The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit 1 - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through H Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project March 21, 2025 Prepared by EMC Planning Group Table of Contents MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................................................... 1 1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures .................................................................. 1 1.4 Monitoring and Reporting Checklist ...................................................................................... 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 Introduction CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions of project approval are implemented. 1.2 Monitoring and Reporting Program The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the project mitigated negative declaration. These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures become conditions of project approval, which the project proponent is required to complete during and after implementation of the proposed project. The attached checklist is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures. This monitoring checklist contains all appropriate mitigation measures in the mitigated negative declaration. 1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures The Town of Los Gatos shall use the attached monitoring checklist for the proposed project. The monitoring program should be implemented as follows: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 1. The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department should be responsible for coordination of the monitoring program, including the monitoring checklist. The Community Development Department should be responsible for completing the monitoring checklist and distributing the checklist to the responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation measures. 2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for determining whether the mitigation measures contained in the monitoring checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a copy of the monitoring checklist to the Community Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring checklist should not be returned to the Community Development Department. 3. The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department will review the checklist to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures and additional conditions of project approval included in the monitoring checklist have been complied with at the appropriate time, e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Compliance with mitigation measures is required for project approvals. 4. If a responsible individual or agency determines that a non-compliance has occurred, a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within 10 days, with a copy to the Community Development Department, describing the non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. If non-compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the Town of Los Gatos. 1.4 Monitoring and Reporting Checklist Step 1 - Prior to Issuance of Ground-Disturbing Activities Including Demolition or Tree Removal Permits AQ-1 The applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, including tree removal. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following measures to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions during construction: a. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles will have 2010 or newer model year engines, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s Truck and Bus Regulation; b. Idling of construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks will be avoided where feasible, and if idling is necessary, it will not exceed three minutes; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 c. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and d. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity, or biodiesel. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ BIO-1 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. a. One survey for active bird nests shall occur within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and no further mitigation is required. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ BIO-2 Per Town Code Section 26.20.010 and Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of protected trees on private or Town property. The project developer shall abide by any tree replacement ratios and/or in-lieu payments, tree protection measures, and best management practices required by the tree removal permit and/or within the arborist report dated October 24, 2024 (Appendix D). Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ CUL-1 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, grading, and construction, “In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, contractor shall temporarily halt or divert excavations within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated. All potentially significant archaeological deposits shall be evaluated to demonstrate whether the resource is eligible Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources, even if discovered during construction. If archaeological deposits are encountered, they will be evaluated and mitigated simultaneously in the timeliest manner practicable, allowing for recovery of materials and data by standard archaeological procedures. For indigenous archaeological sites, this data recovery involves the hand‐excavated recovery and non‐destructive analysis of a small sample of the deposit. Historic resources shall also be sampled through hand excavation, though architectural features may require careful mechanical exposure and hand excavation. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance by a qualified Archaeologist. Significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.” Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ CUL-2 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, demolition, grading, and construction, “In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. All grading or earthmoving activities shall immediately stop within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find. The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the project proponent shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code [PRC] § 5097). The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD will determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and associated grave artifacts, and shall oversee the disposition of the remains. In the event the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being granted access to the site, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity within the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify the MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being allowed access to the site; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.” Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ GEO-2 The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit: “If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction activities in the area shall be suspended. The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to examine the site and identify protective measures to be implemented to protect the paleontological resource. The measures shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.” Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 ______________________________________________________________ N-1 The project developer shall ensure that no individual piece of construction equipment produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification.  The project developer shall also ensure that best management practices are incorporated during construction activities. The following shall be placed on all ground-disturbing project plans:  All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.  Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.  All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator. Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Step 2 - Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits GEO-1 The applicant shall prepare a soils report addressing, but not limited to: foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, and impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. The soils report shall be submitted to the Town Building Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. All Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 recommendations outlined in the soils report shall be incorporated into the project design. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Division Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ HAZ-1 The project developer shall conduct soil vapor testing on the project site prior to issuance of a grading permit. The results of the soil vapor testing shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and only with approval by the Town Engineer can any grading and earth-moving construction activities take place. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels that exceed safety thresholds for residential uses, the Town Engineer shall determine if Environmental Solutions should provide recommendations for construction of the project. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels below safety thresholds, no further action is necessary. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Engineer Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Step 3 - Prior to Issuance of Building Permits AQ-2 The project applicant shall ensure that MERV 13 air filtration systems, or an equivalent system, are included in the design and operations of the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and specifications demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. These plans shall identify the locations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 specifications of the air filtration systems and confirm they meet the performance standards for particulate and airborne pollutant removal. The air filtration systems must be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Verification of proper installation and functionality shall be conducted by a licensed professional and documented in a final compliance report, which must be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for approval. The property owner or operator shall also establish a maintenance plan for the air filtration system to ensure ongoing performance in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Division Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ GHG-1 The project developer shall incorporate the following GHG emissions reduction performance standard into the final project design:  No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted as part of the project plans; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric. Final plans for the development shall be reviewed by the Town Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure this performance standard is incorporated into the project design. Verification of development consistent with this performance standard shall be assured prior to approval of occupancy permits. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 Step 4 - Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits AQ-2 The project applicant shall ensure that MERV 13 air filtration systems, or an equivalent system, are included in the design and operations of the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and specifications demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. These plans shall identify the locations and specifications of the air filtration systems and confirm they meet the performance standards for particulate and airborne pollutant removal. The air filtration systems must be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Verification of proper installation and functionality shall be conducted by a licensed professional and documented in a final compliance report, which must be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for approval. The property owner or operator shall also establish a maintenance plan for the air filtration system to ensure ongoing performance in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ GHG-1 The project developer shall incorporate the following GHG emissions reduction performance standard into the final project design:  No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted as part of the project plans; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric. Final plans for the development shall be reviewed by the Town Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure this performance standard is incorporated into the project design. Verification of development consistent with this performance standard shall be assured prior to approval of occupancy permits. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ N-2 The project developer shall install mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all residential units so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and approval by the Town Building Department, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Department Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ TRANS-1 Project improvements plans shall include the following, subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit: a. Stripe a loading space along the project frontage on E. Main Street; b. Apply 10 feet of No Parking (Red Zone) on both sides of the project driveway on Church Street; and c. Provide adequate landing space at the top and bottom of the garage ramps. Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Engineer Monitoring Notes: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ March 21, 2025 Ryan Safty Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments Dear Ryan, EMC Planning Group has reviewed the public comments that were received during the 21-day public review period (February 28, 2025 to March 20, 2025) for the above-referenced mitigated negative declaration (MND). The lead agency (Town of Los Gatos, hereinafter “Town”) is not required to respond to public comments on the proposed MND, but the Town’s decision-making body is required to consider all comments prior to considering adoption of the MND and approval of the project. We are only providing responses to environmental issues, as well as comments on the environmental review (CEQA) process. The following public comments were received, and are incorporated into this document. Each letter is presented, followed by the response. 1. Rob Stump, dated February 28, 2025; 2. Department of Toxic Substances Control, dated March 3, 2025; 3. Majid Alasvandian, dated March 10, 2025; 4. Jenny, dated March 6, 2025; 5. Jim Lyon, dated March 11, 2025; 6. Michael Kennedy, dated March 10, 2025; Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 2 7. Andrew Coven, dated March 6, 2025; 8. Carrie Dean, dated March 6, 2025; 9. Cathleen Bannon, dated March 3, 3035; 10. Jamie Fumia, dated March 6, 2025; 11. Mike Kennedy, dated March 7, 2025; 12. Caron Rakich, dated March 12, 2025; 13. David Knol, dated March 1, 2025; 14. Rgs Chris, dated March 7, 2025; 15. Gail Manganello, dated March 6, 2025; 16. Isabel Guerra, dated March 7, 2025; 17. Elke Billingsley, dated March 7, 2025; 18. Gloria and Eric R., dated March 7, 2025; 19. Jennifer Lambert, dated March 9, 2025; 20. Karen Chase, dated March 10, 2025; 21. Lauren Roseman, dated March 10, 2025; 22. Sarah Pereira, dated March 6, 2025; 23. Unknown, dated March 10, 2025; 24. Unknown, dated March 6, 2025; 25. Michelle Badger, dated March 6, 2025; 26. Carol Anglin, dated March 18, 2025; 27. Kristi Grasti, dated March 18, 2025; and 28. Miles Imwalle, dated March 19, 2025. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out at lutz@emcplanning.com. Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 3 Sincerely, Shoshana Lutz Senior Planner From: Rob Stump <rastump@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 11:28 AM To: Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project [EXTERNAL SENDER] Ryan, Wow...totally disappointed on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and probably others upcoming. Here are my concerns. Comment Letter #1 ____ 1.Wildfire: I guess the NOI can bypass LRAs (Local Responsibility Areas). Guess what is right across the street from the project? The LRA VHFHSZ (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone). Yes, red is bad (attached two maps for your reference). Wow, if the Mitigated Negative Declaration is able to workaround the LRA and refer only to the SRA...BAD. This is akin to just saying, "Nothing to see here!" I realize the SRA may be the only requirement for the NOI, but once again WOW! Why can't the LRA be recognized in the Wildfire section of the NOI. I am getting a really bad feeling that NOI's are just a check the box exercise. I hope I am wrong! 2.Transportation: not a single word about Emergency Evacuation. At what point is one more vehicle, one vehicle too many? If we have a wildfire above the Town Hall, there may be hundreds to thousands of cars evacuating through Main Street. What's a few more cars, right? Wrong. Ignoring emergency evacuation as part of the Transportation study is just wrong. Ryan...please understand that my concerns/criticism are not being directed toward you. It's the process. My main concern...in the push for development, cirtical items can/will be overlooked. No one wants to believe our decisions could result in harm to the public. But plain and simple (and in my opinion), development does has consequences. Just trying to keep an eye on public safety. I plan to address this in the near future. Thank you, Rob Stump 408-568-8541___________________1 _________2 _________3 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 6 Response to Letter 1 Rob Stump (February 28, 2025) 1. The commenter raises concerns related to wildfire local responsibility areas and states that a local responsibility area very high fire hazard severity zone is present across the project site, on the other side of E. Main Street. The commenter requests that local responsibility areas be recognized in the Wildfire Section of the initial study. The checklist questions provided in the CEQA Guidelines are sample questions to assist lead agencies in addressing a variety of different environmental topics. The Town has the ability to edit, remove, or add to the checklist questions as they see appropriate in order to evaluate and address environmental issues that are more specific to Los Gatos or of value to its residents. The commenter’s attached map shows very high fire hazard severity zones across the street from the project site. This map is Figure 9-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, located within the Town’s Safety Element of the 2040 General Plan and is included at the end of this response as Figure 1. However, this map has wildfire information from 2009. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection updated Santa Clara County’s local responsibility maps February 24, 2025. The state’s updated local responsibility area map for Los Gatos is shown on Figure 2. Although the project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (the site is located 0.33 miles east of the nearest very high fire hazard severity zone, as shown on Figure 2), the following analysis has been prepared to address wildfire hazards in response to the commenter’s concerns. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. Wildfire checklist question “a:” Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As discussed in Section 9.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, checklist question “f” of the initial study, the current hazard mitigation plan (Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan) does not identify evacuation routes within Los Gatos; however, it can be assumed that the primary evacuation routes are the highways (e.g., State Route 17, State Route 9, etc.). The project does not involve any work within the adjacent roadways (i.e., Church Street, High School Court, or East Main Street). Additionally, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, of the initial study, the proposed project would result in an addition of only 17 daily vehicle trips above the vehicle trips associated with the existing commercial uses. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 7 response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor would it substantially change existing emergency evacuation processes. Wildfire checklist question “b:” Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire? The project site is relatively flat and located within downtown Los Gatos surrounded by urban development and therefore, would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Although the project would introduce occupants and visitors to the site that could increase the likelihood of ignitions from (e.g., careless disposal of lit cigarettes, etc.), the site already serves visitors as a café and a furniture store. The project has undergone development review with the Santa Clara County Fire Department, which has specified that the development comply with the following: California Fire and Building Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Gatos Town Code; California Code of Regulations; and Health and Safety Code. Compliance with the conditions and regulations required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department would ensure less than significant impacts associated with the project’s potential to exacerbate fire risks and thereby expose project occupants and visitors to fire pollutants or the uncontrolled spread of a fire. Wildfire checklist question “c:” Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The proposed project does not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or power line.) However, as identified in Section 19.0, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project involves the installation of new stormwater drainage facilities. This type of utility infrastructure installation would not exacerbate fire risk at the site, but the construction of the stormwater drainage facilities could result in significant, adverse physical environmental impacts. Section 19.0, Utilities and Service Systems, checklist question “a,” explains that the potentially significant construction impacts associated with the implementation of the project’s stormwater drainage facilities are identified in the air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise sections of the initial study. All such impacts are either less than significant or mitigated to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the project would not require the Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 8 installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Wildfire checklist question “d:” Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The project site is relatively flat and located in downtown Los Gatos. As discussed in Section 7.0, Geology and Soils, the project site is not located within a landslide hazard zone. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes. 2. The commenter recommends a discussion about emergency evacuation. As mentioned previously, Section 9.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the initial study evaluated whether the project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Refer to the discussion above under comment #1 associated with wildfire checklist question “a.” No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 3. This comment does not raise environmental issues and, therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. ProjectProject LocationLocation Project Location Source: Town of Los Gatos 2022 (CalFire 2009) Figure 1 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Response to Comments 2040 General Plan Fire Hazard Severity Zones Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 10 This side intentionally left blank. Project SiteModerate FHSZHigh FHSZVery High FHSZ143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Response to CommentsCALFIRE’s Local Responsibility AreaFigure 2Source: CalFire FHSZ Map 2025525 feet00.33 Miles Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 12 This side intentionally left blank. dtsc.ca.gov SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL March 3, 2025 Ryan Safty Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 rsafty@losgatosca.gov RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 143 & 151 E. MAIN STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2025, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2025021056 Dear Ryan Safty, The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project (Project). The Project proposes to demolish the existing on-site uses and then construct a four-story mixed-use building with underground parking. The ground level of the proposed building will include 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial with a total of 30 residential units located in the building. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments: 1.The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommends that if the property use changes to residential or if the property is redeveloped and no longer utilizes a raised foundation, then soil vapor testing on the site should be conducted. DTSC recommends the Town of Los Gatos enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination at brownfields and other types of properties or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note Comment Letter #2 Ryan Safty March 3, 2025 Page 2 that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact your Regional Brownfield Coordinator. 2.DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage. DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance. Sincerely, Dave Kereazis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave.Kereazis@dtsc.ca.gov Ryan Safty March 3, 2025 Page 3 cc: (via email) Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation State Clearinghouse State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Kenneth Rodrigues Architect and Applicant Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc kenr@kprarchitects.com Shoshana Lutz Senior Planner (EMC) EMC Planning Group lutz@emcplanning.com Tamara Purvis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Tamara.Purvis@dtsc.ca.gov Scott Wiley Associate Governmental Program Analyst HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Scott.Wiley@dtsc.ca.gov Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 16 Response to Letter 2 Department of Toxic Substances Control (March 3, 2025) 1. The commenter repeats information provided within the phase I environmental site assessment prepared for the proposed project (Environmental Solutions 2020, p. 31), that there is a recommendation in the assessment that if the property use changes to residential or if the property is redeveloped and no longer utilizes a raised foundation, then soil vapor testing on the site should be conducted. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the project developer to conduct a soil vapor test and if concentration levels exceed safety thresholds, appropriate mitigation would be applied, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The commenter then recommends that the Town enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination at brownfields and other types of properties or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, Department of Toxic Substances and Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board. This recommendation is at the Town’s discretion. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in the Department of Toxic Substances and Control Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. The commenter also advises referencing the Department of Toxic Substances and Control Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. Additional guidance is provided to minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material. These recommendations and guidance from the Department of Toxic Substances and Control can be required by the Town as a condition of approval. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 3:36 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15665 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Majid Last Name Alasvandian Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 143 and 151 E Main Message (Required) I have lived in 103 Cleland Ave since Feb., 1999. I and many of residents in Los Gatos Main area consider this project way out of proportion for the lot size and the location. My concerns are: 1)This building is too big. The height is twice the size of every thing around. It ruins the small town character of Los Gatos. 2)30 units plus commercial spaces and parking lots in 14000 sq feet is too dense and it does impact traffic around. Many parents drop their kids right around this location and it is already too crowded. 3)Approval of this project will set a precedence for the owners of other commercial buildings nearby to convert their small lots into 4 or higher story buildings. What is is that going to stop them once this project gets approved? 4)Fire hazards- All homes behind the library are considered Comment Letter #3 ______________________________________1 2 3 4 to be in fire hazard zone and as you all know all homes behind Library have two evacuation routes in case of Fire (Jackson and College) and both streets merged into the Main street. Main is already narrow for the existing traffic, adding high density homes near downtown will endanger the lives of existing residents in case of any wild fires in the hills. People want to come to Los Gatos for the small town character feel of the town and the downtown setting with the hills visible to pedestrians. Let's not ruin the beauty of this town by setting precedence in issuing permits to people who are in this just to make money and go to the next project. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. ________________________________4 cont'd 5 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 19 Response to Letter 3 Majid Alasvandian (March 10, 2025) 1. The commenter expresses concern related to the proposed building’s size and height. The visual impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 1.0, Aesthetics, of the initial study. The conclusion in the initial study is that although the proposed project is larger than other buildings in the vicinity, the adverse visual impact would not be significant. