· .. · . .-:_-.; . To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing (less than 62,000 S.F .). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. A one-story underground garage. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Date Name Signature Unit# Address B \\l\_ /JI/ To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing (less than 62,000 S.F.). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. A one-story underground garage. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Date Name Signature Unit# Address ~'ltJf-~ \./ ~ 'i~ ~ ~"' ~' -- ~ A\bw"to 'Wy " t '. " '1f 0 ,_.,.~ lA/ /1- <!lO 1 e.. l ~be,, ,,, 13?C. I/ / '3 2..-<! I c.. t. 12.. C..Z.32 c To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing· (less than 62,000 S.F.). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. A one-story underground garage. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Date Name Signature Unit# Address L {) /"e tt-"\.. "F w \-er z. 't ~ lj 'S' I Mb~~ w~-. 1-+--~-+--~-r._.,,_~_~_.__-YI_-. ,,_~_/--t---'"---=--~----t-~-'l_i __ 1-__ f S/ Cl~.b-~"h M :f:r:-(t~c,,5 -s 1 ~ 451 I 04f-b · ' t-----+--------+--------+------+-----------i ·2s1. JSi. 2 )-.3 ' . I W~;y~ l lf ~ l 'it:t I.[ .. w,i, u LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Date Name Signature Unit# Address ' •· , -,. ~ .. l f}/1 ~ (olt;,~ K'tA!JM'S~' ~ ~ 1 1 t; i 2)4 , J ~ {tG, _y~/j ~ :(_ t./ ~ G1 Oc< V\.R>~ ; . ( ~ • .-,. I 12/l{ }?, ;ii e, J/z/1111: ~ RVA II / ~S'O . . / ~·· ~ ~ -, ,,/_ ,[; --~.,,,._. i':'!i •/' -.. . ~ .... ~-.. • ...I ,, • • . .. , , " , / ~ . - .. --' . ,• To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing (less than 62,000 S.F.). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. A one-story. underground garage. Date LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Name Signature Unit# Address To: Planning Commission From: The Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 Subject: Environmental Impact Report We are writing to object to some of the conclusions and mitigations in the DEIR . AESTHETICS RECEIVED Utt; -l 20 f7 TOWN OF LO S G ATOS PLANNING DIVISION IMPACT: The Proposed Project would have an adve r se effect on a scenic vista (Less than Significant). The report states (3-9-10) that the ex isting office buildings and tree cover partially obstruct existing views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines from adjacent residential properties. And, the proposed project elevations do not obstr uct ridgeline views more than existing buildings. Moreover, the DEIR concluded that the proposed plantings at maturity would partially obscure views ·of the mountains from the· surrounding locations but the views "would be similar to existing obstructions on the site." These conclusions are erroneous, as first-hand observations and photos show. With the existing buildings we have a beautiful unimpeded view of hillsides and a large mountain (including the peak) on the north side of the property. On the south side we have a narrower view corridor of hillsides and mountains. The proposed project does have a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. The mitigation for that is a sufficient setback of the proposed building(s) to protect the existing view from the north corridor. IMPACT: The Proposed Project would change the visual character of the project site (less than significant). The report states (3-11-13) that the increase of 61,800 sq. ft. of commercial space on the project site {currently with three buildings totaling 31,000 sq. ft.) is in compliance with General Plan policies and the Commercial Design Guidelines. No specific guidelines (such as COG 1.4) are addressed and General Plan policies regarding the relationsh i p of the proposed commercial building to the existing residential neighborhood are Ignored . Instead, compliance with the height, setback, and zon i ng requirements are .stressed. On September 10, 2015 the town consultant, Cannon Design Group, concluded that the project seemed "quite large in scale with not much effort made to blend into the context ...• " that is, the smaller scale buildings of the neighbors. "My feeling is that the scale and character of these buildings is not very suitable for this site." The applicant was advised to make the project "more sympathetic" to the surroundings. Subsequently, the applicant responded by making some changes to the roof line but not any significant reduction in size . This huge project stands out on the street as incompatible with the much smaller structures that are there and still lacks compliance with key components of the Commercial Design Guidelines 1.4 and several key Land Use policies. The appropriate mitigation is to reduce the size of the buildings. The largest site developments on Alberto Way are between 55,000 and 56,000 sq. ft. GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT: The DEIR concludes (3-80-81) that the project site is exposed to the effects of liquefaction. It has the risk of soil instability due to deep excavation (for a two-level Underground garage). And the site has "moderately" expansive soils (which can cause cracking). The DEIR concludes that these impacts are less than significant with "mitigation." Mitigation is obtained by following the recommendations of ENGEO. These mitigations are not thoroughly discussed in Appendix C, and especially lacking Is any discussion of the possible effects on neighbori ng properties (SAF 1.11 requ i res the description of construction methods to protect the neighboring residences). CEQA requires the identification of adverse effects or "loss" (property loss). The proposed mitigations are not adequate to address potential damage to neighboring properties because ENGEO has not acknowledged that there could be any possible negative impacts on the residences near the proposed project. A one-level underground would have less significant impact. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT: The Proposed Project would contribute to traffic which may conflict with applicable plans and policies regarding performance of the circulation system at a project level (less than significant with mitigation). The proposed mitigation is the restriping of Alberto Way to include a dedicated right- turn lane and a shared left-through lane (3-170, 175). The dedicated right-turn lane will be of little help with delays in the evening as traffic moves through the intersection onto the 17 ramp or HWY 9 going west. There will be ~ long wait as the project cars turn right onto Alberto Way and move toward the intersection. Vehicles leaving the offices at 475 and 485 will be in a queue behind them or vice versa. The residents of Alberto Way who may be trying to travel somewhere at that time also will be in the queue. And the dedicated right-turn lane will not help the traffic jams on Hwy 9; the project vehicles will add to that congestion. The best mitigation is fewer vehicles entering and exiting the Proposed Project. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (DEIR6.2) The two alternatives are No Project-Existing Square Footage (construction not greater than 31,000 sq. ft.) and Reduced Project {74,260 sq. ft.). The CEQA Guidelines require a "reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation." Each alternative must be meaningfully evaluated, analyzed, and compared with the proposed project. The description of the Reduced Project is problematic. First, on 6-7-The Revised Project alternative considers the new development "reduced by approximately one·third of the proposed project's development," which could be 62,000 sq. ft. not 74,260 sq. ft. That inconsistency aside, according to Richard James of EMC Planning Group, the figure of 74,260 was "not a number determined by analysis," it was "just a number," "qualitative rather than quantitative" (personal communication to L. Fowler, 11/28/2'o17). The figure was arbitrary and not "objective." This was not "informed decision- making'' because there was no rationale for the particular square footage selected , based on conditions at the site or in the neighborhood or on the street. Also, p leas e note the letter from our attorney Rachel Mansfield-Howlett, May 4, 20 17. PROVENCHER & FLATT, LLP 823 Sonoma Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Phone: 707-284.2380 Fax: 707-284.2387 Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner Los Gatos Planning Commission Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos CA 95030 planning@losgatosca.gov jarmer@losgatosca.gov May4, 2017 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Douglas B. Provencher Gail F. Flatt OF COUNSEL Janis H. Grattan Rachel Mansfield-Howlett Roz Bateman Smith Via Electronic Delivery RE: Comments on the EIR prepared for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project Dear Ms. Armer and Planning Commissioners: On behalf of the Alberto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas and Bella Vista Village, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the EIR prepared for the above named Project. I have reviewed the EIR and the associated reports prepared for the Project, including engineering expert Peter Geissler's March 31, 2017 report and the addendum to his report that will be submitted to you today, that detailed the numerous and grave errors and omissions in the analysis of the Project's direct and indirect impacts. In my professional opinio~ having successfully litigated similar cases, the EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project's direct and indirect impacts related to traffic; hydrology, flooding, run off, seismic/liquefaction, and health and safety and fails to propose adequate mitigation or col;lsider alternatives to the Project that would substantially reduce or avoid these impacts. The EIR must evaluate a project's likely secondary or indirect impacts along with its direct impacts. (El Dorado Union High School District v. City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221Cal.App.3d692.) Analysis should include social and economic effects that could lead to physical environmental impacts. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433 .) The amount of discussion and analysis for an environmental impact evaluated in an EIR should be proportional Page 1of6 to its severity and the probability of occurrence and correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the project being evaluated. (Guideline §15146 .) Mr. Geissler's reports provide ample foundation for the Planning Commission to find that the analysis conducted for the Project is inadequate and incomplete and fails to divulge the severity of the Project's direct and indirect impacts such that the EIR' s conclusions and the reports it relies upon are not supported, by substantial evidence. The ETR fails to conform to CEQA' s requirement to function as a full disclosure document and an environmental alarm bell that puts the public and decision-makers on notice regarding the Project's environmental effects so that adequate mitigation and alternatives may be fairly considered prior to the Project's adoption. (Rural Landowners Asso ciation v. City Council (1983) 143Cal.App.3d1013, 1020; County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810; Guideline §15151 . " ... the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, ... " No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 82; §21151.) Mr. Geissler demonstrates that the Project's impacts are substantially more severe than have been acknowledged and the feasibility of important mitigation measures and alternatives that have not been considered as required