Loading...
N40 Desk Item - BPREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON Community Development Director Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\08-11-16\N40 Desk Item - B.docx MEETING DATE: 08/11/16 ITEM NO. 1 DESK ITEM B COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: AUGUST 11, 2016 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-13-090 AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION M-13-014. PROPERTY LOCATION: SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, LARK AVENUE TO SOUTH OF NODDIN AVENUE. APPLICANT: GROSVENOR USA LIMITED. PROPERTY OWNERS: YUKI FARMS, ETPH LP, GROSVENOR USA LIMITED, SUMMERHILL N40 LLC, ELIZABETH K. DODSON, AND WILLIAM HIRSCHMAN. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTI- USE, MULTI-STORY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 320 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH INCLUDES 50 AFFORDABLE SENIOR UNITS; APPROXIMATELY 66,800 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA, WHICH INCLUDES A MARKET HALL; ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP. APNS: 424-07-024 THROUGH 027, 031 THROUGH 037, 070, 083 THROUGH 086, 090, AND 100. REMARKS: Attachment 24 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 9, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. August 11, 2016. At the August 9, 2016 meeting the Town Council asked staff to respond to a number of questions. The following are the questions followed by staff responses in italic font: 1. Is additional environmental review required because the City of San Jose is evaluating potential new development (e.g., Samaritan Medical Center) after the completion of the North 40 Environmental Impact Report (EIR)? PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): The Town Council certified a Program EIR for the North 40 Specific Plan on January 20, 2015 (Resolution 2015-002). An Initial Study was prepared to analyze the proposed uses and improvements associated with the Phase 1 project (Exhibit 3 of Attachment 1). The Initial Study concludes that the proposed development applications for Phase 1 comply with the environmental analysis completed with the certified EIR, and therefore no additional environmental analysis is required for the proposed applications. The recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 6 of Attachment 1) include a condition requiring implementation of the applicable mitigation measures from the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Comments and question came up again during public comment period regarding doing additional CEQA analysis based upon the cumulative impact of proposed projects that were not included in the certified EIR. An EIR must analyze cumulative impacts whenever a proposed project's individual impacts have the potential to combine with related impacts from other projects to compound environmental harm. CEQA establishes that the environment for which the Project is evaluated is established at the time of issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Guidelines Section 15130(b)), and the NOP for the North 40 Specific Plan was issued on February 13, 2013. Recent case law has confirmed that agencies have discretion to set a reasonable cutoff date to determine which projects should be included in the cumulative impact analysis. Gray, 167 Cal. App. 4th at 1127-1128. "Projects are constantly being fed into the environmental review process, [t]he problem of where to draw the line on `projects under review' that must be included in the cumulative impact analysis of a particular project could be solved by the use of a reasonable cutoff date which could be set for every project according to a standard procedure." San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco, 151 Cal. App. 3d at 74. Thus, the Town had the discretion to set the date of the NOP as the cutoff date to determine which projects should be included in the cumulative impacts analysis and has complied with CEQA. For this project, the cutoff date was established as of the date of the NOP. More importantly, as a “by right” development, additional CEQA analysis is not required because the proposal (A&S) is not a “project” as defined by CEQA. In other words, the applicant voluntarily completed a new Initial Study beyond the State law requirements and the Town cannot require further CEQA analysis. 2. Actual traffic counts are different than the calculations in the EIR. This should require additional environmental review. No, additional analysis is not necessary. The EIR contains the required traffic analysis based on established methodologies. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): 3. Please respond to Angelia Doerner’s comments in her e-mail. Government Section 65915(c)(3)(A) provides that an applicant "shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions " if the proposed development is eliminating units "occupied by lower or very low income households unless the proposed housing development replaces those units” with “at least the same number of units of equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy.” This provision in the density bonus statute requires that a project “replace” all rental housing that was occupied by very low and low income households in the past five years. If the project does not replace the housing with new housing available at the same income levels (very low or low), it is not eligible for a density bonus. The Initial Study found that there were 16 existing units on the North 40 that were to be demolished in order for Phase 1 to proceed. The applicants (Grosvenor and SummerHill) do not currently lease most of the units and do not have income information for most of the tenants, especially over the last five years. However, even if it is assumed that all of the existing units are or have been occupied by very low income households, the project proposes to provide 49 very low income units and therefore meets the statutory requirements to “replace” the units. More importantly, the original project application was made in 2013. The statute specifically exempts applications made before January 1, 2015 from the replacement housing provision. Section 65915(c)(3)(C). 4. Provide information regarding the Terraces of Los Gatos. The Terraces contain Independent Living Units (175), Assisted Living Units (45), Skilled Nursing Units (59), and Memory Care Units (16). The total parcel size is 9.2 acres. Using the most conservative approach, only counting Independent Living Units, the density is 19.02 dwelling units per acre. If you add the 10 new Assisted Living Units that are one bedroom units (10 of the total 45 on-site), the density is 20.11 dwelling units per acre. Using the least conservative approach, counting all the units, the density is 32.07 dwelling units per acre. 5. Provide the survey information referenced by Mr. Gemignani. Please see Attachment 25. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): 6. Can the affordable units be age restricted? The Town cannot require a developer to provide age restricted units. However, the applicant is proposing to provide age restricted units. 7. What stormwater standards apply? Stormwater impacts were considered in the EIR and have to be mitigated. The project is considered a regulated project due to its total proposed impervious area. Per the stormwater permit, last updated on November 19, 2015, this requires the project to implement low impact development (LID) source control (i.e., biotreatment/bioretention), site design (reduction in runoff, disturbed areas, and impervious cover), and stormwater treatment (storing, infiltrating, and biotreating). Since this regulated project will also create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious cover, hydromodification management is required as well. With this requirement, the project must manage post-development flow and volume to match that of the pre-development levels for the site (Exhibit 6 of Attachment 1, Condition 137, Stormwater Development Runoff). The applicant has included these measures in the application with proposed bioretention areas, tree well filters and an on-site hydromodification vault, all of which have been reviewed by the Town’s stormwater consultant. 8. Why is there 2 to 5 feet of fill throughout the project (the speaker had an image which depicted fill on all but the southernmost portion of the development site)? Modifications to the site elevation are design elements that the applicant’s engineers incorporated into the project. Current project information demonstrates a net off haul of material from the site, meaning the materials for the fill areas will be from existing materials moved from elsewhere on the site. The additional materials will be off hauled from the site. 9. Does the fill reduce building cost? Using materials from on-site, versus exporting existing material and importing all new material, will likely provide a cost savings to the developer and is preferred to lessen construction impacts on neighboring streets. 10. Are there hazardous materials or archaeological elements on site that the fill will cover or cause to be exposed? PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): Mitigation Measures CR-3 and CR-4 in the North 40 EIR addresses archaeological elements if they are discovered on-site during any grading or construction activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the reduction of any impacts from contaminated soils to a less than significant level. 11. Is truck traffic from imported fill part of the EIR analysis? The EIR considered short term construction impacts associated with the air quality effects. Additional environmental analysis is not needed. In addition, based on the project as proposed, there would be a net off haul of material. Truck traffic will be managed through construction requirements, including a prescribed haul route. The Architecture and Site application Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 6 of Attachment 1, Condition 111) 12. How many truckloads of import or export are anticipated? Information on the amount of projected off haul is preliminary. The project information anticipates off hauling approximately 26,000 cubic yards of dirt. Staff anticipates between 2,100 and 2,600 truckloads over the course of the project. If the project was not using the material on site for fill, the total off haul of material could increase to 5,000 truck loads or more. 13. How does the fill affect the overall height of the project? Does that increase the net building height? Yes, raising the grade in relation to that of the existing grade would increase the height of the project as the finished grade would be higher than if the area was not filled. 14. Did Council request Samaritan project in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as additional data? An initial project referred to as “Samaritan Court” as well as a Samaritan Emergency Room expansion were provided to the Council as additional information in 2015. Subsequently the Samaritan Court project was replaced with a project called the Samaritan Master Plan. That project’s NOP was issued in August of 2015 and Draft EIR was available for comment in Summer 2016. The Town has provided comment on the Draft EIR. 15. Does the additional information from the new Samaritan project justify a new TIA for the North 40? No. Projects such as the Samaritan Master Plan are required to conduct their own EIR and mitigate impacts for the project. The mitigation for Samaritan cannot be a requirement of the North 40. PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): 16. What is the value of off-site traffic improvements? The Town maintains a list of future roadway improvement projects through the Traffic Impact Fee program. This list contains approximately $11.8M worth of projects that will be fully or partially addressed by the North 40 project. With the exception of the bike lane over Highway 17, these projects are required of the proposed Phase 1 development as mitigation. 17. Are there conflicts between landscaping and stormwater improvements? Staff has requested a composite exhibit overlaying the landscape plan on the stormwater and infrastructure plans. Yes, conflicts have occurred with past projects and are resolved as staff reviews the Improvement Plans for detailed infrastructure construction prior to their approval. Any conflicts are resolved to ensure all required mitigation plantings and landscaping are able to be installed along with required infrastructure and required stormwater solutions. 18. Does staff plan to attend the Samaritan Medical Center community public meeting? Parks and Public Works staff will attend the Samaritan project meeting on August 23 at 7 p.m. in the Cambrian Library Community Room. 19. Are we requiring widening of LGB (East side of LGB)? No, the widening of Los Gatos Boulevard north of Lark Avenue to Samaritan Drive is not required with these applications. The applicant will improve the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard. The full right-of-way on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard has not been dedicated to the Town. As those properties redevelop over time, the Town will require right-of-way dedication. 20. Do we have the funds to widen Los Gatos Boulevard north of Lark Avenue? The Town has not identified funding to acquire the property and construct improvements on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard. 21. Can we require additional open space? The Specific Plan requires 30 percent open space and the application exceeds this requirement by providing 39 percent open space, of which at least 85 percent is open to the public. PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): In order to require more public access to open space there must be an essential nexus to the impacts of the proposed project, and the requirement must be roughly proportional to those impacts of the project. Since the EIR for the Specific Plan identifies no such impact, and the Town does not have a Quimby Act Ordinance requiring public open space in new developments, the Town cannot require additional open space. 22. How can the Town influence its future Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) number? Every eight years, the Council of Governments (the Association of Bay Area Governments for the 9-County Bay Area) receives a housing number from the California Department of Finance for the entire region. ABAG creates a new methodology to allocate the regional need to every County and then every city within each County. The Town can influence the future RHNA by commenting on the methodology and by appealing the number assigned to Los Gatos. In addition, the Town Manager is on a Cities Association Subcommittee exploring the viability of establishing a Santa Clara County subregion in which the cities and the County would determine its own methodology for distributing the regional need to each of the 15 cities and the unincorporated County area. 23. Is there a mandate to put housing on the North 40? Yes, the North 40 Specific Plan, General Plan, and Housing Element all call for housing on the North 40. Attachment 26 also contains the applicant’s responses to issues raised in public testimony, additional information, and the applicant’s power point presentation is included in Exhibit D of this Attachment. Comments were also made regarding school impacts. Staff is providing the following information regarding school impacts: As has been stated at the Study Session and many public hearings, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, or Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), restricts the ability of local agencies, such as the Town of Los Gatos, to deny land use approvals on the basis that public school facilities are inadequate. SB 50 authorizes school districts to levy developer fees to finance the construction or reconstruction of school facilities to address local school facility needs resulting from new development. SB 50 establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees for school impacts. In January 2016, the State Allocation Board (SAB) increased Level 1 Fees to $0.56 per square foot of enclosed and covered space in any commercial or industrial development, and $3.48 per square foot for residential development (SAB, 2010). Public school districts can, however, impose higher fees than those established by the SAB, provided they meet the conditions outlined in the act. PAGE 8 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): The North 40 Specific Plan included both private and public schools as permitted uses within the North 40 Specific Plan Area. Developers and School Boards can voluntarily consider additional arrangements. For the southern portion of the North 40 Area, the Los Gatos Union School District Board entered into an agreement with the prospective developers regarding school issues. Comments were also made regarding density onus, concessions, and waivers. Staff is providing the following information: The Density Bonus Law is a potentially powerful tool for developers. Although the Density Bonus Law has existed for over thirty years, both developers and cities have struggled with its application. The statute "is confusing, convoluted, and subject to endless debate about its requirements.” A.B. 2280 Bill Analysis, Staff Comments, at 11 (Cal. Apr. 21, 2008). The State Density Bonus Law is designed to implement "an important state policy to promote the construction of low-income housing and to remove impediments to the same. The purpose of the State Density Bonus Law is to encourage cities to offer bonuses and incentives to housing developers that will "contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments (Government Code § 65917). As recognized by California courts, "the Density Bonus Law reward[s] a developer who agrees to build a certain percentage of low- income housing with the opportunity to build more residences than would otherwise be permitted by the applicable local regulations." Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, 154 Cal. App.45 4th 807 The Density Bonus Law provides that requests for a density bonus and incentives must be granted "when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development" that meets one or more of the statute's thresholds. Applicants for density bonuses may also request specific incentives or concessions from cities. Thus, when an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development that includes the required percentage of affordable housing, Section 65915 requires that the city not only grant the density bonus, but provide additional incentives or concessions where needed based on the percentage of low income housing units. The applicant is not seeking any incentives under the Density Bonus Law. In addition to, and separate from, requests for incentives, a density bonus applicant may request a waiver or reduction of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project at the densities permitted. "Development standard" means a site or construction condition, including, without limitation, local height, setback, floor area ratio, onsite open space, and parking area ratio requirements that would otherwise apply to residential development under local ordinances, general plan elements, specific plans, charters, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. PAGE 9 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): The waivers or reductions of development standards requested by the applicant are discussed at length within the applicant's Density Bonus Letter (Exhibit 19) provided by Barbara Kautz, Partner with Goldfarb Lipman Attorneys. The applicant's Density Bonus Letter provides supporting documentation explaining why certain development standards, if applied, would preclude the applicant from being able to provide the necessary density. The requested waivers and reductions in development standards are: • Definition of height: The Specific Plan's definition of height aligns with that in Town Code (29.10.020) and includes the measurement from existing or proposed grade (whichever is lower) to the ridge directly above the grade. The applicant is requesting an exception to the inclusion of existing grade due to the topographical constraints in certain locations on the site. The proposed application would utilize the 35-foot maximum height as established by the proposed/finished grade. The proposed grade varies from the existing grade between zero to five feet depending on the location. • Maximum permitted height for the senior/mixed use market hall building: The Specific Plan permits the mixed use/market hall building to be up to 45 feet in height, and does not permit the standard exceptions to height provided within Town Code. The proposed mixed use/market hall building includes several areas that exceed 45 feet in height. The requested exception would allow the senior/ mixed use market hall building to have a maximum height of 51 feet. There are very limited circumstances where the Town may deny a waiver. Under State Law, a waiver may only be denied if it would have a “specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment,” or it would have an “adverse impact on any property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.” The Town does not have any other discretion or rationale for denying a requested waivers if they are necessary to accommodate additional density or concessions and incentives in the proposed project. Another words, if the project meets the requirements of the Density Bonus Law, the Town must grant development standard waiver requests to ensure the project as designed is not physically prevented from being developed. Quoting the prohibition contained in section 65915(d)(l), the Wollmer court warned, "Had the City failed to grant the waiver and variances, such action would have had 'the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development' meeting the criteria of the density bonus law." PAGE 10 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 REMARKS (Continued): A request for a development standard waiver neither reduces nor increases the number of incentives to which the developer is otherwise entitled. Furthermore, there is no limit on the number of waivers that may be issued. As with incentives, although a city might ask a developer to modify a requested development standard waiver, it cannot force the developer to do so. Instead, a city's refusal to waive or reduce development standards must be supported by one or more findings similar to those available for denying a request for an incentive. Attachments (previously received under separate cover): 1. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-21) 2. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Addendum (includes Exhibits 22-23) 3. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 24-25) 4. April 27, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (no exhibits for this report) 5. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 26-31) 6. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Addendum (includes Exhibits 32-33) 7. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 34-35) 8. July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 36-39) 9. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes 10. July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes Attachments (previously received with August 9, 2016 Staff Report): 11. Required Findings and Considerations 12. Draft Resolution to deny the applications 13. Draft Resolution to approve the applications (includes Exhibit A, Findings and Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval) 14. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. July 13, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. August 4, 2016 15. Additional information from the applicant, received July 29, 2016 (11 pages) Attachments (previously received with the Addendum Report): 16. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 4, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. August 5, 2016 17. Applicant’s response to the Planning Commission recommendation on the applications, received August 5, 2016 18. Updated Vesting Tentative Map Sheet 1.1 Attachments (previously received with Addendum B Report): 19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 5, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. August 8, 2016 Attachments (previously received with the Desk Item Report): 20. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 8, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. August 9, 2016 PAGE 11 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014 AUGUST 11, 2016 Attachments (Continued): 21. Applicant’s response to the Town Council staff report, received August 8, 2016 22. Photos of high density projects 23. Revised Draft Resolution to approve the applications (includes Exhibit A, Findings and Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval) Attachments received with this Desk Item Report: 24. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 9, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. August 11, 2016 25. Document referenced by Joseph Gemignani regarding survey results 26. Applicant’s response to questions from the August 9, 2016 meeting From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Loretta Stagnitto Leadership Associates <loretta@lorettastagnitto.com> Tuesday, August 09 , 2016 10:04 AM Joel Paulson; Planning ; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; msavoc@losgatosca.gov; Rob Rennie ; Steven Leonardis; miensen@losgatosca.gov Loretta Stagnitto; Ron Ricci (rricci); bruce.mccombs@comcast.net Do not approve North 40 development! Dear Town Council and Planning Commission members -We have lived in Los Gatos for more than 25 years, AND we are proponents of progress. Howe ver , I must ask if any of you, personally, have tried to drive around the town, especially on the weekends, and I will be surprised if you say NO. Have you had to get on to highway 17 on a weekend? I live two miles from the entrance, off South Kennedy and Phillips. In late July, I needed to get to a workshop in Santa Cruz b y noon. I left at 11 am , and it took me 45 MINUTES to get the the highway entrance. I was over an hour late for my workshop. Last Saturday night we were coming home from a movie in Scotts Valley. It took us 1.5 hours to drive from there to Los Gatos at 9:30pm, and there was no accident. Just traffic . THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. AND YOU THINK THAT ADDING MORE PEOPLE, HOMES , AND STORES TO LOS GATOS IS GOING TO FIX THIS SITUATION? The past few weekends, there have been people driving around the neighborhoods off Phillips, South Kennedy and Alpine areas, just to find ways to get to Hwy 17. We were stuck in traffic jams in our own back neighborhoods. WE DON 'T EVEN HAVE OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS ANYMORE TO STAY AWAY FROM THE TRAFFIC JAMS ON LOS GATOS BLVD. THIS IS ALSO TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AS A RESIDENT OF LOS GATOS . AND YOU THINK THAT ADDING MORE PEOPLE, HOMES AND STORES TO LOS GATOS IS GOING TO FIX THIS SITUATION? I find it r eall y hard to understand how we can vote for this, and let this happen, without any plans to improve the infrastructure, schools, etc. And even if there were plans for that, do we really believe that the North 40, in it 's current presentation, is good for Lo s Gatos? I will be at the meetin g tonight to help defeat thi s ! Respectfully, Loretta S tagni tto ft LORETIA STAGNtTIO ACH E loretta@lorcttd S~J:ntt to.com www.loret tast agn itto.com 1 From: Pat Home [rnailto:pat.stafford(i':l;comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 I 0:34PM To: Council Subject: North Forty Meeting Hello all. I appreciate nil of yo ur efforts a nd und erstand the s tress t hi s project has p laced yo u all under. Al tho u gh there is a general need fo r more hous in g; espec ia ll y low income ho us ing . 1 am opposed to the proposal for m ost of the reasons listed to ni g ht duri ng the town mee ting-traftic, schoo ls . cannibalization of down to·wn bus in ess, etc. There were some good ideas tonight that s h o uld be im·estigatcd. I am ver y concern ed a bout the s tate position concerning s m a ll towns an d their s ub seq uent co ntinuing RHNA/ABAG allocations with multipliers. [am very interested in w h at Rep Low wants to discuss w ith yo u. Is it possible to h ave h is conference call w ith yo u o n Th ursday recorded and made available to the town resi dents? T hank you aga in , Pat Stafford 16429 \V. ~vtozart Ave Los Gatos , C A 95032 (51 0) 364-2258 cel l From: Shannon Susick [!.!.1<)_i_llo:ssusickf!~C o mca_~t.nct ] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:58 PM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie Cc: Laurel Prevetti ; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz Subject: North 40 Hearing Submission Follow up Good Afternoon Mayor, Council & Staff, First and foremost thank you so much for your time, service & consideration; not just last night and the past few years, but for the time ahead on this complex application and development. Please consider the following: 1. There is case study that could support overturning the current EIR in regards to impacts (cumulati ve & otherwise) from closely associated projects: San Franc iscans.for R ea sonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco, eta/. Janumy 24 1984 2. There are some specific documents I was trying to locate on public record that could have a significant effect on the EIR, potential supplemental EIR and traffic studies including; a. Scope of notices from the City of San Jose to the Town regarding thi s project (per the City of San Jose) 3/4/20 14 (prior to final EIR certification) and 6/24/2015. b. TJKM Peer Review ofTwo Fehr & Peers Draft Memos dated 12 /3/2014 and 12 /4 /2014 (the attachment on the Town website has a Student Popu lation Report uploaded in its p lace) c. Current Traffic Studies requested by Commissioners & residents with actual data v. simulated and projected. I have attached the following requested & unrequested doc uments & links regarding the current appl ication: 1. Power Point presentation that I was unable to present fully (8/9 /20 16 .) 2. Link to California DOT manual a. hJJp :/! w \\::~-=dot . ca. gQ_~.r/h qLlJ2!2£Qf!i ccfi/ oc.p / i gr cs~~P li I f.,~_j_i-~g1-!_i de . rill' 3. Delay Pattern Estimation from A lexandre Bayen 4. Traffic Signals Manual from the Texas DOT 5. Good Samaritan Draft EIR a. http:i \vww .sanjo scc a.!!OV D oc umenlCentcri V i cvv/56 789 6. Good Samaritan Draft TIA a. http:/:\vww.san joscca.gov/Document( cntcr/Vicw/56790 We are recommending the current application be denied for various findings a nd that the Specific Plan be a mended. We do not believe that administrative changes will mitigate the issue s with the application. We also would l ike to request that current traffic studies that both the residents and Commission ha ve requested be provided. Considering the size and scope of thi s and the adjacent project; an independent study not paid for the developer might be the most trans parent and objective for th e Town. Thank you so much for your time & service. You all are amazing! Sharman Susick (qos) 316-9559 SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents, CITICORP and Citibank, N.A., California corporations, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents, CROW-SPIEKER #99, a Texas limited partnership, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. Defendants and Respondents, VINTAGE PROPERTIES, a limited partnership, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents, LINCOLN MISSION/SPEAR ASSOCIATES, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. 151 Cal.App.3d 61 A019128 , A019130, A019126 and A019129. Court of Appeal, First Di strict, Divi sion 2, California. Jan. 24, 1984. Appeal was taken from judgments of the Superior Court, City and County of San Franci sco, Daniel H. Weinstein, J., denying petitions for writs of mandate compelling lo cal planning commission to set aside resolutions that certified four environmental impact reports and to void pennits that allowed construction of high-rise office buildings . The Court of Appeal, Rouse, J ., held that in omitting from its calculations and analyses of cumulative impacts other closely related projects that were currently under environmental review, the commission applied an unreasonably narrow interpretation of guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act and, in so doing, abused its discretion. Delay Pattern Estimation for Signalized Intersections Using Sampled Travel Times Xuega ng (J eff) B an , Ry an H er r ing , P en g Hao , and A lex and re M . Ba ye n l ntl·r s ec tio n ddays tll'l' the n1 :1jor contr ibuti ng fac tor to artt•ria l d days. :'l l e th od ~ to t·~tim a t c in tersectio n delay pallcrn s h) usin :,: m eas u red t r:n d ti m e~ a rc ~tudi e d. T h<· d e l a ~· patterns pro ' id<• a ""Y to estimate the d e lll y fo r any ve h icl e arri \'in g at the in tcnec ti o n at any tinu·, whic h i ~ u se ful for providing tim e-d e p e nd ent inte r sectio n d el ay infor m a tion to t h <· drh ing p ublic . The mod e l r eq u ires s ampled tra vt'l time s lw i\Hen t \\O c tHI>t'c nt h <'loc ations on arteria l s t r et'ls. o n e upstrea m a nd the o tht'r d o" n ~t ream o f a s ign ali.r.cd intcrs<·c t io n . "it ho nt the need to know sig- nal t imin g or t raffi c lltn\ inform a tion. S ign a l phast's can actually h c esti- matrd from tlH' delay p a ll <·r ns. wh ich is a unilfU t' ft'a tnrt' ofth<· p r opost'd rm·thod in I his pap<·r . The p ropo st'd m od e l is base d on two o b se r \'atio ns r eganling d t'la~ s for s ig na liz <'d intersect io n>: (a) d e lay can h <· a pproxi- ma t e!~ r e prese nted h~ pic c<·" is c li near c un e > dut' t o the c harac ter is tic s of q ue ue forming a nd d i>c harg ing a n d (b) th en~ is a ntHitrh·ial in crease in del a ~· a fte r I h e st art· of t h e r ed time tha t e n ab les det ectio n o f tlH' st :ll't nf a cycl e. A ll:a st-s qu :1re s-h a sc d a lgorit hm is d e ve lope d to ma tc h m t'a- s urcd d c la ~s in e ach cyc le h )' us ing p ic<'C I\ise lin e ar c u r ves . The p r o - po se d mode l a nd nlg o r it hm arc te s ted b ~· u sing fi e ld experime nt dat a "ith rc:~~o n ah l e n ·su lt s. Tra1 d ti me o r d.:iay is o ne o ft he mos t impo n ant roa dway tra l'l k m.:t ric ,. Pn11 iding tra1 cl times on freeway routes , for example. 1 ia free" ay changeable message signs. has now become a com- mon pra.:t icc in ma ny swtes in t he Uni ted States. Arterial travel time information . however. is not wi dely avai lable du e to the dif- ficul ty of estimati ng arterial tra f fic condir io ns. Art crinll rnffic is fund;unentally dif'l\:n:nt from fr eeway t n tiTic. The difll:rc nce in trartk fl ow pattern s i' main ly due to t he existence o f lra fti c s ig- n;d,, stop ~ig n «. and c ross lra ffic that int roduces in te rrupt io ns lo arh:ria l traffi c tlo11 . T hes.: in terr upt ions b ring discontinui l ics 10 quanli t i.:s o f int.:r.:st s uch as I rave l t imes or del ays. In add irion. di st in.:l frorn rrc.:wa y.;. in an a n .:ri a l ne twork th e re a rc us ually man:-' p0<;siblc routes from a n origin 10 a dcsri natio n. P rovi d ing tnt1 ·el t imes fo r on.: or a fe11 rou tes m;~y nor be. urticicnt for a driver to get a full p ic t ure of rh e arte r ia l l ra l'li c cond it ion s. T here- fore. pro1 idi ng t ime-dependen l dday information for art e rial X Ban and P Hao . Department of Civil and Envll'onmental Engmeering, Ren sselaer Polvtechntc lns~1tute . Room JEC 4034 11D Ei ghth Street. Troy. NY 121B0-3590 R r-rrrng De:Jartmem of lndustrral Engineer;ng ard 00era tmns Research . Untver- Eit, of Ca..'Jm•a . Ber~e'ey. 2105 Barcroft li-Jay. Sutte 300 Berkeley. CA 194704. A 'A Bo;~n. Deoarr:rr.ent of c .. ,, and Env n•ownental Engtneertng . System s Eng 1eer- 111g. Ur vP.I'S r:; of Ca ·forn1a. Berkeley , 711 Davts Hall . Berkel ey , CA 94720-1720 Correr.oond ,ng auc'lor X . Ban, banx<1'ilrpr edu Tr~nsporrar on RPsearch Record. Jotn'11al of the Transportat ion Research Board. No. 2130, Tre~s1orta~io1 Research Board 'Jf the National Academies. Waslllngton . D c 2009 no W9-119 DOl 10 3141.'2130-14 109 intersections seems mort' de si rab le. This paper fo.:u ses on signal- ize d inte rsect io n de lays as they a rc typ1call y the m:tjor contnbul ing faL·to r to arte r ial d elays. Various nll><kls l(lcusing nn si gn a li/.cd intcrsccti(>lh ha1 e h.:cn developed t o esti mate art erial lra 1·cJ time s or del ay">. Stati:-tical tm:ihods arc proposed in ( /-3) in which 1ra1 <'I lime' arc modeled :b a li ne-a r combina lion of occup<nJcy. ll o11. and 'ignal parame t er~. X ie el a!. ( ./) treat arter ial l ink tra vel t ime as the su mmation o f cnlis.: timL' ;md sig nal de la y. Cruise ti me is computed by u:-ing detc<.:tor spee ds. a nd signa l d elay is es limat cd by u:-ing a sim rli fkcl inl cr-;cc- lion queuing diagram th at requires basi.: 'igna l par.-tmeters. Skabar- doni s and Dowling dcve lor ed a n imp ro1 ed sp~cd -fl o1' rclati0thhip (5) that was shm1 n to be l'l'fec t i\e 10 cakulate anc·nal link tra1 el t im e~ (15). These modd~ are mainl y fo r c~trmating a1·eragc (or s tati c) arterial t ravel ti m e~: rc·ccnt allc nt ion has l'o.:uscd on c:Htmaling dy- nam ic (o r t imc-dcpendenr) a rt er ia l tral'cl times ( 7. 8). Skabardon is and Gerol im ini s ( 7) mode l ltnk tra1.:l t im.: a. th.: summn rio n of t'rc .:- fl ow trave l time and signa l delay ; sign al d.: la y consi~t ~ or' ~ingk vehicle de la y. que uing d.:la y. an d 01 er\aturat ion d.:Ja y. T he caku- lat ion o f ~ig n a l delay r.:q uires 30-s trat)i c 1 olumc and deta ikd <.ig.- nal t im in g paramete rs. By us ing high-n:sohr l ton (secon d-b)-,<.:cond) traffic sig nal events da Hl t suc h as ph asl' and rimi ng change s) a nd ve hi cle acr ua t io n dala . Liu and Ma (8) cotbtruct •·, irrua l'' vehic lr trajectories that ma ke it pos,i blc to estimate arcurate d) nam1c art.:ria l tra\<:lrimcc;. Mo st exist ing art erial mod.:l s requir..:. a' a mi n imum. th.: J...no11 l- edge oftruflic signal t imin g parameters an d lrartk volume w csti- rn al c arterial tra1 ·c J rimes or d c lu ys. Co llc.:c t ing trunk s ignal data for wide-area ar ter ial stree t;, is rwt tri1 ial ,inl't: hi,toncall > traffic signal s ha ve been operated and maintain.:d b1· mult ipk agL'n.:i.:s . By usi ng th e 1 ch irlc rci dcmificution tcc hn iqut•. it ha:-bee n :-ho11 n (<J-/1) that samples o f intersecl io n dela y' .:an be obtained direc t !)-. In parrirular. Kwong et a !. (I:!) propo~c a nc11 scheme in 11 hic h wireless lraffit: senso rs arc d.:p loyc d dow nstrea m (at a fi~L·d di s lance suc h a;, 12 rn) of sig nalized imcrscc t ion s. Tr;tftic 1olume i~ w lk'c tcd al eac h s.::nso r local ion rogeth er 1\ irh \chicle ,,gnatur.::~. A spc ci all) desig ne-d \Ch icle rei d entif'u.:a l io n algorit hm is dc,clopl'll ILl match veh icles ti·om ~ignature' (I :!). The algori t hm is ba se d on a ,t;tl is t i- cal mod.: I of' th e si g natures. wi th pa ram e ters cst im.-.tcd ti·o m dat~t . and no "ground trut h" is required. II' the a lgorit hm is a pp li..:d lotll'o consccu ti1·c senso r location s (o ne upslrcam and the o1her d\JIIn - st rcarn of a ~igna li/.cd intersect io n ). intcr~cc ti on Ira' cl 11111c~ (t'r delll ys ) Clln be obtained direc rly. A uniq ue feature oi'snch u 1chidc rc idenlificatio n met hod is th ai t raftic signal info rmat io n t' not req uired . It is furt her shown th at sig na l ph ases can h~ dc ri1 cd fn>m t he matc hed vehicks by looki ng at t ht· slart a nd end time s of t he fi r> I vehi cle in a queue ( 12 ). The 1 c hi cle rci dentifi cal ion method prt)\ 1d es a strai !!hl li,rw:t rd way for .::s 1ima1 ing intersec t ion dela ys wit hou t the req L;ir.:ment of 110 ~igna l info rmat io n. S:t mp k d travel time s, h owever. o nly pro1·id e di sc retc mea sure ment s in the time d oma in. Now the qu es tion is: Can a t im c-d~pendt"nt i nt e r se~:t io n del ay pattern curve be co nstrm:ted by t~>i n g ~am plcd tr;l\cl ti mes fo r a gi1Tn s ig na li Le d interse cti on'' .\n 111tui t i1e an s11er i~ to rt'surne tra vd t ime~ change lin ea rl y bet \\'een two neig hbori ng ~ampkd tra1 el t im<"s. A~ sho\\'n be ltl\\·. s uch a me th od may not he the most c tTcct i\·e. espectally when th e penetra - tion rate is relat ively hig h. In th is pape r. a lea st-. quarc!'--ba :;ed a lg o - rithm is Jcvelo pt•d to e,timate the del ay pallern ~ fr o m samp led trave l t imt's by rcc ogn i7i ng the underlying charac teri stks of si gnalized i ntcrsection de lays. The prop osed al go rithm can be applied to s pe cia ll y depl oyed fi xed- loca t io n se th (>rs ( <,uc h as loo p detec tors or wireless sensors ( 12)] o r the 1 inual tr ip !me CVT L ) tec h ni que base d o n glo ha l pos it io n - mg s~'s t e m tG I'S)-l'q uipped ce ll phones (13. /4 ). VTLs ar..: virtual loop detceiO rs '' nho ut any r..:qu ire me ntto <it:plo y ph ys ical detectors or ot her infrao;tn tct ures. A~ a veh icle e qu ipp ed 11 ith a GPS cell phon e pa -;s..:s b} a VT L locat io n, th e locat ion and ~p..:ed o f the wh i- ck arc sent loa secu re se rver from which al l ve hi cl es' info rmati on i-; ag g r..:gat cd and tn msfcrr..:d to traffic model s. Depl oy ment of \'Tl.s is tlc:><tb lc. wit h m:~jo r c onsiderati o ns for pri vac y preserv;t- tion (/5 ). Art erial \'TL dat a in cl ud~ indi,·idua l \Chi ciL: speeds at eao.:h VTL and tra1 .:I tim.:~ bet\\'~e n consecutive \'TLs fo r 1 ch ic les cqui pp..:d 11 tt h G PS cl'l l p hones. S uc h da ta provi de ric h in fo rmat io n ab o ut art e rial tra !'fic states whil e ma intain ing p r i ~;t cy vi ol a ti o ns at a mi nima l levd. Th..: raw VTL tra,·..:l tim e data can be pro cessed to generate samples o f intt!rscc tiun d e lays . In th is pa per. me th o ds a re pro- pose d to e stimat e i nt cr:>e ct io n delay patt ern s by us ing these sam - p les. T he a u th o r, sh011 t hat delay patt e rn s ca n be repre sente d as ptece11 ise li ne ar ( P\\ L) cur ves. T h c~e curve; a rc d e\'{.' lo ped b y usmg \\'ell-de1elopcd trat'lic t1o\\' th.:o ry o n q ue ue form ing and dtsc hargi n g at signalized t nt er,ec tio ns. Th t• a uth o rs t he n s ho w hm1 to usc co ll ected VT L tr;tvel time s to esti ma te the parameters o f pa ttcrn cu n cs . w ithout kn owin g ei th e r tra ffi c signal parame - te r' o r tra ffi c v o l um e. T he est imation al gorithm is a two -s tep lca s t -~quares meth od th a t can be co nve rted to so lve multipk con- IC>. q ua d rat ic progra nh in s mal l dime nsion s. T he c,timatcd d elay pa tt t'rth ca n a lso be d irec t ly u se d to derive signal phases. The mod el and a lgor ithm a rc tes te d in m ic ro~cop i c tra ffi c si mu lat ion and ,·ali datcd by thmg fi.:l d experiment d ata ob taine d fro m wire le ss se n,ors. ARTERIAL VTL SYSTEM For aneriab. VTL s arc deployed in a si mi lar way a s wi re less tra ffic ,.:n~ors a re d..:ployed (1.:). In ge neral. a VTL is pla ced downstream of ea d t out gomg approac h o r an int ersel:l ton. Th e ty pe o f data ge n- crat t!d by th e \'T L sys te m for a pa ir o rVTLs includ es the t ime cro ss - ing th ..: fin,t VTL. tra\·c J time bet wee n th..: two VT Ls, and the a ve rage 'P ~cd whe n 1e hi cle~ e ro~s ..:ac h VTL. Spe~ds are ltnl ikdy to be use- fu l be~a u se th ey a rc highl y \'ariabil' aroun d int c rS('C tion s. In stead. th e tr;l\ cl tim e in f(m natwn will be use d to mea sure de la ys through th e int .:rsc cl ion . Give n that th ere will be VT Ls deployed to all sid es of an in tcr,cction. tr<t1 .:1 time in for ma tion will bc obtai nab le fo r an y turn~ o r t he in t.:r,ec tion i n ad di t io n to t hrough traffic. The full y deployed VT L sy,ll'm wi ll collec t upd ates a nd pu ~h th e m to a server for procc:,si ng. Th.: ll!llC bC t \l<.~c n pus he> will be a consistent int erval. 1 ~ pically I mi n. T ranspo1'taticn Research Record 2 1 30 APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION DELAY PATIERNS PWL Intersection Delay Curves Mo dels ;tre fi rst derived for a pp roxi mat e pancms o!'int .:r,cction delay, under norma l and ov.:rsat urat ton conditions. Th.: n:,ult , presented here ar..: ba o;ed on \\'<.:11-e~t ab l i s h (•d thcor i.:, on qm:uc l(mning and d i,- charging in li·ont o f a S1gna li1.c d tn te rscction ( /6. /' ). T he lir~t con- diti on occu r, when th e qu.:u t• can be cl eared ..:o mpkt .:ly d ur in g the gree n phase of a cyc le : th..: set:<'nd condition rcf..:r, to si tu:llt o ns in wh ic h the queu.: cannot hL' c kared within one eye!.: and th.: r.:~idua l qu eue mus t wait fo r extrn tirn c (i.c .. more dela ys) to be cl..:ared . T hes e two cond itions arc tht' mos t commonl y obscr.cd in th e fiel d. L nd.:r spe cific :,il uati ons (e.g .. heaYy congestio n). q u..:u.:, may sp ill1n .:r t<> up str-:a m int..:t>ec tio m, and cau se fun her dckt) '· Th i, th ird condition i-; no t co n-;i der..:d in thi ~ paper and \\ ill be stud ied 111 ltllurc rl'>carch. Fi gure I" depic ts a typical ,ignali/('d int c rscc tinn 11it h \'T L' installed up o;tr<!am ( VT L I ) and do\\'n st ream (V T L~ ). ·lo snnpli fv the d is cussi on , assum~ that t he qut:u e ne1 er pa s~c' VT!. I. T he bl>l d solid triangles in t h.: fl gur ..: c:tn be us~d to repre se nt IHl\\ th e qu ..:u c form s and d issipatt·s (these tri angles show the ~~ a1 es \\'h..:re t\\'l> d i>- tinc l traffi c state s lllt'd). The hori/ontal part of th e triang le> r.:pre - scnt ~ th e durat io n of red time . lfd..:l ays due to \ehi.:lc tkcclcratioth and acc elerati ons a rc ignored an d t h ~ arr i\·a l ra t e~~ unifo rm'' tt hi n o ne cycl e. del ays can be fu lly J ctcn ni ned by th e tria ngle<.. In the li g- ure. da ,h.:d lines r.:pr.::,~nttrajec.:to ries of' chi cles.\\ htl..: do tt ed I in.:' arc boundaries at whi c h the di scont inuit ies n f d elays occu r. The au tho rs · aim is to cha rac te ri .1e ,·ch icle d..: lay~ as :1 lt mc:tin n nf the time when a \'C h icl e passes VTL I . In reality the mca su rt·d dl'l ay w il l not be r~cog n i /.:d unt il th ..: ve hic le passes VTL2. bu t here it i,; ass um ed th at dat a have bee n col lel'lcd a nd thu s one c~m p-:rlimn po•a- proce>si ng 10 recmt>lrtl ct a map p ing fr om th e time that a 'eh tcle passed VTL l to it s ex perie nced de !a ~· at the intersect io n. Si nce 11 is ass um ed that th e q u~ue n..:1·..:r rcache' VT L I . as sho\\'n by th..: traJeC.:· tor ics o f veh icles (dashed lin c:s). tfa \C hi cle app ro achc, th ..: in t..:r,c.:- tio n in red time or if the q uc ut• leng th i, not /cro (e.g .. tr~tjc..:tory <I in th e fl gu re). th en the vehi c le will j oin the e nd o fth .:-qu .:ue fi N and thu s b.:: delay e d. The dt:la y ..:ncount ct\:d by th e vchi ck i-; the hori mn- ta l part o ftraj..:ctory u. Othcm isc. if a \'<.:hide arri1·.;, du ri ng grcc nt irnc a nd th ere is no qu e ue (e .g .. t rajecto ry hl. th e \'Chicle ''til p a~s the in tersec ti on with no de lay. The (red) de la y cur1..: at the bottom of Ftg- urt· Ia will sp ike up at the time th at all o\\',; a \ch icle to tra\cl to th c int e rsec ti o n in free fl O \\ JUS I he fo re the Sta rt o f th e re d time. v l o rc impo t1ant ly. by ana lyz in g th e geometry of the triangles. o ne ..:an obsc r.'e th at if a vehi cle passes by VT L I at a time thJ t \\'(>ul d mak e it g et to the interse<.:t io n j ust a ft er th ~ start o f th e red ti me. d elay fu r thi s vdt ic le will be the ma ximum l(1r the spec i lk cycle. A fte r that. delays will be redu ced li nea rly un til no de la y is reac hed. This i> re p- rese nt ed by the line segment s markt·d a s .. I .. o r th e d t·lay cun eat th e bott om of Figure I a . T h(' :,lope o f th e dday r..:d uc ti on pan. dc·note d as delay re du ct io n rat es, ca n b..: ea kulat ed a nal) ll cally lh u,(w-u,..) v ( I I) s = w(u r +u ,.) = k , ~+;, -I where H' = wa1·e speed . 11, = frce -ll ow 'peed . 11 , = 11a ve s peed\\ hen a \'clll clc joi n ~ the queue. !., =j am d ensi ty . an d " = tra ffi c fl ow. (I } Ban. Hernng. Hao . and Bayen c, ; --••• --- -1 ----- -- -rJtt------·-·--·i·-·-·--· -·- 1+~1 (a) ,\1 (b ) ' I ' i /Time FIGURE 1 Theore tical dela y patterns: (aJ intersection delay patterns and (b J calculation of delay reduction rate . TrafTi c llo\\' ( •·) is as,u med to be t'<mstant within a cycle. The parameters 11 ,. 11·. a nd k, arc spec ifi c to ac tu al arteria l locati ons. whi c h also determine th e fu ndamental diagram o ft he location . S in ce II '~ 11 , ah1 a ~' hold-; (refer to the fundame nta l di agram at the top o !Tigu rc I a ). ·'is 1h.>nnega t i1e: the dclay ah1ays reduces from its maxi mum (w hen tra nic lighttu ms red ) to some minimum va lu e (w hen li ght turn s green and lhl qucuc ex is ts) f<>r normal si tuations. T <' dlu~trate how Equation I can be deriv.::d , sec Fig ur e I b. ln par- tic.:u la r. it '' assurncd the ddays for a ve hi cle pa ssi ng VTL I a t time 1 and 1 + .).1 ar.:: d(t) a nd J(l + ::'.1). respecti vely. Accord ing to the a~sumptions mad.: int hi ~ pa per. the de lays at both timc instants cor- re spond to the length s of th e horizontal lines as shown in Figure I. On th e basis of the gcomc try of th e triangks. ----hh d(t +t~t}-d (r)= CD -A'D' = D'D -A'C=--- w u. a nd h h tlt =-+- 11 , u. and th e refore h =-6_1_ I I -+-u, u , Equ atio n 2 s ummari 1.cs these equa t io ns: d (t +t!t)-d(t) = 6/(..!. _ __!__)(-1 l_l l w u -+- " 11 r 11, 111 (2) 112 Since the del ay reduction rate can be defined us s= d(t +C.t)-d(t) C./ [q ua t io n I can be ob t ai ned 'ia di ' iding bot h si des of Eq uation 2 b\ !11 The abO\ c analysis and Equation I \\·or!.. onl y for normal co ndi - ti,>m., t hat is, no O\ ersaturati on or spillover occu r~. In case of O\-cr- sa tu ration. th.: re si du a l queue from one cycle will ha ve to wail for the next green w be cle ared. as shown by trajectory c in Figure In { lnder s uch ~ituat i on"i. d..:lay will still be r..:duc ed linearly from th e ma .\i mum \ alu..: after th e ,tart of the red time. How.:ver. it will ne\ er r(•ach .-:ero: in"ite <t d. it "ill ha ve a s udden increase from a nun zero dcla) tu ano th e r (local\ max imum. ind ica tin g tho,; H'hiclc will ha ve to "a it tor extra eyelets) to b(' cleared . Tht s is m<~rked as ··r in the del ay C Uf\ e in Fig ur e I u . A ncr thi s stage. th e de la y will be redu ced linearly untiltht: imp<H.:t of th e rt:sidu;tl queu..: diminishes. a s shown b~' .. _, .. in th.:: del ay cune. The delay will be furt her reduced in a nor- mal way as markl:d by "4 " in the curve. As a res ult , the dela y curve for u\ ersat ur ation is still P\VL. but wah a mort: complicated pattern. .\ d i,tinct t".:at urc i' that delay i:; nc,.cr redu ce d to ze ro. The ,!op(' of the cun e s can a ll be Cllm p uted analytically by loo king at the geom- etry oft he triangl.,;, 111 Fi gure I/:>. It can be ~.:en that th e :tpprox imatc d.:l;t y pattern s tor ~igna lized inter se c t io n ~ (by ignoring the aecelcr- ati,m a nd dece lera ti on d elays) can be n:pre sented as PWL c urv.:s. T he cu n cs are continuous in mos t. cases. but contain di scontinuities (j umps) per iodically. These <bcont inui t ic> correspo nd to th e start llf red times an d are important feature s o f in tersec t io n dela ys . Es timation of Signa l Phases from PWL Intersection De lay Pattern Kn owi ng the P\VL i nt ..:r~cction del ay patlern enables one to estimate ,ignal phase' o f th e inter-;cction. Here it is ass um ed a cyc le al ways ;tarts with the n.:d time . impl yi ng that the start o t' the red. th e dura - tion of th e reel. and the e nd tim e of a c ycle (al so th e start time of the nex t red) uniqu ..:ly determi ne th e c yc le. Figur..: I a shows a locu s on the translate d ~ig n al phase timing (TS PT ) at VT L I. wh ic h is di ffer- e nt t'rom the actual 'igna l ph ase timing at th e int e rsect ion by a con - -,tanl (i.e .. the free-flow tnl\eltimc from VT Lito the in tersection). In fact. TSPT reflects the times when a vehicl e actuull y "feel s" th e e t'!Cct o f the' >ig nal at VTLI as if it were j u ~t at the intersect ion. The procedure fix es ti ma ting TSPT is descri bed as follow s. a b I I ' I I I I ' T ransportatmn Research Record 2130 Fir,t, as shown in Fi gu re I u. there is a nomriv ial im:r..:a:;~ 111 d.: lays ri gh t a It er tht· start of the red time in TSPT ( f'or both nunnal and mer· sa turati on con diti ons)." ith th e magn itude of the increas..: L'qual w the durat io n of' red time . As de l a~ ge ne rall y decrease~ O\ .:r ttm c withi n a cyc le a Her the start of red. s uch an increase is a unique f.:atun: ofint-·r- sectio n d ela~·s th at only happen> at the tim.:" hen th .: ,ignal tu tw• r.:J in T S I'T. Detecting ~uc h an incre<hO..: in measu red dd,t)' \\til h.:lp to identify tho..: start of am'\\ cydc. For cxampk. umk·r llllfllla l cc>ndi- tions (e.g .. th e conditionnm·ked a> "I" o f the de lay pall em in Figlll..: I o). th.: dcl~y incn:asc> fr o m() to r 1 att1• which indic ate s th :II 1, i.; the start o f a cyck (d enoted as cycle "C1") in TS PT . This c~ck ends "·hen the nt:xt in crease i, det ec ted at t ime 1.~· 11 tu ch a bo ind ica t.:s th<It the· next cycle <C l sta rts all:. The du ratilm ofthr r..:d time is r 1• For over- ~a turatio n con diti ons, th l' stan o f red 1' a lso associat..:d \\ ith such an increase in del ay. but nCL'd' furth er adj ustment. Fur e~amplc. at 1, the delay increases from a non;em \alue ,.,., tor;. A, Illust rated in Figure I. th e acllla l stan ofr..:d t f(l r cyc le C ) in th is case i'> tll>t h: rathc·r. it i" t , + t-r,. Simi larly. the duration of red is,._-rr, instt·ad o f ,.,_ fn ,um mary. it is assumed th e dday pall em is gi ' t·n. 11 htch res ults in 11 discontinui t ie s at 1, wi th de lay being in crea,cd from n , to r . i = I ..... n. The start of'r.::d time is th en 1, + rr,. and t he durnt ion o l' red is r ,-rr, i = I , .... 11. Thts simpk proc cdur..: t<; u-.cd in late r ,ec- tion, to deri ve signal pha se information for both tlu: ,imulatinn and fit:ld .:xperim~:nt da ta. 1ottcc that this way pha ;e tn l()l'I nat ton in TS PT is obtaine d. which can be ea ,ily tratl';iatccl to actual ph<tsc inform :tti on of the int ersec t ion by add ing th e frc..:-lhlll tra' c l time from VT L I to the intersection. ESTIMATION ALGORITHM The problem investigated in this article is to e:;timat..: intcN:ct ion delay pattern s b y usmg ~a m pled tra1·el tinK·s mca,ured bel\\ e..:n upstream and dm\nstrea m luc:nio ns of a signa li;.:d int er-;..:c t ion. The ..:st imati on method pro po,ed is a si mpl e cutYc fitting algori t hm. First. si nce delay curves arc P\VL , del ay measure m.:nh .:an h.,; fill.:d by usi ng linear l(mn!', whic h s ig nifi ca nt ly n:ducc:. th.: wmpl e\ity ot'thc lilting algori thm. Sewnd. th ere is a nontri1 ial incre ase in delays r ight after the sta rt of th e re d t ime ; d..:t..:ctin g 'uclt an increa,e can hel p identify the start of a IlL'\\ cycle. Two-Step Least-Squares Estimation Algorith m The estim ation a lgorit hm w ntain s cycle breaking a nd line fi tt ing a' t wo major steps. Fig ure 2. hOI\S hO\\' the abo'c l\\ll o b-;e r\atton, 0 0 ' ' ~~~:-------~----------~~ .. ~ s , FIGURE 2 Illu stration of estimation algorithm . Ban. Herrmg. Hao. and Bayen can be used in th ese step s. It i ~ assu med there arc 16 mea:.ured dela ys. re pn::sent\:d by the 16 ci r cle~ lab eled .. a •· to .. p .. in Figure 2. Th.: \:t luc' of the delays a rc denoted as ;d,. I $ r $ 16 }. Each de la y 1' a~'oci ated \\ ith a t ime sta mp . denoted as : /,. I $ r $ 16 }. First. by detec t ing the (nontri\ in I) increase of de lay s. tho:: 16 meo~ureme nt s ca n be bnlken int o lt)llr group s: {a. h}. (c, d. c, f.' g}. {h. i. i}. lk. I. 111. 