by CEQA. (Public Resources Code §21166(c); Guideline §15162(a)(3.) An EIR's analysis of environmental impacts must be sufficient to provide lead agencies with information that will enable them to make a decision that "intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221Cal.App.3d692.) Here, the EIR fails to provide the information needed to account for the environmental consequences of the Project, including the foreseeable indirect impacts to neighboring properties. The EIR therefore cannot be certified as proposed and should be revised and re-circulated for comment prior to further consideration of the Project. Abuse of discretion in certifying an EIR is assessed in two separate prongs, each of which presents an issue of law based on the administrative record. The sufficiency of EIR content is reviewed as to whether it was prepared "in the manner required by law" within statutory and regulatory requirements. The sufficiency of the EIR' s conclusions is then reviewed for substantial evidence. Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427, 435 ("A Court's task is to determine 'whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error .. : and whether it contains substantial evidence" supporting the agency's findings; Association of Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391; Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215. Page 2of6 Here, the EIR is insufficient under both prongs; it neither provides the required content and its conclusions of no impact are not supported. Mr. Geissler's expert analyses and determinations provide, inter alia, the following. • The ground floor lo groundwater elevation provides unsafe conditions, therefore the Project's impacts have not fully acknowledged and adequate mitigation has not been proposed. • There is no logical basis for the claim that the site is not susceptible to liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake and therefore the Project's impacts have not been fully acknowledged and adequate mitigation has not been proposed. • ENGEO's assertion that seasonal fluctuations in groundwater mimic the effects of construction dewatering is false. Seasonal fluctuations in the depth of groundwater can cause foundation settlement but not differential foundation settlement. By contrast, construction dewatering induces differential foundation settlement. Cracked slabs are associated with differential foundation settlement not uniform settlement. • EN GEO' s analysis of health and safety impacts is incorrect; EN GEO used an outdated map dated 1991. The more recent 2002 map shows that the proposed development is located within the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone and the Liquefaction Zone. • Due to Differential Foundation Settlement a mat slab foundation cannot be uniformly supported by subgrade soils subject to liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake unless the mat foundation exceeds 4' in thickness. Subsequent structural cracks allow massive influx of groundwater. • Percolation analysis was based on the performance of a 1' thick garage slab floor subject to liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake which would allow the influx of approximately 500 gallons per minute into the underground garage. This amount of water leakage cannot be controlled by the use of the Project's proposed sump pumps and is inadequate to ensure the public's safety. • The permitting of an underground garage in an area that is subject to the inundation of floodwaters in the event of an upstream dam failure Page3of6 repres~nts unnecessary and unreasonable risk to health and safety. • Leniham Dam is located adjacent to the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. Strong shaking in the Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone is likely to cause the earthen dam to fail. The 2012 Terra I GeoPentech report does not take into account the close proximity between Leniham Dam and the Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. Therefore, ENGEO's unfounded reliance upon the findings and conclusions of the 2012 Terra/GeoPentech Leniham report represents a failure to comply with the standard of care of the engineering profession. • ENGEO stated, " ... the construction of a subsurface garage will not dramatically impede groundwater flow." Geissler Engineering pointed out that the construction of a subsurface garage necessarily impedes groundwater flow; the flow of groundwater is diverted around the underground parking garage. There is an increased level of groundwater on the upstream side of the underground parking garage and a decreased level of groundwater on the downstream side of the underground parking garage which leads to cracked slabs in neighboring building. This is an indirect impact that must be analyzed in the EIR. • A 12-inch thick slab floor is too flexible to span over areas of soil subsidence caused by liquefaction and too weak to prevent cracking. In comparable situations in San Francisco where liquefaction causes soil subsidence, 48-inch thick mat slabs are proposed. If the top of slab of the underground garage is located below the groundwater then the influx of groundwater into the cracked underground parking structure, water floods the damaged and submerged underground garage leading to ,,......--··-~~~safety impacts . ....--· /'' . ) Al~~../ also failed to: consider a reasonable range of alternative s that ~:;tly reduce or avoid the Project's impacts; identify an environmental! su erior alt ative other than the No Project alternative, and; iden alternatives considered and excluded from EIR analysis or to provide the reasons for their rejection. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) 52 Cal.3d 553, 569; Guideline §15126.6(b). Where no alternatives are deemed feasible, the EIR is required to disclose the re~ons why possible alternatives l"e~d infeasible and did not do so. (Laur el He~ssociation V:-UC R~el Heights I) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) The EIR failed to consider ~mate ·sites as required by both public and private development projects. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervi sor s (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 574-575; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Sup ervisors (Gol eta I) {1988) 197 Page 4 of 6 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1179-1180. EIRs "must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project.") An EIR must consider a "range of reasonable alternatives." Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Residents AdHoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274; Guideline §15126.6(c). The range must be sufficient "to perm.it a reasonable choice of alternative~ so far as environmental aspects are concerned"; San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino, supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at 750-751; Guideline §§15126.6(c), (£). Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, envirorunental, social, technological, and legal factors. (Public Resources Code §21061.1; Guideline §15364.) • Increased costs of an alternative do not equate to economic infeasibility: "[t]he fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta I) (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221Cal.App.3d692, 736.) H ere, considering the Project's unacknowledged impacts in the issue areas described herein, the EIR did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives that took into account these impacts and there is no information in the record that could credibly provide the basis for finding that such alternatives are infeasible based upon economic infeasibility. Since the EIR found that the Reduced Project Alternative meets most Project objectives and should be considered as a feasible Project alternative, it is clear that a range of alternatives that would meet most objectives could easily be configured to reduce or completely avoid the Project's impacts related to the hydrology and seismic issues that have been raised by Mr. Geissler and concerned area residents. The EIR should be revised and re- circulated to provide an adequate alternatives analysis and to identify an environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project alternative. Traffic The EIR failed to adequately respond to and incorporate mitigation measures proposed by the Santa Clara Transportation Authority. "[C]omments from responsible experts or sister agencies ... that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project" may not be ignored. (Berkeley Keep Jets over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Cmr 's. (2001) 91Cal.App.4th1344,1367 quoting Cleary v. County of Stanislaus, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357.) Pages of6 For the foregoing reasons, and as articulated in the reports of Mr. Geissler, incorporated herein by reference, the EIR should not be certified as complete. Thank you for your consideration, Rachel Mansfield-Howlett P a g e 6of6 Jennifer Armer From: J Scott <gatosbella@gmail.com > Friday, December 08, 201711:00 AM Jennifer Armer Sent: To: Subject: 401 -409 Alberto Way Planning Commission : Thank you for the thoughtful analysis on the Alberto Way project. I ask that as we continue you keep these items in mind before approval is granted; 1. No underground garage on this site-the impact on the environment is simply not worth the risk, including flooding, seismic impact, and air quality. 2 . Pedestrian safety at Alberto Way & Highway 17 on ramps: require lighted crosswalks and striped crosswalks prior to construction 3 . Speed Humps needed along Alberto Way-speeding traffic is a big problem! 4 . Enforcement of Permit parking for residents only s. Require developer to lower the building height on north end of project to retain view 6. Require developer allow parking on site after 6 PM 7. Require a thorough plan of Highway 9/ Alberto Way traffic impact before project begins. Thank you, Jannette Scott 420 Alberto Way My name is Thomas Dunn and I live at 420 Alberto Way. I have lived in LG for over 40 years. We're not opposed to some development at this proposed site but there are several issues that still create problems. First, the size of the new revised plan is still too large and massive and the 2 story underground parking garage would not be needed if the number of potential employees were reduced based on size of the building. Second the amount of ne\111 cars coming and going onto Alberto way. The proposed development could bring 350 to 400 cars every day up and down our street. This creates a safety hazard for both the existing residence trying to get their car into and out of our driveways and the pedestrians having to always be aware of cars speeding up and down the street and turning in and out of.the building. Third with parking spaces being removed from our street creates a problem for the residence of where they can now park their car. We only have one designated parking spot on our complex so our other car has to use the street. That will be gone. The proposed bike lane will create a safety hazard to bicyclists because it's designed to be between 2 lanes of cars. Now you have twice the risk. Our children who ride their bikes to school would have greater risk of injury trying to maneuverer between hundreds of cars now on Alberto way. The planning commission denied this project twice and the last time it was a unanimous decision. That tells it all. No one, the town or the residents, wants this size project built. I encourage you to deny this appeal to not move forward with this project