11. o, f':. In the figure. s ,. e, denot es the startin g time and endi ng ti me of a cycle. respectively. whic h mi'ly be defi ned as th e middl.:: point o t't\\O co nscc uti v..: time stamps (one in each cycl c) or ad j ustabl e on th\: ba sis of' th e cal c ulat c·d average cycle lengt h inf(Jrnwtion (refer t<> t he 1ntcr>cction del ay es t imat ion (IDE) algor ithm in th e next s ub ~.::c t io n l. Second. wi t hin each cycle , a n attempt is made to fit thL' mcaslli'L'tncn ts by using PW L cur ves. Figun; 2 shows the three t ypi cal de lay patt e rn s lo r normal and o\·e rsaturati on co ndi- t ions. ma rked as I. 2. and J. Cun·e l i ~ for nolmal cond it ion:.. in '' hi l'lt del<l) reduces li nea rly unti l it reac hes /C ro . Thcret'orc. t he dcla~ c un e eonsiqs o ft \\ 0lin es. one wit h a nega t ive slope and th.: other \\ uh a /ero ~lo p e (constant). Cunes 2 and 3 ar.: for oversa lli - rati 0n cond it i01K C:unc 2 is a single line I\ ith a ncga ti\C ~lope r.:p- n:~.:n t i ng dela y reductio n (0\cr tim e) fo r the fir~t cycle o f th e Olt:r~a tura lion. in wh ic h th e m in imum de lay is po~iti\e . Curve 3 r.:prc ~c nt 5 the delay reduct ion patte rn caused by both cycl.:s of the 01 er-;at ur ation. which contain s at le ast two line5 and may or may not rc:1ch ;cro dday in the e nd (depending o n whct.hcr oversa turati o n d isa ppc:trs in t he 5.:co nd cyc le ). In sum ma ry. alth ough Ih.: shape of'the delay c un e within a cyc k may \ary de p end ing o n actual traffic condi tion s. the fundamental patt ern o f t he c urvt' c an be identi fi ed as tht• three ca ses in Fi gure~ fo r lhll'lmtl :md m e rsatu ration cond it ions. Furthermore. th e number o f mcasu remcnt s in one cyclc tend s to be small. Fo r ex ample . con- >i d er a thrt·e -l:1nc artcri;tl intersecti o n with a tota l traffic vol ume o f 1.800 vt"hi cles pcr hou r ( ve h/h). A ssum~;: the c yc le length is I mi n, \\'h ieh wi ll re:.u lt in about 30 ( 1.800'60) measure ment s und e r a l 0 (1 '\'" pcnetratinn rate. In r.:alit y. si ne .: th e pe net ra tion rat .: i. mo st li kd) much smaller thun I 00%. the number of mea smcm.:nt s \\'i th a cyck 11 ill not c~ccc d one or two dozen. T he refor.:, although mo r.: :1d\anccd li n in g techni ques ma y b.: applied, instead a si mpli sti c method b<hc d on lca~t-sq uares fitting is prop osed in this pap.:r. The ka,t-squarcs method start s wit h attempting to tit the mca:.u re- mcnh wi th m o ne cycle by usi ng two straight lines. Thi s is done by enum erat ing a ll p0s~iblc g rouping scenari os of th e measu rem ent s. D t~n o t t· id,. r e R } th e se t o f measureme nt s sort ed by their time ,~amps ;t,. r e R:. where IR I denotes the to tal number ofmeasu rt•- Jlll'nh. T h i:. set of measure me nt s ma y then be d ivi ded into two group> by brcaki ng the se t atm = 3 .... ·. I Rl -1. where 111 is the stn rt - ing. ind ci\ of the ~eco nd g roup. For each 111, fitt ing ca n b.:: solved by usi n g a com·e ., quadratic program . To see thi s. it is assumed the objc ctil'c o t'l i t ting is to red uce th e deviat ion of model -predict ed and actuall y measu red delays. mo re spe cil1cally the mean square e1-ror (i'v i SC) of' the predic ted dc la ys. It is further a ssume d the li rst line can be repr.:s.:ntcd as d= a ,H h 1 and t he second line a s d= a ;l 1 I>,, He r.: a,. 1>1 an:: p:1 rameter' fo r the first line. and a ;. h 2 are p<tram et..:r, lo r th..: ,.;cond I Ill.:: all need to be e st imated . The qua dratic probl.:m ca n tlll'n he limnu la t.:d as fo llows: (3) such that a, [(1 -e)t ,._, + 81 ,.] + b, = aj(l -e)t m-1 + 81 '" ]+ b, (4) 113 In th e above mode l. the objective in Equat io n 3 is the ,umm a twn o f MS E of' the t \\'o groups. T he fi r,t g r\lup eon tai 1h data poi nh l .... , 111 -l, and the second group conta ins data poin t' m , .... IRI. It is assumed m is gi\·e n. and u 11, + />1 is the pretlict..:d del ay at 1 using th e fir st line w ho se actual dela y i-; d lo r an y I $ i :s; m -l. Simila r ly. a;l, h : is fo r the delay prcthcted by the :-ccomll in.:. The Lquatwn 4 con:.train t i, requi red b.:c:tuse the l \\'0 li nes ha\ c' to intc rs.::ct at the boundary of the tw o group\. Here it is assu metlth..: b\Hntd ary is at 0 $ !:J $ I from 1,.1 \I it h respect to th e d i t'l i.:renc..: bet\\'een 1,,. and 1 .. 1. A:-a s pcci:tl case. if the boundary i,; at th.: middle poi nt of 1 ,, and 1,, 1• then (I , 1 + /,.,)/2. Th e above Il1(>d.:l h;J s o1II y four l'ariahlc~ and is convex a nd quadratic. \\'hi ch can be 'Ohcd \-t.~r y e fficien tl y by usin g standa rd qu adratic program so l ve r~. T h.: quad ratic nwdcl !Equation, 3 and 4) ''ill be -;ohcd ti)r an y 3 $ m :s; IRI-I , re:.ult ing in I Rl-3 soh c:.. The m1nimum obiecti\ c val ue of all so lves is d enoted a~ f,. Th .: \~due !'or f ; is co mpared\\ ith the o bj ec ti ve \:tlue of fitt ing all mea~u remc n h b~-u~lllg om· line. d enot.:d a sk Iff:<;;. the two-line flttlll g ~~ acc e pt .:d: oth cn ._ i,c_ the o ne-li ne fittin g is accept ed . lft\\O-Iine fitting 1'\ act·ep ted . the algo- rithm \\ill further te st if the duration of ei th er grou p I> la rg .:r th an a th reshold. If yes. the ab ove p rocess i~ repeated on the group. Irying to fi t the group with two ne\\ lin es. Th b proces:-repeat~ itself unt il cith.:r all groups are representL·d as a singk line tH·the duration of' the gro up is below th e threshold. The e,timati n n algc>ri thm i, sum mar i/c·d as follows. whi ch is deno ted as th e ID E a lgo rit hm. IDE Algorithm Step I . Initi alization. C'oll.::ct VT L truvcltirn.: data and pn><:.:s-; them to obtai n inte rsec ti on delays . Se t two thr.::;.h~)ld:-. th , and th 2. St.:p 2. Cycle break ing. Sca n all th..: tklay measurements and dct.:ct if th e dela y inc reas.: from one measure ment tu the next one excee ds th 1• If yes. brea k the cycl e at th e ~cct)nd mcasurcm.::nt. T his step \\'i ll p roduce gro ups o r delay measur.:ments. Step3. Cuncfitting\\'i thina cyl'le.D.:note (d,l. !1 ,:.'v're Rail the meas urement s in a gi ".:n eye le. Ste p J .l. So lve th e cO Jl\'CX quad ra t ic prog r;un (Equations 3 and 4) for all 3 $ 111 $ IRI-I. Here e = 0 .5 i, used. that i,_ the bounda ry is at the m iddl e pom t. D.: no te th e minimum o b ject i\.: value am ong all I Rl-3 soh es <t ~ f.. Step 3 .2. Solve the least-Sl]Ua rcs fitt ing pro ble m by using a si ngle line ;tnd de note it:. obje cti1 e \aim~ a s;;. S tep 3.3. If/>{;. filth.: de lay patt .:r n by usin g the si ngle line . Otherwise. reprc scnt th c d.:la y cur ve by usi ng tw o linL'S. If the duration o f eit her line is larger tha n th ,. se t :rt, J. {t,:. '<fr e I? a s the measuremen ts col-responding to th is line and go to S tep 3.1. Go to Step 4 i f Step 3 i~ done tor all cycles. Step 4. Cycle length adju stm ent (fC.)r prct imcd Lll' actuated coo rd i- na ted signals). Calc ulat e the a\<.:rage cycle leng th b~ d i\ iding th c total time period by th e nu mber of' cycles tkt.:ct.:d. l si ng this a\ cr- age cycle le ngth. adJUSt th e bou nda rie s or eac h cycle (1.e .. the \aluc~ o r 8) so that each cycle leng th is as cl\lse <1 ~ po -;siblc to th ~ ob tai ned average cyek len gth . S tep 5. Stop wi th an opt imized del ay pattern cur\ e . In the IDE algor ithm , th , is the thres hol d for the iner.:a:..: of delay:. to detect the start of a nel\ cycle. while th , is t h..: thre:-hold of tlw tim e window to break mcasuremcnb wit h in a group int o possibly mo re cycles. The value o f t h1 'houl d be .::xac tly th e d urat io n of the: red t im.: in ideal situ at ions. In rcaliry. due to tr :l\ ..:I time \ ariations 114 across ind11 idu al q:hi cks an d more im po rt antly th e fac t that onl y 'am p le~ arc a1 a li able . one can set th , = a ,R, where R is th e duration of t he red tune and rt, i~ a ~.:oe ffi cie nt. Similarl y. th! can be sd ected a' th e ey e!.: lengt h in ideal cases. In practice, one ca n set tlh = a..R. 11 he r<.' C i, th..: C) clc length and a~ is a nother coenlcicnt. The sel.:c- twns ofr1.1 and a. ma y bc loca t io n speci fic a nd nc..:d li nther inves ti- g;ttioih. In thi ' pap..:r, th 1 an d th ! ;nc set as 15 and 35 s, res pect ive ly. Step 4 ~~a fl n..:-tun in g st cp fo r pre llm..:d or ac tuat ed coordinat ed s ig- nal>. For thc:.c type s of signals. cycle length s are usuall y co nstants. Th..: ;n-cragc cyck length 1·ia th e first three ste ps can hopd'ully pro- ' 1d e an ind ica ti o n oJ' w hat the lixed cycle length m ig ht be . Th is information ~.:an thl·n be used to adj ust boundaries (i.e., 8 ) of ead1 cycle ;o th at th<' cycle leng th is cl ose to the a1 -er age length . The ab~)l e d isc u ~'ion s ~ill)\\ tha t in order to approp ri ate ly estimate the del ay cur1 cs a t lea s t two measurements per cyck ar c needed for norma l condit io n'\. For o1·crsaturation conditions. thi s nu m ber wi ll be at ka~t li.n1r . If th e cycl e lengt h is I m in. the re quired mi n imum '\am pl e rate '' 120 vch h for normal conditi o ns and 240 1 e h 'h fo r o~t:r~atura uon cond ition,. I f a two-lane arte r ia l s tree t 11 ith a tra ffi c 10lum.: l)f'I .:!OO 1·eh 'h is considered. t h i~ impl ie, a minimum p.:ne- trauon rate of I O'!o fo r norma l condition s and :!O"·o for over,atma- IIO n cond itions . It is IHmh noting tlta t th (: IDC algo rithm on ly uses mea -,ur.:d t ra1 el times as inpu t, wi thout assuming kn owledge of s ig- nal t iming parameters or traffic vol um e informati on. Th is is a fu n- damental di ffen:ncc bc tll'.:en ID E and pre vi ou s models based on de t<:ch.>r dat a. Te st of the Algorithm in Microsimulation The pcrf(mnance of th e IDE a lgori thm is assessed by us ing a si mu- la tion model dc1 eloped in P aramic~ (I R). The Jcli -lllm move m.::nt of a partle ul ar intcrs..:ction ll'ith a free -flow tra1-cl t ime o f 26.69 ~is con,idc re d . Thc ,imu lat ion wa s run for I h . Figure 3a depic ts the ,nnulat..:d tra1 l'l times between tw o VT Ls deployed up stn:am and down,trcam of the i nt cr~ceti on for all ve hicles maki ng le ti tum -.. The tra1 l'i ti m e~ look pu re ly ra ndom at fir s t glance. Fo r comparison pur- po,c s. the dmat1on" o f red times for this lell turn arc dis played as t he hrn'I/Ol11al bar' a t the bo llom of Figure 3a. These durat ions arc "ground-tnith" and ar.:: obta ined direct ly from the s imulat ion model. Th..: ID E algori thm 11a s app lie d on the si nm lated tra vel tim es; the iden tifi..:d delay pa ttcms arc s ho wn in Figu re 3h. In thi s figure , the c ur,·.;, arc actually for travel time pattern s. wh ich is exact ly the same as the delay pa tt ern s (wi th a constant diffe rence). The es tima ted pat- tern s matc h \l.!l'Y \\ell wi th the mea sured travel tim es (rt•pre sc nted as as tcrb ks in F igu r..: 3 ): th e c;;timation e rr ors. that is. ll,-d, art• indi - l'atl·d by plu s si gns . ll crc d , is the es ll mated del ay. It is easy to . cc tha t mo~t e>tim atio n t·rrors are close to zero. implying th at the .:s ti- mation qu a lity is high. To fu11hcr qua n tify th e e,t imat ion qualit y. a qu;II ity measure IS defined tha t is the pe rce nt age or estima tes with e rror-, no mort.: than 15% of the measured travel t imes. Denote thi s quali ty mea~urc a' a. 11 hi ch ca n be defin.:d as follow~: a= Pro b (l d,-d,, :5 0 . I s) d,+ffit (5) H.:rl' f'fn denotes the free-fl o\\' tra1 l'ltimc. Note that nit is add ed to th..: d..:nominator of the rig ht ~id e of Equa tion 5 si nce d, m ay be ;cro. In thi ' ,ens,;. Equat ion 5 is act ua ll y the error d efined for travel tn m·s. Clea rly. th..: esti mati o n qu;tli ty beco mes hi gher lo r larger a. In thi s c>.arnp k, ex = 99 .32 %. which indi cates thai th e ID E algor ithm 11 ork~ ll'ell l(>r ,;,tinwti ng lklay patte rn s. Notice th at during thi s T ransportatlon Research Record 2130 1-h ,imulation. bot h no rmal co ndit ion, and O\ cr,1turati on condi- tion s occ ur (Figure 3h). T he ~e condi tions ar..: 1 crili..:d in the actual s im ulat ions. Ab:o. by com paring tht.: dela y pallcrm. 11 ith the grou nd - truth red times on th e bott o m of th e figure. it can be furt her 1crifie d th..: pattern s arc associ ated wit h ~ig na l timi ng pro per!). Th e gl)()d p<!r fon nance o f the I DE al gori thm in the ab''' c example is largely due to the I~Ic t t ho t ;Il l 1chil'ic tra1 cltimcs arc a''lllncd lob..: known. In other 11md s. the penc tratiPn r;He is I ()()•>.;,, Th.: 1~.:x t ques - tion to ask is: How wi ll p.:n etr at io n inllucncc the ~.:s t ima ti~H1 quality '' To answe r thi s qu estion , th e me as url'd tra vel times for a g i1 ·..:n p..:nc - tration ra te p arc randoml y sam pl ed . and the >am p led mn t.:l tim..:-; arc used to esti ma te de lay pattern ~. For thi, pu rplbC. it is <l':.illn..:d th..: probab ili ty ofscl.:cti ng a particular measurt'n i..:nl i, !'· Tht.: s:unpling results in two sets: th e first set contains t r:11 ·eltim..:' that 11-..:r..: ~ekct e d. and the second set co n,ists of alltnbelcctcd 11'<11 cl tim..:s. The fir~ I >et is used to estima te delay pall.:rn!> 1 ia the IDE algorithm : t he ,;ccond set is used for test ing the est ima tion quali ty. Figu re 4a depic ts th e impact s o !' penetrati on rate> on th e e~tima­ ti on quality: the penet rati on rat e b 1 ari..:d f'n,m 6~ ,, Ill I 00 '' ,, uSing 2"'o a s th.: inc remen t. For .:ach pene tra tion rate. th e r:mdom sampli ng pro - cedu re 11·as nm 50 time s. Eac h ti me. t h..: sampled tr;11 d time' 11-:re use d to estimate del ay pattern s. and the uns..:kc tcd tra1 cl t i m e~ liTre used to tes t the est im ation qua li ty . tha t 1 ~. to ~.:omput~.: a . Th..: plu s signs in Figure 4u represe nt the ex ·~ and th e 'olid line i' th e :11..:rage o f the 50 run s. For com parison purpose-;. the ..:s tim at 1on \\a~ abo c;Ii- c ul a tcd by pur.: li n.:ar interpo lati on. T hat i'. fo r l':tdl >am p ling run . th e sampl ed travel time> art.: treated "' g rid . Th e un se il'ctc:d tr:m::l times cant he n be est imated by assumi ng tra wl t imes cha nge linearly between any two adjacent Iran· I tim es. Thi s lin ~.:a r interpolation rcp- re sl·nts a na i1 e approach to c sti ma t..: tra,·..:l time> ba sed on .;:unpk-d 011<:>. ln Figlll't.: 4a. dots repr ese nt fl.'s 1()1' eac h 'am pii ng run under a gil· en pe netrati on rate. and the da sh,•d line is th e a1 cragc ac ross all 50 run s. both for th..: linear interpol at io n approac h. At lea st for thi, pa rticu lar exa mple ( Figurl' 4 ). if th..: p<·netration rate is kss than 20 %.the li near int erpola t ion approa..:h is 'uperio r w the ID E algo rithm . Howc1 cr. "" the p..:ne t rat io n rate in c rca ~e'>. the IDE algo rithm becomes more t:i'fective in e'timati ng delay patterns. lf the penetra tion rate exceeds 40"·u. this d iiTcrc n.:c is larger than I 0%,, indic ating th at th e ID E a lgo rithm is s ign i fi cant !} h..:llcr than the li near interpo la tion approach. Suc h a tn:nd remai n' pretty ~.:o n ~ta nt as th e penetrat io n rat e inc re ases li.mhcr. The tim in g of th e i nterse c tion s igna l phas..:~ 11·a ~ ..:sti mat cd by us ing the procedure outl int'd above . Thi s wa, con d u~.:t ed by ll>ing penetra ti on rat es ran gi ng from 25 % to I 00 °,.,. Figure 4h de pic ts th e es t imated signal pha ses. with the solid hor itlllllal ba rs repr..:s .:nti ng th e duratio n of red tim es . On the to p of th e fi g m t.:. th .: ground -truth signa l ph::ts..:s !'rom the si mu lation are also s hm\ n lo r C<'mparison purp osl'S. The sol id 1 ert icallines illu st rate tht: '!art u fr.:d time from the g rou nd-tru th signa l pha ses. and th e 1 en ical dash ed li nes indi cate the end of red tim.;s . At hi g h p..:ne tra tio n rate> (>60%). the e,timat.:d ph ases arc c lose to the true pha se~. in tcrnh or both durati o n o f cycles (or r..:d times ) and th e actua l tim ing. Thl' re,ulb. IH>II en:r. dc tcnorate quick ly as the penetra ti on rat..: be comes <,ma ll..:r . RESULTS OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS The PWL intersection del ay model a nd thl' est im at ion :Il go rit hm \\'ere tested by usi ng da ta fro m a lleld ex penmen!. Th e test si te is th t.: intersect ion of San Pa blo A•cnuc :md Solann /\\enue in A lba ny. Califo rnia (Figur.:: 5a). D:lla were obta in..:d fro m Ill '<> s et s <>f wire- less trai'fic sensors in sta lle d up s tream a nd d ow ns tr eam of th e sub - Ban , H erTmg. Hao, and Bayen 180 160 140 (i) 120 '0 c 0 (.) ! 100 Ql E f= 80 a; > ~ 60 1- 40 20 (i) '0 c 180 160 140 8 120 Ql .e Ql ~ 100 a; > ~ 1-80 60 + . + t. .. -t + + ..... .. ... ++ t t- -t .. .. .,. I • ~ ...... . ~: "' .. .. ... ~ • • .,. :< ... • • '*' .. i • .,. • + * + + ·' t ... *~ . ~ • •• .., ;; +~ ~-• • • 40 !-. ,. + 'l .;. : t-1: + + ++ * "''-+ '! ~· + + ~~---·-··-,.·---------..--·----·---·-----· } I • ~~ 16:00 :00 16 :30:00 Time of Day Over- saturation (a) 16 :00 :00 Time of Day (b) FIGURE 3 Microsimulation results for simulation data for !al travel times and lbl intersec tion delay patterns . 115 jcct imc rscc tion. The raw data collected fro m th ose se nsors com ain t ra rt ic llow and ve hicle sig natures. A rei dcnt ificaiion al gorithm was applied to match ,·chicles. Tra veltime~ be tween t he t wo sets of de tector<. "ere th e n obtained from the matched ve hicle s. For detailed descripti ons of the te s t si te and th..: ve hi cle n:iden t ificat ion al go rithm . "::c Kw o ng et al. ( /..?). In thi s article. tra,·cltim c~ fr o m mat ched ve hicles arc used directly. In part ic u lar. the Jaw L'<'ntnin trav el times of 140 ve hi cles for a 30-min period (I :00 t<' I :3 0 p.m. l . Tra ,·cl t ime data arc s ho" n as a~t erisk~ 111 Figure 5/>. The IDE algori t hm dc'>c r ibcd abo'c is applied to th e tr:l\ .:I t ime s in Figure 5h. T he estimated delay patte rn ..:unc is ,;ho\\ n a, thin solid li nes. The plus signs repre sent est imat ion error-; I bet\\ c.:n 116 100 90 80 70 ~ 0 60 ~ e w 50 QJ .::!: -ro Qi 40 a:: 30 20 • + -;+ 4- 10 0 0 10 100 90 80 ~ e._ QJ -ro a:: 70 c: .Q ~ 60 Qi c: QJ CL 50 40 30 Transportation Research Record 2130 ·~···.,,,!·I:!Il + ;!: .. ·m-_ 't t + ; t *' 1 • It i t + ~ I -!-, ·ti ••, ,t++ -=*·;·· ... ~ r trl .··. ·: --· = ·,..: I ; • • + • 20 30 15:45:00 • 1" •• + • 40 50 60 Penetration Ra te(%) (a) 16:00:00 Time of Day (b) •• -+· 70 80 90 100 16:15:00 FIGURE 4 Test results using microsimulation data : Ia! impact of penetration rate on delay pattern estimation quality and !bl estimated signal phases . Ban . Hernng. Hao. and Bayen 117 \ \ \ \ (a) 150 Delayed during C,. C2 and C3 Delayed duri ng C2 and C3 Over-,' Delayed during C 3 saturation ~ 100 c 8 <ll $ Q) E i= Qi > ~ 50 0 '', '' ' \ \ \ ' ' \ ' \ \ I ' ' ' ' , , ' , ' , ' I ' I ' 13:10:00 Time of D ay lb) 13:20:00 FIG URE 5 Fie ld experiment: !sl test site and !bl estimated delay pattern and signal phases. !S ource for (a): maps .google .com.l a~tcrisks and the delay pall em ). For th is data SCI. ne arly 88% o f 1 chicles wi II ha1.: an csti mation aror of lcs~ than 15% i f th e esti- mated dela} pauern is used . T his ill ustrat.;, th a t the d elay palle rn 15 a f~t irly good c s t im:nion to the ground-truth tra1 el times. T hree cycle '>. C,. C~. :111d C. during w h ic h o vc rsaturat io n hap pe ne d arc fu rt her hi ghlighted in th e figure . ln fact. ovc rsaturation occurre d during bo t h C, and C~ :-t s nwrkcd. During C all qucu.:s 11·cr..: cl eared up. As a result , th..: delay pa tt .:rn fo r C cons1s ts of th ree li ne segment s as indicated. In part ic ular. t he firs t lin..: '>t'gmL'llt rep - resents delay~ caused by all th ree cyc le-;. t he s ..:Cl>nd lin..: segme nt r..:prcs.:nts delays caused by C ) and C. a nd the t lmd lim· i' fo r d elay~ ca used by C, only. 118 TABLE 1 Es t ima t ed Sig nal Phase Pa r ameters Cycl~ L~n gr h R,·d lime True Cyc k D ~vi ati on Index (,) (>} Length lo) ('!•;,) <J.t .'I l OS -13.4 2 •lS 59 l OS -9.<1 l)() 61 lOS -11.5 -+ 1~3 79 lOS 13.5 XI 52 1118 -2 5.~ (\ I I-+ 75 108 5.') 7 97 59 108 -10.2 ~ 1.~4 8~ 108 ~4 .0 9 117 71 108 X.4 Ill 79 50 lOS -26.9 !I Ill 70 108 2.4 12 1.2 0 63 1118 11.5 13 106 74 108 -1..5 14 107 J4 lO S -0.9 15 10 7 79 lOS -0.9 It\ 107 T2 108 -0.7 T he <>ig na l ph a'c c<,ti mat io n p ro cedur e described a bove was a lso a pp lied to this da ta se t. A s th is intersect ion is actuat ed in coordinatio n "ith a cyc le length or I OR s. S te p 4 of th e IDE al gor ithm is ap pli.:d. T hl' aw ra ge cycl e le ngth gene ra ted by the I D E algo ri th m t> I Oo s. 1\'hic h is very c lose to th e tru e cycle le ngth. indi cat ing that at lc<t s t the cyck-break ingalgori thm works fin e. T he estimate d p h a~es (red tim es) are sho\\n in Figur.: )/> "ith thic k horizo nt al bars. Table I lists the cycle length , an d durat io ns of re d ti mes as well as th e de,·iatio n (in pe rcent) bet\\'een th e es tima ted cycle le ngth s and the tru e cycle length. Most o f the e~tima t<!d cycle lengths { 13 o ut or 16. or R I %) are wi thin 15''.;, o f the tru .: cycl e le ngth. Th e wors t ca se is an und e restimate of nea rly 27%. whik the bes t case i ~ an un de restim ate o f on ly 0 . 7%. T his ,h o w~ t hat the I DE a lgorithm pro posed in thi s pape r works 1:1irl y well for the fi d d expe r ime nt da ta. Th e es tima tion algorit h m ~ work we ll mainly because the ,·c hic le rei de ntifi cat ion a lgo rilhm can matc h 45% to 65~'<• of total \e h 1 clo.:~ (/2). t ha t is. th e pe ne tra ti on rate of the data \Ct i' 45"·o to ()5" o. As di~c u s~e d abO\ e. such high pe netra tion can gcn.:rate a r<!aso nablc estima tio n o f delay patl e rn s an d s igna l ph as e s. CONCLUS IONS AND FUTURE PLAN T he a uth or;, pro posed in th is arti c le a two -ste p a lgo rith m to estim ate a rt eri al signali/.cd in t e r~cc t ion de lay patt ern s und er both norm al and O\ c r .. a turat io n .:o ndit ions. Firs t . by im c~ti g a ti n g th e q ueue-formi ng :md d ischarg in g process at s igna lized intersectio n>, it w a s sh0 \\11 th<tt int e rsec t io n del<tys can be re prcsemed as PWL cun es. In par- l lwlar. after the star1 of th e red t im e . th e re is a lw ays a s ig nifi can t 111e rc ase in the delay patt e rn . Th is un iq ue fe a ture hel p s to detec t the q ar t o f a cyc le." hic h in turn make s it possi bl e to break po te nt ia lly larg;; da ta sam ples (i.e., measured tra\·e l t ime s) into grou ps ro ug hly cq ui\alcnt to ~igna l cycles. A lras t -s quare~-hasc d linea r tilling algo- n th m was dc,·dopcd to c~tim at e the del ay pallern w ith in a cyc le . It 1\':l'; s hO\\'Jl tha t the lc<bt-sq uares mdhod can be com crted to s oh e m ult ip le co m c.~ and q uadra tiC prog ram s eac h wit h o n ly fo ur vari- abl.:,. The refore the proposed delay patte rn eo timat io n algorit hm i' polynom ia l in ti me and can be imp leme nt e d in rea l-tim e a pp l ic a- T ranspor tatmn Research Record 2130 tions . The mode l and al gorithm we re tested by usi ng m t..:w s.:o pir traffi c s imula tio n data and ll.:ld ,;;o_per imcnt d ata . T he: re,ults ilhh- lratcd that the IDE algo rithm i> prom isi ng" h..:nthe pc:net rati,>n rate is rel ati ve ly h igh (e.g., la rger tha n ~0 %). The proposed mod.:! and algo ri thm o nl) r..:q uir..: sarnpkd tra\ l.'i time~ ob tai ned be tween con.,ecutive loca t ion~ in arterial ~trcc t ~. T h1' h in eontra;t to mo;t pre\ iou~ m tersection del a} or tra\ t•l t ime mod- els that a. su mc at len~t ~;ig n al timi ng param eters an d dctc-c tc•r da ta. A> a result. the int ers ec tion d elav mode l and algori thm ha \.:: the p ot~n t ial to he a pplie d in large-sc ak an ..:rial lll't\\ nrk s . ..:spec ially if imcgrat cd \\'i th t he VT L tec hnique des1g ned li>r GPS-.:quipped ..:e l- lu la r phones. The work pr-.:scn ted in th is art ic le i' on !) the Ji r,t ~ll~Jl in d e\'elop ing a rt e r ial dela y mode b. Some fut ure n:s..:a rch th rcc t1on' ca n be >tnn ma ri zed as fo li O\\ s: I. Only norm al a nd O\C r,atura ti on cond itin ns \H're c:o n ~i d erc d in thi s art icl e . T he auth ors an.: now \\'O rki ng on <.:haract..:ri/1ng dl.'la) pa tl e m s un.k r other t raffic cond itio ns . 2. The le as t-sq uares bas ed ID E algor ithm con si de rs o nly th t· two most si gnifi c ant fe at ure s o r int e rsection (kl ays an d curre nt !~·" orks we ll fo r rcl ati,·eiy h ig h penetra tion ra tes. T he al gorithm need .; Ill he re fi ned by exploring mon: charac teristics o f :t rtcri:tl tranic: nm,. traf- lk signal sy~;t erm, and delay p allern~. 3. T he model and a lgo rithm \\ere tested by usi ng mic:ros imul at io n and data fro m a fiel d <:>-pen men!. A ser ie s o ffi dd c:>-p..:rimt'rll s i-. .:u r- ren tly under wa y to collec t arte rial tra vel t imes that \\'ill be u,ed to tc;.t the pro pos ed model. Result s \\'ill be rep orted in 'ubs.:q u<:nt art ie it's. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T he autho rs appreci ate the d ts cu ssion s w ith <tnd ~u p po rt obtamed from n;searche rs at tlw okia Pa lo A lto R e~c;~rc:h Lab . e~p<:cially Qu inn .la cobinson. The au thor> a lso appreci ate l'r:t \ in Va raiya at the Un ive rsit y ofCa l ifornia. Berkeley. for provi d ing the tkld C\JlC rimcn t t rave l time da ta . T he fir s t :tut hor als o tha nk s Pr<l\ in \'a r ai~·a a nd An dy Chow for s c\'cra l insight fu l d isc ussions o n a rt e rial motk l1ng. REFERENCES I. Gaull . II. E .. an d I. Ci . Taylor The Csc of Ou1pu1 fmm 1'<!111.-1<' l>c l<'<- 101:' to ,f ('<'l'S.\ Delut'l/1 Colllflll/cr-Cuntmii<'J .lr.:.1 7mllh ( 'on/rn/S:n - /{'111.\. T•dmi~a l report. R ,·s~arc h Rcporl r\<1 . 1 I. Trarr'>po rt alton Operatio n R ~s~arch (i rnu p, L:nivcr;,i l) of 1\c\\c:"tk UJll •n l'yrrL·. 1\L'\\'- t:a>l k up on T ync, L nil cd Kingdom . 1977. 2. Si,i npiku. V. P., an d 1\'. M. Rou phail. Tran·l Tilll<' 1.-.,./llllfl//lln !mm Loop Detector l>ata /or, 1dt ·m~<·•·d Tr,m·lcr lufurmatiou .\t '"m l pf>li- ' atit111\ .. , .:~h nic al report. Illinois L:niversi t) 'I ran'>po rratll>n R ~SL':trch Co tt>ortiu m. I 994 . ·'· Zhang. H. M . Link-Jourm•y-Sp,·,·d \toJd for ,\rt cnall ranic. In I >WII- portalion Rt:sc.?arch H\•n,rd Journal,?/ !he Frouvuwtatum Rt "'tWt_ h /Joard, .\'o. I 6 76. 'IIUl. ational l{,·;card t C••u n~il. \\ :t>hrrrl!lon. D .C .. J<)!)X, pp. 109 -115 . , 4. Xic. X .. R. L. C h ~u . an d D. H. Ll,c. Ca lihratwn-Fr.:" i\rrnral Lin k SpL·cd htimati on 1\lod cl L >i ng L<1Cl p Data . .loumal ·•(holl.'f">rtatiou Lngin.:eri11g. Vo l. I 27. "''· 6. ~0() I. pp. 507 5 t 4. 5. Sk:t bardoni>. A .. and R. Dow ling . l mpniV~d Sp~ed I· lui\ l{l'i:nr,llhhips for Pla nni ng Applic :r lio n,. Itt 7i'<lll>f'•>rl•llioll He"•ur, h /1,, nrc/15-2. I Rll. t\ati ona l R ~s.:a r~h CoLmer!. W:t>hington. D l'. 11197. J'P IX ~~- 6. Xiong. H .. and G. Da \·1~. Fi ~I J l·mhr:nion of ~l n<kl-ll."''J h t trnation of Arl.:riai Link Tr:l\·el rime,. l'r<:>cni<.xl :11 X71h \nnual \kctin~: uf th c I ran~portatton Rcs,·arch lh>ard. \\ :1~h i nl!tl'll. f) C.. ~()0~. ' 7. Sb bardoni,. A .. and 1\. GL·roli rn in i,. RZ-a l-·1 im,· hti n<.tll,>rl of 'l nn cl I imc, on Sig nal i/~u .'\rt cria b . I nth lllt<'mati">l(l/51'1111''" ium "" I r, Ill\'- Ban. Herrmg. Hao. and Bayen l'ol'fllllon onJ 7i·,,lfic 11u:cll)'. L'niYcrsity of Mary land. College Park. 2oOS. pp 387 -106. ~ LJU. H.:\ .. and \\. Ma \'inual P robe Approach tor Time-Dependent \rte nal Tra,·el Time L:s1ima1ion. P resemed a1 ~,th A n nual Mee ting of the I rathponauon Rc>cmch Board. \\·ashington, D .C.. 2008. '1 . Oh. C. 11111111'1/ll!ll\ i'eflidc Tmrking ti)/' Real-Time ha{fh· l'e1 jorm cmc c \fc(lllll'c'' P hD the"'· t..:ni,·cbily ofCalit\m1ia. lr\'in.:. 2003. 10. R ildu.·. S. Ci .. S. P .c r k . S. T. Jcng. and!\. Tok .. 11umymou.~ Vchulc I rw k111:;. for 11.:,,1-Time Freeway cmJ.Irl.:ri,tf Sired f'c r{i11'111uiiC'<.! \leo· s1n ·unu11 Tct'lmical r.:porl. R .:scarch Rqlllrl. L:CB-I TS-PRR-~005-9. Colil ('l'll~<l I'.'\ TI-l. Bcrkdcy. 2005. I I. Oh. C .. and S. Ci . Ruchic. Anonymou> Vd1ick Tr,ocking l<>r Real-Time Tmflic Survcilbm:c ami Pcrf"i>mlancc on Sign aliz.:J 1\ncriab. In 7iwls- p(Jr/ution Rl!se~wclr Re< ore/: Journt~f o( the Troii.'JH 1rt ation Researdr fJo(ll .1 . .\'o. f X2fi. Tran>portalion Re·,carch 13oard ,,f the National .'\.:ad- c onic'. Wa;hingWn. D.l' .. ~003. pp. 37 4-t . 12 . K\\ong, K .. R. Ka,·alcr. R. Rajagopal. and P. Varaoya. 1\ncrial Travel T 11nc f',ltmation lla"'d <'11 Vchidc Rciu~ntilkation L',ing \Vir.:k~> ~t.:ll..,,ll ..... /'ran,porhllion Re.H!ardt. Purl C. ff.>rthcom mg. I; ~. ,\mm. ct al. \lo t>J!e· C~ntlll) lj,ing Ci P S l'dot>ik Ph, me>"' Trallic ~""'''r'. ,\ F idd I \pcrimcnl. f'm, .. 15th WorldCrJII~r,·." tm 17:~. \;w York. 21101< 119 1-t . \\'ork. D .. 0 . P.l o'~n·ainen. S. Blandin .. \. Uay..:n. r. '" uchuk"u. and K . Tracton. An En,emblc Kalma n-Flhenng i\ppwadrto Hr gl1<\it) Jraf- tk Estimation U!>ing GI'S-Enabl.:d 1\lobrk De' ict-,. !'me .. -l'tfl 1/:EE Conti·re11ce "" Dc<·i•ion a11d Com mi. Cancun. \ kx ico. 200~. I 5. Hoh, B .. M. (jrute,er. R. He rri ng. J . llan. D .\\ ork . .1 . C. HeoTaa. ;utd .\ Ba)L'Il. \'irtual Trip Line·, l(>r Dr ,llibuie·d l'riva~y-l'r.;<.:r\tng I raffi~ ~1onitt:lring . Sixrh .-lmwollnterllllltonuf Cmtf<'renc c nu .\lnhile S1 ,.,l'lll.'. ·lf>pfiwtinlls a11d Sen·ic c•· (,\lohi.\n ]Iii/Xi, lliTd • .:tll'ldg,·. (\,Jo .. :COOk . 16 . 'ewe ll , G . r-. 7h.:urt· n/lliglnwt· ha!fi< Si,~11ol,. l n"otutc t>f l'r;ub- porlatiPn Studies. l.;n;, ~r,ity ofCali l;>nna. lkrk.:ky. I '1~1>. 17 . Rouphail, !\. M .. !\. Tark<1. and C. Li 'J ral'ttc Flo\\· a t Stgn:tlved lntcr- ,,_.~t ion>. Traf/ic Flo II' Th ,·t i!T:. 1 State-o/-tflc-,11'1/l.:pol'l. Federal High- way Admini;trali<lll. U.S. Dcpanmcn t <>I' rram.port.oi11H1. \V;bhington. D.C., 2005. \\'\\ w.llhrc.gpv.·it>'tll .:hapiJ.pdl'. JR. Clm. L .. H. X. Liu. anJ \\'. R cd,·r. t :>ing ~·l it:r<bCOptc Siouulatimo tn Evaluate Potential Intelligent I ran;portation S~>tcm Str at.:gk' l lllkr 'onr~cun~nt Cl)ngc:-.tinn . In li·wl\ptu·ttnitm I<C\'f..df'c ·h Rcc·urd .lnurnctl "I the li"ansportatirm II, <c'aH·II /JoarJ So. I i/8f>. 'I r;on,portation R c"·arch l3oanl of the· i'\ational Actdcmtc,. \\'a,hm<!lllll. D.C.. ~0114. pp. 7h ~-l . Tne H,ghwayCapac!tyand Oua',·yof Serv1ce Co:r7l,/C~P sporsor· d pu. ·.'.:;at!0/1 of C. liS paper • • • • • • • • .... I . Introduction .... 2 . Re ques ts for Traffic Signals ,.. 3. Traffic Studies o .... I . O verv iew o .... 2. Condition Diagram o ..,. 3. Location Map and Ph oto gra ph s o .... 4 . Accident (Crash) lnfonnati o n o ..,. 5. Vehicle and Pe d es trian Traffic Counts o .... 6 . Approach Speeds o .... 7. Traffic Survey Count Analysis o ,.. 8. Intersecti on Delay Study • +Introduction • +Tim e of Study • +Equipment • +Form • +P roced ure • +Stu dy Res ults ..,. 4 . Operational Considerations ..,. 5. Traffic Signal Projects .... A. Fo nns ..,. B. Determination o f eed fo r Traffi c Control a t School Cross ings Anchor: #i 1 002518 Section 8: Intersection Delay Study Anchor: #i 1 002523 Introduction To meet the requirements for Warrant 10, "Peak Hour Delay," a delay study must be performed at the subject intersection. Typically, an intersection delay study is conducted at intersections or major driveways where congestion problems exist. This study is considered as a detailed investigation of the stopped-time delay conditions at an intersection being evaluated for signalization. Anchor: #il002533 Time of Study The intersection delay study should be performed during periods of congestion. Typically, the peak delay occurs during the peak hour, which can be identified from the traffic counts. The peak delay may occur during the major street's peak hour or during the minor street's peak hour, so care should be taken when determining the study time period. In some cases, both time periods need to be studied to determine the peak delay hour. It may be desirable to start the delay study 30 minutes before the beginning of the peak hour and end it 30 minutes afterwards to ensure that the peak dela y is recorded. Anchor: #i 1002543 Equipment Unless the district has a delay meter, the intersection delay data is usually collected manually. In most cases, one observer is required for each intersection approach being evaluated. In some cases, traffic volumes are too heavy for one person to handle alone, and a second observer is used. Each observer needs • a stop watch or wristwatch with a second hand • a clipboard and paper to record the delay data. Anchor: #i 1 002568 Form The Intersection Delay Study Field Sheet can be used to record the data. A sample of the form is provided in Appendix A of this manual. This sample form may be photocopied as necessary. Copies may also be obtained from the Traffic Operations Division. In the on- line version of this manual, an MS Word version of this form may be opened and printed out by clicking on the following file name: TFF-JDS. Anchor: #i 1002578 Procedure Performing a delay study involves counting the vehicles stopped in the intersection approach at successive intervals. Selecting the Interval. The typical duration for the interval is 15 seconds. Other values can be selected; however, if a larger interval is selected, the amount of overestimation of delay increases. Conversely, if a smaller interval is selected, the amount of overestimation of delay is lower, but the amount of data collected increases. So the 15 second interval represents a good compromise. Preparing th e Form. Before the start of the study, the identifying information is entered in the appropriate places on the Intersection Delay Study Form. The first column is completed to indicate the starting times in minutes for the indicated succession of sampling intervals. Counting and Recording. When the starting time arrives, the observer counts and records the number of vehicles stopped on the approach for each observation time indicated. As a vehicle arrives, it is recorded on the "Total Number of Vehicles" section in the column corresponding to the 15 second interval when the vehicle arrived . For example, if a vehicle arrived at 8:00.08 am, it is recorded in the column "+ 0 sec." If this same vehicle is still waiting at the stop line at 8:00.15 am, it is recorded in the column "+ 15 sec." Thus , a vehicle is counted more than once in the delay determination if it is stopped during more than one sampling time. A separate tabulation of the approach volume is made for each time period by classifying vehicles as stopped or not stopping. (Note: the vehicles not stopping column is typically used for a delay study of an existing signalized intersection .) The number of stopping vehicles is always equal to or less than the total number of vehicles stopped on the approach for a specific time interval, because vehicles can be delayed for more than one sampling period. Anchor: #i 1 002608 Study Results Each vehicle counted in the delay study is assumed to be stopped for the duration of the selected interval (typically 15 seconds). Each column is added up in each of the subtotal blocks, and the total is recorded in the "Total " block. The total number of vehicles delayed is then multiplied by the interval (15 seconds) to get total vehicle-seconds of delay. Then the highest four consecutive 15 minute time periods are added together. This sum is then divided by 3600 to convert the value to vehicle-hours of delay. The result is then used to determine if Warrant 10 , "Peak Hour Delay," is met 00 ~ • ...-4 +-' Q) Q) =s \0 ,.....,..-4 ~ • ...-4 0 u C\1 ~ ::s rS ~ ~ 0 0 0\ ~ u ...c= +-' 0 t: en 0\ o ~ ::s 9 z M <l> bJJ 7 ~ ::S rn ~ 0 < ~ ~ ~ <~ ~ 0 V) -c -o c ~ Q) ·-0 ~ LL. ~ .c. ..j...J ·-~ ~ ~ Q) 1-E ·-I-~ ~ res (]) ~ ..j...J .I::. 0 c 1-. . • • . • 0 c -o s.... ~ . . . !- QJ on ~ ·-I- ~ QJ I-..c ......, '--~ '--c (]) ~ ...c I- • 6.5 Process for Estimating Mixed-Use Trip Generation • The recommended procedure for estimating internal trip capture and trip generation for a mixed-use development is a series of nine steps: Step 1: Determine whether methodology is appropriate for study site. Step 2: Estimate person trip generation for individual on-site land uses. Step 3: Estimate proximity between on -site land use pairs . Step 4: Estimate unconstrained internal person trip capture rates with proximity adjustment. Step s: Estimate unconstrained demand between on -site land use pairs. Step 6 : Estimate balanced demand between on-site land use pairs. Step 7: Estimate total internal person trips between on-site land use pairs. Step 8: Estimate total external person trips for each land use. Step g: Calculate overall internal captur e and total external vehicle trip generation. DENY THE CURRENT APPLICATION & REVIEW THE SPECIFIC PLAN • Levels of Service (LOS) • Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to relate the quality of traffic service. LOS is used to analyze highways by categorizing traffic flow and assigning quality levels of traffic based on performance measure like speed, density,etc. DENY THE CURRENT APPLICAT ION & REVIEW THE SPECIFIC PLAN D's or F's in a class room or on our st reets are not co nsid e red acceptable ..... . D: approaching unstable flow. Speeds slightly decrease as traffic volume slightly increase. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is much more limited and driver comfort levels decrease. Vehicles are spaced about 160 ft(som) or 8 car len£ths. Minor incidents are e"l>ected to create delays. ExampTes are a bus:y shopping comdor in the middle of a weekday, or a functional urban highway during commuting hours. It is a common goal for urban streets during peak hours, as attaining LOS C would require prohibitive cost and societal impact in bypass roads and lane additions. E: unstable flow, operating at ca_pacity. Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly because there are virtually no usable gaps to maneuver m the traffic stre am and speeds rarely reach the posted limit. Vehicle spacing is about 6 car lengths, but speeds are still at or above so mifh(8o km/h). Any disruption to traffic flow, such as merging ramptraffic or lane changes, will create a shock wave affecting traffic upstream. Any incident will create serious delays . Drive rs' level of comfort become poor.W This is a common standard in larger urban areas, where some roadway congestion is inevitable. F : forced or breakdown flow. Every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with frequent slowing required. Travel time cannot be pre dicted, with generally more demand than ca pacity. A road in a constant tratfir jam IS at this LOS, because LOS is an average or typical service rather than a constant state. For example, a highway might be at LOS D for the AM p eak hour, but have traffic consistent with LOS C some days, LOS E or F others, and come to a halt once every fe w we eks . Key Intersection Grades after additional information requested by Council Tra ng TuNguyen Decemoer ~. 2014 Pag es or 10 December 20 14 TA BLE B: NOitTH 40 FUTUIU! YlAJt LOS SUMMARY wmt NIW/CHANG!D POTtNT1AI. PIIOJICTS ._ ...... with ....... '""'' ~ --···,.:~ 2 W•nchester BouleY•rd and K...,... AM JU c 323 c-!2.1 C-661 I 679 DrMI PM 41.0 0 450 0 "56 D 151.5 f 167S )4 Bascom Avenue and Camden AM 49.7 D 50.0 0 49.9 D BH F 838 Avenut> PM 50.1 0 509 0 510 0 561 •• !>116 SR 17 Northbound ~ and AM 910 F 41111 r .. , F ,.,9 F lRl )(j CarncMn A~ Oab Rolli PM 101 l 10.3 l 10.3 l 141.9 F 1422 SR 17 Southbound Ramps and s.n AM 109 1 F 1090 f 1090 F 2413 f 24U 31 TornM E ~swav PM 62.1 E 627 E 627 [ 1167 F 1169 loWttxt ondtctr!H o chotlgo tn LOS ~>oftol-·~"'tile Tl'o w tht ,......_., ~ ~ "'tllto --m ~ I 670 I F 169.0 • F 138 , I• !18 9 I• f 1"1' f F 141.2 , f 241J F 170 ' For "ljjiiO>zod oniPRO<tioM, delay c.._,"'-<...,.. tnt~ ~-·c-ol doloy _...t •n -"' po<-uinrlolf'd _,.-""*-In t to. 2000 H(t.l, wuh odJ<t>iod JOiv<olion ~-to-S..~ O.a Caunly~ lor"""""-' 1-- 2 LOS • lew! ol-.. LOS colwlaliont conductHIItlng IN TIIAFFlX 80 low! ol ....... ~ ~ fi'ICia9o . Sou<c.-'""'e.-... 20 1~ Delays at Los Gatos Boulevard & Lark Avenue Intersection dated & recent (objective data) I ·~ luNgu)tn llt<...C.. S. 2GIC Poi;t 8 ol iO 1 TAIL! C·l -NOm4 40 RIT1Mf YW CCHOI110NS ADIIITIONAI.IIFOIMAliOH-WITH NOITK 40 ~ATIOH I!MMMIHTS I'IIOlKT AI.TaNAlM A SR·I7 Southbo!nj No..lodd!bclftll II Romps one! lMt AM l.ll (. JSO ( . .IU C·ll4.9 C· J1l Dt lU 1). .....-IOOU!dllr ,.did Ill-LOS(). Plot ~·· 0 110.1 f Cll 0 su (). 711 I · 6lJ E 4 ....... 01-S.:.I!obtlor ""'""""" ·-I 19 los Gila$ .... ..a AM .10.1 ( 311 C· lilt cpu ( JS.O (. lH {~-lit ll!ds..n.riiMIO.... PM J1.S o-!OS ' •• 0 4.1.6 0 101 • ' 171 ,; noedldiO-lOS~ or .....,.!oflllloollor ---23 los Go40I eo.AfvMlf AM '" I 61.6 f 4!11 0 711 I 90.3 ; 17 6 p. •t 0 79.5 E· 41.2 D 515 (). IH F ~· 0 "" Mldl.lrl<A-PM f«~---~.-. .. ----------·----.... --.... .,140l ... ~tolJI-IIow-10rt41<1 s-O..C...,~ .. ..-...- LOS •Lt.olcl""i<ILOSaiMoll:n<~ .... tllt iiAIIIIIUIMi al.,b...,_,..__ . .... ftlit .. hm. ,.;)4 . • 8/5/2016 8:30am • Los Gatos Blvd/Lark Ave • 60 degrees, no beach or school traffic • Delay range during 30 minute gathering at the left turn lane with NO project was 80-95 seconds (v. 71 seconds) Traffic Mitigation by the developer for the cu rrent application includes a multi modal bike bath across Hi ghway 17 Additi o nal Pr o jects Scope and Impact Studied v. Actual STUDIED • Good Samaritan ER Expansion • 2425 Samaritan Dr o Expand ER by 14,796 sf o Add 9 hospital beds Samaritan Court Medical Office 50 Samaritan Court o 64,500 sf of medical office building ACTUAL Per the Samaritan Medical Center Master Plan 0 Full build out; demolition of all exi sting med i cal offi ce buildings for Samaritan Drive and Samaritan Court (13 Acres) 0 Net increase of 364,726 sf or medical space *** 0 *** slightly less than commercia l space allowed by the Specific Plan DENY THE CURRENT APPLICATION & REVIEW THE SPECIFIC PLAN Please consider this staggering statistic (based on projections, not objective data.) Projected Trip Generation for the North 40 project 0 An additional15,000- 16,000 daily trips Projected Trip Generation Samaritan Master Plan 0 An additional14,000 new daily vehicle trips 0 834am/1,398pm DENY THE CURRENT APPLICATION & REVIEW THE SPECIFIC PLAN The residents of this town emphatically support you & our staff & commissioners for the recommendation to deny the current application for these & other findings. We respectfully request you include in your motion a review of the Specific Plan specific language as to timeliness of traffic and all other studies & alternative projects so that the next applicant will understand what we already do & was stated in the 4th Vision Statement: "The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools & other community services." STAY STRONG, IT MIGHT TAKE LONG OUR TOWN IS WORTH THE EFFORT & WORTH THE FIGHT This is the 1st application under a specific plan that took years to develop for an Orchard that has been here longer than most in these chambers. What this Town approves, will be there FOREVER. Let's do it Right. From: Valerie Kelly [mailto:lgkc ll vs(dmc .com ] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:16 AM To: BSpector; m snvo c(uJ osgatosca.gov ; rren ic (a ,losl!ato sca.gov ; Steven Leonardis; miensci]p)n-;gatosca.go,·; Joel Paulson; Sally Zamowitz; Planning Cc: Mami Moseley; dsparrcrG D.communitv-ncw~lli!P-Cr<.;.com ; lcttcrs<iuncrcurvncws.com Subject: North 40 Development Objection Dear Los Gatos Town Leaders: I am forwarding this message along with the original message I sent back in March (below), which I submitted too late for consideration. After attending the meeting and reading material s about the North 40 Development, I am sending this letter to s upport the Planning Commission's denial of the North 40 Development Plan (Plan) and urge the Town Council to similarly deny the Plan for the following reasons: 1) The Plan does not "look and feel like Los Gatos." As a long time re si dent, I am cannot reference any other development in the area of Saratoga-MonteSereno-Los Gatos (or even Campbell for that matter) that looks or feels like the current proposed plan in scale or density. And, I cannot reference any residential developments that mimic the massive industrial style. The Plan "looks and feels " like high density apartment developments in San Jose. 2) We live in a low density community which i s characterized by an abundance of single story ranch style homes and larger lots. The Plan does not shadow si milar existing density and building heights considering the acreage to be developed -all in the same area -and it does not have s imilar ranch style characteristics. 3) The tall story poles covering the (less than entirety of) property show that the development does not embrace hillside views, trees and open space. Although there may be other taller commercial building in town, they are not side-by-side and collected in low acreage area that so pervasively blocks hill side v iews. 4) The development does not have the open space to incorporate the s ite 's current orchard characteristics. Tree selection and a market should not be allowed to meet the specific plan requirements. 6) The Plan cannot possibly minimize or mitigate impacts on infrastructure with its current densit y and scale. The reference to bike access unrealistic and, frankly, disingenuous. The area surrounding the proposed development site is already gridlocked at commute times . When thinking of thi s summer's beach traffic and the gridlock created by it, the result will be that vehicular traffic will be forced find a way around that area during peak commute hours, which could prove deadly for people needing emergency services. There simply is no reasonabl e mitigation. And, with Lo s Gatos High School's incoming Freshman class estimated at close to 600 students, approving a plan without carefully and throughly considering the impact on the school s is reprehensi ble and amounts to blatant disregard for student education and safety. 7) Phase I and Phase II story poles should be required before any development can begin -the size and s cale of the entire s ite to be developed mus t be considered before any building begins. Although your decision may deny Grosvenor's Board of Directors and shareholders the profit anticipated when the property was considered for development by them, this multi-national corporation s hould not be abl e to capitalize on thi s development at an expen se to be born b y the town of Los Gatos and its res idents for many, many years to come. Grosvenor took that calculated risk when it chose to try to develop a large high density development in a small town like Los Gatos. I expect your town counsel staffhas advised you s imilarly; however, although Grosvenor has (directly or indirectly) threatened liti gat ion over thi s development, please do not allow your team and this community to be bullied. Grosvenor will have t o thoughtfully consider ri s ks inherent in litigation and the associated drag on pro fit s from thi s developm ent before deciding to proceed, which i s not a deci s ion that will be taken li ghtl y even by such a large corporate entity. A gain , I beg of your team to please ens ure that Grosvenor does not capitalize on this development at the expen se of the town's character and its' residents -to allow it to happen would be a monumental blow to o ur community . I trul y appreciate the time and effort and thoughtful consideration of the N orth 40 Developme nt that your team has invested to date. Thank you! Val Ke ll y Begin forwarded message: From: Valerie K e lly <lgkdlv<>(!"une.com> Subject: North 40 Development Ridiculous! Date: March 30, 20 16 at 6:40:04 PM PDT T o: lcttcrs((~rcurvnews.com Hi: I received a message that you needed full name, address and phone number a nd any affiliation for letter below. My name is Val Kell y, 21 Fi llmer Avenue, Los Gatos , CA 95030, 408-499-5989, no a ffiliation . Thank you! Val Beg in forwarded message: From: Valerie K e ll y <lgkcll vs((.(m e .co m> Subject: North 40 Development Ridiculous! Date: March 30,2016 at 3:56:51 PM PDT To: mmoselev(a Josgatosca .gov, dspa r rcr(a.;commun i tv-ncwspapers.com , lcttcr::-.(tDmercuryncw".com Hi Ms. Moseley: I have been a home owner in Los Gatos for 12 years and was a resident of Saratoga previously (since 1979). I grew up here and returned after law school. I have seen the town and area grow over many years and understand that growth is necessary and s timulated by our ever more populated valley. I understand that the North 40 will be developed. However, the story poles of the North 40 are a visual abomination. I cannot speak to the other development features, but cannot imagine the impact on traffic and the environment. I am not only writing this message, but attending the meeting this evening. I am a working mom and do not have time to participate in town issues, as a general rule. However, I making the time to attend tonight's meeting and send thi s message because I v iew this development as a critical issue and I feel compelled to learn more and provide input to ensure that a respons ible decision is made about the development of Los Gatos . See you there! Best, Val Kelly From: Markene Smith [mail to:marken e(u{co mcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:27 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie Cc: North40 Comment Subject: North 40 Application and Map Dear Los Gatos Town Council , Please uphold the Planning Committee's recommendation, and adopt a resolution to deny the N40 developer's Architecture and Site and Vesting Tentative Map applications. The developer's Application and Map do not comply with objective standards contained in the North 40 Specific Plan, including Land Use and Development Standards. • Maximum Density Capacity o The number and distribution are not consistent with the Specific Plan, which envisions housing units to be: • Distributed throughout the 44-acre site • At a minimum, distributed throughout the 33 acres controlled by applicants • Protected from freeway views, noise and fumes by 1 00-foot barrier of large shade trees along the Lark A venue on-ramp and SR. • Smaller size units • One-story units, to accommodate downsi z in g seniors • Affordable units di stributed throughout the project • Lowest-income residents should not be ghettoi z ed in the air-space of a high-end specialty marketplace • Development Standards o Story poles and netting demonstrate massive, homogenous structures that are out of scale with surrounding neighborhoods o Heights, rooflines and bulk tower above SR 17 and Lark A venue o Buildings obscure views of trees and hill sides o Looks grossly out of proportion to existing terrain and structure s o Application and Map fail to provide necessary large-tree barriers along SR 17 o Other Los Gatos I SR 17 on/off ramps feature dense plantings of large pine trees to buffer freeway sounds, smells, and fumes. • Vesting Tentative Map o Unsafe placement of buildings 24 and 25. Dwelling units are next to gas station, with no ingress and egress to Los Gatos Boulevard o Unsafe placement of buildings 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5, 28 , and 29. Documented health ri sks have gotten worse, not better, since 2015 , and cannot b e mitigated by residential air filters. (See N40 Specific Plan EIR, Figure 15 , "Health Risks") o Large pine trees should be planted in pl ace of the structures depicted on the Map. o Due to location and size of this development, streets should be public, not pri vate. a Map should include 13.5 acres of Open Space, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency: • What i s Open Space/G r een Space? Open s p ace is an y open pi ece efland that is undeveloped (has no buildings o r other built s tructures) and is accessibl e to the publi c. Open sp ace can includ e: Gree n s pace (land that is partl y o r compl ete l y co vered w ith grass, trees, shrubs . or other vegetation). Green sp ace includes parks, community gard ens, a nd cemeteries. School ya rd s Pl aygro und s Publi c s eating ar eas Public plazas Vacant lots Open s pace provide s recreati o n al areas for r es idents a nd helps to enhance the beaut y and e nvironmental qua lity of nei ghborhoods. But wi th thi s broad range of recreational s ites comes a n equ a ll y broad r an ge of environmental iss ues . Just as in a ny other l and uses, the way parks arc m anaged can have goo d or b ad environmental impact s, from pesticide runoff , s ilt at ion fr om overused hiking an d lo gging tra il s, and des tru ction of h ab itat. Lac k of community and public access to safe open and g reen space is a criti cal area of concern for urban res id e nt s. -Env ironmenta l Protection Agenc y Thank you! Markene Smith 201 Drakes Bay Av enue Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 356-2613 From: Avery Kaufman <averv.kaufmanQ/)gmail.com> Date: August 9, 2016 at 11:32: II AM PDT To: <bs pcctor(2dosgatoscu.go v>, <msavoc@losgutoscu.e:ov>, <mj~n scn(u;I osgatosca.go\·>, <rrennic(i:d (lsgatosca.gov>, <slconardisCa!lose:atosca.e:ov> Cc: <jpau lson(ct lose:atosca.e:ov> Subject: NO on North 40 as proposed Hello, Pls take the planning commiss ion recommendation and vote NO on proposed North 40. The current plans have too many large scale homes and not enough green s p ace , traffic abatement plans or look and feel oflos gatos. This development as is w ill be only beneficial to the developers and not to Los Gatos citi zens. There needs to be less units, more parking, green space and a real plan for conversion into the community. Thank you, A very Kaufinan & Richard Borenstein 125 Worcester Loop LG From: Joan Langholff [mailto:joanlangholff@yahoo.com ] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:43 PM To: Laurel Prevetti; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Marice Sayee; Rob Rennie; Robert Schultz Cc: North40 Question Subject: North 40 Concern: Emergency Vehicle access to Hospital Because of the already backed up traffic on Lark Ave. & Los Gatos Blvd: What provision is going to be made for emergency vehicles trying to get to Good Samaritan Hospital from Lark & Los Gatos Blvd. ? We have ambulance/fire/police emergency vehicles using these roads dozens of times per day (we hear the sirens all the time -day & night). How are you going to address life & death issues that may be impacted because emergency vehicles and personnel are NOT able to get to the nearest ER? From: Bonnie Payne [mailto:bonnieapayne@comcast.net) Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:02 PM To: BSpector Cc: Joel Paulson Subject : North 40 Dear Mayor Spector, I want to register my opposition to the current proposed development for the North 40. Far from the vi sion for the North 40, this proposal in no way reflects the current ambiance of Los Gatos. I am having a really hard time understanding how it could meet the parameters outlined in the Specific Plan, even if so me of these have been dictated by the state. Fir st, the architecture does not reflect that of Los Gatos. Second, they have crammed the ma ximum po ssib le res idences into one portion of the property, without taking into account the stated necessity that the entire property be considered by any developer. Third , the traffic study is surely flawed, since Los Gatos residents are currently having a difficult time even driving around town on weekend s. (I avoid our downtown, and I'm told by merchants that busines s is off because of impossible traffic going through town.) The current proposal overstresses our school district. It also does not reflect the "ag rarian " history of the property. And it is ugly. Thi s proposal should be rejected! Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Bonnie Payne Resident since 1973. From: Bev Christensen [mailto:chrisbev4@gmail.com ] Sent: Tue sday, August 09, 2016 11:03 AM To : BSpector Cc: Joel Paulson Subject : Deny north 40 Please deny current north 40 plan. Thank you for listening. Have lived in Los Gatos for 25 years and know that it is not in our best interest. Thank you again for all you do B Christensen. Sent from my iPhone From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello , Carla Mason <ca rla .d.mason@gma il.com > Tue sday, August 09, 2016 1:04 PM BSpector; msayoc@losgatos.ca.gov; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz NO on North 40!!!! Please follow the Los Gatos Specific Plan . Do not allow the developer to put a "city" in Los Gatos. The existing proposal would completely change the look and feel of Los Gatos, not to mention the MAJOR TRAFF IC impact, over crowding of our SCHOOLS, and destruction of our DOWNTOWN!!! Please vote NO on this plan. Thank you, Carla Mason Los Gatos resident 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Graves, David <david.graves@hpe.com > Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:08 PM BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson ; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Please Deny the North 40 Application If implemented, the North 40 plan will enrich only the developer. Residents throughout the area will suffer. I urge you to deny the application. Best Regards, David Graves From: Sent: To: Subject: jplg159@juno.co m Tue sday, August 09, 2016 1:54 PM Joe l Paulson ; Planning ; Sal ly Zarnowitz NORTH 40 As long time residents of Lo s Gatos, We are asking you to not let the NORTH 40 development go through, you've already denied it, if it does go through it will create more gridlock, not to mention crime. This little TOWN cannot handl e the increased traffic and peopl e. Plus, we are sti ll in a drou g ht mode and more people mea ns more water usage . PLEASE SAY No to the NORTH 40! J and P VanUnen From: Cherie Rose [mailto:cher ie @cheriero secollection.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09 , 2016 3:34 PM To: Joel Paulson ; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; BSpector; Marcia Jensen ; maricosa yoc @ya hoo .com Subject: North 40 Importance: High Dear Planning Department and Town Council - I am the owner of the Cherie Rose Collection and am writing to oppose the North 40 development. I am a Los Gatos residence , have raised my children in Los Gatos public schools, and have been developing and growing my family retail home furnishing store on North Santa Cruz Ave for the la st 20 years. My business is a survivor of the worst economic downturn ever experienced in my lifetime and I am very proud of that fact. It is one thing to experience a slow in business becau se of a national historic downturn, it is quite another when an international company is allowed to build in our community and steal business from those of us that have given our lives to create a beautiful downtown environment. Throughout our country, downtowns are being decimated by these giant corporations trying to create their own version of "downtown". We need to preserve and honor the integrity of our downtown, the town of Los Gatos .. the heart and soul of our community. I urge you to please vote NO and save our downtown! 40 ~. Santa Cruz A'..:. Sui te C Los (iatos. Ca. 95 030 ! -lO X) 395-544 5 ~ll1rc !40X) 4J~-6024 cell ~ ~ CHtRl P.(]Sf CiEl fCillH W'-' \\'.c h(-rieroscco llcction.com From: Kyra Kazantzis [I!Jai_l!nj_< vTa K({i.Ja" fn_!!n datinn .or g ] Sent: Tue sday, August 09, 2016 4 :33 PM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marc ia Jense n; Steven Leonardis ; Rob Rennie Cc: Joe l Paul son; Town Manager; Attorney Subject: Comment letter regarding North Forty Phase 1 Applicatio n August 9 , 2016 Los Gatos Town Council 110 E. Main Street Lo s Gatos, CA 95030 Sent via email Dear Mayo r Specter, Vice-Mayor Sayoc, and Town Council Memb e rs Jen sen, Leonardis, and Rennie: RE: August 9 , 2016: Town Council Meeting on North 40 Phase 1 Application Through our five programs, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, a non-profit legal services organization, serves a wide range of Silicon Valley residents , including people living with physical and mental disabilities, low-income families, and young adults aging out of the foster care system. Many of our clients are homeless, have been homel ess, or are at risk of becoming homeless due to housing instability. We see daily the effects of the housing crisis in our clients' lives and are acutely aware of the need for more affordable housing options in our community. The well-known shortfall of affordable and even market-rate h ou sing is one of the primary drivers of the housing affordability crisis. Accordingly, we support efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing units and housing units in general , especially in a high opportunity area like Los Gatos. I regret that I am unable to attend the Town Council meeting to express these co mments. However, I write to strongly urge the Town Council to grant approval to the North Forty Phase l (Project) application. The Project will create an estimated 320 new homes, including 50 affordable homes for seniors, that will serve to partially address Los Gatos' severe housing needs. All California communities need to take action to meet the regional housing needs. In the previous Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle (2007 to 20 14), the Town permitted a total of228 units, representing 41 % of its share of housing. The North 40 Project--the culmination of many years of planning, countless opportunities to seek input, and careful review and thoughtful feedback from many stakeholders-will enable the Town to meet 43 % (270 homes out of 619 homes required) of its share of housing growth for the current RH N A cycle (20 15 to 2022). While this action will enable the Town to meet its goals for market-rate housing, the 50 senior units represent only a small percentage of the affordable homes needed, so more work must be invested to plan for and develop new homes for lower-and moderate-income families who work and live in our community. We also write to express concern about the extensive public and official comments expressed during hearings on the North Forth Specific Plan that indicated an intention to discourage families with children from res idin g in the North Forty development. W e tru st that you are aware that fed er a l and state fair hou si ng laws forbid l oca l governments from taking actions tha t wo uld di scriminate aga in st families with children. We encourage yo u no t to make any d ecisions about the North Forty that are intended to or have the effect of making North Forty hous in g unavailable to families with children. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me with any questions that you might have about these comments. Sincerely, Kyra Kazantzis I Directing Attorney Fair Housing Law ProJect I Public Interest La"" Firm kyrak@la wfo undati on.o rg I p 408 .280.2401 I f 408.293.0106 ~ Law Fou ndatto n o; Sl t..co l\; Vi\Lll Advancing .Ju~tkc in S ilicon Valle) 152 North T hird Stree t, 3'd Floo r San Jo se , Califo rni a 95 11 2 www.lawfounda ti o n .org I' 1 I \ t -I -II II( I ,, • l..'l 1.. .. 1-~·... • • l tt ··• II. From: Sent: To: Subject: Phil Hill <philonedtech@gmail.com > Tuesday, August 09, 2016 5:03 PM North40 Comment North 40 -We do not need this size development in Los Gatos As a citizen, I am opposed to the North 40 plans. The town cannot handle the traffic and additional people. We do not need a bunch of duplicate retail space when Saratoga (near Campbell) and Oakridge and Valley Faire are so close by. Please preserve thi s community without adding this mi staken plan. 1 From: !.!OIJnan.cl :.n i~L.;_l(:,gmail.com [mailto:£_!mnaJ).dav id.c.u,,gmail.co m] On Behalf Of David Gom1an Sent: Tuesday, August 09,2016 5:11PM To: Council Cc: Mami Moseley Subject: Please deny North 40 A&S and VTM applications. Objective s upporting points hi ghlighted below. Town Council Members, We are writing this le tter to ask that you support the Planning Cornn1ission recommendatio n to adopt a resolution denying th e Architecture and Site a nd Vesting T e ntative Map applications for the North 40. We understand that thi s is both an emotional topic for residents as well as a legal process in which there are needs to be met and constraints to work within. As such, we offer the following pers pective a s residents of North Lo s Gatos living in the recent construction zone of significant deve lopments. We also offer objective points per the North 40 Specific Pla n which support a decis ion to deny the application. The property is pri vat e and owners should be a ll owed to develop their property within reason. However, operating on their b ehalf, developers have attempted to bully our town with impl ied threat s of State non- compliance if th e ir proposal s are rejected as well as overt threats to sue. Let them. The courts aren 't where they or the family are go ing to gain s upport or profit. The project will not stop, no r should it given the ab ilit y to m eet some long tenn town need s with thi s development. We only ask that yo u prevent the side of town we call home from becoming the des ignated development zone with phases 2 & 3 undefined and still to come. P lease preserve the quality of life that attracted us to Lo s Gatos. W e purchased our home in 201 1 and have witnessed the Netflix campus go through simila r developer- driven d e bate and exceptions to inc rease its footprint, hei g ht and u ser density. Now the North 40 application proposes to add another dense use of space in the same travel corridor. Lark Ave ha s phys ical limitations; Hwy 17 a nd Lark a re known traffic bottlenecks (as seen every cornn1ute and with recent beac h traffic actions). When we drive to or from our end of Los Gatos we used to see trees a nd tree b e lts. Now we see concrete , g la ss-sid e d office buildings and the threat represe nted by o ra nge netting d raped a long 17. As om inou s as that is, we 're reminded of the story pole s rai sed for th e initial Nettli x phase re presenting 2 buildings at the back of the lot. Once a ll4 buildings were approved with only those story poles, they were quickly built and the story po les for the 2 front buildings overlooking W inchester were then rai sed. Was seein g the phase 1 story poles representati ve of the impact or s ho uld res ide nts ha ve seen a ll 4 ? Are Lark District story poles a lo ne s uffi c ient for resi dents to ga uge the total North 4 0 impact , o r should we see the entire North 40 plan? Some of you j o ined Town Council on the b ack end of that process and have been dea ling with d evelo pment fallout s ince. We ask that you look forward and manage our growth responsibly by not g iv in g in to the press ure to approve as-is and instead dri ve for a total plan levera gi ng th e whole North 40 and di spersing the hou s ing density responsibly throu ghout the town rather than a ll o n the 50% of the North 40 s itting figuratively in our schools and phys icall y on th e comer of Lo s Gatos Blvd. & Lark. Thank you for your service on th e Council, David & Evelyn Gorman 1476 1 GolfLinks Drive P o int s from the N<'![J h 40 Sp..::ci fie Pl an s uppo rting re jection of the application: 2.7.3b (Residential Units): "There shall be a max imum of270 residential units. This is a maximum, not a goal, and in cludes the affordable ho using units required a nd th e existing units. " • rhe maxi mum became t h~ goal o f the developers. The resulta nt 320 res idential un ih rcf'crcnced in the :-:;wffrc port for 8 4116 Council exceeds t he ma'< a l lowed in t he -;pecific plan. /\b ~l .tlwugh StalTnotc~ the density bonus docs not counttcw:ard th e 270 m;1x. the Sp~eific Pl an doc:-. -.tate thm th e 270 is inclu~i\c of'ba ~c and bonus. Council is wit hin rights to intcrrrct the 270 a s t h<..t number rninu~ bonus h cing the real density max imum. 4.1.c2 (Traffic): "Minimize traffic impa cts through site design, multim odal opportunities, land uses, the intens ity of d evelopm ent, access, and street and intersection improve ments. " • All units arc includcd in Pha-;c I develo pment so t he Lark Di~trict bear~ the entire re;.;idcnti:d burden. Thi~ bu rden will b e fe lt by th e Lark entrance and th~rc is nom<H·e room to add roads. T raflic l ight '\ d o not remove cars or widen a bridge. 6.2 (Phasing): "Critical roadway improvem ents necessary to provide access into th e Specific Plan A r ea will be co nstructed in each phase of development. " • Once Phase 1 rcce i \'CS the entire North 40 rcsid~nt i al unit burden a nd existing road\Yays arc packed heyond capacity, \\'hat mitigation will be possible in th e o t her 2 di ~t r ict phases'? Do cs Ph a~~ I become the beginn ing a nd end of the development . or docs it become a precedent a lim\ ing fwt her pha-;e deve lo pment '·by ri g ht .. '1 • S ince the total North 4() max o f 270 unit s is bein g met (exceeded) by th e current pro posal the total nu mber ()f unit s can be s p read across nil 3 di s t ricts. Instead, th e developer chooses to put th em a l l in the Los Gato.;; sc hool d is trict (pha s~ 1 Lark Di s tr ic t ) to make th~m most a tt rac ti' ~ ;m d mos t \aluablc. -,h is i ~ in contrast to ih c t0\\11 ne ed th e develop er says is hcing targeted to p rm ide housing fqr young profess io n als and seniors "·ho don 't need those schools. Fu rther po ints s upported by Staffs notes o n the 8/4 /1 6 Town Coun c il minutes: 1. Applicant is requesting an exception to the requirement to di s tribute B e low Market Price (BMP) units thro ug hout the d evelo pme nt. Ins tead , they propose to pack them into a s ing le building , h ave des i gned them as smaller than m a rket rate units , are reques ting a heig ht exception for tha t building, a nd are calling them a ll "senior" hou s in g. a. T he sta ndard max heigh t is 35 feet. They get t o go to 45 feet for mixe d-incom e ho u s ing. Instead , they propose to gam e th e system by p acking seni o r s into a si ngle building a nd reques t a n exception to make it 53 feet. b. Are seniors selling their Los Gatos homes a nd wanting t o stay in t own really looki ng for below-size apartments or i s thi s an excuse to offer bigger ho mes for fa milies througho ut the development and segregate low income residents to a single apartment building? 2. The Town Council certified a Program EIR for the North 40 Spec ifi c Plan o n January 20, 20 15 (Resolution 20 15-002) a. C onditions have changed so Council can make an objective conclusion that further analysis is necessary. The tra ffic impac ts of the 4 Nettlix buildings and add iti on of a n ew tenant in former Netfli x space (Roku) ar e now u sing the roads, creating the new condition that did not exist in January 20 15 . 3. Applicant has r equested repeated Story Pol e exceptions and has worked to minimize the time they a r e up. T hi s is a s ign that they a re aware of how much the real "look a nd feel " deviates fro m th e norm they will be compared to. 4 . Rental units are part of the pro posal. Is the Los Gatos pla n calling fo r m ore re nt a l units? From: E.J . Fournier [mailto:cjfourni er8 @ gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 5:57PM To: Council Subject: North 40 Hi, I am a resident of Los Gatos and am writing to express my disapproval of the North 40 project as I understand it to be currently proposed. As I understand the current proposal , the North 40 development will cau se at least three s ignificant probl ems: ( 1) Make traffic much worse in the area of Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard , an area that is already a high traffic zone: (2) Impact views and the overall look of the North 40 area in a way that is not in keeping with the character of Los Gatos ; and (3) Negatively impact the businesses in downtown Los Gatos, which are an essential part of the character and quality of live in the town. I would like to request that the Council act as necessary to stop or s ignificantly limit the development of the North 40 area. Thank you . I 1. ft'll'"lliLT 1 , Jni n,n • \\U1Uc I ,. < 1 'l C \ (J"O~U From: Sent: To: Subject: To Los Gatos Town Council Alice Hansen <erichansenll@comcast.net> Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:53 AM North40 Comment Town Council Back 40 Back 40 Current plan will KILL DOWNTOWN AND IMPACT SCHOOLS. (This has happened in other jurisdictions-see Redwood City?) Learn from others and Please think carefully before approving this! Some planning commissioners fear lawsuits; however we live in a litigious world and can't live in fear. Our question is : Does this Los Gatos Town Council want to be remembered as the one that killed downtown? We urge you to think carefully before approving this. Thank you, Eric A Hansen MD Alice H Hansen 17611 Foster RD Los Gatos, CA 95030 408 -35 4-1831 Sent from my iPhone 1 Sylvie Roussel From: Sent: To: Subject: Council Members, John Ei chinger <John@ Ei chinge r.co m > Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11 :05 AM North40 Comment "Affordability" of the proposed North 40 Townhouses -NOT!!! Thank you for the opportunity to speak la st night, and thank you for your service to our great town. I would like to offer the f o llowing as a clarification of the numbers that I quoted in my comments and to repeat my sta tement that the proposed project will NOT be offering "affordable" housing . The developer has stated that the units they are proposing will be offered for sale in price range s from $900,000 to $1,500,000 . Following are the financial requirements to purcha se homes in tho se price ranges: $900,000 purchase price 20% down payment = $180,000 Loan prin cipal and interest at 3.75% = $3,334.43 per month Taxes (at 1.25% of purchase price): $1 1,250 annually $937.50 per month Insurance (estimate): $100 per month HOA fees (estim ate ): $200 per month Total PITI = $4,571.93 In order to obtain this jumbo loan with a 43 % DTI (debt to in come ratio mandated to lenders by the CFPB (Con sumer Fin ance Protection Burea u)) and assuming the borrower(s) ha s NO OTHER Monthly obligations, the borrower(s) w ou ld nee d a monthly income of $10,700 whi ch equates to an annual in come o f $128,000. If we were to ass ume a typical $300 monthly car payment and about $200 monthly credit ca rd debt the borrower(s) would need a monthly in co me of $11,800 which eq uates to an annual income of $141,600 $1,500,000 purchase price 20% down payment = $300,000 Loan prin cipal and interes t at 3.75% = $5,55 7.39 per month Taxes (at 1.25% of purcha se price): $18,750 annually $1,562 .50 per month Insuran ce (estimate): $100 per month HOA fees (e st imate): $200 per month Total PITI = $7,419.89 In order to obtain this jumbo loan w ith a 43% DTI (debt to income ratio mandated to lend er s by the CFPB (Consumer Finance Protection Bure au)) and assuming the borrower(s) ha s NO OTHER Monthly obligations, the borrower(s) would need a monthly in co m e of $17 ,300 which equates to an annual income of $207,600. If we w e re to ass um e a typical $3 00 monthly car paym ent and about $200 monthly credit card debt the borrower(s) would need a monthly income of $18,500 which equates to an annual in co m e of $222,000 1 As I stated last night, this is NOT affordable housing. If the town/developer is thinking that this project will satisfy any California mandated requirement for affordable housing, then I feel that it will significantly fall short of any standard necessary. Some links for Staff to report on: ht t p:/fwww.hcd.ca.gov/housing-po licy -development /hous i ng-resource-center/reports /st ate /incn ote .ht ml http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy -development/housing-resource-center/reports/state/inc 2 k16.pdf http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housi ng-resource -c enter/plan/he/ca plan law affd h sg0506.pdf co ... ty l tiCOtM N um !ler of P..,..ons "' HOIU.oe hold C*g<>ry 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 s S..tlfa Clot <~ Co u"l i' (.,.,, .. t·-t, (Qt.• ZJ.!<(J 2 "~"'0 3 01 ~1 :.Jsc-o 11;200 18'.0' :!';~1 'U t50 I -1-P<<~o)t"> 'IJ-1 (I l ''-I (r.;•'u: 3!' lrc:J d~f;S/'1 sn ~;.o S58CQ 60300 ~7 5' 'j'l]l)) i37~0 rn~s \f~:<1Jar l lrc~e·,.,e -·t'-I "'•CCf1!t) 5!i-tCIQ &7 9 :0 }1)1,00 8~9 0C 9 11>50 S3 1 S. !':'SlStJ 111050 '--$107.100 Median l r.:ome J4'1 cO a~r o '3(.400 107100 ll:.t.:.O 1:4 1 :..::: :!:!00 1 4 11~0 MoC)o-r :st e 1:-co ;-.e .!1;,>9c.f.l 1 028~'0 11',1;:1.) 118.SUO 13&.~00 149 Ct'i: ::SO)~ l u9WO As I stated last night, despite whatever deal the developer has made with LGUSD, there is NO other land in Los Gatos available for a suitable school, and busing children to Lexington from the North 40 is somewhat unconscionable. This development should have a mandatory set-aside of 6 acres for a future school as Roy Moses suggested in his comments. I missed saying last night that it is a huge oversight to approve any "Phase 1" without first seeing what the developer will propose for "Phase 2". These 40 acres should be considered as a whole, not piecemealed which will only help the developer to maximize profits at the expense of the town. As I have stated before, a boxer needs to not only analyze the left jab coming at him, but needs to also be defensively aware of the right hook that is on its way. Let's have the town see the full plans, not only half of it. We all would like to see what is behind the curtain. The Specific Plan was developed for the whole site, not phases. This project, as proposed, will add to the profitability of a multi-national corporation, pad the pocket of the 66th riche st man on the planet, and negatively impact our town forever. While the owners of the property certainly have the right to develop it, they cannot be allowed to negatively impact all the citizens in Los Gatos. Plea se let me know if I can be of any assistance to answer any questions. Thank you again for your serv ice! John John Eich inger, CEO 1 Br oker Victoria Capital Mortgage Company Victoria Properties 455 Los Gatos, Blvd ., Su ite 100 Lo s Gatos, CA 95032 408 -391 -6550 1wtw Vt<tQr.!_aCap:taiMo rtQ.il.!l.e..cn m BRE : 01360756 NMLS : 364 036 fe ~~l '" }J' ~~ ._, .I ' J.,. ~ ~ V6JV16 VI(TOI'U A <"..oA I"'TAL}IIORTGAGC co. 2 From: Brianna Chenevey [ma ilto:bri a nna.chenevc v(r.u .!.mail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 10,2016 11:56 AM To: Planning Subject: North 40 Development Dear Planning Commission, I have been a resident of Los Gatos for 30 years. I went to Van Meter Elementary School , Fisher Middle School, and Los Gatos High School. 1 have attended the meetings regarding the North 40 development and am e-mailing you to ask that you deny the current application. Based on the information shared at the meetings, the drawings for the Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style buildings that have nothing in common with the look and feel of Los Gatos. I, as well as 90% of the community, disagree with the look and layout of the propo sed development. Furthermore, I teach in the Cambrian School District and use Los Gatos Blvd. and Bascom Avenue on a daily basis to get to work. The proposed development would increase the already heavy traffic and congestion. The schools, streets, and other services would be adversely affected. Lastly, the specfic plan states that the development should "address the towns unmet needs", however, only 49 very low income senior apartments are provided. Also, the developer includes all 320 units in the first 20 of the 44 acres. All of these homes would be within the Los Gatos School District, and based on the information provided at the meeting last night, purchasing a home would require, on average, a $160,000 salary. The proposal does not fulfill the necessary requirements that the town has mandated through its specific plan. Pleas e provide Los Gatos with what the community wants and needs . Thank you, Brianna Chenevey From: Kent Goheen [mai l to:kc nt.go heen(ii:uma il.com ] Sent: Wednesday, August 10 ,2016 3:47PM To: BSpector; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardi s Cc: Joel Paulson Subject: Deceptive N40 Story Poles As a res ult of last nights town council meeting, I drove by the N40 site to observe the questionable story poles. As reported, the tallest poles are very difficult to see as they are fitted with very narrow white tape. They're almost completely invisible from many perspectives. For the town management, the optics of this substitution from the required orange netting is terrible-one can easily conclude that this variance was allowed to assist the developer in minimiz ing the visual impact of the proposed buildings. I hope this is not the case and our elected town officials are truly representing the residents with fairness , balance and objectiv ity. I support the request made at the meeting to immediately replace the deceptive white tape with orange netting a s required so the town residents can actually see the impact of the project. They should be left in place until a decision is made as to how to correctly utilize this property. Please advise, Kent Goheen l 7200 Phillips Ave Los Gatos To: Town Council RECEIVED From: Angelia M. Doerner SaveOu rHood@ya hoo .com !\UG 1 0 2016 Date: August 10, 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANN!~JS Dl'/lSlON I would like to offer my interpretation on the following questions and/or comments made by Council in connection with my presentation at the 080916 Public Hearing on the North 40. Mr. Rennie inquired regarding the height of the Grosvenor development portrayed on my last slide. • I am providing this link to the Grosvenor website concerning this development-I think you will appreciate reading the entire "posting". o http :1/www .grosvenor.com/news-views- research/news/2015/grosvenor%20americas%20receives%20unanimou s%20approval%20for/ • Not having access to plans, nor time to squander, to determine the precise calculations of what the units/acreage would be on the Edgemont Village Canada project, I used the following general computation . Regardless of the precision of this calculation, the Applicant is only allowed under the density bonus law (assuming they meet the affordable housing percentages set forth in such law) a total of 27 units/acre (20 density allowed + 35% bonus). Else, they are only allowed 20 "at- market" price units/acre . o The project yields 80 one and two -story townhomes and flats above retail on 2.1 acres. The residential units are on the second, third and "partial" fourth floors. Therefore, 80 units/acre /2 .5 floors= 32 units/floor. • Second Story= 32 units • Third Story= 32 units • Fourth "partial" story= 16 units • Consideration should also be given to the fact that the Grosvenor write-up regarding the project states that "Residents of the development will also benefit from an expansive landscaped courtyard which will include a variety of trees, a rock garden and an indoor-outdoor amenity space." Given Grosvenor's propensity to maximize utilization of every possible square foot of lot space, it is entirely conceivable that the partial fourth story is the referred-to "indoor-outdoor amenity space". • With that in mind, given the inclement conditions in Canada, I could imagine a wondrous rooftop garden with large sliding glass panels between the indoor and outdoor spaces-or better yet-a retractable roof like that made for many sunrooms or garden conservatories allowing year-round enjoyment to share with fellow residents, families and friends. • It couldn't be any more different than the rooftop amenities that will be provided to our lowest- income Seniors residing over the Market Hall-with no protection from scorching sun, thundering rain, and high-volume winds . Remember, those winds will be the same winds that precluded the Applicant from erecting story poles over 40' with the orange netting-requiring use of the small, almost transparent flags-due to the potential public health or safety problems should they topple over. What protection is afforded on the Market Hall rooftop that will preclude our aging, weight-losing (too poor to afford the food downstairs), frail and with potential balance and mobility issues from toppling over the edge? From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhooJ(u,.vahoo.com ] Sent: Thursday, August 11 ,2016 5:34AM To: Council ; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen ; Steven Leonardis ; Rob Rennie Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Planning Subject: Public Comment to Be Included in 081116 Desk Item -Replacement Units Please accept these attachments for inclusion in the Desk Item in connection with the 081116 Council meeting on the North 40. Thank you. Angelia Doerner Lin' Simply, Laugh Often Date : August 10, 2016 To: Town Council From: Angelia M. Doerner SaveOurHood@yahoo.com I would like to offer my interpretation on the following questions and/or comments made by Council in connection with my presentation at the 080916 Public Hearing on the North 40. Definition of "Low Income Households" I have included the schedule of "HCD 2016 Rent & Income Limits with HCD Occupancy Guidelines " for Santa Clara County in the same email communication as thi s letter. This Sch e dule is for your reference on this and other affordable housing cost m atters in connection with this Plan. These income levels were my reference points in discussions with existing residents. Critical Elements In Applying This Legal "Replacement Requirement" I offer the following comments relating to various questions of Staff regarding Section 6591S(c)(3}. The following di sc ussion follows my progression of thought to determine eligibility for a density bonus. Subparagraph A states: • "An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions under thi s se ction if... ................. , unless the proposed housing development replaces those units, AND either of the following applies: • (i) The proposed hou sing development, inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this paragraph, conta i ns affordable units at the percentages set forth in subdivision (b). • (ii) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager's unit or units, is affordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low income household. • As to eligibility for the density bonus, the condition of either (i} OR (ii} is seco ndary to the condition of the replacement of units. In other words, if there are units meeting the criteria to be replaced by law, units in the development mu st first include those replacement units before further consideration of density eligibility. • For the sake of completing the argument, assuming all units requiring replacement by l aw ARE provided for in the proposed development, in conformance with the definition of suc h replacement units set forth in Subparagraph B, the following would apply. • Sub-subparagraph (ii) would not apply as not ALL units in the propose d developm ent will be in the "affordable " category. Sub-subparagraph (i) woud apply and st ates: "inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this paragraph". o Regarding "inclusive"-the placement of the term "inclusive" can be easily misi nterpreted. I have found legal-oriented guides and/or articles that "includes the replacement units in the "base" on which the percentage of new affordable housing is to applied" in determining the density bonus as set forth in subdivision (b). Thi s is consistent with my comments la st ni ght regarding the intent ofthe law in response to a question from Councilman Leonardi s. o I am basing my position on the Bill Analysis of Assembly 2222 which amended Section 65915 to add the "replacement requirement" and can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab 2201- 2250/ab 2222 cfa 20140506 131240 asm comm.html. According to the author, "Adequate and affordable housing is an issue of stat ewid e concern . Yet, the change made to the density bonus law by 58 1818 had the reverse effect and has resulted in fewer affordable units . Buildings that were built pre-5 8 1818 that are proposed to b e demolished and replaced may now qualify for a density bonus under the new 58 1818 structure. 58 1818 inadvertently created a loophole whereby developers that propose to demolish pre-58 1818 buildings are not required to begin the new project with the same number of affordable units. As a result, a new project may result in l ess affordable units than previously existed on the parcel. This bill addresses the loophole created by SB 1818 and ensures that affordable units are preserved when a development proposes to demolish a site and the new proposal is to replace the outdated structure with a new residential structure by ensuring that the project begins with the same number of affordable units. Additionally, this bill increases the classification of affordability from 30 years to 55 years. This change is consis tent with other s tate and local programs and ensures that affordable units remain affordable. AB 2222 will preserve and promote the supply of affordable units for years to come." • Argument s in support-None on file. • Argument s in opposition-None on file. • Double -referral -Thi s bill was heard by the Hou sing Community Development Committee on April 30, 2014, and passed with a 7 -0 vote . o Therefore, in my opinion, the 19 units existing on the subject property must be replaced and included (to the extent they meet the low-income household criteria) in the ba se on which the number of the new affordable housing units is applied to determine the perce ntage s se t forth in subdivi sion (b). o In the Current Plan, applying the percentage set forth in (b)(1)(B) of 5% for very low-income households on a maximum base (a ss uming 100% of the 19 existing units meets the low-income household criteria) of 256 (237 + 19) would require 13 VLI units, which the Plan surpasses at 30 (49 VLI units less the 19 "Replacement Units") -indicating the Applicant may still be eligible for the Den sity Bonus. However, that decision is conditional upon meeting the "Replacement Requirement" in the first place . • Referring to the intent of the law which i s to "e nsure that the project begins with the same number of affordable units ... " you mu st: o Determine, as of the Application Filing Dat e, how many of the existing, occupied (14) units meet the criteria of low-income hous ehold s, therefore requiring replacement, and at which levels of affordability. o Usi ng the same proportion of low-income households (and affordability catego ri es) determined fo r the occupi ed units, determine how many of the vacant (5) or demolished (O) units need to be replaced. • From a practicality standpoint, and before initiating any inve stigative process to determine the total number of required replacement units (which I believe exist), consideration sh ould first be given to whether ANY of the 49 proposed affordable units satisfy the criteria to be considered "Replacement Units". If not, such investigative procedures would be moot, as the Application does not comply with the law and, therefore, is ineligible for the density bonus and should be denied . • Section 65915{c}(3}(B) states "replace" shall mean ... equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied bv, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy. Condition to be Met Existing Units Meets Condition? Size Majority 750-850 SqFt; NO-Only One Bedroom; Est High of 1,140 SqFt apprx 550 SqFt --------------------0 R -------------------- Type : Detached/ Attached Detached Si ngle-Family NO-But Could be Achieved by Cottage Clusters Rental/For Sale Rentals YES ------------------AN 0 ------------------- Made Available To ..... Persons and Families NO-Seniors Only As shown above, the Application does not comply with the law and, therefore, is ineligible for the density bonus and should be denied. Income Levels of Current Occupants As a preface to my comments, everyone I talked with had no complaints about their relationships with their lessors. However, they are burdened by the everyday uncertainty of when they will be required to relocate and where they are to go. Most are on a month-to-month arrangement . The occupancy tenure of those with which I spoke directly ranges from 7 months to over 30 years . Only two of the six currently have an option available to them. The others, including families, have been searching for alternative housing at affordable levels-primarily in the areas of Los Banos , Morgan Hill, Gilroy, etc.,-without success. This information does not pertain directly to the matter at hand . However, I am attempting to convey the sensitivity in disclosing information that may create additional unwelcome anxiety or further disrupt their untenable residency status . My comments last night were intended to protect their privacy-as to identity as well as personal income levels. But, I feel confident that such will be shared with "whoever" if ensured of no reprisals in connection with their disclosures. The people who shared income information with me have incomes ranging from 40% to 80% AMI of the 2016 Santa Clara County Income Limits . There is one individual whose story I feel free to share with you-his name was Pete. Pete owned and lived at 16425 Bennett Way for over 60 years . In August 2011, at the age of 95-with failing health, living solely on social security (apprx $1,200/month; 18% sec AMI), and no savings for his imminent burial costs-he sold his property to Grosvenor for $950,000. Credit is given to Grosvenor as they did not displace him -rather (as the story goes) they allowed him to stay rent- free for a good period of time . Also (as the story goes) he lived longer than expected , so ended up having to pay rent ©. He passed away at the age of 100 in February 2016. At the date of the Application, 16425 Bennett Way was vacant. I wish he had stayed around 5 more weeks, so that his income level would be considered in the calculations when applying the provisions of this legal Replacement Requirement. I have obtained this information from his son who resides in Santa Cruz-he said I could share his contact information with you at your request . Efficiency 1BR . $89,950 $102,800 .. $82,445 $94,270 . $74,950 $85,700 . $59,400 $67,900 ... $46,920 $53,580 ... $43,010 $49,115 . $39,100 $44,650 ... $35,190 $40,185 ... $31,280 $35,720 ... $27,370 $31,255 . $23,450 $26,800 ... $19,550 $22,325 ... $15,640 $17,860 ... $1 1,730 $13,395 1 2 Santa Clara County Income and R e nt Limits Based on State HCD Hold Harm less Limits City o f San Jose Housing Department 2016 (rev 6/17/16) I HCD Rent & Income Lfmits with HCD Occupancy Guidelines I HCD Income Limits %of AMI Rent & 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR 7BR Income L evel Efficiency $115,650 $128,500 $138,800 $149 050 $159 350 $169,600 120% $2 ,2 49 $106,040 $117,810 $127,215 $136,675 $146,080 $155,485 110% $2 ,0 61 $96 ,400 $107,100 $115,650 $124,250 $132 800 $141 ,350 100% $1,874 $76,400 $84,900 $91 ,650 $98,450 $105,250 $112,050 80% $1,485 $60,300 $66,960 $72,360 $77,700 $83,0 40 $88,440 60% $1,173 $55,275 $61,380 $66,330 $71,225 $76,120 $81,070 55% $1 ,075 $50,250 $55,800 $60,300 $64,750 $69,200 $73,700 50% $978 $45,225 $50.220 $54,270 $58,275 $62,280 $66,330 45% $880 $40,200 $44,640 $48,240 $51,800 $55,360 $58,960 40% $782 $35,175 $39,060 $42,210 $45,325 $48,440 $51 ,590 35% $684 $30150 $33 500 $36 200 $38 900 $41 550 $44 250 30% $586 $25,125 $27,900 $30,150 $32,3 75 $34,600 $36,850 25% $489 $20,100 $22,320 $24,120 $25,900 $27,6 80 $29 ,480 20% $391 $15,075 $16,740 $18,090 $19,425 $20,760 $22,110 15% $293 HCD Occupencv Guideline -Persons JH!r Unit 3 4 5 6 r 8 ------------ §J • Income limits provided by HCO =In come Li mits Imputed from 100% AMI i ncomes • Income Limits imputed from 50% AMI incomes I HCD Rent & Income Limits with TCAC Occupancy Guidelines .... I HCD Rent Limits 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR $2,570 $2,891 $3,213 $3,470 $2,357 $2,651 $2,945 $3,180 $2,1 43 $2,410 $2,678 $2,891 $1,698 $1,910 $2,1 23 $2,291 $1,340 $1 ,508 $1,674 $1,809 $1,228 $1,382 $1,535 $1,658 $1,116 $1 256 $1,395 $1 ,508 $1,005 $1,131 $1,256 $1 ,357 $893 $1,005 $1 ,116 $1 ,206 $781 $879 $977 $1,055 $670 $754 $838 $905 $558 $628 $698 $754 $447 $503 $558 $603 $335 $377 $419 $452 HCD Income Limits % of AMI Rent & HCD Rent Limits with TCAC Occupancy Guidelines-Income Level Efficiency 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR 7BR . $89 ,950 $96,375 $115,650 $133,650 $149 050 $164,475 $179,900 $195 325 120% .. $82 ,445 $88,358 $106,040 $122,513 $136,675 $1 50,788 $164,900 $179,050 110% . $74,950 $80,325 $96,400 $111,375 $124 250 $137,100 $149,950 $162,800 100% . $59 ,400 $63,650 $76,400 $88,275 $98,450 $108,650 $118850 $129 050 80% ... $46,920 $50,250 $60,300 $69,660 $77,700 $85,725 $93,750 $101,775 60% ... $43,010 $46,063 $55,275 $63,855 $71 ,225 $78,563 $85,900 $93,275 55% . $39,100 $41 ,875 $50,250 $58.050 $64,750 $71,425 $78,100 $84,800 50% ... $35,190 $37,688 $45,225 $52.245 $58,275 $64,2 88 $70,300 $76,325 4 5% ... $31,280 $33,500 $40,200 $46 ,440 $51 ,800 $57,150 $62,500 $67,850 40% ... $27 ,370 $29,313 $35,175 $40,635 $45,325 $49,988 $54.650 $59,350 35% . $23,450 $25,125 $30.150 $34,850 $38,900 $42,900 $46,900 $50,925 30% ... $19,550 $20,938 $25,125 $29,025 $32,375 $35,713 $39,050 $42,400 25% ... $15,640 $16,750 $20,100 $23.220 $25,900 $28,575 $31,250 $33,925 20% ... $11,730 $12,563 $15,075 $17,415 $19,425 $21,438 $23,45 0 $25,450 15% T Ac;/MT:;P occupancv Guideline -Persons par Unit 1 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 ~•In come limits provided by HCO • Income Limits imputed from 100% AMI incomes • Income Limits Imputed from 50% A MI in comes 2015 State income/Rent Limits Using Federal Program (TCAC) occupancy guidelines. Own ers may make an election to use the TCAC occupancy guidelines for an entire property. This is a one time election and may not later be reversed. Federal TCAC occupancy guidelines use 1.5 persons per bedroom whereas HCO occupancy guidelines assume 1 person plus 1 person per bedroom. Efficiency 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR $2,249 $2,409 $2,891 $3,341 $3,726 $2,061 $2,209 $2,651 $3,063 $3 417 $1 874 $2,008 $2,410 $2,784 $3,106 $1,485 $1 ,591 $1,910 $2,207 $2 461 $1 ,173 $1 ,256 $1 ,508 $1 ,7 42 $1,943 $1,075 $1,152 $1 ,382 $1 ,596 $1 ,781 $978 $1,047 $1 ,256 $1,451 $1 ,619 $880 $942 $1,131 $1,306 $1,457 $782 $838 $1 ,005 $1,161 $1,295 $684 $733 $879 $1 ,016 $1 ,133 $586 $628 $754 $871 $973 $489 $523 $628 $726 $809 $391 $419 $503 $581 $648 $293 $314 $377 $435 $486 From: Angelia Doerner [m a ilto:saveo urhooJ (~ya hoo.com ] Sent: Thursday, August 11 ,2016 5:47AM To: Council ; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardi s; Rob Rennie Cc: Laurel Prevetti ; Planning Subject: Unb elievable .... I cannot believe it ..... After the umpteen time s I have looked at the March I 0 , 2016 letter from Goldfarb , et al , concerning requested waivers and the section regarding their Proposed BMP Plan, please look at the page including their calculation of the Required BMP (comparing "three separate projects" to "one project"). Did anyone ever check their calculations? What do yo u get if yo u multiply 237 by 20%? And to think, they were asking for "future credit" b y pro viding more than the required number. ...... . Angelia Doerner Live Si mply, La ugh Often From: Leonard Pacheco [ma i lto:l eo pac95030 (l"u.~mai l.co m] Sent: Thursday, August 11,2016 9:28AM To: Cc: Joel Paulson Subject: N40 Hi Marcia, Following are my suggestions for N40 architecture: As the development of the North 40 moves toward final chapters, I strongly suggest that you raise the issue with the developer, of modifications to the proposed architectural design from potentially cold and unfriendly "urbanesque" steel and glass boxes to a collection of architecture that respects the past, present and future of the Yuki property. These remarks are primarily focused on the central retail/commercial/senior housing complex and are not intended to imply a total project redesign. This, by no means, implies rejecting contemporary design, but rather, incorporating contemporary design into the development that will bring the farm into the 21st century. How is this done? By de signing and detailing buildings that use elemental materials that weather over time, buildings that re spect the historic heritage of the site, and buildings that blend with adjacent buildings. I don't think this is at odds with the "look and feel " of Los Gatos. Thanks, Len From: Edward Morimoto [mailto:csm(d morimotoproperties.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11 ,2016 9 :34AM To: BSpector; Council; Town Manager Cc: Clerk; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson Subject: Item for Town Council Special Meeting on August 11,2016 Dear Mayor Spector, members of the Los Gatos Town Council & key staff, A link to the attached San Jose Mercury article was posted in NextDoor this morning and I felt it is an important, real-world example that merits consideration as you eva lu ate the N40 application. Although the subject of the article is a Palo Alto resident, I think she is exactly the type of person who would benefit from the type of housing planned in the application and is facing exactly the housing issue I spoke of in my remarks Tuesday. I would ask you to think about her hou sing costs (share of$6200/rent paid with post-tax income) and its implications for their house- purchas ing capacity with its tax advantages (easily $5000+/mo for mortgage/taxes/insurance given tax-deductibility) versus the income/cost information discussed at the Tuesday hearing. Wouldn't we want someone like her and her husband to be able to take their first step into home- ownership here with the potential to upgrade to our traditional neighborhoods when their yet-to- be-born children are big enough to make a 2BR condo on the N40 a little too cozy? Wouldn 't we prefer that over having hers & her husband 's experience with Los Gatos limited to adding to traffic e very morning & evening as they commute to their Silicon Valley jobs via Highway 17? I respectfully ask this n ote and the attached article be included as a Desk Item for this evening 's hearing and to take this as a cautionary tale of the consequences of failing to broaden our view of housing and being open to a current idea of the "look & feel of Los Gatos." Regards , Edward Morimoto 460 Monterey Ave. Member of the Yuki Family I of 2 http://www .mercu ryne ws .corn/portlet/artic le/htm I/ fragment s / pri ... Palo Alto planning commissi o n e r quits over high h ousing cost By Richard Scheinin, rscheinin@bayareanewsgroup.com The Mercury News Posted:Wed Aug 10 13:37 :22 MDT 2016 PALO ALTO --You're a well-paid professional. You work in te ch . You've got it made . Not if you want to buy a house in Silicon Valley. On Wednesday, a planning commissioner here became the very public voice of the region's frustrations over spiraling housing costs when she published her resignation letter to the city of Palo Alto. It said that she and her husband are moving to Santa Cruz because --even with their combined incomes as a tech lawyer and software engineer--they can't afford to live in this upscale city. After five years of "trying to make it work in Palo Alto, my hu sband and I cannot see a way to stay in Palo Alto and raise a family here," Planning and Transportation Commissioner Kate Downing wrote in her public resignation letter. The letter makes personal what the numbers show: That rising rents and home prices of recent years have put the region beyond the reach of many, even some at the top of the heap --including in the lucrative tech industry that fuels the rush for housing. The average rent in Palo Alto was $3,463 in the second quarter of 2016, accordi ng to a report last month from Novato-based ReaiFacts . In June, the median price of a single-fami ly home was $1 .2 million in San Mateo County and $982,500 in Santa Clara County, according to the Corelogic real estate inform ation service . Downing , 31 , has a full-time job as senior corporate counsel to a tech company in Santa Clara . In an interview, she explained that her letter "is not supposed to be a sad story about me. I'm going to land on my feet. I'm extraordinarily lu cky and privileged. I'm going to be fine ." Rather, she characterized the letter as a warning call about economic trends and failed policies that are hurting Palo Alto and the region . "It's clear," sh e wrote, "that if professionals like me cannot raise a family here, then all of our teachers , first responders and service workers are in dire straits." Downing and her engineer husband, Steve Downing, 33, share a 2,300-sq uare-foot, four-bedroom hou se in Palo Alto's Ven tura neighborhood with another couple . The monthly rent is $6,200. "That's actually pretty cheap for here," she said in the interview. "We probably pay on the low end of what they could get for our home." Her letter calculated that if the couple "wanted to buy the same home and share it with children and not roommates , it would cost $2 .7 million , and our monthly payment would be $12,177 a month in mortgage, taxes and insurance. That's $146 ,127 per year --an entire professional's income before taxes . This is unaffordable even for an attorney and a software engineer." The Downings based those numbers on putting 20 percent down : "If you put down less than that, you're not going to get picked," she said . "Everyone knows how competitive it is in Palo Alto, with multiple offers on every house. Some of them are putting down all cash . They're coming in with just gigantic deposits." Downing's letter, a colleague said, is a timely commentary on Palo Alto's changing demographics: "All of us who are in ou r 20s and 30 and 40s --we're used to seeing people leave," said Elaine Uang, a co-founder with Downing of the community group Palo Alto Forward . 811111 6,9:04 AM 2 of 2 http://www .mercu rynews .co m/portlet/a rtic le/h tm 1/frag ments /pri ... "Yo u n ever know wh en yo ur friends are going to go because there aren 't the right housing options here for them to pursue th e next stage of life." A commissioner since Novem ber 2014 , Downing sa id in t he letter that the city has fa iled to move the dia l on hous ing . Stating that her own recommendations to the City Council have gone nowhere, she outlined some of the ways in which the housing s upply might be expanded in order to "make a dent in the jobs-housing imbalance that causes housing prices thro ughout the Bay Area to spiral out of control." She mentioned "small steps like allowing two floors of housing instead of one in mixed-used deve lopments," as well as legali zing duplexes, streaml ining restrictions on granny units and "e nfo rcing minimum-den si ty requirements" so that deve lopers wi ll "build apartments instead of penthouses." Housing should be allowed. she wrote, above s hop s and offices in si ngle-use areas like the Stanford Shopping Center. "Kate does a good job summarizing the challenges we're fa cing as a community," said Counci lman Cory Wolbach. "To say that Palo Alto has been slow to add housing is a very accurate statement. "There's nothin g shocking here," he added , in regard to Downing's letter. "Palo Alto certainly does not encourage high-density, s maller, more reasonably priced units. It's un fortunate but true." Palo Alto "is not the family-oriented commun ity it used to be," Downing sa id . In he r estimation , it's becoming a place for "jet-setting executives and investo rs" who have neither the time or inclin ation to he lp out with block parties or join Neighborhood Watch . "You ng people are not moving here anymore. It u sed to be a place of innova tion , where peop le c reated art and sculpture in their backyards or sta rted companies in their garages . Now, it's more for people who are CEOs and executive vice presidents ." Contact Richard Scheinin at 408-920-5069, read his stories at www.mercurynews.com/richard-scheinin and follow him at Twitter .com/ReaiEstateRag. Close Window Send To Printer 8/111 16,9:04 AM From: Sam Weidman [m ailto:sam weidman (a;s bcgl obal.nct] Sent: Thursday, August 11,2016 9:32AM To: BSpector; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Marice Sayoc; Planning; Town Manager; Attorney Subject: Norht 40 Objective Standard Not Met PLEASE INCLUDE IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS TONIGHT, 8/l l/2016 Dear Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc , Council Members and Town Staff It is my opinion that an Objective Standard of the Site Specific Plan has not been met. In Chapter 3 Design Guidelines Residential, Page 3-24 a., it states "Provide each hou sehold with some fonn of useful private open space, such as a patio, porch, deck , balcony, yard , or shared entry porches or balconies." Aren't the rental units for the seniors considered hous eholds within the North 40? All of the other res idence households have some type of private open space such as a terrace or deck or backyard , including the manager of the senior units. The seniors onl y have a common open space. This objective standard has not been met. Respectfully, Sam and Lucille Weidman 2 15 Carl es ter Drive Lo s Gatos, CA 95032 From: Lee Quintana [mailto:le candpaul (g _.:nrthlink .net] Sent: Thursday, August 11 , 20 16 10:50 AM T o: Joe l Paulson; SaJly Zarnowitz Cc: Laurel Prevetti ; Robert Schu ltz Subject: North 40 Phase 1 Attached please find my comments to the Council NORTH40TREE fN FORM ATION (1) Phase I Information from Staff # of Protected Trees (2) 98(96) 98 (3) Prot ected Trees retained 10 9 (8 oaks + I cedar) Protected Trees removed 88(86) 86 Requi red Replacement Trees 147 -3 14 276 Inform ation from Applicant Required Replacement Trees for protected trees removed -based on canopy size 14 7-314 trees I ) 3 14-24·· box trees, or 2) 14 7 tree s : 80-24·· box trees & 28 -36 .. bo x trees 276 trees 248 -24" box trees and 28-36" box trees Trees Proposed Orchard trees: 350+/- Other trees: TOTAL 1,900+/- 0rchard trees: 500 +/-Other trees: 1.200-1.300 TOTAL I ,700-1,8 00 I. lnfonnation from Staff, Applican t an d Tree Report 2. Fruit/Nut Trees: Fruit and nut trees less than 18 in ches in diameter are not protected trees (Tree Protection Ordinance) 3. App licant ha s indicated that approximate ly 11 00 trees wo uld be removed , of whic h approximately 86 a re protected tree s under th e Town·s Tree Protec tion Ordinance Comments to Council 8/11 /2016 From Lee Quintana Town Council Phase 1 of the North 40 Specific Plan August 11, 2016 Town Council Hearing From Lee Quintana Mayor Spector and Council Members, Please consider the following suggestions and comments . SUGGESTIONS : Freeway buffer trees: • Phase 1 proposes planting Canary Island Pines, which is not a native, along Highway 17. Suggestion : Consider asking the Applicant to substitute a drought tolerant native species. Publicly Accessible Open Space~ • 1 .24 acres of publicly accessible open space is required for Phase 1 . • Phase 1 proposes a considerably higher area of accessible open space. • Condition of Approval 21.f requires a public access easement only for the Community Park. Suggestion : Amend Condition of Approval 21 .f to include all publicly accessible areas proposed by the Applicant that are not currently part of Condition of Approval 21.g. and reference a figure identifying those areas to be included in the Public Access Easement. Amend Condition of Approval 21.g . to include all publicly accessible spaces not included under Condition of Approval 21.f. (i.e. add pedestrian pathways) and reference a figure identifying all of these spaces. Alternatively combine Conditions of Approval 21 .f. and 21.g. into one condition. Add a Condition of Approval prohibiting fences around publicly accessible spaces Add a Condition of Approval requiring sign age to identifying areas available for public use . COMMENTS DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY AUGUST 9, 2016 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING: As I stated during at the Council Meeting on August 9th , there were many statements made during public testimony that I found questionable. I addressed a few during my testimony and I have included a few of the others below. Any responses from staff would be welcome . 1. Underground parking : • Several speakers commented Phase 1 did not take advantage of below grade parking. Comments to Council 8/11 /2016 From Lee Quintana Response : Sheet 3.6 of the Phase 1 plan set includes below grade level of the parking structure that is part of the multi-use building in the Transition District. The below grade level accommodates approximately 128 spaces . 2 . Cut and fill quantities: 2 • A statement was made that the elevation of the site is being raised between 2 to 5 feet which will require large quantities of fill being imported to the site. Response: Tentative Map Sheet 1.14 Preliminary Grading Plan shows the grading will require export rather than import. My understanding is the original application balanced the cut and fill. The export is the result of adding the below grade parking under the multi-use structure in the Transition District. 3 . Senior housing: Statements included: • The elevator location is not convenient and to far from the units. Response : (See Sheets 3 .6 and 3.7) • The elevators are centrally located and convenient to the community room, library, common open space and parking. • The longest distance between any unit and the elevator is approximately 150 feet. • This distance is considerably shorter than between individual units and the common areas or dinning room at the Meadows or the Terraces. • The Senior housing is placed over the garage structure Response: (See Sheets 3 .6 and 3 .7) • The units are located on the third and fourth floor of the multi-purpose building . Ten units on the third floor are located over the garage. The remainder of the units on the third floor are located over Market Hall . None of the units on the fourth floor are located over the garage . The common areas on the third floor separate the units from their parking area. 4 . Variation of height of buildings: • The buildings don 't vary in height. Response: • Sheet 6 .7 clearly shows variations in height along Los Gatos Blvd , Lark Avenue and within the interior of the Lark District around the Community Park. • The flyer that has been widely distributed throughout Los Gatos demonstrates the height variation even better than Sheet 6 .7 does. 5. Landscaping Plan/Trees • The landscaping plans show trees where they may conflict with site drainage and/or utilities . Response: • Council asked staff to identify locations where conflicts may exist. Comments to Council 8/11 /2016 From Lee Quintana ·The Town 's Tree Protection Ordinance requi res between 142 to 314 trees be planted based on the 86 "protected trees" removed by Phase 1 .1 • All native trees are being removed. Response: • Eight of the nine protected trees that are not proposed for removal are native live oak trees . • Also see the SUGGESTIONS section above . • Phase 1 Landscaping Plans proposes to plant at least 400% more trees than required by the Tree Protection Ordinance. • Therefore, even if staff identifies conflicts requiring removal of trees from the Landscaping Plans, it is highly unlikely that Phase 1 would fall below the Town 's replacement standards . 6 . Participation of the App licant in t he preparation of the Specific Plan: • The Applicant stated that he had participated in the Specific Plan process. • A speaker remarked that the applicant should have been allowed to influence the Specific Plan. • I stated that I participated the the process for the Specific Plan as a Town Res ident. Response: • I believe the speaker interpreted the Applicant 's statement to mean they had participated in the drafting of the Specific Plan as members of the Advisory Committee . • The Applicant was not a member of the Advisory Committee. • The Applicant, as well as others who attended the Committee meetings , were not part of the Committees discussion . Participation of non-members , including the Applicant, was limited to 3 minutes at the close of the meeting. Thank you for your consideration . Lee Quintana 5 Palm Ave. 1 See attached North 40 Tree Information Table 3 RECEIVED Donna Perry Survey is asking Los Gatos residents 33 questions about plans f1 North40 By Judy Peterson jpetcrson@commWtity-newspapers.com (mailto:jpeterson@community-newspapers.com) ~TED: oenot2011 07:34.'22PMPOT I UPOATEO; 5 Y£ARSfjOO View ~ChttD://maps gooale com/maps/ms~ msa=O&hl •cn&je =lD'I'8&t=h&m§id=:.l.073974884!j862V02251.ooo4n6JCZ07946as8a22f&l l=37 2 50417 -121 .95210s&spn-o .o 20496 o.o2s66 3&Z•I~ in a lnr,;er !:lnp The town bas <.'Orne up "itb a new way to get input from residents on what should happen at the North 40 when it's developed--with an online visual prcferen r.P. s urvey that people can take in just a few minutes. The 33-question survey is at wwJosgatosca .j~ov (bttp:/lwww.lossatosca.~:ovl (click o n " New!").""" The North 40 is the last piece of undeveloped land in Los Gatos. 'J1Je roughly 40 acres are bounded by Los Gatos Boulevard, Lark Avenue and highways 85 and t: Today, mu ch of the land is a walnut ot"<".hard, but in four or five years it's expected to be buill into a mixed-use retail, commercial and residential development. 1bt> Yuki family is the primaty landowner and has h ired Grosvenor Amelicas of San Francisco to help steer the development plan. The survey is designed to give residents a r.hanr.e to voir.e their opinions on the development. It includes l>icturel; of different types of open spaces that eould be it in tht: North 40, as well as photos of buildings and townhomes th "J think everybody wants a mix of architectural styles," Los Gatos senior planner Suzanne Davis said, "and we keep h•.oring people don't want it Lo look like Santi But at community meet ings and North 40 ad,isory group meeting.~. differing opinions of what the buildings should look like have emerged. "The community gra to mot-e tradi tional or mission-style buildings,' Davis said. ~Inc advisory committee liked agrarian and some modem styles." Hampton Inn Mar tinsville from$126 2o~k ;·:m id d l c•don Survey-taker,; can vote for their likes and dislikes by clicking that the ~'lyle they believe is approptiate, may be appropriate, is ncutrnl, may not be appropriate or is not appropriate. "If the majority of people don't like a particular style, tha t tell~ Lb<: design team 'don't design that.' So il infonnation for town staff and the d c.'>ign team to have," Da,~s said. In addition t o being posted online, the sur\'ey was Pmailed to residents who have attended the North 4 community meetings. ''We W'dnted a wider group of people," Davis said about th e online posting. "We also made it anonymot because we dicln 't want to discourage people from laking it." By early last week, 77 people bad taken th SIII'\'C). Smvey qnelllions that d eal with open spa«"s also offer a variety of vi ews for people to choose from. For example, there's a plaza \\ilh an interactive fou that children c.an play in, sin1ilar to the fountain at Town Plaza Park. There at-e plaza.:s with entertainment areas, park-like settings, side\\".uk dining photos and active pedestrian spaces. Davis expects thl".re will be more online surveys for people to take as development of the North 40 proceeds. The CWTI.'.D l su.rvey '\\ill remain online unt 1 . 1 Mr. Joel Paulson Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: North Forty Phase 1 (“Project”) Architecture and Site Application S-13-090 Vesting Tentative Map Application M-13-014 Response to Comments at Special Town Council Meeting August 9, 2016 August 11, 2016 Mr. Paulson: During the August 9, 2016 Town Council Public Hearing on our Architecture & Site Plan/Tentative Map Application for the North Forty, Vice Mayor Sayoc requested that we respond to questions raised during public testimony during our allotted rebuttal time. We will be pleased to do so, but believe it be helpful to have our responses in writing as well. We would be happy to respond to any further questions to these responses during the Town Council’s deliberations. To facilitate our response, we have organized our responses into groups. Questions related to the Good Samaritan Medical Center Master Plan Project (Samaritan Project) and the North Forty Specific Plan EIR Response: The existence of that project, currently under review by San Jose, does not change the traffic analysis in the North Forty Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Specific Plan EIR). There are two primary reasons. First, the Specific Plan EIR properly incorporated into its cumulative analysis all other projects it was required to consider. The Samaritan Project does not alter the analysis in the Specific Plan EIR, nor does it create any of the conditions that could require additional analysis (under CEQA Guidelines 15162 or 15163). The Environmental Impact Report that is now in circulation for the Samaritan Project will similarly have to do its own traffic analysis, and that analysis will have to take into account traffic generated by buildout of the North 40 Specific Plan Area and will have to propose mitigations for any impacts caused by the Samaritan Project. 2 Second, the Staff Report properly notes (page 12) that our applications are not technically subject to CEQA analysis, since our project is a “by right” development and not a “project” under CEQA. Thus, the question of additional analysis is not applicable. Questions Related to the Density Bonus Law, regarding the interpretation in Govt. C. 65915(c)(3)(a) Response: In relation to the issue raised regarding the need for replacement affordable housing to qualify for a density bonus, the project replaces 16 – 18 units of market-rate rental housing with 49 units of very low income rental housing. We have always proposed to provide much more affordable housing than currently exists on the site, and the project more than meets any replacement housing requirement. Additionally, the original project application was made in 2013. The statute specifically exempts applications made before January 1, 2015 from any replacement housing obligation. See Section 65915(c)(3)(C). Attached as Exhibit A are documents showing that the application was made on November 14, 2013 and that the Town commenced processing the application at that time (see letter from MacKay & Somps responding to Public Works comments). Questions related to civil engineering issues and need for waivers under the Density Bonus Law. Response: One speaker questioned various civil engineering issues, and particularly asked why much of the site was being filled by 1 to 5 feet, thus requiring the requested density bonus waiver. While designing the proposal, the goal was to achieve maximize compliance with the many objective standards within the Specific Plan. We found we could maximize compliance by providing the proposed 1 to 5 feet of fill. As just one example, Section 4.1 of the Specific Plan contains policies regarding circulation and connectivity for pedestrians (Policies C1, C4, C5, and C9). The Specific Plan also identifies Neighborhood Street as the primary entrance to the Transition District (Figure 4-1). The intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Neighborhood Street therefore became a set grade, and providing ADA-compliant access from the senior affordable building along Neighborhood Street to connect to the VTA Bus Stop on Los Gatos Boulevard was essential to satisfy the Specific Plan’s circulation policies. Some fill was then required to meet ADA access standards. Additional fill was then required to ensure that the site would drain 3 properly. In general, as the plan was developed in some detail, the project team found that it could best meet the Specific Plan’s requirements by filling the site as shown. While we considered many other site planning designs, they all had challenges in satisfying the many, sometimes competing, objective standards within the Specific Plan and the affordable housing program. The project team was very successful in meeting the Specific Plan standards, even with a 35% density bonus, and was able to obviate the need for all but two waivers. The project would have been able to request unlimited waivers for many development standards including, but not limited to height, setback, open space, FAR, lot area coverage, and parking. As described in detail in our letters of March 10 and March 25, 2016, the team cannot achieve the density of 320 units unless waivers are granted to allow height to be measured from finish grade, rather than existing grade; and waivers necessary for the elevator and roof pitch for the senior building. (Note that the Project is requesting waivers of development standards, not concessions, as a part of the Density Bonus request. “Concessions” are provided to enhance the economic feasibility of the project. The Project is entitled to three concessions but has not requested any. The Town must grant “waivers” if its development standards would physically preclude construction of the project with 320 units. If these two waivers were not granted, it would trigger a request for other waivers, such as height, open space, and parking. Questions related to potential conflict between landscape plans and utilities: Response: A speaker questioned whether there were conflicts between the proposed landscaping and the location of utilities and bio-retention facilities on site. While composite drawings are not an application requirement, the consulting team works together, including weekly team calls and continuous communication between the civil engineers, architects, landscape architects, and joint trench consultants (dry utilities). While utilities can cause conflicts, the intent behind this communication is to minimize any challenges during the preparation of building and improvement plans. If conflicts are found, as can be the case as a project transitions from design development to working drawings and other agencies (water and sewer districts, for example) become further involved in the improvement plans, the Town staff and applicant’s design team can make minor adjustments to the landscape plan as necessary. The landscape programming for the property was intentionally agrarian, and rather than simply propose the minimum 276 required trees to satisfy the requirements of the Town’s tree ordinance, we have voluntarily proposed over 1,800 trees, including over 500 fruiting orchard 4 trees. We are confident that the Construction Documents will be in substantial conformance with the trees reflected in the Architecture and Site Review application. SummerHill, Grosvenor, Eden Housing and Lexor Builders are committed to delivering design drawings that conform to the conceptual landscape drawings. If the Town would like to consider modifications to the landscape plans, including number of trees, this can be discussed during the remainder of the hearing. Questions related to architectural preference and comparison to other local projects developed at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre (The Terraces in particular). Response: The Specific Plan does not call out one style of architecture, building type, size, or elevation. For example, Section 3.3.1 of the Specific Plan cites thirteen residential design standards, of which none specify architectural types. Similarly, Section 3.2.4 Architectural Style (commercial) notes five guidelines, with the only reference to a specific architectural style under 3.2.4.b, which states “Proposals for commercials structures should be developed with the context of Los Gatos’ heritage, and the historic and agricultural heritage of the site.” (Page 3-6). We would like the opportunity to have our design team present its view of the “look and feel of Los Gatos” in response to this question. We would also like to correct a response that was made verbally in a response to a question from Town Council following our presentation. We were asked why we had designed to 20 units per acre. We would like to clarify our response to be that the Housing Element requires development of the site at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. As stated in HCD’s July 28 email, the Town is responsible to ensure that the site is developed at the minimum density required by State law – 20 units per acre. We understood that this was a State requirement that was incorporated into the Town’s Housing Element and certainly did not want to propose a plan inconsistent with State law and the Housing Element. It is our opinion that our implementation of a residential program at the required minimum 20 dwelling units per acre results in a less boxy and “project-like” neighborhood than others that we observe in Town. Our proposal features more variation in roof lines, shorter and more pedestrian- scale blocks that provide more view corridors and a more dynamic opens space plan. This is specifically true when compared to Aventino which has recently been suggested to us as a better model for a community at this density level. 5 As a question was raised specifically about The Terraces, we researched the property and provide the composition of this project below: The Terraces (residential units, plus assisted care): • 9-acre site - Initial Buy-In is $186K - $548K plus monthly • 175 Independent living apartments, 45 Assisted Living Units, 16 Memory Loss Units, plus 59 hospital beds • Housing units range from Studios at 623 SF to 2 BR 2 BA + Den at 1300 SF • Monthly “Fees” (in addition to buy-in) $3000 - $6500 (depending on unit and number of individuals in unit) Questions as to whether the senior units qualify the project for the Very Low Income (VLI) bonus, and related to the application of the Town’s BMP program. Response: We previously responded to this issue by letter dated July 29, 2016. Very low income housing must be occupied by very low income households. Very low income households include “persons and families” of very low income (Health & Safety Code §50105(a)). Very low income seniors who will reside in the proposed affordable housing are "persons and families" with very low incomes. "Persons" are single persons and unrelated persons who elect to live together as one household. "Families" are related persons who live together; in senior housing these are typically married couples. All of the seniors who will live in the proposed housing will be "households" with very low incomes. Consequently, the senior housing will be very low income housing, and the Project is entitled to a density bonus for providing very low income housing. The separate senior bonus is intended for market-rate senior housing, not affordable senior housing. Questions related to the 13.5 acres identified in the Housing Element for 270 units including does the requirement for objective standards applied yield only to the 270 units that are required on 13.5 acres; and the distribution of the units across the 13.5 acres; and the reason for designing to 20 units per acre. Response: The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5(i)) applies to the entire application. It provides that if the Town either denies or reduces the density of a project that complies with “applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design standards”, it must make very specific public health and safety findings. The Project cannot be reduced in units or land area based on the speculative possibility that some time in 6 the future the Town might approve another residential project somewhere else in the North 40 Plan Area. While the 13.5 acres that are to be zoned at a minimum of 20 units per acre do not have to be contiguous and thus in theory could be spread out over the whole North 40, the combination of the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Element and Density Bonus Law require approval of this particular project at the density proposed, as explained in our earlier correspondence. The Project cannot be reduced in units or land area based on the speculative possibility that some time in the future the Town might approve another residential project somewhere else in the North 40 Plan Area. Question of whether or not architecture and site plan review are discretionary Response: The architecture and site review is not discretionary. This is made clear in the Town’s Housing Element which states that opportunities for affordable housing are “being facilitated by the North 40 Specific Plan and associated rezoning of 13.5 acres with a minimum density of 20 units per acre to yield 270 units (emphasis added). The Specific Plan would provide certainty regarding objective criteria in the form of development standards and design guidelines that would be implemented through “by right development” in the consideration of Architecture and Site applications. This process involves site and architectural review and if a proposal meets the objective criteria in the Design Guidelines, then the project is approved.” Question related to landscaping feasibility in light of drought Response: Section 3.2.9 of the Specific Plan, entitled, Project Landscape and Hardscape discusses landscape design for the Specific Plan Area. Further, we are mandated by the State to comply with specific water use limitations (maximum applied water allowance). See attached Exhibit B. Note: edible gardens and orchards are exempt from the low water use ordinance. See page two of attachment. The landscape plan will comply with these requirements. We will submit to the Town of Los Gatos our planting & irrigation plans (at building permit stage) Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) review. The review is typically done by an outside plan checker (licensed landscape architect as per Specific Plan section 3.2.9.b.) who specializes in this task. 7 While we meet current standards we are willing to work with the Town to replace plants shown in the planting palette with more water-efficient plants that are equally attractive. Question on the adequacy of the Town’s economic study. There have been 5 economic studies to date for reference: 1. BAE Urban Economics Market Study and Business Development Strategy dated August 12, 2011 2. BAE Urban Economics Urban Decay Analysis dated November 20, 2013 3. Retail Resilience in Downtown Los Gatos as attachment 41 to the Staff Report for the Town Council meeting dated December 16, 2014 4. Keyser Marston Associates North 40 Phase 1 Economic Report dated November, 2015 pursuant to Section 2.4.2 of the Specific Plan. 5. Keyser Marston Associates memorandum dated July 22, 2015 in response to Planning Commission findings on July 13th, 2016. It was not clear which study the speaker was referring to. To address the July 13th, 2016 Planning Commission finding that the November, 2015 study was flawed, Keyser Marston Associates submitted a response memorandum dated July 22, 2015 that considers the downtown Conditional Use Permit and parking requirements. The report concludes that neither Ordinance 2107 (CUP requirements for formula retail) nor Ordinance 2021 (CUP for restaurant uses in the C-2 zone) will have a significant negative economic impact on the comparison retail space in the Downtown Core vis-à-vis the North 40. Furthermore, the memorandum addresses parking as follows, “retailers would prefer the parking challenges of the Downtown Core to a location in a newly created retail project in Phase 1.” As stated in the BAE Market Study, “larger retail uses should be configured on the north end of the site with any other large users (e.g., hotel), with smaller mixed-use, such as buildings containing specialty food or other smaller shops with office or residences above, could act as a buffer for more residential areas.” The application is focused on the southern Lark district as well as the “buffer” transition district which the Specific Plan intended to contain “neighborhood serving stores, specialty market and mixed-use housing with residential units above retail” (Specific Plan 2.3.2). Opportunities to address the leakage category for building materials and general merchandising could be considered in the Northern District as stated above. 8 Furthermore, the BAE Market Study states “despite the Town’s profile, with high home ownership and income levels, the Town has limited specialty food retail, showing no sales in meat markets, fish, and seafood markets, and product markets. Given the Town’s already-strong attraction as a food shopping destination, this may represent an opportunity to broaden the food retailing mix and enhance the Town’s strong position for this retail category”. This was reinforced in the BAE Urban Decay Study from November, 2013. This need is addressed with the proposed Market Hall concept in this application. Other issues raised by the Speaker: The application does not provide any spaces larger than 10,000 square feet Building A2 in the Transition District is proposed to be 10,412 square feet and Building B1 in the Transition District is proposed to be 22,700 square feet with market hall representing 16,380 square feet. The Market Study states that the Town should consider a mix of new office space at the North 40, pursue the concept of a Los Gatos innovation center, and the Town should consider a hotel use. The application does not comply with the Market Study. As stated in the Specific Plan:  The Lark District is envisioned for residential and “limited retail/office uses”  The Transition District provides a buffer between the Lark District and the active retail and entertainment emphasis of the Northern District. “The Transition District will accommodate a range of uses including neighborhood-serving stores, specialty market and mixed-use housing with residential units above commercial.” It also says a hotel or hospitality use could be a part, but is not required. Office is permitted but not required.  The Northern District envisions hotel and office uses The Market Study states that retail in the North 40 should establish a clear difference in the shopping experience between the Downtown and the North 40. There is nothing in the proposal to address this issue. As stated in the BAE Urban Decay Study “despite the Town’s profile, with high home ownership and income levels, the Town has limited specialty food retail, showing no sales in meat markets, fish, and seafood markets, produce markets, and bakeries, even though the [Retail Trade Area] 9 appears to have strong sales in these categories. Given the Town’s already-strong attraction as a good shopping destination, this may represent an opportunity to broaden the food retailing mix and enhance the Town’s strong position for this retail category.” The study does not address the size of the Downtown Core The November 2015 Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) study that was required for our application specifically evaluates retail sales figures specifically from the downtown core using data from the Town of Los Gatos. See page 8, Table 1 of the KMA Report. The report concludes that there is no negative impact on downtown. Specialty Foods competes with Whole Foods and Lunardi’s From the Market Study: “two of the supermarkets, Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, are niche supermarkets rather than more generic markets. Lunardi’s is part of a smaller regional chain, and broker interviews and other sources indicate extremely strong sales.” As mentioned above, the Town has limited specialty food retail, showing no sales in meat markets, fish, and seafood markets, produce markets, and bakeries. Question Regarding Income Required to Afford Homes in the North 40: Response: The for-sale units in our proposal are market rate units. We agree with the public testimony that incomes of at least $125,000 to $160,000 a year will be required to purchase the market-rate homes in the North 40. These incomes equal approximately 140% to 150% of median income in Santa Clara County and are about 25% higher than moderate income, which is set at 120% of median. Moderate income in Santa Clara County for a 2-person household is $102,800. The housing types that were identified in the Specific Plan and are proposed in this application result in lower prices (versus a single-family detached home in Los Gatos) that will not be a barrier to entry for employees seeking this type of housing at Netflix and Roku. Per payscale.com, a software engineer at Netflix has a salary ranging from $118,034 to $235,815. Overall, median salaries at Netflix are $180,000 (thedailymail.com – See attached Exhibit C from April 14, 2015). The North Forty will be an attractive alternative for local employees wishing to live close to work thereby reducing the necessity for long commutes. 10 Question regarding erroneous statement the Project proposes three-story buildings near Lark Avenue. Response: The Specific Plan requires a 30’ orchard setback along Lark Avenue. Further, the Perimeter Overlay Zone requires a 25’ height limit within a 50’ setback from Lark Avenue. Our application meets these objective standards by proposing heights from 11’ to 25’ in the Perimeter Overlay Zone with a setback of 50’ – 65’. Three stories are not proposed on Lark Avenue or Los Gatos Boulevard. Question regarding explanation of school mitigation SB-50 is the required mitigation for development proposals in the State of California. Grosvenor and SummerHill Homes have entered into a Voluntary Contribution Agreement with LGUSD based on collaborative discussions that defined specific facilities challenges. Based on these determinations the value of this Voluntary Agreement was determined, and unanimously approved by the LGUSD Board of Trustees in 2015. Question related to intensity in Lark District Response: As stated in our August 5th, 2016 letter, the proposal complies with the Specific Plan’s desire is lower intensity development in the Lark District. The Specific Plan requires that a minimum of 15% of the Lark District be two stories, and the proposal has approximately 29% of the plans at 25’ or less. In contrast, the application does not propose any residential units at 25’ within the Transition District. Building heights in the Lark District are 35’ maximum, whereas the Transition District has the 45’ affordable housing over Market Hall. The open space, particularly green open space, is also greater in the Lark District. The Lark District provides 4.79 acres of open space (42.5%) whereas the Transition district provides 3.43 acres (36.4%). The lot coverage area of the Lark District (29.4%) is both far lower than the allowable 50% lot coverage, but also lower than the Transition District (33.9%). Page 2-3 Section 2.3.1 is commonly referenced by speakers as the Lark District being “lower intensity residential…”; however, the types of residential identified as permitted in this district are proposed in this application. Further, when taken as a more holistic view, the Specific Plan states in Section 2.4 “In general, lower intensity shops, offices, and residential land uses are envisioned in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area. Moving northward, potential land uses transition to mixed use residential and potentially hospitality uses to provide a buffer between the primarily residential uses in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area and the entertainment, restaurant, and shopping uses envisioned in the 11 northern portion of the Specific Plan Area.” The goal of decreasing intensity in the Lark District and increasing intensity in the Transition District has been met. Question Related to the amount of underground parking. Response: There is no specific percentage of underground parking required in the Specific Plan. However, of the 1039 parking spaces in the proposal, 322 are located in the underground/podium parking structure. This is 31% of the overall parking onsite. Within the parking structure, 130 are located in the basement/underground, 64 at-grade, 69 on the 2nd floor, and 59 on the roof floor. Question related to Transportation Demand Management. Response: A Transportation Demand Analysis is completed during the Final Map/Improvement Plan processing of the project. Section 4.10 of the Specific Plan and Condition of Approval number 115 identifies components of a TDM program that may be included, and can be further discussed: • Parking cash-out. • Financial incentives for taking alternative modes. • Transit Fare incentives such as Eco Pass and Commuter Checks • Preferentially located carpool parking. • Bicycle lockers and bicycle racks. • Showers and clothes lockers for bicycle commuters. • On-site or walk-accessible employee services (day-care, dry-cleaning, fitness, banking, and convenience store). • On-site and off-site shuttle services. Question Related to tandem parking. Response: Tandem parking is proposed in the for-sale component of the application, and only within private garages that are utilized by the residents of only one home. The speaker discussed “swapping keys” with a neighbor. This is not necessary. Rather, the residents of these homes typically have key-hooks next to their garage door entry, and the first person to leave takes the last car in the garage. SummerHill Homes has built many communities with tandem garages throughout the Bay Area. 12 Adequacy of sustainability plan; relation to LEED. Response: LEED Silver (Commercial/Mixed-Use) and Build-it-Green (Townhomes, Garden Clusters, Condominium Clusters, Live-Work) are standards that we utilize. Comment that 15% of Los Gatos’ population is senior (65+), therefore this application is not satisfying the unmet needs of the Town. Response: The application proposes 49 senior units, which is the 15.3% of the residences in the North 40 application. In addition to this, there are 8 market rate apartments that are elevator served. Town Council requested a copy of our PowerPoint presentation. Response: A copy of our PowerPoint is attached in Exhibit D. What are the hours of construction? Response: The Conditions of Approval 123 specifies the hours of hauling of soil to be from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and Conditions of Approval 124 specifies the hours of construction to be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Are we providing bike parking, interior/covered parking, and showers? Exterior guest and bicycle parking is found throughout the proposal. Interior bicycle storage is also available. For example, the for-sale condominiums will have a beam installed behind the drywall to structurally enable a bicycle rack to be mounted. What is the age of the trees depicted in the drawings? The drawings and renderings in our Architecture and Site Review Application are 5-10 years in maturity. Exhibit A 1588\03\1941297.1 8/10/2016 November 14, 2013 TRANSMITTAL: Joel Paulson, Principle Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department - Planning Division 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Joel, Grosvenor, SummerHill Homes, and Eden Housing are excited to submit for the North 40 Phase I Architectural and Site and Tentative Map applications. Please find the following enclosures related to this submittal: 1 copy of the completed application form 1 copy of the Letter of Justification / Written Description of the Proposed Project 1 copy of the Environmental Checklist 1 copy of the Hazardous Materials/Air Quality Checklist Deposit Check for Application Filing Fees 2 copies of current Title Reports – Verification of Property Ownership and Easments 1 copy of Build it Green checklists 1 copy of the Wells Questionnaire 1 copy of the C.3 Data Form 1 copy of existing photos of the property 16 copies of 24x36 of the Tentative Map package 6 copies of 24x36 sets of the Architecture and Site Review package 2 copies of 11x17 sets of the Architecture and Site Review package Best Regards, A. Don Capobres Linda Mandolini Wendi Baker Senior Vice President President Vice President of Development Grosvenor Eden Housing SummerHill Homes Exhibit B The 2015 Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Guidance for California Local Agencies INTRODUCTION Governor Brown’s Drought Executive Order of April 1, 2015 (EO B-29-15) directed DWR to update the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) through expedited regulation. The California Water Commission approved the revised MWELO Ordinance on July 15, 2015. This fact sheet provides guidance to cities and counties (local agencies) in California, who are responsible for adopting and reporting on a water efficient landscape ordinance. The focus is on major changes in the MWELO which must be addressed when local agencies are revising their own local or regional ordinances. DEADLINES AND OPTIONS FOR LOCAL AGENCY ACTIONS (Section 490.1) Local agencies have until December 1, 2015 to adopt the MWELO or to adopt a Local Ordinance which must be at least as effective in conserving water as MWELO. Local agencies working together to develop a Regional Ordinance have until February 1, 2016 to adopt, but they are still subject to the December 2015 reporting requirements (see Reporting Requirements). A local agency will either integrate MWELO into an existing ordinance or establish a new, separate program. To comply, a local agency must perform one of the following actions: • Adopt by reference Sections 490-495, Chapter 2.7, Division 2, Title 23 in the California Code of Regulations • Adopt the MWELO in detail - Sections 490-495, Chapter 2.7, Division 2, Title 23 in the California Code of Regulations • Amend an existing or adopt a new Local Ordinance or Regional Ordinance to meet the requirements contained in the regulations • Take no action and allow the MWELO to go into effect by default A local agency may choose to allow MWELO to become effective by default and then adopt a Local or Regional Ordinance at a later time. Subsequent reporting must include the details of Local or Regional Ordinances. Local agencies are not limited to require only the levels of water conservation stipulated by MWELO. The Local or Regional Ordinance can require higher levels of water conservation, as determined appropriate by the local agency to address one of these local conditions: • climate • geology • topography • environmental conditions. However, in such situations where a more restrictive requirement is incorporated, the local agency must make express findings that the requirement is reasonably necessary for one or more of the above conditions. Like all ordinance adoption processes, the adoption must follow the applicable rules for a public process including a public comment period and formal public proceeding during adoption. 1 SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS TO MWELO Projects Subject to the Ordinance (Section 490.1) The size of landscapes subject to the ordinance has been lowered from 2500 sq. ft. to 500 sq. ft. The size threshold applies to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check or design review. To reduce the complexity and costs for the smaller landscapes now subject to ordinance, the revised MWELO has a prescriptive compliance approach (Appendix D) for landscapes between 500 and 2500 sq. ft. Landscapes within this size range can comply either through meeting the traditional MWELO approach or through the prescriptive approach in Appendix D. The size threshold for existing landscapes that are being rehabilitated has not changed, remaining at 2500 square feet. Only rehabilitated landscapes that are associated with a building or landscape permit, plan check, or design review are subject to the Ordinance. Definitions (Section 491) The definitions section of MWELO has been expanded to include new terms and concepts. Please see the strike-out version of MWELO at http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/ to review definition changes. Water Efficient Worksheet and Water Budget (Section 492.4) The maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) has been lowered from 70% of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) to 55% for residential landscape projects, and to 45% of ETo for non-residential projects. This water allowance reduces the landscape area that can be planted with high water use plants such as cool season turf. For typical residential projects, the reduction in the MAWA reduces the percentage of landscape area that can be planted to high water use plants from 33% to 25%. In typical non-residential landscapes, the reduction in MAWA limits the planting of high water use plants to special landscape areas. The revised MWELO still uses a water budget approach and larger areas of high water use plants can be installed if the water use is reduced in the other areas provided the overall landscape stays within the budget. The use of special landscape areas (SLA) was not changed in the revised MWELO. The SLA provides for an extra water allowance in non-residential areas for specific functional landscapes, such as recreation, areas for public assembly, and edible gardens or for areas irrigated with recycled water. The revised MWELO allows the irrigation efficiency to be entered for each area of the landscape. The site-wide irrigation efficiency of the previous ordinance (2010) was 0.71; for the purposes of estimating total water use, the revised MWELO defines the irrigation efficiency (IE) of drip irrigation as 0.81 and overhead irrigation and other technologies must meet a minimum IE of 0.75. The worksheets for Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) have been combined into one table. (See Appendix B, Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet). As explained above, rather than using a site-wide default IE, irrigation efficiency is calculated for each hydrozone. The revised ordinance also precludes the use of high water use plants in street median strips. Also because of the requirement to irrigate areas less than ten feet wide with subsurface irrigation or other means that produces no runoff or overspray, the use of cool season turf in parkways is limited. 2 Soil Management Report (Section 492.5) For multi-lot projects, the revised MWELO added clarification that soil testing should be completed using a soil sampling rate of approximately 1 in 7 lots or 15 percent. Landscape Design Plan (Section 492.6) The following changes were made to Landscape Design Plan section: Prior to planting, 4 yards of compost must be incorporated per 1000 sq. ft. of permeable area. Compacted soils must be transformed to a friable condition. The depth of mulch required was increased from 2 to 3 inches. Graywater and storm retention components must be indicated on the landscape plan. Irrigation Design Plan (Section 492.7) The following changes were made to the Irrigation Design section: Dedicated landscape water meters or submeters are required for residential landscapes over 5,000 square feet and non-residential landscapes over 1000 square feet. Dedicated meters or submeters may be either a meter supplied by the local water supplier or a privately owned submeter. Irrigation systems are required to have pressure regulation to ensure correct and efficient operation. All irrigation emission devices must meet the American National Standards Institute standard, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers’/International Code Council’s 802-2014 “Landscape Irrigation Sprinkler and Emitter Standard”. Flow sensors that detect and report high flow conditions due to broken pipes and/or popped sprinkler heads are required for landscape areas greater than 5,000 square feet. Master shut-off valves that prevent water waste in case of large failures of irrigation systems due to breakage or vandalism are required on all landscapes except where sprinklers can be individually controlled. The minimum width of areas that can be overhead irrigated was increased from 8 feet to 10 feet; areas less than 10 feet wide must be irrigated with subsurface drip or other technology that produces no over spray or runoff. The revised update requires the irrigation auditor to be a local agency auditor or third party auditor to reduce conflicts of interest. All landscape irrigation auditors must be certified by one of the U.S. EPA WaterSense labeled auditing programs. EPA WaterSense: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/outdoor/cert_programs.html Graywater Systems (Section 492.15) The revised MWELO added a graywater section that specifies that landscapes less than 2,500 square feet that are irrigated entirely with graywater or captured rainwater are subject only to the irrigation system requirements of Appendix D, Prescriptive Compliance Option. Graywater is allowed throughout the state under the California Plumbing Code, Ch. 16. Applicants should consult with the local building authority regarding graywater systems. 3 Stormwater and Rainwater Retention (Section 492.16) A requirement was added that landscape area should have friable soil to maximize stormwater infiltration. Additional stormwater measures were recommended, but not required. Reporting (Section 495) Executive Order B-29-15 and the revised ordinance require that local agencies report on the implementation and enforcement of their single agency Local Ordinances to DWR by December 31, 2015. Local agencies developing a Regional Ordinance must report on adoption by March 1, 2016. Reporting for all agencies is due by January 31st of each year thereafter. The reporting requirement is a new addition to the MWELO. In the initial reporting, a local agency states whether they are adopting a single agency ordinance or a regional agency ordinance, and specifies the date of adoption or anticipated date of adoption. The following information is to be included in the first report by the local agency. Once stated, the information does not have to be repeated in subsequent reports unless the information changes. • State if using a locally modified Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Local or Regional Ordinance) or the MWELO. If using a Local or Regional Ordinance, how is it different than MWELO; is it at least as efficient as MWELO; and are there any exemptions specified? • State the entity responsible for implementing the ordinance. In subsequent years, all local agency reporting will be for the calendar year. For the initial reporting period after new ordinance adoption and each year thereafter, include the following information during each reporting period: • Number and types of projects subject to the ordinance • Total area (in square feet or acres) subject to the ordinance • Number of new housing starts, new commercial projects, and landscape retrofits For the initial reporting period after new ordinance adoption and each year thereafter, describe the following: • The procedure for review of projects subject to the ordinance • The actions taken to verify compliance- Is a plan check performed; if so, by what entity? Is a site inspection performed; if so, by what entity? Is a post-installation audit required; if so, by whom? • Enforcement measures • The challenges to implementing and enforcing the ordinance • The educational, training, and other needs to properly apply the ordinance Contact Information: Julie Saare-Edmonds, DWR Senior Environmental Scientist at Julie.Saare-Edmonds@water.ca.gov or (916) 651-9676 4 Exhibit C Click here to print   Wednesday, Aug  10th  2016 5PM  68°F 8PM  55°F 5-Day Forecast Netflix  and  Google among  the highest-paying companies  in  the US where median  salaries  top $140,000 (but  you've got  to  be a top  lawyer  or programmer  to  get  hired) Netflix  offers  median  salary  of  $180,000 Corporate law  firm  Skadden  Arps  came in  on  top  with  $182,000 median  salary  for  4,500 employees Google, the by  far  the biggest  employer, ranks  13th By Michael Zennie For Daily Mail Online Published: 12:49 EST, 14 April 2015 | Updated: 12:49 EST, 14 April 2015 The top-paying companies in America have been revealing - and film-streaming service Netflix is near the top of the pile, paying a median of $180,000 a year. The other boldface name in the group is Google, which comes in at no. 13 and pays an median of $143,000 a year. But to make it on to the payrolls of these top companies, workers needs to be highly educated, highly skilled or highly connected - sometimes all three.  They fall into three categories - tech companies, law firms and consulting firms.  Netflix  has  come a long  way  from  its  days  of  mailing  DVDs  to  subscribers  across  the country. Its  2,000 employees  have a median  salary  of  $180,000 now CONSULTING, TECH AND LAW LEAD TOP-PAYING COMPANIES IN AMERICA  1. Skadden Arps (law) - $182,000 2. Netflix (tech) - $180,000 3. Strategy& (consulting) - $162,000  4. McKinsey & Company (consulting) - $162,000 5. A.T. Kearney (consulting) - $162,000 6. Sidley Austin (law) - $160,000 7. Boston Consulting Group (consulting) - $158,000 8. Mozilla (tech) - $148,000 9. Good Technology (tech) - $148,000 10. Altera (tech) - $147,000 11. VMware - $145,000 12. Cadence Design Systems (tech) - $145,000 13. Google (tech) - $144,000 14. Synopsys (tech) - $143,000 15. TrueCar (tech) - $142,000  Nine of the top 15 companies are in the tech sector, according to salary data compiled by the recruiting company Glassdoor.com . These firms are competing furiously to hire and retain the relatively small number of top-notch computer programmers who make Silicon Valley such a magnet for money. Consulting and law firms rely on relationships with clients and so once employees establish themselves, they become more and more valuable and command higher salaries.  Wall Street law firm, Skadden, Arps, one of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the nation, comes in at the top of the list. The median compensation there there is $182,000.  Skadden has 4,500 employees - more than 1,800 of whom are high-grossing attorneys.   Netflix, which has 2,000 employees, comes in second.  Management consultants take the three spots - Strategy&, McKinsey & Company and A.T. Kearney all pay $160,000 median salaries.   Mozilla, the company that oversees the Firefox web browser and TureCar, which lists car sales, are both on the list. Other than Google, Netflix, Mozilla and TrueCar, most people have likely not heard of the companies of the highest- paid list.  The companies are also mostly small and midsize. Nearly all of them employ fewer than 5,000 people. Some just a few hundred.  Google, which has 53,000 employees, is by far the largest employer on the list.     Comments  (24) Share what you think Newest Oldest Best rated Worst rated  View all Click  to  rate thisisturok97, Toronto, Canada, 1 year ago I'll take a better work environment over pay any day of the week. I could care less what others make in my field. They may make more, but they work alot more hours. I work to live. I don't live to work. 18 Click  to  rate Gazmo, Los Angeles, United States, 1 year ago I thought it was only the CEOs that were making lots of money, at least that's what liberals have been telling me. 44 Click  to  rate benche9, Bronx , United States, 1 year ago God bless them. 19 Click  to  rate whatsamatternow, Galt, United States, 1 year ago Please don't use these companies. They hire people from other countries. They are the cause of the invasion in the United States. 2914 Click  to  rate whatsamatternow, Galt, United States, 1 year ago Sigh time to give up my citizenship. The ignorance in America is disturbing and only getting worse. 00 Preston Gubbals, Dogtown, United States, 1 year ago Click  to  rate Sounds good , but after tax that salary will cover rent and pocket money in the Bay Area . 054 Click  to  rate CASurferGirl, Santa Cruz, United States, 1 year ago But I manage apartments here and a lot of those H1-b visa holders are getting about $40k of their salaries. Indian recruiting companies take the rest. 026 Click  to  rate Ron Morningstar, Hillsboro, United States, 1 year ago Sounds great until you realize that many of those getting that kind of pay are not Americans. But are H1-B visa holders. 2 of  3 replies See all  replies 1026 Click  to  rate Someone, Somewhere in Lone Star, 1 year ago Tell your child to get a practical degree in a field in science or math and stop whining. What are Google and Apple supposed to do, higher your kid with the post-feminism degree or pottery making or whatever it is. You can minor in stuff like that, but it should never be your major. And, if you can't find a job, I assume no surprise. 734 Click  to  rate ach2, London, United Kingdom, 1 year ago If there were enough educated and skilled Americans to do the job then you wouldn't need the H1-B visas would you? 417 Click  to  rate manicice, seattle, United States, 1 year ago There are some other positions in google and netflix that pay that much. Lots of IT positions that are not programming make that much in both companies(servers, security, R&D, etc). I have many friends working for google most make 75k-100k a year(one makes 155k). What they dont tell you is that they are kind of slave drivers when it comes to "goals" and you work 60+ hrs a week. 028 Click  to  rate WTG700, California, United States, 1 year ago Big salary doesn't make you happy. You can make a lot less and be happier than people who make a lot more. 432 Click  to  rate Max Fortune, Topeka, United States, 1 year ago It doesn't necessarily make you unhappy either. 03 Click  to  rate PrincessElsa, Ontario, Canada, 1 year ago Note that it says 'median' salary, which isn't the same as 'average'. You could have half the company earning a lot less than that. 137 Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038740/Netflix-Google-highest-paying-companies-median-salaries-140-000-ve- got-lawyer-programmer-hired.html Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group © Associated Newspapers Ltd    View all The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline. Click  to  rate Uza, betterthanyou, Belarus, 1 year ago You're hired! 012  Who  is  this  week's  top  commenter?Find  out  now Exhibit D North 40 Vesting Tentative Map and Architecture and Site Applications Don Capobres, Representing Grosvenor Americas Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes Andrea Osgood, Eden Housing Bill Hirschman, Lexor Builders August 9, 2016 Town Council Meeting Exhaustive and Transparent Process Spanning Several Decades August 9, 2016 Town Council Meeting Decades of Public Meetings and Policy Documents 1999: Specific Plan for N40 drafted (and later abandoned) 2010: 2020 General Plan adopted that reflected 750 residential units and 600K SF of Commercial 2011 –2014: Specific Plan Advisory Committee meets, forwards North 40 Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report to Planning Commission Dec 2014: Town Council approves EIR for Specific Plan May 2015: Town Council approves Housing Element that identified 270 of its 619 State Mandated Housing units to be placed on 13.5 Acres of N40 property July 2015:Town Council approves N40 Specific Plan permitting: -270 residential units (365 with Density Bonus) - -501,000 SF of commercial Process has led to Decisions by Town, Laws & Policies Oct 2015 SummerHill, Grosvernor and Eden submit revised plans Dec 2015 Town Consulting Architect deems N40 Architecture & Site Application “has adopted an approach to providing high quality design with the detail and diversity necessary to give the overall development the “look and feel” of Los Gatos.” Jan 2016 Town Historic Commission voted that “the agrarian feel of the proposed plans and determined that the agrarian history is effectively integrated in Phase I.” Feb 2016 Town Design Review Committee reviews Economic Study and Application March 2016 Town Staff completed an Initial Study of the proposed project and concluded that Application fully complies with the Specific Plan EIR Process has led to Decisions by Town, Laws & Policies March 2016:Town Planning Staff recommends approval, concluding the proposed project application is consistent with the N40 Specific Plan and warrants no additional CEQA mandated mitigations April 2016: Town deems VTM and A&S applications complete May 2016: Story Poles fully certified July 2016: Planning Commission August 2016:Town Council Compliance with Objective Standards Open Space (OS) OS Publicly Accessible Replacement Trees 2-Story Lark District Units (Baseline) Units (w/Density Bonus) New Commercial 25’ Res Setback on Lark/LGB Height on Lark/LGB Residential Parking Mixed Use (TD) Parking Commercial (TD) Parking Specific Plan Proposed 30% min 39% 20% min 85% 276 min 1500 15% min 29% 270 max 237 365 max 320 435,000 max 66,000 50’ min 65’ 25’ max 11’-25’ 579 min 581 69 min 69 285 min 389 1,000 750 555 270 350 263 194 95 2000 General Plan 2020 General Plan 2011 DEIR North 40 Specific Plan 2015 North 40 Specific Plan 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Residential allocations at the North 40 (units) Sources: 1.Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2000 Town of Los Gatos General Plan. 2.2020 Town of Los Gatos General Plan 3.Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report. December 2011. 4.North 40 Specific Plan (includes available density bonus) Residential Density Reduction on the North 40 since the 2000 General Plan Architecture and Site Review Discussions •Elevations, Materials and Colors for both the commercial and the residential, including the list in section 3.2.6 and 3.3.6.3 in the Specific Plan •Open Space Programming and Recreational Amenities •The Landscape palate, including the orchard trees utilized and the freeway perimeter trees •The materials of the paved/surface areas of the projects •Fencing types •Onsite bicycle facilities, such as design and distribution of bicycle parking Architecture and Site Review Vesting Tentative Map Application Where We are Today Multi-Modal & Pedestrian Pathways North 40 is a new agricultural neighborhood rooted in the Los Gatos agrarian past The essence of the design is the theme of Locally Grown & Agrarian Roots: 544 proposed orchard trees, community gardens and vineyards comprising 2.7 acres of agricultural uses North 40 Varying heights reduce the massing and intensity South ‘A’ Street South ‘A’ Street Lark Avenue Alley ‘A’‘R2’ 1st Street Alley ‘B’ Alley ‘B’Community Park Alley ‘F’ A Mix of Architectural Styles in Three Building Types Including Traditional, Farmhouse and Contemporary and 17 Unique Colors Schemes. View Along South A Street The look and feel of Los Gatos Resident entrances engage streets, paseos and parks Church Street North 40 Varying heights reduce the sense of massing and intensity South ‘A’ Street Alley ‘A’ Landscape screened garages separated from parks, plazas and neighborhood streets and walkways. View Along South A Street –Residential entries, no garage doors –pedestrian and bike friendly The look and feel of Los Gatos Community variety of architectural and landscape scales Maggi Court Parks and Plazas Publicly Accessible Community Park Over 22,000 sf Community Park with public amenities such as bocce court, barbeque grills, outdoor dining areas, multiple fire pits, hammocks, outdoor lounge spaces, community gardens and fruiting orchards. The Community Park is comparable in size and scale of Town Plaza Park. North 40 Varying heights reduce the sense of massing and intensity South ‘A’ Street at Community Park Tree lined corridors –South A Street View Along South A Street The look and feel of Los Gatos Creative interplay of landscape and architecture Cuesta de Los Gatos Way North 40 design Varying heights reduce the “sense of project” Caption If all the buildings were squeezed to the same height, it would imply a “sense of project” and lose the variations found around Los Gatos. Unprecedented Project Benefits Where We are Today Project Benefit –Senior Affordable Housing 49 very low income senior apartments and one moderate rate apartment Project Benefits Traffic Improvements Project Benefits New Bicycle Lanes from the North 40 to the Los Gatos Creek Trail Project Benefits Satisfies Town of Los Gatos Housing Element Project Benefits Improve School Facilities through Voluntary Contribution Project Benefits Project Benefits Smaller Units, Low Bedroom Count Project Benefits New Neighborhood Serving Retail and Market Hall Fruiting orchards along Lark Ave Restaurant demonstration garden along South A Street Project Benefits Over 14.5 Tons of Fruits and Vegetables Project Benefits Going Above and Beyond the Specific Plan Specific Plan Proposed 30% min 39% 20% min 85% 276 min 1500 15% min 29% 270 max 237 365 max 320 435,000 max 66,000 50’ min 65’ 25’ max 11’-25’ 579 min 581 69 min 69 285 min 389 Open Space Open Space Publicly Accessible Replacement Trees 2-Story Lark District Units (Baseline) Units (w/Density Bonus) New Commercial 25’ Res Setback on Lark/LGB Height on Lark/LGB Residential Parking Mixed Use (TD) Parking Commercial (TD) Parking July 12, 2016 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Applicants: Don Capobres – Representing Grosvenor Wendi Baker – SummerHill Home Andrea Osgood – Eden Housing William Hirschman – Lexor Builders Agrarian: Zach Lewis –Garden 2 Table Economic: Timothy Kelly –Keyser Marston Associates Legal: Barbara Kautz –Goldfarb & Lipman Andrew Faber – Berliner Cohen Architects: Paula Krugmeier –BAR Architects Debra Lehtone – BAR Architects John Thatch – Dahlin Group Landscape: Ashley Langworthy –SWA Melissa Willmann – VDA Civil: Chris Ragan –MacKay and Somps Jacqueline Bays –MacKay and Somps Traffic: Katy Cole – Fehr & Peers Project Benefits •49 very low income senior units and one moderate rate unit •Over $10 million of traffic related improvements (above & beyond EIR requirements) o Resulting in a 26% reduction in traffic delays at Lark/Los Gatos Boulevard o Bicycle Lanes from Project Frontage to Los Gatos Creek Trail •Compliance with State Approved Housing Element •Unprecedented Voluntary School Agreement •Over $2.7 million gross revenues annually to the Town of Los Gatos, including: $1.9 Million annually to LGUSD and LG-SJUSD $800K annually to the Los Gatos General Fund Plus:$462K annually to Santa Clara County Fire •Satisfies unmet housing needs in the Town with affordable apartments, multifamily rental and for sale housing o 84% of residences are 1 or 2 bedroom units, with an overall bedroom count of 1.77 bedrooms average o Residences range in size from approximately 550 sf to 1,950 sf o Average residence size 1,393 sf •New Neighborhood Serving Retail & Restaurants to serve new and existing residents on North Side of Town •14.5 Tons of Diverse Fruits and Vegetables Produced honoring the “Valley of the Hearts Delight” •Over 6x the required replacement trees •High Quality execution of Town’s Specific Plan with more open space and trees, less height, and greater setbacks