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states that the proposed uses within the site are too dense and would impact the traffic around the site. As discussed in Section 17.0, Transportation, checklist question “a” of the initial study, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 daily trips compared to the existing office building. However, the proposed project would result in a reduction of trips during the AM peak hour (when students are being dropped off at school), as well as the PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways systems and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 3. The commenter states that approval of this project would set a precedence for the owners of nearby commercial buildings to convert their small lots into taller buildings. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 4. The commenter expresses concern for the fire hazards around the Town Library in relation to evacuation routes. The commenter states that the project’s high density could endanger the lives of existing residents evacuating on Main Street in case of a fire. Refer to the response under the first comment for comment letter #1. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 5. The commenter states that people want to come to Los Gatos for the small-town character feel and the downtown setting with the hills visible to pedestrians. Section 1.0, Aesthetics, provides a discussion about the project’s impact associated with scenic vistas, such as the hillsides and distant mountain ranges. There are limited views of forested hillsides for east- and westbound travelers on Church Street; current views are limited due to views being partially obstructed by existing trees. The proposed Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 20 project would add a small obstruction to the existing westbound traveler’s views on Church Street; however, the majority of the existing view directly west of Church Street would remain unobstructed. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:Opposition to the 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project Date:Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:20:48 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Ryan, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development that seeks todemolish the existing on-site uses and construct a four-story mixed-use building withunderground parking near Los Gatos Highschool. While I understand the need for growth, thisproject raises several concerns that will have a lasting negative impact on our community. First and foremost, traffic congestion in the area is already a significant issue, particularlyduring school drop-off and pick-up times. The high school generates substantial pedestrianand vehicle activity, and adding 30 residential units along with commercial space will onlyexacerbate the problem. Furthermore, when there are disruptions on Highway 17, local streetsbecome highly congested, making it difficult for residents to navigate their ownneighborhoods. Beach traffic during warmer months further compounds the situation, and thisnew development will only aggravate these existing problems. Additionally, pedestrian safety is a major concern. With a large number of students walkingto and from school - before, during lunch and after, as well as seniors and families frequentingthe nearby senior center, library, and churches, the increased traffic could put pedestrians atgreater risk. I have personally witnessed near-accidents involving pedestrians in this area dueto inattentive drivers, and adding more vehicles to an already problematic location could leadto dangerous consequences. Beyond traffic and safety issues, the proposed building does not align with the town’scharm and character. A four-story structure in this location will be an eyesore and detractfrom the unique aesthetic of Los Gatos. Our town is known for its historic and small-townappeal, and this type of high-density development is inconsistent with that identity. While I recognize the importance of providing housing options, this project does notadequately balance the needs of the community with responsible urban planning. I urge you toreconsider the approval of this development or, at the very least, require significantmodifications to ensure it does not negatively impact traffic, pedestrian safety, and thecharacter of our town. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will take the concerns of localresidents seriously. Jenny Comment Letter #4 _____________________________________________________1 2 3 4 5 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 22 Response to Letter 4 Jenny (March 6, 2025) 1. The commenter expresses their opposition to the proposed project. No environmental issues are raised; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states that the traffic congestion in the area is a current, significant issue especially during school drop-off and pick-up times. The commenter adds that the problem is exacerbated when there are disruptions on Highway 17 and during warmer months when there is beach traffic. See Letter 3, response to comment #2. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 3. The commenter expresses concern associated with pedestrian safety indicating that the increased traffic could put pedestrians at a greater risk. The proposed project would result in an increase of only 17 vehicle trips per day. See also Letter 3, response to comment #2. Pedestrian facilities and the project’s potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian facilities is discussed in the initial study under Section 17.0, Transportation, checklist question “a.” As concluded in the initial study, there are no policies regarding pedestrian facilities that are applicable to the project and, therefore, no conflict with a policy would occur as a result of the project. The transportation study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix H of the initial study) discusses pedestrian access and circulation within and surrounding the project site, indicating that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Town of Los Gatos - 2020 lists several proposed pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity including a high visibility crosswalk at the intersections of Church Street and E. Main Street, Villa Avenue and E. Main Street, and High School Court and E. Main Street. The Town could consider requiring additional pedestrian safety elements as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Town of Los Gatos - 2020 as a condition of approval. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 4. The commenter states that the proposed building does not align with the Town’s charm and character citing the building’s height and stating that it would detract from the unique aesthetic of Los Gatos. See responses to Letter 3, comment #1 and #5. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 23 5. The commenter states that the project does not adequately balance the needs of the community with responsible urban planning and urges the Town to reconsider the approval of this development or to require significant modifications to ensure that it does not negatively impact traffic, pedestrian safety, and the character of the Town. See response under comment #3 above for a discussion about pedestrian safety. See response to Letter 3, responses to comment #2 and #5 for comment for a discussion about traffic and consistency with the Town’s character. See response to Letter 3, response to comment #3 for a discussion about pedestrian safety. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Cc:Joel Paulson Subject:Public Comment: 143 and 151 E. Main Street Date:Tuesday, March 11, 2025 6:50:23 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hello Ryan, Thank you for your thorough review of the project on behalf of the Town. The developer hascreated an architecturally attractive design with commendable style and detail. While I haveconcerns about the building's overall size and height, I understand the Town's limited ability todeny or redirect the project due to State laws. Ideally, I would prefer to see the building reduced to 3 stories total and set back further fromthe street, though I recognize these requests may be overridden by the State Builder's RemedyLaw. Regarding parking options, I strongly support Option 1 as it maximizes available parking. I'mconcerned that Option 2, with its reduced number of spaces, would create significant parkingchallenges for both residents and the surrounding area. I'd also like to inquire about the planned ownership structure of the building. Will it be undersingle ownership with all residential units and commercial spaces being leased, or will theresidential units be sold as condominiums? I have concerns about the condominium model, asI anticipate potential shared parking conflicts in the future. If the project moves forward,shared parking stipulations should be clearly incorporated into the leases for both residentialand commercial spaces. Jim Lyon Johnson Avenue Comment Letter #5 ________________________________1 2 3 4 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 25 Response to Letter 5 Jim Lyon (March 11, 2025) 1. The commenter thanks the Town for the thorough review of the project and expresses their understanding that although there are concerns about the building’s overall size and height, the Town has limited ability to deny or redirect the project due to state laws. See response to Letter 3, comment #1 regarding the proposed building’s size and height. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states that they would prefer the building be reduced to three stories total and set back further from the street, but understands that may be overridden by the Builder’s Remedy law. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 3. The commenter states that they strongly support Parking Option 1 as it maximizes available parking and is concerned that Parking Option 2, with its reduced number of spaces, would create significant parking challenges for both residents and the surrounding area. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 4. The commenter inquires about the planned ownership structure of the building. The commenter would like to know whether it will be under single ownership with all residential units and commercial spaces being leased or if the residential units will be sold as condominiums. The commenter expresses concerns about the condominium component of the project and its relation to shared parking. The commenter also recommends shared parking stipulations be incorporated into the leases for both residential and commercial spaces. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: Michael Kennedy Sent: Monday, March 1 o, 2025 5:23 PM To: Ryan Safty <RSatty@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed 141 and 153 East Main St. project [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Mr. Safty, Thank you for quickly following up in your kind response below. There is also a concern about the effect of an increase in traffic how it will affect pedestrian and bicycle safety in particular. Can you please forward this additional information to the applicant? Best regards, Mike Sent from my iPhone Comment Letter #6 ______1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 27 Response to Letter 6 Michael Kennedy (March 10, 2025) 1. The commenter expresses concern about the increase in traffic as a result of the project and how it will impact pedestrian and bicycle safety. See response to Letter 4, comment #3 regarding pedestrian safety. Regarding bicycle safety, the transportation study prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix G) states that there are existing class II bicycle lanes present along E. Main Street. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:Fwd: 143 & 151 E. Main Street comment Date:Thursday, March 6, 2025 6:37:52 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] The new proposed structure for 143 & 151 E. Main Street looks gorgeous! I read the transportation assessment that seemed quite thorough and would appreciate if the town would push for a 3rd subterranean level of parking that would not only allow the town'srequirements to be met for resident, commercial, visitor, and bike parking, but also to provide spaces for high schoolers that drive to school as the street parking constantly is filled withtheir cars getting ticketed after 90 minutes. Thanks, ...Andrew Coven, LG Resident Comment Letter #7 __________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 29 Response to Letter 7 Andrew Coven (March 6, 2025) 1. The commenter requests that the Town push for a third subterranean level of parking that would not only allow the Town’s requirements to be met for residents, commercial, visitor, and bicycle parking, but also to provide spaces for high schoolers that drive to school. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:143 & 151 East Main Street Date:Thursday, March 6, 2025 2:46:42 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] > Hello- > I am writing in concern to the proposed project on E Main Street next to the high school. > > First the visual rendering is misleading to the public as it shows an open space across from it which inaccurately looks like there is open space around the building. In fact the large building would crowd the narrow two lane street. > > Second, the large mix used building next the high school would create madness in an already super congested area trying to flow over 2,000 students/families through the area twice a day. This building would unnecessarily cause chaos. Again, too big in the most congested area of town. > > Third, if it were to be built the two years of construction would be madness. Clearly the construction vehicles would need to take up all the parking in the area, closed streets, etc would make getting to the school or downtown impossible. > > Please, please…yes the building does look like the town, but the size & placement is too much > > Carrie Dean > 128 Teresita Way Comment Letter #8 1 ___________ _______ _______2 3 ___4 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 31 Response to Letter 8 Carrie Dean (March 6, 2025) 1. The commenter states that the visual rendering of the proposed project is misleading as it shows an open space across from it, which make it appear as though there is open space around the building. The commenter states that the proposed building would instead crowd the narrow two-lane street. The visual impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 1.0, Aesthetics, of the initial study. The conclusion in the initial study is that although the proposed project is larger than other buildings in the vicinity, the adverse visual impact would not be significant. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states that the proposed mixed-use building next to the high school would create madness in an already congested area. The commenter adds that the proposed building would unnecessarily cause chaos. The commenter is concerned with the size of the project. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 3. The commenter expresses concerns related to construction of the project and its impact on the nearby roadways, parking in the area, and the closing of streets. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. 4. The commenter states that the size and placement of the proposed project is too much. See the response to Letter 3, comment #1 regarding the visual impacts associated with the size and height of the building. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: Cathleen Bannon <> Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 9:10 AM Subject: 143 & 151 E. Main St To: <RSafty@losgatoca.gov> Hello- I am writing in concern to the proposed project on E Main Street next to the high school. First the visual rendering is misleading to the public as it shows an open space across from it which inaccurately looks like there is open space around the building. In fact the large building would crowd the narrow two lane street. Second, the large mix used building next the high school would create madness in an already super congested area trying to flow over 2,000 students/families through the area twice a day. This building would unnecessarily cause chaos. Again, too big in the most congested area of town. Third, if it were to be built the two years of construction would be madness. Clearly the construction vehicles would need to take up all the parking in the area, closed streets, etc would make getting to the school or downtown impossible. Please, please…yes the building does look like the town, but the size & placement is too much Cathleen Bannon Parent of two students at LGHS Comment Letter #9 _________________________1 2 3 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 33 Response to Letter 9 Cathleen Bannon (March 3, 2025) The commenter expresses the same concerns as expressed in Letter 8. See responses above under Letter 8. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Date:Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:54:08 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] To Ryan Safty I am writing to you to give my comments as to why I am strongly against the developmentproposed at 143 and 151 E Main Street. I grew up in Los Gatos, went to Van Meter, Fisher and LG High. I lived in San Francisco for 15 years so I understand the difference between a city and a town. I have three children inthe local schools. One at Van Meter, one at Fisher and one at the HS. I have been on the board at Van Meter for over 8 years and volunteer weekly at LG High. I live on Euclid Avenue offof College right in the heart of this town that I love . I understand the need for more housing, I understand that the town has to adhere to laws regarding housing that come from the state. I understand that for many of these developmentsour hands are tied. I try to be sane and open minded when it comes to development because I know that in many instances we do not have a choice. But I also know that during the summerweekends many days we cannot leave our house due to the traffic downtown. We literally drive down college and turn around and go home because there are bumper to bumper cars. Iworry that if there is ever a fire or an emergency my neighbors and my family will not be able to get out because there are not enough exit routes or an emergency vehicle will not be able toget in. I love my neighborhood but I am starting to worry about living here. The corridor where this building is proposed to go in is an absolute traffic nightmare. I know this because I have to drive it at least 4 times a day to drop off and pick up kids from schooland after school activities. Why on earth would it be a good idea to put 30 residential units in an area where there is a small two lane road that for many times during the day is literallybumper to bumper. I cannot even fathom how construction would go. I guess I would need to leave my house at 730 to go 1 mile down the road to get my kid to elementary school. Thisproposal is not about housing numbers, this is about greed and shoving too many units in small spaces to turn the biggest profit. I hope the Town of Los Gatos does everything in their power to stop this one or at least getthem to change the scope to be realistic. Thank you for your time Jamie Fumia Comment #10 1 ________________________ _______________________________________ 2 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 35 Response to Letter 10 Jamie Fumia (March 6, 2025) 1. The commenter states that they are strongly against the proposed development and explains their experience and feelings toward traffic issues within Los Gatos. The commenter mentions concerns about evacuation during an emergency situation. See response to Letter 1 for a discussion about emergency evacuation. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states that the corridor where the building is proposed has existing traffic issues. See response to Letter 3, comment #2. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Matthew Hudes; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; rmoore@losgatos.gov Cc:Ryan Safty Subject:Proposed 141 and 153 East Main St. project Date:Friday, March 7, 2025 9:14:02 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear council members, The height of this project will obscure hillside views. The size and mass is way out of proportion with otherbuildings located in downtown Los Gatos. This project is much too large for our town. Is there any chance it could kindly be scaled back to a single story structure instead? Best regards,Mike Kennedy26 Bayview Ave. Sent from my iPhone Comment Letter #11 _________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 37 Response to Letter 11 Mike Kennedy (March 7, 2025) 1. The commenter states concern related to the height of the proposed building and its potential to obscure hillside views. The commenter also states that the size and mass of the proposed building is out of proportion with other buildings located in downtown Los Gatos. The commenter requests that the project be scaled back to a single-story structure. See response to Letter 3, comments #1 and #5 for a discussion about the size and height of the proposed structure as well as hillside visibility. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:Fwd: New building next to the high school Date:Wednesday, March 12, 2025 11:00:28 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Thank You! Hello, this link was forwarded to me and I am very interested to understand what the town isgoing to do about all these projects as far as infrastructure improvement. These major projects without infrastructure improvement really are detrimental to the town,and I don’t understand why these issues are not being addressed as predominant negotiationsas part of the plants. These developers are making a lot of money they can afford to do someadditional infrastructure upgrades as a part of the total projects. Who is in charge of this mess? I would really like to know, and I don’t mean to imply thatpeople aren’t trying, but they’re really seems to be a lack of leadership and response from thetown in these areas. Another issue is that Los Gatos Saratoga Road at downtown Los Gatos connecting betweenSaratoga and Los Gatos Blvd. is a huge bottleneck and some of these building projects goingin are not required to do anything for the infrastructure: no additional outlets; no laneexpansion; no road improvements. I would welcome your share on all of this and what you’re understanding is. I also have a concern is with parking and added vehicles to this already-congested area next tothe high school. If you read Appendix H in the plans proposed, you'll see that neither optionfor the underground parking meets the town's requirements. I'm curious if this will just beapproved without meeting the minimum requirements https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2356 Caron Rakich Comment Letter #12 _______________1 ____________________________2 3 4 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 39 Response to Letter 12 Caron Rakich (March 12, 2025) 1. The commenter raises a broader concern over projects in Los Gatos stating that major projects without infrastructure improvement are detrimental to the Town. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required 2. The commenter expresses concerns regarding the proposed project. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 3. The commenter states that the connection between Saratoga Road and Los Gatos Boulevard is a bottleneck and expresses concern that the projects in Los Gatos are not required to do anything for infrastructure (no outlets, no lane expansion, no road improvements). The Town contains development impact fees associated with traffic (Town Code Chapter 15, Article VII); its purpose is to assure that each new development or expansion of use pays for its fair share of the transportation improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative traffic impacts. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 4. The commenter states concern with parking and added vehicles to the existing congestion in the area. The commenter indicates that the parking options proposed by the project do not meet the Town’s requirements. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: David Knol <david@knolcal.net> Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2025 9:33 AM To: Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov> Subject: feedback on 143 and 151 E Main Street proposal [EXTERNAL SENDER] i'm writing to ask that the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission reject this proposal along with the other proposals in flight (eg, post office plans) that threaten the character of our small, charming downtown area. the proposed building at 143 and 151 East Main Street in particular is a monstrosity that looks completely incongruous with its surroundings, when considering its proposed girth, height and architecture. consider a design more in-line with the Beckwith Block (Southern Kitchen) or Soda Works Plaza (Purple Onion) to be infinitely more palatable! as written this proposal is not a good fit for our community and as a constituent i would ask Comment Letter #13 _________________________1 that you reject it. regards, david knol 41 peralta ave los gatos__ Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 42 Response to Letter 13 David Knol (March 1, 2025) 1. The commenter requests that the Town reject the proposed project along with the other proposal in flight (e.g., post office plans) that the commenter believes threatens the character of the downtown area. See response to Letter 3, comment #5 regarding visual impacts. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:143 and 151 E. Main Street comments Date:Friday, March 7, 2025 12:48:10 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi, the headmaster of Los Gatos High asked parents to share any concerns regards the proposed development of the address above to this email address. Whilst I think that its a good idea, as know that Los Gatos is under an affordable housing mandate and its a pretty ugly existing building and would be an improvement, I am worried about kids safety and parking during the building stage. Most of us parents have to drop off our kids along Church in the morning, as the traffic is impossible out front of the school and also pick up at 2.30 or 4 on the same street so unless the work is done outside of those hours its going to cause havoc safely dropping off our kids with material supply / construction trucks, workers vehicles also using the road. I am pretty sure that the entire area will also be cordoned off securely, as some of these kids are space monkeys outside of classes and never look where they are going, often glued to their phones with heads down so I think the safety is going to be a huge concern unless you can get a huge chunk of the build done during the summer holidays. Hopefully the parking underneath the garage will be enough for the residents to not also have to use the parking along church street as its already difficult to pick up/drop off with cafe users, church goers and the pre-school but I guess that is a while away and my son will hopefully have graduated by then lol. Rgs Chris Comment Letter #14 ____________________________1 2 3 4 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 44 Response to Letter 14 Rgs Chris (March 7, 2025) 1. The comment states support for the idea of affordable housing and removing the existing building. The commenter raises concern for kids’ safety and parking during the building stage. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states that parents have to drop their children off along Church Street in the morning due to traffic issues. The commenter states that unless the construction work is done outside of the morning and afternoon pick-up/drop-off for school, it would cause havoc safely dropping off the kids with material supply/construction trucks and workers also using the road. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 3. The commenter states concern for children safety during construction of the project. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 4. The commenter expresses hope that the parking proposed will be enough for the residents to not also have to use parking along Church Street. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:143 E Main Date:Thursday, March 6, 2025 11:42:45 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] This proposal is so poorly thought out. The traffic in town is already unbearable during school start and end times, not to mention weekend beach traffic. Why has our town sold out to the highest bidder? There has to be a compromise that works for all of us that live in the town. 30 units??? The schools in the area are already over crowded has that been factored in? I’ve lived in Los Gatos for 53 years and am so sad to see what’s happening to our town. I am firmly against this development. Gail Manganello Sent from my iPhone Comment Letter #15 ____________1 2 3 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 46 Response to Letter 15 Gail Manganello (March 6, 2025) 1. The commenter expresses concern about traffic. See response to Letter 3, comments #2 for a discussion about traffic impacts associated with the proposed project on the surrounding roadways. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter expresses concern for the number of units proposed for the project. This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary. 3. The commenter expresses concern related to the schools and over-crowding. Section 15.0, Public Services, checklist question “c” of the initial study addresses the impacts to schools in Los Gatos. The initial study concludes that the payment of statutory fees pursuant to Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts to school facilities. New facilities, if and when required by the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos- Saratoga Union High School District would be developed and analyzed independent of this project review. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:143 & 151 Construction Project Date:Friday, March 7, 2025 2:54:27 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hello Ryan, I received notification re: the 143 & 151 construction project. This project is going tosignificantly impact the drop-off and pick-up of Los Gatos High School students. Traffic during morning and pick-up is already congested and will be made far worse. What isbeing proposed to alleviate the impact that this project will have during these times? Additionally, the noise level will be very disruptive during school hours. What is going to bedone about that? Thank you, Isabel Guerra Comment Letter #16 ____________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 48 Response to Letter 16 Isabel Guerra (March 7, 2025) 1. The commenter expresses concern related to student drop-off/pick-up at the adjacent school. The commenter adds that traffic is already congested in this area and can be made worse with implementation of the proposed project. The commenter questions what is being proposed to alleviate the impact that the project will have during these times. The commenter also mentions noise levels being disruptive during school hours and questions what is going to be done about that. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the impacts of the project on the surrounding roadways. Section 13.0, Noise, of the initial study contains Mitigation Measure N-1, which requires that the project developer ensure that no individual piece of construction equipment produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet and that best management practices are incorporated during construction activities to further reduce noise levels. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:Re: Public comment: Mixed - use development 143 and 151 E. Main Street Date:Friday, March 7, 2025 12:20:44 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Good afternoon, I am writing about the proposed mixed-use development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street. I understand that the town is required to meet certain high-density requirements, as the state dictates. My concern with the current proposal at this property is related to the traffic and parking issues that it will create. The area around the high school is currently heavy with traffic during the morning and afternoon school hours. The four-way stop at theintersection (Pleasant St. at Main St.) backs up past the library, and up the hill in the other direction. Will a traffic light be installed there? The intersection next to the development at High School Court at Main St. is already challenging to exit due to visibility of cars parked along Main Street. I read the parking proposals and it looks like neither one meets the minimum town standards. How will this be fixed before re-developing the site? Somehow the gymone block down the street (The Club LG) was able to not meet reasonable parking requirements, as members fill up most of the street parking spots during the day because their parking lot is so small. Thank you, Elke Billingsley Los Gatos resident Comment Letter #17 ____________________________________1 2 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 50 Response to Letter 17 Elke Billingsley (March 7, 2025) 1. The commenter expresses concerns related to the traffic and parking issues that could arise as a result of the proposed project. The commenter questions whether a traffic light will be installed at the four-way stop at the intersection of Pleasant Street at Main Street due to current traffic congestion issues. The commenter adds visibility concerns when exiting the intersection next to the project site at High School Court and Main Street. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic. No traffic signals are proposed or required by the project. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states that the parking options provided by the project do not meet the Town’s minimum standards and questions what will be done about this before redevelopment of the site. This comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To: Ryan Sa! Cc: Subject: I Re: input on 143 & 151 East Main Street Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 1:15:00 PM I [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Mr. Safty, Hope this message finds you well. I received the following email from our high school principal. We have owned and lived in our home in Ahnond Grove for over 17 years, and cunently have 2 students attending Los Gatos High. It is an amazing school. With this proposed development that is adjacent to the high school, my husband and I are ve1y concerned about the safety and increased traffic problems it would cause. Cunently, drop offs and pickups are aheady challenging and often chaotic; additionally, all the afterschool activities go well into the evenings. The proposed development is eno1mous and the additional traffic and activity it would generate would create a ve1y stressful environment for the students even before they begin their school day. Accordingly, it would set back their productivity and studies. We hope that as you and the planning collllllission review this project, that you will take these grave concerns into consideration. Hopefully, a small-scale project will take place instead. Thanks in advance, Gloria and Eric R. Sent from my iPhone Begin fo1warded message: Comment Letter #18 ___________________________1 2 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 52 Response to Letter 18 Gloria and Eric R. (March 7, 2025) 1. The commenter states their concern about the safety and increased traffic problems implementation of the proposed project could cause. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the project’s impact on surrounding roadways. See Letter 4, comments #3 for a discussion about pedestrian safety. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states that the proposed project is large and the additional traffic and activity it would generate could crease a stressful environment for the students. The commenter adds that a small-scale project is preferred. See response above under comment #1. See also the response to Letter 3, comment #1 for a discussion of the visual impacts associated with the size and height of the proposed project. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Cc: Subject:Comment for 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project Date:Sunday, March 9, 2025 2:58:58 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hello,I am a parent with a sophomore at LGHS and an incoming freshman next year. The current traffic around the schoolat all times (not just drop-off and pickup) does NOT allow for a multi-story mixed use project. We cannot seriouslybe considering that for that area. A new project that correlates with the high school area would be great but not amulti-story that will congest traffic even more. Please do not approve this project. It will impact the high schoolstudents, teachers, parents, and community in a negative way.Thank you,Jennifer Lambert Comment Letter #19 ___________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 54 Response to Letter 19 Jennfier Lambert (March 9, 2025) 1. The commenter states that traffic around the school at all times, not just during drop- off/pick-up) does not allow for a multi-story mixed-use project. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the project’s impact on surrounding roadways. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:143 and 151 E. Main Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 11:10:32 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] I volunteer at the Friends of Los Gatos book store, so I can attest to the amount of traffic on East Main Street during the week, on weekends, and especially during school dismissal times. Adding beach traffic during the summer months to normal traffic and now a 30 unit family complex will make the traffic situation gridlock. Parking during the week and on weekends is almost impossible. How can library patrons, LG Rec patrons, school employees and students find parking with the additional cars that will come with a multi-story apartment building? Please consider the impact of neighboring public and businesses that require access to parking and a flow of traffic that makes our downtown accessible. I travel from Shannon Road to the library and I experience bumper to bumper traffic on the weekends now and very few parking spaces in the Main Street area. Thank you for your consideration Karen Chase 107 Ann Arbor Dr Los Gatos Comment Letter #20 _____________________________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 56 Response to Letter 20 Karen Chase (March 10, 2025) 1. The commenter states their concern about traffic and parking issues in the area surrounding the project site. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the project’s impact on surrounding roadways. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. . The commenter does not raise any other environmental issues. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. March 10, 2025 Lauren Roseman 17429 Pleasant View Ave Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Town Council Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Los Gatos Town Council, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed development of 143 and 151 East Main Street. While I welcome some development of the above-mentioned property, I am concerned about the negative impact a project of this size will have. Given the location next to the high school, the already limited parking available in the area and traffic and safety issues that currently exist, adding an additional 30 residential units and ground-floor business space will further exacerbate traffic, parking and safety issues for students, faculty, families and the greater community. Please consider modifying the plans to limit the negative impact this will have on the town of Los Gatos. Kind regards, Lauren Roseman Comment Letter #21 ____________________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 58 Response to Letter 21 Lauren Roseman (March 10, 2025) 1. The commenter states their concern about traffic, parking, and safety issues that could occur with implementation of the proposed project. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the project’s impact to surrounding roadways. See response to Letter 4, comment #3 regarding pedestrian safety. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:Fwd: Town of Los Gatos seeking public input on the proposed development at 143 & 151 East Main Street Date:Thursday, March 6, 2025 1:20:22 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Goodmorning, I am in favor of building upwards for more real estate for the Los Gatos community, however, I really enjoy having a coffee shop on that corner of the street and would love to not see it goaway. The other major concern I have is the flow of traffic. Our drop off flow during 8:07-8:34 am is so stagnant and difficult to navigate through, as well as 2:19-2:55 every day. It would be sochallenging to propose several new small businesses in that specific location because there is truly not enough parking for our own students and staff on campus. For parents attendingmeetings, school events, it is a challenge to find parking spots. I would recommend that this plan only be supplemented by a parking lot/structure in place of another standing buildingnow. Please plan for parking, is the moral of my concern! Sarah Pereira School Counselor for (Q-S) Los Gatos High School --- Feb '25 Guidance Newsletter Comment Letter #22 __________________________1 2 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 60 Response to Letter 22 Sarah Pereira (March 6, 2025) 1. The commenter states that they enjoy the current building and would not like to see it redeveloped. The comment does not raise an environmental concern and, therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter states their concern related to the existing flow of traffic and the lack of parking in the area. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic. The commenter does not raise any other environmental issues; therefore, no further response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Saft Subject:143 E Main Street Proposal Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 2:42:34 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] This project makes no sense - replacing one story small businesses with a 4 story building right next to the high school is a horrible plan. That area of town already is already onlyaccessible two ways and becomes backed up with traffic due to the high school. Addingmore traffic and ridiculous, barely usable underground parking, is a joke. Visually, theproject doesn't fit in with the surrounding area. I strongly urge the Town Council to reject this proposal. Comment Letter #23 _____________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 62 Response to Letter 23 Unknown (March 10, 2025) 1. The commenter states disagreement with the type of project being proposed at the site due to existing traffic concerns and indicates a concern for the amount of parking being proposed. The commenter adds that the proposed project does not visually fit with the surrounding area. See response to Letter 3. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:Building Development Project Feedback Date:Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:41:10 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Ryan, Don't build this. It's a disgrace to the town of Los Gatos and a waste of money. Preserve our town. Preserve our history. Preserve our culture. Best regards. Comment Letter #24 ______1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 64 Response to Letter 24 Unknown (March 6, 2025) 1. The commenter disagrees with the proposed project and asks that the project not be built. This comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To:Ryan Safty Subject:143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project - Public Comment Date:Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:37:13 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Ryan, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed mixed-use development at 143 and151 E. Main Street. This project is exactly the kind of thoughtful, well-designed growth that Los Gatos needs. The proposal strikes an ideal balance—adding much-needed downtown housing while maintaining retail space and preserving the town’s architectural character. Its inclusion ofunderground parking is a smart solution that mitigates congestion concerns. This is precisely the kind of responsible development that enhances our community without compromising itscharm. I urge the Planning Commission to stand firm against the obstructionist, anti-growth sentimentthat too often stifles progress in Los Gatos. Our town must evolve to remain vibrant, welcoming, and accessible. Approving this project is a step in the right direction. Thank you for your time and consideration. Michelle Badger17136 Wild Way Comment Letter #25 ____________________________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 66 Response to Letter 25 Michelle Badger (March 6, 2025) 1. The commenter expresses their agreement with the type of project proposed at the site and states that this kind of responsible development enhances the community without compromising charm. The commenter requests that the Town stand firm against the obstructionist, anti-growth sentiment that too often stifles progress in Los Gatos. This comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. Community Development Contact Form First Name Carol Last Name Anglin Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 143-151 E. Main Street Message (Required) I live at 95 Church Street and the traffic congestion is often unbearable. If an emergency happened, it would be impossible for us to be safe. The project is too close to the congested high school area and the number of units is outrageous given its limited space and our town's resources. The rendering is totally incorrect as it looks if there is green space in front of the complex. I encourage you to VOTE NO on this development. I feel we have little say in our community. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Comment Letter #26 ______________________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 68 Response to Letter 26 Carol Anglin (March 18, 2025) 1. The commenter expresses concern about traffic congestion and emergency evacuation. The commenter adds that the project is too close to the congested high school area. See Letter 3, response to comment #2 for a discussion about traffic increases. Also see Letter 1, response to comment #1 for a discussion about emergency evacuations. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. From: To: Subject: Date: IJ!ll!I Concerns about proposed development Tuesday, March 18, 2025 9:56:11 AM I [EXTERNAL SENDER] Good morning, I am writing in response to the proposed mixed-use development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street, which includes 30 multi-family residential units commercials ace on the ·ound floor, and the removal of large protected trees. , I am concerned about the sea e o t s proJect. 1 et e tree remova 1s concernmg m itself, the size of the proposed stmcture seems dispropo1iionate to the capacity of the smTounding streets to safely accommodate it. The intersections of Main Street, High School Comi , and Church Street are ah-eady highly congested, paiiicularly during peak times on school days. These busy periods occur just before school begins (ai·ound 8:10-8:30 AM) and after school ends (from 2:15-4 PM). The neai·by Methodist church operates a daycai·e, with pai·ents frequently crossing these streets with young children, often pushing strollers. Additionally, many students, school staff, church staff, business people, and cafe patrons regulai·ly walk across these streets. CmTently, traffic congestion is ah-eady a concern, with drivers pausing at intersections or along these streets to drop off students, while pedestrians and other drivers navigate through these busy areas. On school days, we often experience near-miss accidents at these intersections. Adding a much lai·ger building-one that occupies significantly more squai·e footage, is multiple stories high, and potentially blocks sightlines-will likely exacerbate these issues. This could lead to more blind spots, increased traffic congestion, and heightened safety risks, paiiicularly for pedestrians. Should this project proceed, the following adjustments should be incorporated into the plan: 1) reduce the size of the development, and 2) implement traffic lighting and other measures to mitigate congestion and ensure safety at neai·by intersections. Without these changes, the risk of accidents and fmiher traffic issues will only increase. Thank you for considering these concerns. This email was sent by a staff member at Las C,qtq<-Sqrqtaim ltuiqn High School Qi<trict This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. Jfyoo are not the intended recipient (or have received this email in error), please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto. Comment Letter #27 _____________1 _____________2 _______________3 ________4 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 70 Response to Letter 27 Kristi Grasty (March 18, 2025) 1. The commenter states their concern with the scale of the proposed project and removal of trees. The commenter adds that the size of the proposed structure is disproportionate to the capacity of the surrounding streets to safely accommodate it. Section 4.0, Biological Resources, checklist question “e” of the initial study discusses tree removal. Six total trees (three on-site and three off-site) are proposed for removal; all of which are protected by the Town. Therefore, the initial study requires implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which requires tree replacement consistent with the Town Code. See response to Letter 1, comment #3 for a discussion about the size of the proposed structure. See also response to Letter 3, comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 2. The commenter discusses congestion at the intersections of Main Street, High School Court, and Church Street. The commenter also states that the nearby church operates a daycare with parents frequently crossing these streets with young children, as well as other students, high school staff members, church staff, business people, and café patrons. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. See also response to Letter 4, comment #3 for a discussion about pedestrian safety. 3. The commenter states concern about current traffic congestion in the area. The commenter states that adding a larger building at the site, one that occupies significantly more square footage, is multiple stories high, and potential blocks sightlines, could exacerbate these issues. The commenter states that the project could lead to more blind spots, increased traffic congestion, and heightened safety risks for pedestrians. See response to Letter 3, comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. See also response to Letter 4, comment #3 for a discussion about pedestrian safety. See response to Letter 3, comment #1 for a discussion about the size and height of the proposed structure. According to Hexagon Transportation Consultants, sight lines would be improved with the project compared to existing conditions. The existing building comes right up to the back of the sidewalk on Church Street, High School Court, and E. Main Street. The proposed new building would be set back at least ten feet from Church Street and E. Main Street, and about five feet from High School Court. In addition, the corners of the building would be chamfered for greater visibility. Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 71 No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 4. The commenter states if should the project proceeds, the following adjustments are recommended: reduce the size of the development and implement traffic lighting and other measures to mitigate congestion and ensure safety at nearby intersections. The commenter expresses concern that without these changes, the risk of accidents and further traffic issues will increase. See response to Letter 3, comment #1 for a discussion about the size of the proposed project and comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. See also response to Letter 17, comment #1 for a discussion about traffic signals. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. 143 & 151 E. Main Street | Proposed Changes to MM BIO-1 March 18, 2025 BIO-1: To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction or project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. a. One survey for active bird nests shall occur within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance.Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet forpasserines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or frompublic areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will beprepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Departmentand no further mitigation is required. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearbysurrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shallbe established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young havefledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. Thequalified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities andincrease the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensiveflights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the younghave fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has beenconfirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos. Comment Letter #28 _______________________________________________________________________1 Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos March 21, 2025, Page 73 Response to Letter 28 Miles Imwalle (March 19, 2025) 1. The commenter (the applicant’s counsel) has requested a change to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to be consistent with similar measures adopted by the Town for other projects. This change to the language of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would not alter the intent or purpose of the mitigation to protect nesting birds. This change has been made in a revised mitigated negative declaration. Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Project Name 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Lead Agency Town of Los Gatos Project Proponent CSPN LLC Project Location 143 & 151 E Main Street, Los Gatos Project Description The project proposes to demolish the existing on-site uses and construct a four-story mixed-use building with underground parking. The ground level of the proposed building will include 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial with a total of 30 residential units (24 market rate and 6 affordable) located on all stories of the building. There are two options for the underground parking: Option 1 is a two-level parking garage with 47 individual parking stalls and Option 2 is a one-level parking garage with 39 parking stalls that include 16 car stackers. The project involves the removal of three existing on-site trees and planting 21 new on-site trees. Public Review Period February 28, 2025 – March 20, 2025 Written Comments To Ryan Safty, Associate Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Proposed Findings The Town of Los Gatos is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. The initial study indicates that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. However, the mitigation measures identified in the initial study would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency Town of Los Gatos that the project, with mitigation measures incorporated, may have a significant effect on the environment. See the following project-specific mitigation measures: Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 Mitigation Measures Air Quality AQ-1 The applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, including tree removal. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following measures to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions during construction: a. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles will have 2010 or newer model year engines, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s Truck and Bus Regulation; b. Idling of construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks will be avoided where feasible, and if idling is necessary, it will not exceed three minutes; c. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and d. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity, or biodiesel. AQ-2 The project applicant shall ensure that MERV 13 air filtration systems, or an equivalent system, are included in the design and operations of the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and specifications demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. These plans shall identify the locations and specifications of the air filtration systems and confirm they meet the performance standards for particulate and airborne pollutant removal. The air filtration systems must be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Verification of proper installation and functionality shall be conducted by a licensed professional and documented in a final compliance report, which must be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for approval. The property owner or operator shall also establish a maintenance plan for the air filtration system to ensure ongoing performance in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Biological Resources BIO-1 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction or project-related work is Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. a. One survey for active bird nests shall occur within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and no further mitigation is required. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-2 Per Town Code Section 26.20.010 and Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of protected trees on private or Town property. The project developer shall abide by any tree replacement ratios and/or in-lieu payments, tree protection measures, and best management practices required by the tree removal permit and/or within the arborist report dated October 24, 2024 (Appendix D). Cultural Resources CUL-1 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, grading, and construction, “In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, contractor shall temporarily halt or divert excavations within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated. All potentially significant archaeological deposits shall be evaluated to demonstrate whether the resource is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources, even if discovered during construction. If archaeological deposits are encountered, they will be evaluated and Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 mitigated simultaneously in the timeliest manner practicable, allowing for recovery of materials and data by standard archaeological procedures. For indigenous archaeological sites, this data recovery involves the hand-excavated recovery and non-destructive analysis of a small sample of the deposit. Historic resources shall also be sampled through hand excavation, though architectural features may require careful mechanical exposure and hand excavation. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance by a qualified Archaeologist. Significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.” CUL-2 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, demolition, grading, and construction, “In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. All grading or earthmoving activities shall immediately stop within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find. The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the project proponent shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code [PRC] § 5097). The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD will determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and associated grave artifacts, and shall oversee the disposition of the remains. In the event the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being granted access to the site, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity within the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify the MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being allowed access to the site; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.” Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 Geology and Soils GEO-1 The applicant shall prepare a soils report addressing, but not limited to: foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, and impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. The soils report shall be submitted to the Town Building Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. All recommendations outlined in the soils report shall be incorporated into the project design. GEO-2 The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit: “If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction activities in the area shall be suspended. The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to examine the site and identify protective measures to be implemented to protect the paleontological resource. The measures shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.” Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1 The project developer shall incorporate the following GHG emissions reduction performance standard into the final project design:  No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted as part of the project plans; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric. Final plans for the development shall be reviewed by the Town Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure this performance standard is incorporated into the project design. Verification of development consistent with this performance standard shall be assured prior to approval of occupancy permits. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 The project developer shall conduct soil vapor testing on the project site prior to issuance of a grading permit. The results of the soil vapor testing shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and only with approval by the Town Engineer can any grading and earth- moving construction activities take place. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels that exceed safety thresholds for residential uses, the Town Engineer shall determine if Environmental Solutions should provide recommendations for construction of the project. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels below safety thresholds, no further action is necessary. Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025 Noise N-1 The project developer shall ensure that no individual piece of construction equipment produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification.  The project developer shall also ensure that best management practices are incorporated during construction activities. The following shall be placed on all ground-disturbing project plans:  All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.  Noise-producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.  All noise-producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise-sensitive land uses.  Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise-sensitive land uses.  Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator. N-2 The project developer shall install mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all residential units so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and approval by the Town Building Department, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Transportation TRANS-1 Project improvements plans shall include the following, subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit: a. Stripe a loading space along the project frontage on E. Main Street; b. Apply 10 feet of No Parking (Red Zone) on both sides of the project driveway on Church Street; and c. Provide adequate landing space at the top and bottom of the garage ramps. Public Review Mitigated Negative Declaration 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project February 14, 2025 Prepared by EMC Planning Group This document was produced on recycled paper. PUBLIC REVIEW MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 143 & 151 E. MAIN STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT PREPARED FOR Town of Los Gatos Ryan Safty, Associate Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel 408.354.6802 rsafty@losgatosca.gov PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 601 Abrego Street Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 Shoshana Lutz, Senior Planner lutz@emcplanning.com www.emcplanning.com February 14, 2025 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project February 2025 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Project Name 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Lead Agency Town of Los Gatos Project Proponent CSPN LLC Project Location 143 & 151 E Main Street, Los Gatos Project Description The project proposes to demolish the existing on-site uses and construct a four-story mixed-use building with underground parking. The ground level of the proposed building will include 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial with a total of 30 residential units (24 market rate and 6 affordable) located on all stories of the building. There are two options for the underground parking: Option 1 is a two-level parking garage with 47 individual parking stalls and Option 2 is a one-level parking garage with 39 parking stalls that include 16 car stackers. The project involves the removal of three existing on-site trees and planting 21 new on-site trees. Public Review Period February 28, 2025 – March 19, 2025 Written Comments To Ryan Safty, Associate Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Proposed Findings The Town of Los Gatos is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. The initial study indicates that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. However, the mitigation measures identified in the initial study would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency Town of Los Gatos that the project, with mitigation measures incorporated, may have a significant effect on the environment. See the following project-specific mitigation measures: Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project February 2025 Mitigation Measures Air Quality AQ-1 The applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, including tree removal. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following measures to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions during construction: a. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles will have 2010 or newer model year engines, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s Truck and Bus Regulation; b. Idling of construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks will be avoided where feasible, and if idling is necessary, it will not exceed three minutes; c. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and d. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity, or biodiesel. AQ-2 The project applicant shall ensure that MERV 13 air filtration systems, or an equivalent system, are included in the design and operations of the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and specifications demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. These plans shall identify the locations and specifications of the air filtration systems and confirm they meet the performance standards for particulate and airborne pollutant removal. The air filtration systems must be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Verification of proper installation and functionality shall be conducted by a licensed professional and documented in a final compliance report, which must be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for approval. The property owner or operator shall also establish a maintenance plan for the air filtration system to ensure ongoing performance in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Biological Resources BIO-1 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all construction activities should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If construction or project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project February 2025 species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. a. One survey for active bird nests shall occur within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and no further mitigation is required. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-2 Per Town Code Section 26.20.010 and Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of protected trees on private or Town property. The project developer shall abide by any tree replacement ratios and/or in-lieu payments, tree protection measures, and best management practices required by the tree removal permit and/or within the arborist report dated October 24, 2024 (Appendix D). Cultural Resources CUL-1 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, grading, and construction, “In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, contractor shall temporarily halt or divert excavations within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated. All potentially significant archaeological deposits shall be evaluated to demonstrate whether the resource is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources, even if discovered during construction. If archaeological deposits are encountered, they will be evaluated and mitigated simultaneously in the timeliest manner practicable, allowing for recovery of Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project February 2025 materials and data by standard archaeological procedures. For indigenous archaeological sites, this data recovery involves the hand‐excavated recovery and non‐destructive analysis of a small sample of the deposit. Historic resources shall also be sampled through hand excavation, though architectural features may require careful mechanical exposure and hand excavation. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance by a qualified Archaeologist. Significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.” CUL-2 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, demolition, grading, and construction, “In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. All grading or earthmoving activities shall immediately stop within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find. The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the project proponent shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code [PRC] § 5097). The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD will determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and associated grave artifacts, and shall oversee the disposition of the remains. In the event the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being granted access to the site, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity within the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify the MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being allowed access to the site; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.” Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project February 2025 Geology and Soils GEO-1 The applicant shall prepare a soils report addressing, but not limited to: foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, and impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. The soils report shall be submitted to the Town Building Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. All recommendations outlined in the soils report shall be incorporated into the project design. GEO-2 The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit: “If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction activities in the area shall be suspended. The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to examine the site and identify protective measures to be implemented to protect the paleontological resource. The measures shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.” Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1 The project developer shall incorporate the following GHG emissions reduction performance standard into the final project design:  No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted as part of the project plans; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric. Final plans for the development shall be reviewed by the Town Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure this performance standard is incorporated into the project design. Verification of development consistent with this performance standard shall be assured prior to approval of occupancy permits. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 The project developer shall conduct soil vapor testing on the project site prior to issuance of a grading permit. The results of the soil vapor testing shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and only with approval by the Town Engineer can any grading and earth- moving construction activities take place. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels that exceed safety thresholds for residential uses, the Town Engineer shall determine if Environmental Solutions should provide recommendations for construction of the project. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels below safety thresholds, no further action is necessary. Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project February 2025 Noise N-1 The project developer shall ensure that no individual piece of construction equipment produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification.  The project developer shall also ensure that best management practices are incorporated during construction activities. The following shall be placed on all ground-disturbing project plans:  All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.  Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.  All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator. N-2 The project developer shall install mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all residential units so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and approval by the Town Building Department, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Transportation TRANS-1 Project improvements plans shall include the following, subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit: a. Stripe a loading space along the project frontage on E. Main Street; b. Apply 10 feet of No Parking (Red Zone) on both sides of the project driveway on Church Street; and c. Provide adequate landing space at the top and bottom of the garage ramps. This document was produced on recycled paper. FINAL INITIAL STUDY 143 & 151 E. MAIN STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT PREPARED FOR Town of Los Gatos Ryan Safty, Associate Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel 408.354.6802 rsafty@losgatosca.gov PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 601 Abrego Street Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 Shoshana Lutz, Senior Planner lutz@emcplanning.com www.emcplanning.com February 14, 2025 EMC Planning Group Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................. 13 C. DETERMINATION .............................................................................................................. 14 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................. 15 1. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 17 2. Agriculture and Forest Resources...................................................................................... 19 3. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 21 4. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 30 5. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 36 6. Energy .................................................................................................................................... 39 7. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 41 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 45 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 50 10. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 53 11. Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 57 12. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 58 13. Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 59 14. Population and Housing ..................................................................................................... 63 15. Public Services ...................................................................................................................... 64 16. Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 67 17. Transportation ...................................................................................................................... 68 18. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 71 19. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................. 72 20. Wildfire .................................................................................................................................. 75 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 76 E. SOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 78 EMC Planning Group Inc. Appendices Appendix A Project Plans dated October 30, 2024 Appendix B CalEEMod Results Appendix C Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity Appendix D Arborist Report and Peer Review Appendix E EMFAC Results Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Peer Review Appendix G Environmental Noise Assessment Appendix H Transportation Study Figures Figure 1 Location Map .................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3 Site Photographs ............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 5 Special-Status Species in the Project Vicinity ............................................................. 33 Tables Table 1 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................... 22 Table 2 Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan) ............................. 24 Table 3 Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ................................... 25 Table 4 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ...................................... 26 Table 5 Student Generation ........................................................................................................ 65 Section A Background 1 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 A. BACKGROUND Background The Los Gatos Town Council adopted the Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan (“2040 General Plan”) and certified the 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“2040 General Plan EIR”) on June 30, 2022. On April 2, 2024, the Town Council voted to rescind the land use element and community design element of the 2040 General Plan (Town of Los Gatos 2022). Therefore, the Town’s current general plan consists of the land use element and community design element of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan (2020 General Plan), and the remaining elements of the 2040 General Plan. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR (2020 General Plan EIR) is the effective EIR for the land use element and the community design element. On June 4, 2024, the Town Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element and the adopted Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on July 10, 2024. The applicant submitted the SB 330 project application on June 18, 2024, which was before the Town had a certified Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed project was eligible to invoke the Builder’s Remedy because the applicant established vesting. Setting The 0.43-acre property is located at 143 East Main Street (APN 529-28-002) and 151 East Main Street (APN 529-28-001) in downtown Los Gatos. Los Gatos is located approximately 10 miles south of the City of San Jose, approximately 30 miles southeast of the City of San Francisco, and approximately 16 miles north of the City of Santa Cruz. Figure, 1, Location Map, identifies the project site’s regional location. Project Title 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number Ryan Safty, Associate Planner 408-354-6802 Date Prepared February 14, 2025 Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. 601 Abrego Street Monterey, CA 93940 Project Location 143 & 151 E. Main Street, Los Gatos Project Sponsor Name and Address CSPN LLC 8 The Green, Suite A Dover, DE 19901 General Plan Designation Central Business District (2020 General Plan Land Use Element) Zoning C-2 Central Business District Section A Background 2 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 The project site is currently developed with a commercial retail building; current uses are a café and a furniture store. The site is surrounded by Church Street and the Los Gatos Methodist Church to the north; East Main Street, Hotel Los Gatos, and the Los Gatos Adult Recreation Center to the south; High School Court and Los Gatos High School to the east; and the Masonic Hall to the west. Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, illustrates the uses on, and surrounding, the project site. Figure 3, Site Photographs, provides a visual of the project site from a pedestrian’s viewpoint. Description of Project The proposed project is a SB 330 application that has invoked Builder’s Remedy for the demolition of the existing on-site uses and the construction of a four-story (52 feet high) mixed- use building with underground parking. The ground level of the proposed building will include 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial with a total of 30 residential units (24 market rate and 6 affordable) located on all stories of the building. There are two options for the underground parking: Option 1 is a two-level parking garage with 47 individual parking stalls and Option 2 is a one-level parking garage with 39 parking stalls that include 16 car stackers. The project involves the removal of three existing on-site trees and three street trees, and involves the planting of 21 new on-site trees. The project includes multiple exceptions to the Town’s development standards, applicable for Builder’s Remedy projects related to the following:  Building height;  Landscaping;  Density;  Floor area ratio;  Setbacks;  Parking; and  Objective design standards related to:  Short-term bicycle parking and dimensions;  Long-term bicycle parking location, dimensions, and space between aisle and parking stall;  Bicycle facilities support racks;  Pedestrian access gate to parking structure;  Landscaping;  Screening fence location;  Perimeter barrier gates;  Private and community recreational space; Section A Background 3 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025  Inclusion of site amenities;  Façade design and articulation;  Building materials;  Entrances; and  Balconies. The following applications have been filed for the proposed project: Architecture and Site Application S-24-007, Conditional Use Permit U-24-002, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-004. Figure 4, Site Plan, provides the project’s proposed site plan. Appendix A, Project Plans, provides the entire project plan set. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required Bay Area Air Quality Management District Santa Clara County Fire Department West Valley Sanitation District Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The Town sent out tribal consultation offer letters to Native American tribes traditionally and cultural affiliated with the project area on December 5, 2024. No responses have been received as of January 21, 2025. Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. Section A Background 4 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 This side intentionally left blank. k Project Site Source: ESRI 2024 Figure 1Location Map 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study 0 2 miles ProjectLocation £¤101 £¤101UV1 k Salinas UV152Gilroy San Jose San Francisco Santa Cruz Monterey §¨¦580 §¨¦5§¨¦280 §¨¦680 UV1 Regional Location Los Gatos San Jose Campbell Saratoga Cupertino Santa Clara Lexington Hills Monte Sereno UV17 UV17 UV17 UV85 UV85 UV85 §¨¦280 §¨¦280 UV87 Santa Cruz Mountains Alamitos Section A Background 6 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 This side intentionally left blank. East Main St. Los GatosHigh SchoolState Route 17Church St.Los GatosMethodist Church Hotel Los GatosHigh School Ct.Los GatosAdult Recreation Center Masonic Hall Town Hall Aerial Photograph 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study 0 250 feet Figure 2 Source: Santa Clara County GIS 2024, Google Earth 2024Project Site Section A Background 8 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 This side intentionally left blank. East Main St.Church St.High School Ct.4321On East Main Street facing northeast at the project site.4On the corner of East Main Street and High School Court facing northwest at the existing structure to be demolished.3On the corner of High School Court and Church Street facing southwest at the existing structure to bedemolished.2On Church Street facing southeast at the project site.1Photographs: EMC Planning Group 2024Source: Google Earth 2024143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial StudySite PhotographsFigure 3Project Site Section A Background 10 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 This side intentionally left blank. 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial StudySite PlanFigure 4Source: Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners Inc. 202460 feet0C H U R C H S T R E E TM A I N S T R E E TH I G H S C H O O L A V E N U E C O U R TE A S T 1DOWN TO GRARGE12231010141121LOS GATOS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH111 CHURCH ST,LOS GATOS, CA 95030LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,LOS GATOS, CA 9503016UNIT 1UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4UNIT 6UNIT 7COMMERCIALRETAIL/RESTAURANT577154'5'-11"6'5'-8"7'-5"9'-4"695'-5"10'4'-3"2'-9"SETBACKUNIT 5171823'ENTRANCE TO GARAGE3A 4.16"6"5'-6"4'-7"1912'SETBACKTO EXISTING BUILDING19513444MASONIC HALL131 E.MAIN STREET20REQUIRED 10' FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINEREQUIRED 52' REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINEREQUIRED 47' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE5212'-8"SETBACK2'-2"SETBACKREQUIRED 0' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE8'-10"SETBACK3'-7"4'-2"4'-11"SETBACK4'-8"SETBACKTO EXISTING BUILDING5'-8"SETBACKTO EXISTING BUILDING22VISION TRIANGLE Section A Background 12 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 This side intentionally left blank. Section B Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 13 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation ☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Transportation ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire ☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 15 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 16 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Section D Evaluation of Impacts 17 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 1. AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 (Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects), would the project: Comments: a. Scenic vistas are views from a public place that is expansive and considered locally important. The Town of Los Gatos is situated at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains and is defined by its views of its ridgelines as well as the surrounding forested hillsides and mature trees (Town of Los Gatos 2022). As shown on Figure 3 (refer back to Section A. Background), limited forested hillsides can be seen by eastbound and westbound travelers on Church Street (images 1 and 2, respectively). Church Street is a local street serving only one church and a few other businesses. Eastbound travelers have only a limited view of the forested hillsides because the current view is partially obstructed by existing trees. Westbound travelers also have a limited view of the forested hillsides because the current view is partially obstructed by the existing structure on-site as well as existing trees. The proposed project would add a small obstruction to the existing westbound traveler’s views on Church Street; however, the majority of the existing view directly west of Church Street would remain unobstructed. The project would completely obstruct, albeit small, views for a very limited number of eastbound travelers on Church Street. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 18 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 b. The project site is located approximately 0.15 miles southeast from the portion of State Route 17 that is an eligible state scenic highway (California Department of Transportation 2024). The project site cannot be seen from the highway due to intervening trees that line the highway. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c. The project site is located within an urbanized area and is zoned C-2 Central Business District. This zoning district allows a maximum height of 45 feet; however, the proposed building would be 52 feet high, as allowed when using SB 330, Builder’s Remedy. Due to the project’s affordable housing component, this Builder’s Remedy project qualifies for unlimited exceptions to the Town Code and General Plan. Although the proposed structure is seven feet higher than the maximum permitted height in the C-2 Zoning District, the project is eligible for this increase based on the Builder’s Remedy law. The project’s location in downtown, in addition to being a Builder’s Remedy project, result in less than significant visual impacts. d. Current light sources on the project site are from the existing single-story commercial structure and vehicle headlights on the adjacent roadways. The proposed project includes construction of a four-story mixed-use structure, which may increase light sources on the site. The proposed project, as noted in the project plans in Appendix A, would comply with Standard 7.2 in the Town’s Objective Design Standards, which states that exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum of 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Uplighting is prohibited. The project site is currently developed with a commercial and office space, which includes outdoor lighting. Additionally, the project will direct exterior lighting downward and shield light bulbs from view. Therefore, the project’s impacts associated with new sources of light or glare would be less than significant. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 19 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Comments: a. The project site developed and located in downtown Los Gatos, and is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation (California Department of Conservation 2024). Therefore, the proposed mixed-use project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 20 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 b. The project site is zoned C-2 Central Business District and is not under a Williamson Act contract (Town of Los Gatos 2024). Therefore, the proposed mixed-use project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. c. The project site is zoned C-2 Central Business District and, therefore, would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. The project site is currently developed with a commercial retail building and, therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e. The site is surrounded by commercial and public facility uses and is more than a mile from the nearest farmland or forest lands. Based on its location within Los Gatos, implementation of the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 21 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, which is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“air district”). The discussion in this section is based primarily on the air district’s California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (2022) (“CEQA Guidelines”) and the Spare the Air Cool the Climate A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area (2017) (“Clean Air Plan”), as well as the results of emissions modeling using the California Emission Estimation Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. The “unmitigated” emissions model scenario yields an estimate of criteria air pollutant emissions that would be generated during project construction and operations in the absence of mitigation measures that otherwise might be required. This model scenario does account for uniformly applied existing regulatory measures that reduce emissions. The CalEEMod results, included in Appendix B, were used to assess the project’s construction generated criteria air pollutant emissions. Data inputs to the model take into account the type and size of proposed uses utilizing CalEEMod default land uses based on the size metrics shown on the project plans (Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc. 2024). The land use type and size metrics inputs are presented in Table 1, Project Characteristics. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d. Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 22 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Table 1 Project Characteristics Proposed Land Use CalEEMod Land Use Subtype1 Quantity Residential Units Apartments Mid Rise 30 Dwelling Units Commercial/Retail/Restaurant Strip Mall 2,416 Square Feet Parking Garage Enclosed Parking Structure 47 Spaces2 Circulation Area Other Asphalt Surfaces 11,427 Square-Feet SOURCE: CalEEMod version 2022.1, Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc 2024 NOTES: 1. CalEEMod default land use subtype. Descriptions of the model default land use categories and subtypes are found in the User’s Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1 available online at: https://caleemod.com/user-guide. 2. The project has two options for the parking garage. The “maximum parking scenario” was used in this analysis (i.e., 47 parking spaces vs. 39 parking spaces). Unless otherwise noted, other data inputs to CalEEMod are based on the following primary assumptions:  Construction start date will be January 2026;  Operational year is 2028;  The net daily trip rate used for multifamily housing (17 trips per day) is consistent with the trip generation estimates prepared for the project (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2024);  20 percent (6 units) of the proposed residential units will be affordable at the low- income level;  As proposed in the project plans (October 30, 2024), the project will provide 25 to 26 level 2 Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) parking spaces;  As proposed in the project plans (October 30, 2024), the building will be constructed as all electric. According to an email conversation with Town staff on January 22, 2025, the applicant would like the option to include gas; and  Local utility providers will serve the project with power, water, and sewer. Comments: a. The air district has primary responsibility for assuring that national and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the air basin. CEQA requires that proposed projects be analyzed for conflicts with applicable air quality plans. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a town, city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and state ambient air quality standards. Attainment status is found on the air district website (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2024). The primary air pollutants of concern in the air basin are ozone and particulate matter, for which the air basin is in nonattainment. The air basin is in Section D Evaluation of Impacts 23 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 nonattainment for the federal and state standards for ozone and with the state standards for particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10. The air basin is either unclassified or in attainment with all other State and Federal ambient air quality standards. The air district recommends the following basic best management practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions:  B-1 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day;  B-2 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;  B-3 All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;  B-4 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph;  B-5 All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;  B-6 All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph;  B-7 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site;  B-8 Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel; and  B-9 Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The air district also recommends enhanced best management practices under specific circumstances; however, due to the very small size of the project, the enhanced measures are not necessary. On April 19, 2017, the air district adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which fulfills the mandate required through the Clean Air Act for nonattainment areas, including updated emissions inventory, precursor demonstration, and the demonstration that best available control measure requirements continue to satisfy regional air quality standards. There are 85 control measures in the Clean Air Plan, many of which are applicable only for industrial or regional implementation. The air quality plan control measures that potentially apply to the proposed project are presented below in Table 2, Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan) along with a brief consistency analysis to determine how the project either does or does not implement each measure. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 24 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Implementation of the applicable control measures described below ensures that the proposed project would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, construction and operations of the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Table 2 Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan) Control Measure Number and Name Consistency Analysis SS36 – Particulate Matter from Trackout Consistent. This measure addresses mud/dirt and other solid track-out from construction, landfills, quarries and other bulk material sites, that result in particulate emissions. Comments from the Building Department, October 1, 2024, indicate that these air district best management practices (as presented above), as well as a demolition permit from the air district, will be required as conditions of approval. SS38 – Fugitive Dust Consistent. This measure addresses particulate matter emissions from construction, landfills, quarries and other bulk material sites. Comments from the Building Department, October 1, 2024, indicate that these air district best management practices, as well as a demolition permit from the air district, will be required as conditions of approval. TR8 – Ridesharing and Last-Mile Connections Consistent. This measure will reduce motor vehicle emissions of key ozone precursors, ROG and NOx, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases by reducing single occupancy vehicle trips through the promotion of rideshare services and incentives. The project site is located within 0.2 miles of five bus stops for Route 27 operated by the Valley Transportation Authority. TR9 - Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities Consistent. This measure expands bicycle facilities serving employment sites, residential areas, and shopping districts by including typical improvements include bike lanes, routes, paths, and/or bicycle parking facilities. The proposed project will incorporate up to 80 new bicycle parking facilities. This includes 72 long term bicycle parking for the residences and eight short term bicycle parking spaces. TR14 – Cars and Light Trucks Consistent. This measure promotes the use of electric vehicles or alternative fuels to reduce emissions. In addition to vehicle buy-back programs and other funding incentives, the air district continues to partner with private, local, state and federal programs to install and expand public charging infrastructure, and promote existing charging infrastructure. The proposed project plans include the installation of 25 to 26 EVCS parking spaces. BL1 – Green Buildings Consistent. The project would be required to meet standards in the most current version of the California Green Building Code Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CalGreen, Title 24, Part 11). BL2 - Decarbonize Buildings Consistent. This measure reduces emissions by limiting the installation of space and water heating systems and appliances powered by fossil fuels, such as natural gas, in support of low to zero carbon emission technology alternatives. The building will be constructed as all electric per page 1 of the project plans (October 30, 2024) However, based upon an email conversation with Town staff on January 22, 2025, the applicant would like the option to include gas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the proposed building to be all electric, would ensure that GHG emissions are less than significant ensuring consistency with this measure. SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2024 Section D Evaluation of Impacts 25 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 b. Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions: Emissions from construction activities can have temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project, and generally do not contribute to long-term cumulative air quality impacts. Air quality impacts can, nevertheless, be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts to air quality. The air district’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines provide preliminary screening criteria that can be used as a conservative indicator of whether the implementation of a proposed project could potentially result in criteria air pollutants that exceed the air district’s thresholds of significance. However, the air district’s screening criteria is not applicable to projects whose construction-related activities include demolition of existing structures or excessive site preparation and materials transportation. The proposed project will require the demolition of existing structures. Consequentially, the air district’s screening criteria cannot be applied. Therefore, construction emissions were quantified in CalEEMod and compared to the air district’s construction thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutant impacts. Table 3, Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions, provides a comparison of the air district thresholds of significance to the construction emission values. Construction emissions volumes are projected to be well below the air district thresholds. Table 3 Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Particulate Matter (PM10 Exhaust) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 Exhaust) Average Daily Emissions1,2,3,4 1.6 2.2 0.1 0.1 Air District Thresholds1,2 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2024, CalEEMod version 2022.1, Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 NOTES: 1. Estimated construction emission quantified using CalEEMod Version 2022.1. 2. Values are expressed in pounds per day. 3. Values may vary slightly due to rounding. For all land use projects, the air district also recommends implementation of basic best management practices listed on Table 5-2 of the 2022 air district CEQA guidelines, to mitigate for cumulative projects construction impacts. Compliance with the basic best management practices is required for individual projects to be considered to have a less- than-significant impact from construction generated fugitive dust emissions. Comments from the Building Department, October 1, 2024, indicate that these air district best Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 26 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 management practices (as presented earlier), as well as a demolition permit from the air district, will be required as conditions of approval. Therefore, project-level and cumulative construction criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions: Air district’s guidance on determining potentially significant impacts and potential mitigation of significant impacts is described in the 2022 air district CEQA guidelines. The air district provides a screening criteria for project types and sizes below which criteria air emissions thresholds would not be exceeded. The screening criteria can be used by lead agencies as a conservative indication of whether implementing the proposed project could generate operational criteria air pollutants that would result in a significant impact. If the proposed development is below the applicable screening criteria threshold, operation of the project would result in a less- than-significant impact. However, the air district does not provide screening criteria for mixed-use projects. For this reason, operational emissions were quantified and compared to the air district’s thresholds of significance. Table 4, Unmitigated Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions, indicates that operational criteria air pollutant emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project’s cumulative contribution to regional criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Table 4 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Particulate Matter (PM10 Total) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 Total) Average Daily1,2 Emissions 1.3 0.3 1.1 0.3 Air District Thresholds2 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Maximum Annual Emissions1,3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.05 Air District Thresholds3 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2024, CalEEMod version 2022.1, Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 NOTES: 1. Values may vary slightly due to rounding. 2. Values are expressed in pounds per day. 3. Values are expressed in tons per year. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 27 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 c. Construction Phase Toxic Air Contaminants: Diesel exhaust is the predominant toxic air contaminants (TAC) in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk associated with TACs. Diesel engines emit a complex mix of pollutants including nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants. The most visible constituents of diesel exhaust are very small carbon particles or soot, known as diesel particulate matter. Diesel exhaust is especially common during construction phases, such as grading and demolition, when most of the heavy equipment is used. Project construction activities have potential to expose existing sensitive receptors to localized health risks associated with temporary localized TAC emissions. A sensitive receptor is generally defined as a location where there is a reasonable expectation that human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, could be continuously exposed to TAC emissions. Typical sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, and schools. Existing sensitive receptors that could be impacted by construction TAC emissions include Los Gatos High School located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site at the intersection of East Main Street and High School Court, as well as residential uses located within 1,000 feet of both the southern and northwestern boundaries of the project site. Emissions from construction diesel engines are subject to control under regulations adopted by both the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board. U.S. EPA promulgated emission standards for off-road engines in 1998, with the California Air Resources Board adopting parallel standards in 2000. In 2004, Tier 4 emission standards were adopted and phased in for new engines between 2011 and 2014. In 2007, CARB adopted an off-road equipment regulation to accelerate reductions of NOx and diesel PM from existing off-road engines. Beginning in 2012 and through 2023, the off-road regulation requires operators of older equipment to either install abatement devices, upgrade to Tier 3 and eventually Tier 4 engines, or to retire older equipment. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the health risks from potential exposures to construction TAC emissions would be less than significant by requiring that best management practices be implemented to reduce emissions and ensure compliance with diesel engine regulations designed to reduce diesel emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 The applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, including tree removal. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following measures to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions during construction: a. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles will have 2010 or newer model year engines, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s Truck and Bus Regulation; b. Idling of construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks will be avoided where feasible, and if idling is necessary, it will not exceed three minutes; Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 28 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 c. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and d. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity, or biodiesel. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to construction TACs to a less-than-significant level by requiring cleaner engines, limiting idle times, and restricting non-compliant equipment. Operational Toxic Air Contaminants: Operations of residential uses are not considered to be sources of TACs that would increase health risks. However, depending on the use type, the operations of non-residential uses have the potential to produce TAC emissions that create localized health risks. The potential commercial/retail/restaurant uses proposed as part of the project are not commonly associated with operations or processes that produce notable sources of TACs, as may be the case with heavy service commercial or industrial uses. Stationary TAC sources from the proposed project may include the use of diesel generators as a back-up power supply. However, diesel generators are subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measure and require permits from the air district, since they commonly are equipped with engines larger than 50 horsepower. Best Available Control Technology for Toxics requirements would apply and would limit diesel particulate matter emissions. As part of the air district permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the engine emissions would have to meet best available control technology for toxics standards and pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable air district regulations generally are not considered to have a significant community health risk impact. In addition to possible impacts on existing sensitive receptors, existing sources of TACs near the project site could adversely expose future on-site residents to unacceptable health risks. TAC emissions may be of concern when sensitive receptors are located adjacent to high volume roadways that carry 10,000 average daily trips or more. The primary existing known source of TAC emissions that could affect future sensitive receptors is traffic on State Route 17, which is located approximately 800 feet from the northwest corner of the project boundary. According to the California Department of Transportation, the average daily traffic volumes on State Route 17 is approximately 33,600 trips per day (California Department of Transportation 2017). Therefore, the project’s potential to expose future sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is potentially significant. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 29 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Under CEQA, comparative analysis of similar developments is permissible when it provides relevant insights into potential environmental impacts of a proposed project. By examining comparable projects with similar characteristics, such as size, location, or use, lead agencies can draw on established data and outcomes to assess a project's likely effects. One example of a comparable project is the recently proposed multi-family residential development located at 50 Los Gatos- Saratoga Road, approximately 1,500 feet north of the proposed project site. The reference project consists of 154 townhome-style condominium units located adjacent to the State Route 17/State Route 9 interchange. A health risk assessment completed for that project concluded that exposure of future on-site receptors to TACs that exceed air district thresholds would be less than significant provided MERV-13 air filtrations systems are incorporated in the project design (Ramboll 2024). The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to ensure that TAC emission impacts on future on-site sensitive receptors is less than significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 The project applicant shall ensure that MERV 13 air filtration systems, or an equivalent system, are included in the design and operations of the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and specifications demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. These plans shall identify the locations and specifications of the air filtration systems and confirm they meet the performance standards for particulate and airborne pollutant removal. The air filtration systems must be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Verification of proper installation and functionality shall be conducted by a licensed professional and documented in a final compliance report, which must be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for approval. The property owner or operator shall also establish a maintenance plan for the air filtration system to ensure ongoing performance in accordance with manufacturer specifications. d. The most common sources of odors identified in complaints received by local air districts are sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refineries, biomass operations, autobody shops, coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock operations. The proposed project would not produce these types or other objectionable odors. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 30 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Comments: Prior to preparation of this analysis, EMC Planning Group biologist Rose Ashbach, M.S., reviewed site plans, aerial photographs, natural resource database accounts, and other relevant scientific literature. The 0.43-acre project site is located at 143 East Main Street (APN 529-28-002) and 151 East Main Street (APN 529-28-001). The project site is bounded on the east by High School Court and to the west by the Masonic Hall. The site is developed with a commercial retail building; Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Impacts 31 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 current uses are a café and a furniture store. Topography of the parcel is flat. There are five street trees and three landscaping trees in the raised planters along E. Main Street. Vegetation is ornamental and planted in planter boxes and there are two trees on the neighboring property. a. Special-Status Species. A search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted for the project parcel and the surrounding eight U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles in order to generate a list of potentially occurring special-status species for the project vicinity (CDFW 2024a/b). Records of occurrences for special-status plants were reviewed for those quadrangles in the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2024). A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Program threatened and endangered species list was also generated for the project site, and the USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species online mapper was reviewed (USFWS 2024a & USFWS 2024c). Special-status species in this report are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare or as candidates for listing by the USFWS and/or CDFW; as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected species by the CDFW; or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the CNPS. Appendix C, Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity, presents tables with special-status species search results, which lists the special-status species documented within the project vicinity, their listing status, suitable habitat description, and their potential to occur on the project site. Figure 5, Special-Status Species in the Project Vicinity, presents a map of the CNDDB results. The project site is developed and located within the urban area of downtown Los Gatos, which make the presence of special-status plant or wildlife species unlikely. However, protected nesting birds have the potential to utilize trees and vegetation at the site and are addressed below. Nesting Birds. Protected nesting bird species have the potential to nest on open ground, in any type of vegetation, including trees, or in onsite buildings during the nesting bird season (January 15 through September 15). The project site and surrounding properties contain several trees, shrubs, and building crevices that may be suitable for nesting. Construction activities can impact nesting birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, should nesting birds be present during construction. If protected bird species are nesting adjacent to the project site during the bird nesting season, then noise-generating construction activities could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce the potential impact to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all construction activities should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If construction or project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 32 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. a. One survey for active bird nests shall occur within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and no further mitigation is required. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos. b. Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Communities. There are no riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities within the project site. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c. Waters of the United States. A review of the National Wetlands Inventory online database was conducted to identify potential jurisdictional aquatic features on or adjacent to the project site (USFWS 2024b). The results showed no wetland features within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. hoary bat American peregrine falcon robust spineflower arcuate bushmallow obscure bumble bee hairless popcornflower CRLF American peregrine falcon CGS Santa Cruz black salamander FYLF CGSZayante band-winged grasshopper Santa Clara red ribbons CRLF CRLF Loma Prieta hoitaobscure bumble bee American badger steelhead - central California coast DPS woodland woollythreads Santa Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamander WPT Santa Cruz black salamander Loma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoita WPT WPT WPT most beautiful jewelflower Loma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita woodland woollythreads 0 5,800 feet Source: CDFW CNDDB 2024, ESRI 2024CRLF: California red-legged frog, CGS: California giant salamanderFYLF: Foothill yellow-legged frog, WPT: Western pond turtle Figure 5Special-Status Species in the Project Vicinity143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study Special-Status Plants Special-Status WildlifeProject Site 3-Mile Buffer Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 34 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 This side intentionally left blank. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 35 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 d. Wildlife Movement. Wildlife movement corridors provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing processes like nutrient flow, gene flow, seasonal migration, pollination, and predator-prey relationships. Increasing connectivity is a critical strategy for addressing habitat loss and fragmentation, a top threat to biodiversity. The parcel is located within the outer limits of an essential habitat connectivity area as mapped by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (CDFW 2024d). Movement of medium to large mammals between the project site and regional open space lands is likely highly restricted due to the lack of natural habitat linkages and the presence of existing barriers (e.g., roads, developed areas) around the parcel. Dispersal to and from the project site by small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles is unlikely due to these existing barriers. Therefore, the project site does not act as a major wildlife corridor, movement pathway, or linkage between larger habitat areas for terrestrial wildlife. It is for this reason that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on wildlife movement. e. Local Biological Resource Policies/Ordinances. An arborist report was prepared to address removal of the existing on-site, which is included as Appendix D Protected Trees. The project proposes to remove six trees (three on-site trees and three street trees). All trees for removal are considered protected by the Town and require a permit for removal and mitigation. Two street trees will be retained and protected (refer to the arborist report dated October 24, 2024 for the Los Gatos Mixed Use Tree Inventory Map found in Appendix D). The proposed project includes the removal of 10 protected trees. Impacts to protected trees are considered significant adverse environmental impacts. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which requires tree replacement, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Per Town Code Section 26.20.010 and Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of protected trees on private or Town property. The project developer shall abide by any tree replacement ratios and/or in-lieu payments, tree protection measures, and best management practices required by the tree removal permit and/or within the arborist report dated October 24, 2024 (Appendix D). f. Critical Habitat, Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans. There are no critical habitat boundaries, habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the proposed project site (CDFW 2024d, USFWS 2024a). Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 36 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Comments: An archival database search was conducted through the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) affiliated with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation in Sacramento. The NWIC was provided with a location map of the project area and a request of the historic resources within one-quarter mile radius of the project site boundary. The results were received in September 2024 and only one resource was found: Forbes Flour Mill Annex (Resource No. P-43-000384), a historic building located approximately 0.16 miles northwest of the site. a, b. Historic Structures. The results provided by the NWIC revealed that only one historic resource was located within the project vicinity; Forbes Flour Mill Annex (Resource No. P-43-000384), a historic building located approximately 0.16 miles northwest of the site. Due to its distance from the project site, implementation of the project would have no adverse impact on the resource. Indigenous Historic Resources or Unique Archaeological Resources. The results provided by the NWIC revealed that no indigenous historic or unique archaeological resources were found within the project vicinity. However, unknown buried significant historic or unique archaeological resources could be present. Such resources, if present, could be damaged or destroyed by ground disturbing construction activities associated with the project. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, grading, and construction, “In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, contractor shall temporarily halt or divert excavations within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated. All potentially significant archaeological deposits shall be evaluated to Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to section 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Section D Evaluation of Impacts 37 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 demonstrate whether the resource is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources, even if discovered during construction. If archaeological deposits are encountered, they will be evaluated and mitigated simultaneously in the timeliest manner practicable, allowing for recovery of materials and data by standard archaeological procedures. For indigenous archaeological sites, this data recovery involves the hand‐excavated recovery and non‐destructive analysis of a small sample of the deposit. Historic resources shall also be sampled through hand excavation, though architectural features may require careful mechanical exposure and hand excavation. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance by a qualified Archaeologist. Significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.” c. It is unknown whether Native American remains are located at the project site. However, there remains the possibility that ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project could damage or destroy previously undiscovered Native American human remains. Disturbance of Native American human remains would be a significant impact. The following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less- than significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, demolition, grading, and construction, “In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. All grading or earthmoving activities shall immediately stop within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find. The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the project proponent shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code [PRC] § 5097). The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD will determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and associated grave artifacts, and shall oversee the Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 38 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 disposition of the remains. In the event the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being granted access to the site, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity within the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify the MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being allowed access to the site; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.” Section D Evaluation of Impacts 39 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 6. ENERGY Would the project: Comments: a. Energy impacts are assessed based on the proposed project energy demand profile and on its relationship to state energy efficiency regulations. The primary sources of energy consumption will be fuel use in vehicles traveling to and from the project site, natural gas, and electricity used in buildings. Each of these energy consumption sources is described below. Transportation Fuel: The proposed project would generate vehicle trips from residential and commercial retail use that will result in transportation fuel demand. The results of the transportation analysis indicate that the proposed project would generate 1,577 daily VMT or approximately 575,605 VMT per year (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2024). This information was input into the Emissions Factor Model and used to calculate fuel demand. The results, included in Appendix E, show that annual fuel demand would be approximately 21,472 gallons (combined diesel and gasoline). Natural Gas: According to the California Energy Commission Energy Consumption Data Management System, in 2022, total natural gas consumption in Santa Clara County was 423,940,213 therms (California Energy Commission Energy 2022a). Section 5.11, Operational Energy Consumption, in the project CalEEMod results, included in Appendix B, shows that the projected natural gas demand would be approximately 277,890 kBTU (British Thermal Units) per year or 2,779.6 therms per year, which is less than one-thousandth of the countywide demand in 2022. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 located in Section 8.0, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which requires the project to be all electric, then the projected natural gas demand would be reduced to zero Electricity: According to the California Energy Commission Energy Consumption Data Management System, in 2022, total electricity consumption in Santa Clara County was 17,101,799,026 kilowatt-hours (kWh) (California Energy Commission Energy 2022b). Section 5.11, Operational Energy Consumption, in the CalEEMod results included in Appendix B, show an anticipated project electricity demand of 231,519 kWh per year, or 0.00001 percent of the countywide electrical demand in the absence of state regulations Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 40 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 designed to reduce energy demand. Electricity demand would be significantly reduced with required conformance to regulatory requirements included in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as summarized below. The 2022 standards require that the residential development component has a net zero electricity demand. This is achieved through a combination of incorporating energy efficiency, energy reduction features, and renewable energy features. Regulatory Requirements: A multitude of state regulations and legislative acts are aimed at improving vehicle fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, and enhancing energy conservation. For example, the Pavley I standards focus on transportation fuel efficiency. The gradual increased use of electric cars powered with cleaner electricity will reduce consumption of fossil fuel. According to the State of California, VMT is expected to decline with the continuing implementation of SB 743, resulting in less vehicle travel and less fuel consumption. In the renewable energy use sector, representative legislation for the use of renewable energy includes, but is not limited to SB 350 and Executive Order B-16-12. In the building energy use sector, representative legislation and standards for reducing natural gas and electricity consumption include, but are not limited to, AB 2021, CALGreen, and the California Building Standards Code. The California Building Standards Code is enforceable at the project level. The California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the California Building Standards Code, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The California Energy Code is updated every three years by the California Energy Commission as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and construction methods. California’s energy code is specifically designed to reduce wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption in newly constructed and existing buildings. A project could have significant energy impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy if its energy demand is extraordinary relative to common land use types, its gross energy demand is excessive relative to total demand, and/or it fails to comply with energy efficiency/conservation regulations that are within the applicant’s control. The project applicant would be required to comply with the primary state regulatory requirements for reducing building energy demand found in Title 24 of the current California Building Code, and with CALGreen requirements as described above. Further, the project is a common land use type that is not inherently considered to be unnecessary. The proposed project would consume energy, but it would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Given the considerations summarized above, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant energy impact. b. The California Building Standards Code requires the proposed project be built to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time building permits are applied for. By incorporating renewable energy per the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and incorporating CALGreen energy efficiency measures, the project would comply with existing state and local energy standards and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 41 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Comments: a. Earthquake Rupture. The project site is located approximately three miles northeast of the nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, which is associated with the San Andreas Fault (California Department of Conservation 2024). There are also several quaternary faults that run through the Town and near the project site (refer to Figure 9-2 of the 2040 General Plan). The Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones mapping tool identifies Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ (2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (4) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d. Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 42 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 the project site as being within a “County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone” (Santa Clara County 2024a); therefore, the project is required to comply with the applicable regulations outlined in the California Building Code related to seismic hazards and construction. Required compliance with the California Building Code would ensure that impacts associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. Additionally, the Building Department has indicated that a soils report addressing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations is required (October 1, 2024). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 The applicant shall prepare a soils report addressing, but not limited to: foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, and impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. The soils report shall be submitted to the Town Building Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. All recommendations outlined in the soils report shall be incorporated into the project design. Seismic Ground-Shaking. The project site is located approximately three miles northeast from the San Andreas Fault (California Department of Conservation 2024); therefore, strong seismic ground-shaking is likely to occur during the lifetime of the project. Figure 9-4 in the 2040 General Plan also identifies the project site as being within a high intensity ground-shaking area. The project is required to comply with the applicable regulations outlined in the California Building Code related to seismic hazards and construction. Required compliance with the California Building Code, as well as compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 above, would ensure that impacts associated with strong seismic ground-shaking would be less than significant. Liquefaction. The project site is not located within a liquefaction zone (California Department of Conservation 2024). Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction. Landslides. The project site is not located within a landslide zone (California Department of Conservation 2024). Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. b. The 2040 General Plan states that erosion potential decreases toward the center of the Town and is minimal in the flat area just east of the State Route 17 corridor. The project site is located approximately 0.15 miles southeast of State Route 17 (refer back to Figure 2); therefore, erosion potential is minimal in the project area. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 43 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 However, grading activities required for construction of the proposed project could result in some level of soil erosion or the loss of topsoil as soils are particularly susceptible during the grading phases of development. The California Building Code provides regulations for construction to provide grading, drainage, and erosion and sediment control. Additionally, the project includes a Stormwater Management Plan (Sheet C-5.0 of the project plans, Appendix A), which includes a self-treating area where runoff flows through plants prior to exiting the project site as well as a bioretention area where runoff is directed to a bioretention planter for filtration, infiltration, and evaporation prior to exiting the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c. According to Figure 4.7-1 in the 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (“2040 General Plan EIR”), the project site primarily contains Urban land-Flaskan complex, which is a well-drained soil type with moderate permeability and low run-off. Although the site is not located within an area susceptible to liquefaction or landslides, it is unknown if the project is located on a site that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project. Therefore, the proposed project will be required to prepare a soils report as required by the Town’s Chief Building Official; refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 outlined in checklist question “a.” Compliance with any recommendations that may be presented in the soils report would ensure that any impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse would be less than significant. d. The project site primarily contains Urban land-Flaskan complex, which has no expansion properties according to the Santa Clara County’s Soils of Santa Clara County mapping tool (Santa Clara County 2024b). Therefore, the project is not located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. e. The project will connect into the Town’s sanitary sewer system and, therefore, there would be no impact related to the site soils and its capability to support the use of septic tanks. f. No known paleontological resources are within the project boundary; however, it is possible that paleontological resources could be accidentally discovered during construction activities associated with development of the project site. Directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological site is considered a significant, adverse environmental impact. While it is possible that unknown unique paleontological resources could be uncovered during site preparation and/or other site disturbance activities, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the impact is less than significant. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 44 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Mitigation Measure GEO-2 The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit: “If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction activities in the area shall be suspended. The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to examine the site and identify protective measures to be implemented to protect the paleontological resource. The measures shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.” Section D Evaluation of Impacts 45 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Comments: a. The greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of a project can be found to be less than significant if the project is consistent with a qualified plan for reducing GHG emissions. The Town prepared a sustainability plan on October 15, 2012, which outlines specific GHG emission reduction targets and measures. However, this document does not qualify as a plan against which consistency of the proposed project can be assessed. In lieu of an available qualified plan, an alternative methodology is required to assess GHG impacts. For this reason, GHG impacts from the proposed project were assessed using guidance provided by the air district in the 2022 CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (2022 CEQA Guidelines) (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2024a). Construction Emissions: The air district released its Justification Report for CEQA Threshold for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans in 2022 (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2024b). That guidance, which functions as a plan for reducing GHG emissions, suggests that construction GHG emissions represent a very small component of the overall GHG emissions inventory generated by land use projects. Consequently, construction emissions are not considered be to a source of significant GHG emissions impacts. Operational Emissions: The 2022 air quality CEQA guidelines utilizes a performance standard-based analysis approach for evaluating GHG impacts. The guidance focuses on standards that should be met in the design and operations of individual land use projects for such projects to contribute their fair share towards meeting the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal as reflected in AB 1279. AB 1279 establishes the policy of the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045 and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, as well as ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHGs are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. AB 1279 represents the state’s most recent GHG reduction goals. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 46 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 The 2022 air district CEQA guidelines state that a land use project which meets the following performance standards would have a less-than-significant impact because it would contribute its fair share towards meeting the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal: a. Buildings a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. b. Transportation c. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT. d. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. If a project meets these performance standards, it would be considered consistent with achieving California’s long-term climate goals of carbon neutrality and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA could conclude that the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. Projects that do not meet these standards would have a significant GHG climate impact because they would hinder the state’s efforts to meet its carbon neutrality goal. Each of the air district performance standards are summarized below for reference. Performance Standard 1 - No Natural Gas: Energy used in residential and nonresidential buildings in California comes primarily from natural gas and electricity, the generation and consumption, which can result in GHG emissions. Natural gas usage emits GHGs directly when it is burned for space heating, cooking, hot water heating and similar uses, whereas electricity usage emits GHGs indirectly to the extent that it is generated by burning carbon-based fuels. For the building sector to achieve carbon Section D Evaluation of Impacts 47 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 neutrality, natural gas usage will need to be phased out and replaced with electricity usage, and electrical generation will need to shift to 100-percent carbon-free sources. To support these shifts, future projects should be required to be built without natural gas infrastructure, and instead, constructed as all electric. Using electric instead of natural gas- powered appliances and end uses replaces a more emissions-intensive fossil fuel source of energy with a less emissions-intensive source of energy, electricity from the grid that is increasingly transitioning to renewable sources. As indicated on the project plans (Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc. 2024), the project is being planned as all-electric (project plans, sheet 1). Therefore, the project design is consistent with the air district’s first performance standard. However, based upon an email conversation with Town staff on January 22, 2025, the applicant would like the option to include gas. To ensure less than significant GHG impacts, the project is required to comply with the following mitigation measure, which requires the project to be all electric. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 The project developer shall incorporate the following GHG emissions reduction performance standard into the final project design:  No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted as part of the project plans; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric. Final plans for the development shall be reviewed by the Town Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure this performance standard is incorporated into the project design. Verification of development consistent with this performance standard shall be assured prior to approval of occupancy permits. Performance Standard 2 - Less than Significant Energy Impacts: CEQA requires lead agencies to evaluate a project’s potential for wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, along with State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F and Appendix G, Section VI. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District recommends using the results of this analysis to determine whether the project will implement its “fair share” with respect to supporting the implementation of SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. SB 100 strengthened the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by requiring that 60 percent of all electricity provided to retail users in California come from renewable sources by 2030 and that 100 percent come from carbon-free sources by 2045. Eliminating GHG emissions associated with building electricity usage will be achieved by decarbonizing California’s electrical generation infrastructure. California has committed to achieving this goal by 2045 through SB 100. If the energy analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) shows that a project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use, then it will be consistent with implementing SB 100 and will not have a cumulatively considerable climate impact Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 48 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 with respect to building electrical usage. If the project is found to involve wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage, then the lead agency should conclude that it will have a cumulatively considerable impact and treat it as significant in this regard. As described in Section 6.0, Energy, the energy impacts from the project have been found to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1. Performance Standard 3 - Less Than Significant VMT Impact: New land use projects can influence transportation-related GHG emissions by reducing the number of VMT the project would generate. Motor vehicle transportation does not need to be eliminated entirely in order for the land use sector to achieve carbon neutrality, as carbon- free vehicle technology can be used (e.g., EVs powered by carbon-free electricity sources). But for that goal to be realistically implemented by 2045, California will need to reduce its per-capita VMT. How land use development is designed and sited can have a significant influence on how much VMT the project will generate. New land use projects need to provide alternatives to motor vehicle–based transportation such that VMT per capita can be reduced to levels consistent with achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. Both the current California Climate Change Scoping Plan and guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recommend a 15 percent reduction in project-generated VMT to align with the targets established under Senate Bill 743. A transportation assessment prepared for the proposed project found that the VMT per service population derived for the proposed project (20.1 VMT per service population) was approximately 33 percent below the 26.1 daily VMT per service population rate derived for the Town (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2024). Therefore, the VMT impacts from the project would be less than significant. Refer to Section 17.0, Transportation, for more information. Performance Standard 4 - Electric Vehicle Ready: The requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in new land use development projects are governed by the CALGreen standards. These standards are set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and they are regularly updated on a three-year cycle. The CALGreen standards consist of a set of mandatory standards for new development, as well as two sets of voluntary standards known as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Although the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards are voluntary, they often form the basis of future mandatory standards adopted in subsequent updates. The voluntary standards outline more aggressive actions than do the mandatory standards. Providing EV charging infrastructure per Tier 2 standards increases fuel redundancy for electric vehicles even if an extreme weather event disrupts other fuel sources, in addition to reducing GHG emissions. This will enable drivers of electric and hybrid (electric and gasoline) vehicles to drive a larger share of miles, thereby displacing GHG emissions from gasoline consumption with a lower volume indirect emission from renewable electricity. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 49 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 The 2022 CALGreen code specifies the requirements for new residential and nonresidential developments, which includes the number of EV-capable spaces and Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) required for individual projects based on the total number of specified parking spaces. An EV-capable space is a parking spot equipped with the necessary electrical raceways and panel capacity to support future charging equipment, whereas an EVCS has been fully outfitted with operational EV charging equipment. Mandatory provisions in the current code specifies that new multifamily residential developments with 20 or more dwelling units are required to dedicate 10 percent of the available parking to be EV capable, 25 percent to be EV Ready with low power 2 receptacles, and 5 percent to be level 2 EVCS. There are currently no EV parking infrastructure requirements for nonresidential uses with 0-9 parking spaces. The project outlines two underground parking layout options. Option 1 includes a total of 47 parking spaces: 39 residential parking spaces and 8 retail parking spaces, with 26 of the residential spaces (approximately 67 percent) designated as Level 2 EVCS stalls. Option 2 offers 39 residential parking spaces with no retail parking and provides 25 Level 2 EVCS stalls, which account for 64 percent of the total residential spaces. The percentage of EV parking spaces provided in both Option 1 and Option 2 exceeds the current CALGreen requirements. As a result, both parking options would comply with the air district's performance standards for EV charging infrastructure. Summary of Performance Standards: With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the current project would meet all four of the air district’s performance standards and as a result, the project would provide its fair share contribution toward achieving the state’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal. b. The air district’s guidance, described in the 2022 CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans, is referenced as an applicable plan for reducing GHG emissions. As described above, the project meets all four of the air district’s performance-based standards for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable plan for reducing GHG emissions. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 50 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Comments: a. The proposed mixed-use project would not involve hazardous materials and, therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b. The existing on-site structure was constructed in 1949 and could contain asbestos containing materials and/or lead based paint (Partners 2021). The project would result in the demolition of the existing on-site structure, which could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving the release of hazardous materials. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. For a project located within an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public-use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Impacts 51 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 The phase I environmental site assessment prepared on the project site in 2020 (Environmental Solutions 2020), and subsequently peer-reviewed by Partners in 2021 (both of which can be found in Appendix F), recommends that an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Plan be prepared and implemented in order to safely manage the suspect asbestos containing materials and lead based paint located on the project site. However, Operations and Maintenance Plans are typically used for structures in good condition that are being maintained or renovated. The proposed project requires the demolition of the existing structure; therefore, the project will be subject to the regulations of the Federal Clean Air Act, California Department of Public Health, California Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding asbestos and lead abatement for construction and redevelopment. The project shall comply with California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, which requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials in a manner which ensures that exposure levels do not excel Cal/OSHA standards, and California Code of Regulations Section 1529, which sets requirements for asbestos exposure and monitoring, among other things. Compliance with the abovementioned Clean Air Act, state agencies, and California Code of Regulations would reduce the potential hazards involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Additionally, the phase I environmental site assessment recommends that if the property use changes to residential or if the property is redeveloped and no longer utilizes a raised foundation, then soil vapor testing on the site should be conducted. The proposed project involves redevelopment and residential uses; therefore, the following mitigation measure will be required in order to ensure impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment are less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 The project developer shall conduct soil vapor testing on the project site prior to issuance of a grading permit. The results of the soil vapor testing shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and only with approval by the Town Engineer can any grading and earth-moving construction activities take place. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels that exceed safety thresholds for residential uses, the Town Engineer shall determine if Environmental Solutions should provide recommendations for construction of the project. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels below safety thresholds, no further action is necessary. c. The project site is located adjacent to Los Gatos High School. However, the proposed mixed-use project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, no impact would occur. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 52 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 d. The following lists were reviewed:  Hazardous Materials Waste and Substances Sites from the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2024);  Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker Database (State Water Resources Board 2024);  Solid Waste Disposal Sites Identified by Water Board with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit (California Environmental Protection Agency 2024a);  “Active” Cease and Desist Order and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from Water Board (California Environmental Protection Agency 2024b); and  List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (California Environmental Protection Agency 2024c). The project site is not located on any of these lists. Therefore, the proposed project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. The project site is not located within two miles of any airport. The nearest is the San Jose Mineta International Airport, which is located approximately 10.5 miles northeast of the project site (Google Earth 2024). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. f. Santa Clara County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared and adopted with the primary purpose of identifying, assessing, and reducing the long-term risk to life and property from hazard events. The current hazard mitigation plan does not specifically identify evacuation routes within Los Gatos; however, it can be assumed that the primary evacuation routes are the highways (e.g., State Route 17, State Route 9, etc.). The project does not involve any work within the adjacent roadways (i.e., Church Street, High School Court, or East Main Street). Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g. The project site is not located within any fire severity zone mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection nor the Town. The nearest very high and high fire hazard severity zones are located approximately 0.75 miles south of the site (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2024). Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 53 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Comments: a. Construction Water Quality. The project site is currently developed, level, and less than 1/2 acre in size. Development of the proposed project would involve soil disturbance, such as demolition, grading, and construction activities on less than one acre, and therefore, it would not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The potential impact would be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (3) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (4) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 54 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Post-Construction Water Quality. During the operational phase of the proposed project, urban pollutants can mix with the stormwater runoff from the project site potentially affecting downstream receiving waters. The proposed project includes a stormwater management plan, as illustrated on sheets C-3.0, C-5.0, as well as L1.0 of the project plans. The project is replacing more than 50 percent of the existing impervious area and therefore, must provide stormwater treatment on the entire site. This plan includes the following treatment measures to regulate the quality of storm water leaving the site: 1. Self-treating area – runoff in this area originates in and flows through planting prior to exiting the site, and therefore, no treatment is required. 2. Bio-retention area – runoff in this area is directed to a bio-retention planter/area for filtration, infiltration and evapotranspiration prior to existing the site. The proposed project is exempt from the hydromodification requirements per the Santa Clara County C.3 technical guidance document, due to the impervious area being added or replaced is less than one acre. Given the project’s small size and the proposed stormwater management plan, potential impacts associated with water quality standards or waste discharge requirements post- construction would be less than significant. b. The Town of Los Gatos is located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, more specifically the Santa Clara Plain groundwater management area of the Santa Clara Subbasin. The total storage capacity estimated for the Santa Clara Subbasin is 1.9 million acre-feet of water, with an estimated operational storage capacity of 350,000 acre-feet of water for the Santa Clara Plain (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2021b). For the purpose of this evaluation, the water demand factor of 250 gallons per multi- family unit per day is used, as reported for multi-family projects in the Town’s Winchester Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (June 2022). Using this water demand factor, the proposed project could result in the demand of 7,500 gallons of water per day (30 proposed multi-family units x 250 gallons per multi-family unit per day). Because Santa Clara Valley Water District will be able to meet countywide demands through 2045 (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2021a), it is expected that the project’s water demand can be accommodated by the groundwater basin and the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Additionally, the project’s landscaping and use of bio-treatment areas around the edges of the project site support groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 55 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 c. Erosion. Refer to the discussion in Section 7.0, Geology and Soils, checklist question “b.” This impact would be less than significant. Flooding and Runoff. When a development project increases the impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, it could result in the potential for stormwater runoff to cause flooding on- or off-site. However, the project site is currently developed; therefore, the proposed project would not increase impervious surfaces. The project does include site design measures and low impact development treatments that reduce the rate of surface runoff such as directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas, using pervious pavement to allow stormwater to infiltrate into soil, bioretention areas, and flow-through planters (refer to Sheets C-3.0, C-5.0 and L1.0 of the project plans). The project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Flood Flows. The project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is a moderate flood hazard area (0.2-percent-annual-chance [or 500-year] flood) (FEMA 2024). Town Code Chapter 29, Article IX – Floodplain Management, does not apply to the site because it is not located within a floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding (i.e., Zones A, AO, A1-A30, AE, A99, or AH), which the Town calls “special flood hazard areas.” Therefore, the project site is not located within an area considered by the Town as having flooding impacts and the project’s potential to impede or redirect flood flows would be less than significant. d. Los Gatos is not located in a tsunami or seiche zone (Los Gatos 2021). As discussed above, because the project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is not considered a “special flood hazard area,” the Town’s floodplain management regulations do not apply. Therefore, the project’s potential to risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant. e. Refer to the discussion under checklist question “a.” Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (“Valley Water”) is a special district that provides water resources management for all of Santa Clara County, including Los Gatos. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires that groundwater management agencies prepare a groundwater sustainability plan or an alternative to achieve sustainability. Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Valley Water prepared and adopted the 2021 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. This plan concluded that Valley Water will be able to meet countywide demands through 2045 under normal, a single dry, and five consecutive dry year conditions. If a five-year drought were to occur in the next five years, Valley Water would employ a range of response actions, including water conservation and calling for short- term water use reduction (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2021, p. 4-21). Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 56 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 As discussed in checklist question “b,” the project would result in the demand of 7,500 gallons of water per day, which can be accommodated by the Santa Clara Subbasin and would not substantially deplete groundwater resources. Additionally, the project’s landscaping, flow-through planters, and use of bio-treatment areas around the edges of the project site support groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 57 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Comments: a. The project is located on an infill site within downtown Los Gatos that replaces an existing commercial building with a mixed-use building. The project would not physically divide an established community. b. The proposed project is an SB 330 application invoking Builder’s Remedy and, therefore, the Town’s General Plan policies and Town Code standards do not apply. Although the policies and standards don’t apply, this initial study has evaluated the environmental impacts of the project and identified mitigation measures for impacts that are considered significant. Therefore, the project would not create any significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Cause any significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 58 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Comments: a, b. Table 7-1 of the 2040 General Plan states that mineral resource production areas are not applicable to Los Gatos. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan EIR states that no mining occurs within the Town (p. 4.18-1, 2). Therefore, development of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land-use plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Impacts 59 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 13. NOISE Would the project result in: Comments: An environmental noise assessment was prepared for the project by WJV Acoustics, Inc. in January 2025. Most of the information used in this section is from the environmental noise assessment, which can be found in Appendix G. a. Temporary Noise. The project site is surrounded by Church Street and the Los Gatos Methodist Church to the north; East Main Street, Hotel Los Gatos, and the Los Gatos Adult Recreation Center to the south; High School Court and Los Gatos High School to the east; and the Masonic Hall to the west. Some of these uses are considered “noise sensitive.” According to the environmental noise assessment, construction noise is not usually considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to the daytime hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. The Town code restrictions on construction noise were used as thresholds of significance for the construction-related noise impact. The Town limits construction activities to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturdays. The Town Code also states that no individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. The equipment that would be used during demolition and construction activities is not known at this time. Therefore, if equipment is used that exceeds 85 dB at a distance of 25 feet, efforts should be made to increase the distance between the equipment and the adjacent land uses to reduce construction noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses or provide acceptable means Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 60 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 of noise attenuation to mitigate construction noise levels to acceptable Town standards. Additionally, the incorporation of best management practices during construction activities would reduce concerns associated with noise. To ensure less than significant temporary noise impacts, the following mitigation shall be implemented: Mitigation Measure N-1 The project developer shall ensure that no individual piece of construction equipment produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. The project developer shall also ensure that best management practices are incorporated during construction activities. The following shall be placed on all ground-disturbing project plans:  All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.  Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.  All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would ensure that construction noise impacts are less than significant. Permanent Noise. There are a variety of noise sources that can be associated with mixed-use projects; some that are associated with the proposed project include: HVAC/mechanical equipment, parking lot activities/vehicle movements, and refuse/cardboard compactor. The project plans include roof-mounted mechanical/HVAC units with a roof parapet used for shielding. These mechanical units typically generate a noise ranging from 45-50 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the building façade. The nearest sensitive receptors (church and high school) are located approximately 150 feet from the project site. At this Section D Evaluation of Impacts 61 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 distance, noise levels associated with these mechanical units range from 36-41 dB. These levels do not exceed any Town noise levels, which are used as thresholds of significant in the noise study, or existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity (WJV Acoustics 2024, p. 9). Noise levels associated with parking lots can be difficult to precisely define due to a number of different variables (e.g., number of parking movements, time of day, etc.). Because all vehicle movements would occur within the underground parking garage under both parking options proposed by the project, noise associated with vehicle movements would not be audible at any nearby sensitive receptor locations. The environmental noise assessment also states that the project is not expected to result in an increase in traffic noise along roadways in the project area (p. 10). Compactors are typically short in duration and would likely be located at a distance of 100 feet or greater from any noise-sensitive land use. At this distance, noise levels associated with a compactor would not be expected to exceed 55 dB and would not exceed any Town noise standards (thresholds of significance) or exceed existing ambient noise levels (WJV Acoustics 2024, p. 10). Exterior and interior noise exposures to proposed on-site sensitive receptors were also evaluated in the environmental noise assessment. Outdoor activity areas are proposed on the site (e.g., patios, decks, and community recreation space) and the noise exposure for these areas were measured to be in the range of approximately 60-63 dB Ldn. This noise level would not exceed the Town’s exterior noise compatibility standard of 65 db Ldn for multi-family residential land uses. The Town’s interior noise level standard is 45 db Ldn; the worst-case noise exposure within the proposed residential development would be approximately 63 dB Ldn. The environmental noise assessment states that the proposed project must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction of approximately 18 dB (63-45=18) (WJV Acoustics 2024, p. 11). According to the environmental noise assessment, residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB if windows and doors are closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with the Town’s interior noise level. Therefore, the following mitigation is required to ensure that the project’s interior noise level does not exceed the Town’s standard. Mitigation Measure N-2 The project developer shall install mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all residential units so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and approval by the Town Building Department, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 62 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 b. According to the environmental noise assessment, vibration from demolition and construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses. However, the vibration levels provided in Table VI of the environmental noise assessment for the use of different construction equipment at distances of 25 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for damage. It is also not expected that ongoing operational activities will result in any vibration impacts on nearby sensitive uses (p. 14). c. The nearest airport to the project site is located approximately 8.5 miles northeast (Google Earth 2024). Therefore, the project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 63 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Comments: a. The proposed project involves the construction of 2,416 square feet of pedestrian- oriented commercial with 30 residential units. Therefore, the project would accommodate approximately 75 residents (30 units x 2.48 persons per unit) (California Department of Finance 2024) and approximately ten employees (one employee per 250 square feet retail) (Strategic Economics 2016, Figure V-9). The project site is zoned C-2 Central Business District, which permits commercial uses and conditionally permits multi-family units as part of a mixed-use project. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly. b. The project site currently contains a commercial retail building; therefore, implementation of the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 64 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Comments: a. The proposed project would result in 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial and an increase in the Town’s population by approximately 75 residents. This would result in an increase in demand on the Town’s fire protection services. The Santa Clara County Fire Department, made up of 15 fire stations, provides the fire protection services for the Town of Los Gatos, other communities in the area, and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The Los Gatos Fire Station is located at 306 University Avenue in Los Gatos and staffs eight personnel with the following engines: three Engine 83’s, four Rescue 83’s, and one Battalion 83 (Santa Clara County Fire Department 2024). In July 2024, approximately 63 percent of the incidents responded by the Los Gatos Fire Station were for emergency medical services while only approximately three percent were for fires. The number of incident counts for 2024 (2,084) has already exceeded the number of incidents recorded annually since 2018; 2023 had the next highest number of incident counts at 2,056 (Matthew McKenna, email message, August 12, 2024). The proposed project alone would not require additional resources; however, the cumulative total of all the projects in Los Gatos have played a part in the recent rebuild of the Redwood Estates Fire Stations that were completed in 2023 and the planned rebuilds of the Winchester Station and Quito Station (Matthew McKenna, email message, July 31, 2024). The proposed project on its own is not expected to trigger the need to construct new facilities, the construction of which could result in environmental impacts. Should new or expanded fire facilities be necessary in the future, the impacts of constructing the facility would be evaluated in a CEQA process separate from this project. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Section D Evaluation of Impacts 65 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 b. The proposed project would result in 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial and an increase in the Town’s population by approximately 75 residents. This would result in an increase in demand on the Town’s police protection services. The Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department serves the police protection needs for both the Town of Los Gatos and the City of Monte Sereno, located adjacent to the west of the Town. The Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department consists of two Captains (Operations Captain and Support Services Captain), 39 sworn officers, and 20 civilian employees. The department also has approximately 150 active citizen volunteers (Town of Los Gatos 2024). The proposed project on its own is not expected to trigger the need to construct new facilities, the construction of which could result in environmental impacts. Should new or expanded police protection facilities be necessary in the future, the impacts of constructing the facility would be evaluated in a CEQA process separate from this project. c. The Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District will serve the students generated by the proposed project. The Los Gatos Union School District serves transitional kindergarten through 8th grade students through its five schools (four elementary schools and one middle school). According to the Los Gatos Union School District’s School Site Locator tool, students in transitional kindergarten through 5th grade generated by the project would attend Louise Van Meter Elementary School and those in 6th through 8th grade would attend Raymond J Fisher Middle School (School Site Locator 2024). Students in 9th through 12th grade generated by the project would attend Los Gatos High School, located immediately east of the project site. Table 5, Student Generation, illustrates the number of students the project could generate, by grade. Table 5 Student Generation Proposed Units Grades Student Yield Factor (Per Residential Unit) Total 30 K-5 0.086 3 6-8 0.068 3 9-12 0.1609 5 11 SOURCE: Los Gatos Union School District 2023; Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District 2024 NOTE: All totals were rounded up to the nearest whole number to be conservative. As shown in the table above, the project could result in the generation of 11 student-age children; six of which would attend schools in the Los Gatos Union School District and five of which would attend Los Gatos High School. Due to the California Universal TK mandate (allowing all four-year-old children to attend transitional kindergarten at no cost by the 2025-26 school year), growth is expected Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 66 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 within the incoming TK class sizes (Los Gatos Union School District 2023). The Los Gatos Union School District also prepared a 2024 District Facilities Master Plan, which suggests some new development and expansion of existing facilities within the Louise Van Meter Elementary School and the Raymond J Fisher Middle School campuses. However, this document acts only as a strategic roadmap for future developments and supports informed decision-making for the school district; these improvements are not required. While the project would increase the student population in the Town, which in turn could affect the capacity of the existing Los Gatos Union School District facilities, Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code has been adopted by the state to mitigate any school facilities impacts. This section states that the payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts. It is for this reason that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to school facilities. New facilities, if and when required by the Los Gatos Union School District, would be developed and analyzed independent of this project review. According to the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District’s 2024 Developer Fee Justification Study for Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, the district does not have adequate facilities for all the students generated by new developments and, therefore, the district will need to build additional facilities and/or modernize/reconstruct the existing facilities in order to maintain existing level of services in which the new students will be housed (p. 19). While the project would increase the student population by five, Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code has been adopted by the state to mitigate any school facilities impacts. This section states that the payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on school facilities. New facilities, if and when required by the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, would be developed and analyzed independent of this project review. d, e. The proposed project’s population may increase the use of nearby parks. Los Gatos contains 16 publicly owned and operated parks throughout the community; 15 of which are located on Town-owned land and the remaining park (Vasona County Park) is owned and operated by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. There are more than 250 acres of parkland within Los Gatos (Town of Los Gatos 2022, p. 7-7). According to 2040 General Plan Policy OSPR-6.7, the Town’s park standard is five acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Using this standard, along with the Town’s existing population and parkland acreage, the Town exceeds this standard as it has approximately 7.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. To meet the standard, the project would be required to provide approximately 0.4 acres of parkland. The project is not providing any parkland acreage; however, because the Town already exceeds the park standard, and the generation of residents by the project is fairly small, this impact would be less than significant. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 67 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 16. RECREATION Comments: a. The project involves the increase in population within the Town, which could result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Additionally, each residential unit would include balconies, which are considered private recreation space. See also response to 15.d. above. The project is not expected to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. b. The project does not include recreational facilities other than the private balconies and the project is not expected to require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 68 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 17. TRANSPORTATION Would the project: Comments: Hexagon Transportation Consultants prepared a transportation study in January 2025 for the proposed project. Much of the information in this section can be found in this transportation study. The full study can be found in Appendix H. a. Roadway System. The existing office building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the Town’s roadway system. Transit System. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Route 27 serves the project area. This route travels between Winchester Station and Kaiser San Jose with the nearest bus stop located at the intersection of E. Main Street and Villa Avenue, approximately 200 feet west of the project site. Bicycle Facilities. There are existing bicycle lanes along East Main Street fronting the project site while none are present on Church Street or High School Court. The project proposes eight short-term bicycle parking spaces and either 72 or 41 long-term bicycle parking spaces, depending on which parking garage option is chosen. According to the Town’s Objective Design Standards, the project is required to provide 32 short-term bicycle spaces and 30 long-term bicycles spaces. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Section D Evaluation of Impacts 69 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Builder’s Remedy projects, such as the proposed project, are not required to comply with a jurisdiction’s objective design standards. Therefore, although the project proposes less short-term bicycle parking spaces than what is required and could potentially increase vehicle use as a result, the long-term parking spaces requirement would be exceeded. Therefore, although the proposed project may be considered to conflict with an ordinance addressing bicycle facilities, the resulting environmental impacts associated with vehicle miles traveled, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, would not be significant. Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian traffic would be generated by the proposed project. Existing pedestrian facilities in the vicinity are the sidewalks on E. Main Street, High School Court, and Church Street, and existing crosswalks at nearby intersections. Pedestrian generators in the project area include the Los Gatos High School and other existing commercial uses within the area. The project proposes pedestrian access to the site from on E. Main Street, High School Court, Church Street, and the western border of the site; most of which is existing and will remain. There are no General Plan policies regarding pedestrian facilities that are applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian facilities. b. According to the transportation study, all new development within the Town is required to evaluate the effects of development on the transportation system using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A significant impact would occur if the total VMT per service population for the project would exceed a level of 11.3 percent below the total VMT per service population for the Town baseline conditions. A significant impact would also occur if the project increases total (boundary) County-wide VMT by 6.5 percent compared to baseline conditions. The project would result in a 20.1 VMT per service population, which is less than 26.1, the Town’s daily VMT per service population. Additionally, the Countywide total boundary VMT is 37,244,566 and the project would add 1,577 VMTs, which is less than 6.5 percent of baseline conditions. Therefore, the project would not have a significant VMT impact (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, p. 2). c. The proposed project is compatible with the mix of uses in downtown Los Gatos. The project plans include a circulation plan (Sheet A0.5), which illustrates the existing and proposed pedestrian and bike paths as well as vehicle access on and around the site. According to the transportation study, the project includes adequate site access and circulation for residents, loading, and emergency vehicles. However, Hexagon Transportation Consultants does recommend the following minor improvements to ensure the proposed project would not increase hazards. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 70 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 Project improvements plans shall include the following, subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit: a. Stripe a loading space along the project frontage on E. Main Street; b. Apply 10 feet of No Parking (Red Zone) on both sides of the project driveway on Church Street; and c. Provide adequate landing space at the top and bottom of the garage ramps. No additional environmental impacts would be associated with implementation of these improvements. d. The proposed project includes a fire access plan (Sheet C-6.0) and a fire staging area (Sheet 6.1) and its review was completed in July 2024 (Matthew McKenna, email message to consultant, July 31, 2024). The project plans were reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department who provided comments on fire protection facilities. The transportation study states that emergency vehicles can access the proposed structure along the frontages on Church Street, High School Court, and E. Main Street. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 71 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Comments: a. The Town sent out consultation offer letters pursuant to AB 52 on December 5, 2024. No tribes have provided a response as of January 21, 2025. a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources code section 5020.1(k), or ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 72 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Comments: a. The proposed project involves the construction of a four-story, mixed-use building on a site that is currently developed with a commercial building and is already connected to the Town’s water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities services. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of these utilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The project does, however, involve new stormwater drainage facilities (refer to Sheet C- 4.0, Utility Plan). Potentially significant construction impacts associated with the implementation of the project’s stormwater drainage facilities are identified in the air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise sections of this initial study. All such impacts are either less than significant or mitigated to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Please refer to the respective sections for more information. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, single-dry and multiple- dry years? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Impacts 73 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 b. San Jose Water Company provides water service to Los Gatos and Valley Water is a special district that provides water resources management for all of Santa Clara County, including Los Gatos. According to Valley Water’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry years (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2021, Tables 7-3 and 7-4). During wet weather years, Valley Water stores excess supplies in the groundwater basin, local reservoirs, San Luis Reservoir, and/or Semitropic Groundwater Bank, and draws on these reserve supplies during dry years to help meet demands (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2021, p. 47). Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, single-dry and multiple- dry years. c. The West Valley Sanitation District provides wastewater collection, transport, and disposal services to Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, two-thirds of Saratoga, and intervening unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The West Valley Sanitation District contracts with the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility for wastewater treatment and disposal. Its wastewater treatment facility has a capacity of up to 167 million gallons of wastewater per day and collected and conveyed approximately 9.5 million gallons of wastewater per day in fiscal year 2022-2023; the West Valley Sanitation District accounts for approximately ten percent of the total treatment flow at the facility. The West Valley Sanitation District’s annual report for fiscal year 2022-2023 (West Valley Sanitation District 2024) states a wastewater flow coefficient for multi-family of 144 gallons per day per unit. Using this wastewater flow coefficient, the proposed project could result in the generation of 4,320 gallons of wastewater per day (30 proposed multi- family units x 144 gallons per day). The West Valley Sanitation District’s annual report accounts for wastewater generated from residential uses only; therefore, wastewater generation rates for non-residential uses are not available. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that because approximately 67 percent of the wastewater treatment facility capacity remains, the expected population growth of approximately 30 percent envisioned in the 2040 General Plan would not exceed the facility’s capacity and that existing flows as well as future additional wastewater flows in the Town as a result of population growth under the 2040 General Plan would be met by the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment facility (Town of Los Gatos 2021, p. 4.16-19). Therefore, the project would not result in a determination by the West Valley Sanitation District, which would serve the project, that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. As stated in the 2040 General Plan EIR, new development within the Town as part of the 2040 General Plan would be required to pay impact fees for system expansion that would accommodate the increased growth of the Town envisioned as part of the 2040 General Plan (Town of Los Gatos 2021, p. 4.16-20). Additionally, approval by the West Valley Sanitation District, as indicated by the Town Building Division Staff Technical Review dated November 26, 2024, will be required at the time of building permit submittal. Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 74 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 d, e. West Valley Collection and Recycling provides the solid waste and recycling needs of Los Gatos and transports the solid waste to the Guadalupe Landfill, southeast of Los Gatos. The landfill has a ceased operation date of December 31, 2043 and has a maximum permitted throughput of 3,650 tons per day. As of January 26, 2023, the landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 7.5 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2024a). CalRecycle provides an annual disposal rate of 3.2 pounds per person per day for population and 5.1 pounds per person per day for employment (CalRecycle 2024b). Using these rates, the project is estimated to generate approximately 240 pounds per day by the project residents (75 project residents x 3.2 pounds per person per day) and approximately 51 pounds per day by the project employees (10 project employees x 5.1 pounds per person per day). This results in a total project generation of approximately 291 pounds of solid waste per day, or approximately 0.15 tons per day. The project’s total solid waste generation represents 0.004 percent of the maximum permitted throughput at the landfill. Therefore, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Section D Evaluation of Impacts 75 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 20. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Comments: a-d. The project site is not located within or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; the nearest being approximately 0.75 miles south of the site (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2024). Therefore, no further discussion is required. Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 76 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Comments: a. Special-status plant or wildlife species are not expected to occur at the currently developed project site in downtown Los Gatos; however, the proposed project does include tree removal and may have an impact on nesting birds. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 (requiring that all construction activities take place outside of the nesting bird season) and BIO-2 (requiring that a tree removal permit be obtained prior to the removal of protected trees on private or Town property) presented in Section 4.0, Biological Resources, would ensure potential impacts are less than significant. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. The proposed project has the potential to result in adverse effects to unknown, buried historic resources or unique archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 (requiring specific language on construction plans to provide guidance on the procedure should indigenous historic or unique archaeological resources be uncovered during construction activities) and CUL-2 (requiring specific language on construction plans to provide guidance on the procedure should previously undiscovered Native American Potentially Significant Impact Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Section D Evaluation of Impacts 77 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 human remains be uncovered during construction activities) presented in Section 5.0, Cultural Resources, would ensure that such an impact, if it were to occur, would not be significant and would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. Proposed project impacts that contribute to cumulative project impacts are required to be lessened per the mitigation measures presented in this initial study. They include health risks from construction and operational TAC emissions (requiring Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and -2); impacts to nesting birds (requiring Mitigation Measure BIO-1), loss of protected trees (requiring Mitigation Measure BIO-2), potential impacts to cultural resources (requiring Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and -2), the release of hazardous materials into the environment during demolition and construction activities (requiring Mitigation Measure HAZ-1), and interior noise levels (requiring Mitigation Measure N-2). The proposed project would generate GHG emissions that contribute to associated cumulative effects; however, these impacts were determined to be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires that the proposed project be all electric. The proposed project would not generate a significant volume of vehicle trips that would add to ambient noise levels on surrounding roadways. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. With implementation of the mitigation measures, standards, and policies identified herein, the project’s contribution to cumulative project impacts would not be considerable. c. Based on the analysis provided in this initial study, the proposed project could indirectly cause substantial adverse effects to human beings through health risks from potential exposures to construction and operational TAC emissions (requiring the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires the preparation of a Construction Management Plan, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires incorporation of MERV 13 air filtration systems into the project design); instability of the project site soils (requiring implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires the preparation of a soils report); the generation of GHG emissions through the use of natural gas (requiring the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires that the proposed project be all electric); the release of hazardous materials into the environment during demolition (requiring the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires that soil vapor testing be conducted); and noise levels associated with construction and interior noise (requiring the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1, which requires the incorporation of best management practices during construction, and N-2, which requires the installation of mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all residential units). However, as discussed throughout this initial study, the impacts would not be significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Section E Sources 78 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 E. SOURCES Town of Los Gatos General Plan/Setting Google Earth. 2024. Town of Los Gatos. June 2022. Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan. Los Gatos, CA. Project Description Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc. Project Plans dated October 30, 2024. Aesthetics California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed on July 29, 2024. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46 cc8e8057116f1aacaa Town of Los Gatos. June 2022. Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. January 2011. Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. Los Gatos, CA. Agriculture California Department of Conservation. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed on July 19, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ Google Earth. 2024. Town of Los Gatos. “Williamson Act Properties.” Accessed on July 19, 2024. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1f39e32b4c0 644b0915354c3e59778ce Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2024. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air-quality- standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed September 5, 2024 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April 20, 2022. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines Section E Sources 79 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Spare the Air Cool the Climate A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. April 19, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/%7E/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean- air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en California Department of Transportation. 2017. 2017 Traffic Volumes: Route 7-10. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/traffic-volumes/2017/ route-7-10. Accessed December 7, 2024 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2024. Transportation Study for the Mixed-Use Development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street in Los Gatos, California. December 12, 2024 Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc. 2024. Los Gatos Mixed Use, 151 East Main Street, Development Review Application Revised submittal #3. October 30, 2024 Ramboll. 2024. CEQA Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk, and Energy Analysis for the 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road Residential Development Project in Los Gatos, California. September 5, 2024 Safty, Ryan, Associate Planner, Town of Los Gatos. Email conversation with consultant, 22 January 2025. Town of Los Gatos. 2022. Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan. June 30, 2022. https://losgatos2040.com/documents.html Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024a. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) online database. http://bios.dfg.ca.gov California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) online database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/data/cnddb California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024c. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. Sacramento, California. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Connectivity/CEHC https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?bookmark=648 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California online database. Search for Los Gatos, Cupertino, San Jose West, San Jose East, Castle Rock Ridge, Santa Teresa Hills, Felton, Laurel, and Loma Prieta 7.5-min quadrangles. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024b. Manual of California Vegetation Online. https://vegetation.cnps.org/ Calyx Tree and Landscape Consulting. October 2024. Arborist Report. Los Altos, CA. Section E Sources 80 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2024. All About Birds online database. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://www.allaboutbirds.org Jameson, E. W., and Hans J. Peeters. 2004. Mammals of California. University of California Press. National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey online soil mapping. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Town of Los Gatos. 2022. Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan. June 2022 adoption Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. Town Code. Updated as of March 27, 2024. https://library.municode.com/ca/los_gatos/codes/code_of_ordinances U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. Endangered Species Program online database. Species list for Merced County. Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory online database. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024c. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species online mapper. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe 09893cf75b8dbfb77 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2024. National Map Spot Elevation Data. Online mapper. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ Cultural Resources Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. January 2011. Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. Los Gatos, CA. California Historical Resources Information System. September 2024. NWIC File Number 24- 0230. Energy California Energy Commission Energy. 2022a. Gas Consumption by County – Santa Clara County. 2022. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed November 15, 2024 California Energy Commission Energy. 2022b. Electricity Consumption by County - Santa Clara County. 2022. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed November 15, 2024 Section E Sources 81 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2024. Transportation Study for the Mixed-Use Development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street in Los Gatos, California. November 26, 2024. Safty, Ryan, Associate Planner, Town of Los Gatos. Email conversation with consultant, 22 January 2025. Geology and Soils California Department of Conservation. “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.” Accessed on August 2, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ Gray, Rober, CBO, CASp, Town of Los Gatos Chief Building Official/ADA Coordinator. Staff Technical Review - Comment letter, dated November 26, 2024. Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc. Project Plans dated October 30, 2024. Santa Clara County. “Geologic Hazard Zones.” Accessed on August 2, 2024. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef81003362 34fbdafc5769494cfe373 Santa Clara County. “Soils of Santa Clara County.” Accessed on August 2, 2024. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=39cca200bb4 743eeaab0e15838ab85d2 Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. June 2022. Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. Town Code. Updated as of March 27, 2024. https://library.municode.com/ca/los_gatos/codes/code_of_ordinances Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022a. 2022 CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. April 20, 2022. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act- ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022b. Justification Report for CEQA Threshold for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. February 2022. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.baaqmd.gov/ ~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/final-ceqa-thresholds-report-for-climate- impacts-02092022-alt-pdf.pdf?la=en&rev=2fa4a375066846eea15ab2fa124efc6a Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2024. Transportation Study for the Mixed-Use Development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street in Los Gatos, California. December 12, 2024 Section E Sources 82 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc. 2024. Los Gatos Mixed Use, 151 East Main Street, Development Review Application Revised submittal #3. October 30, 2024. Safty, Ryan, Associate Planner, Town of Los Gatos. Email conversation with consultant, 22 January 2025. Hazards and Hazardous Materials California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area.” Accessed on July 30, 2024. https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89 597ab693d008 California Environmental Protection Agency. “List of solid waste disposal sites identified by Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (PDF).” Accessed on August 4, 2024a. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://calepa.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency. “List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board (MS Excel, 1,453 KB).” Accessed on August 4, 2024b. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ California Environmental Protection Agency. “List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.” Accessed on August 4, 2024c. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/?emrc=63f01af3d8806 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Envirostor.” Accessed on August 4, 2024. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov Google Earth. 2024. Partner. June 2021. Peer Review 143-151 East Main Street Los Gatos, California 95030. Torrance, CA. Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management. “Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP).” Accessed on August 4, 2024. https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/multi-jurisdictional-hazard-mitigation-plan- mjhmp State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker.” Accessed on August 4, 2024. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=losgatos Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. Section E Sources 83 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Hydrology and Water Quality Flood Emergency Management Agency. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address.” Accessed on August 8, 2024. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor Santa Clara Valley Water District. June 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. San Jose, CA. Santa Clara Valley Water District. November 2021b. Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. San Jose, CA. Santa Clara Valley Water District. “Santa Clara County Groundwater Subbasins.” Accessed on August 8, 2024. https://data-valleywater.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/861757f6ba354c2e9d5d 1fffa695b7a2 Town of Los Gatos. “Stormwater Regulations.” Accessed on August 8, 2024. https://www.losgatosca.gov/953/Stormwater-Regulations Town of Los Gatos. Town Code. Updated as of March 27, 2024. https://library.municode.com/ca/los_gatos/codes/code_of_ordinances Town of Los Gatos. June 2022. Winchester Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Los Gatos, CA. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/279894- 1/attachment/fF3t6vJawSA1lAS4EEhkg0DtbMDpFGT04AKecozfuqvhArlnrEW_ISR ULrAFHpfc7ZRNJmoUPWj4-Qrw0 Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. Mineral Resources Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc. Project Plans dated October 30, 2024. Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. June 2022. Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan. Los Gatos, CA. Noise Google Earth. 2024. WJV Acoustics, Inc. November 2024. Environmental Noise Assessment 151 East Main Street, +Mixed‐ Use Development, Los Gatos, California. Visalia, CA. Section E Sources 84 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Population and Housing California Department of Finance. May 2024. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2024, with 2020 Benchmark.” https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ Strategic Economics. January 2016. San Jose Market Overview and Employment Lands Analysis. Public Services California Department of Finance. May 2024. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2024, with 2020 Benchmark.” https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District. March 2024. 2024 Developer Fee Justification Study for Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District. Los Gatos, CA. Los Gatos Union School District. July 2023. Student Forecast Report. Los Gatos, CA. https://lgusd.edlioschool.com/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=222278&type=d&pR EC_ID=670258 Los Gatos Union School District. 2024. 2024 District Facilities Master Plan Envision Los Gatos USD 2034. Los Gatos, CA. McKenna, Matthew, Senior Deputy Fire Marshal, Santa Clara County Fire Department. Email message to consultant, 31 July 2024 and 12 August 2024. Santa Clara County Fire Department. “Facilities and Fire Stations.” Accessed on July 30, 2024. https://www.sccfd.org/about-sccfd/facilities-and-fire-stations/#losgatos School Site Locator. “Los Gatos Union School District.” Accessed on July 31, 2024. https://www.schoolsitelocator.com/apps/losgatos/?data_id=dataSource_1- ssl_test_mapImageService_4376%3A4 Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. “The Department.” Accessed on August 14, 2024. https://www.losgatosca.gov/2023/The-Department Recreation Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. Section E Sources 85 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Transportation Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2024. Transportation Study for the Mixed-Use Development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street in Los Gatos, California. December 12, 2024 Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc. Project Plans dated October 30, 2024. Town of Los Gatos. June 2022. Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. Town Code. Updated as of March 27, 2024. https://library.municode.com/ca/los_gatos/codes/code_of_ordinances Utilities and Service Systems California Department of Finance. May 2024. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2024, with 2020 Benchmark.” https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ CalRecycle. “Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43-AN-0015).” Accessed on August 14, 2024a. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1376?siteID=3399 CalRecycle. “Disposal Rate Calculator – Jurisdiction Name: Los Gatos, Report Year: 2023.” Accessed on August 14, 2024b. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc. Project Plans dated October 30, 2024. Safty, Ryan, Associate Planner, Town of Los Gatos. Email message with consultant, 27 January 2025. San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. “San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility - Fact Sheet.” Accessed August 14, 2024. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32061/6372678254459000 00 Santa Clara Valley Water District. June 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. San Jose, CA. Town of Los Gatos. June 2022. Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan. Los Gatos, CA. Town of Los Gatos. July 2021. 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Los Gatos, CA. West Valley Sanitation District. West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County Fiscal Year 2022- 2023. Accessed on August 12, 2024. https://www.wvsdca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1265/WVSD-Annual-Report-FY- 2022-2023?bidId= Section E Sources 86 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study February 2025 Wildfire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area.” Accessed on July 30, 2024. https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89 597ab693d008 Google Earth. 2024. Project Plans dated October 30, 2024 A APPENDIX PROJECT SITE FORMAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED USE REVISED SUBMITTAL#1 06.15.2024 A0.0 COVER SHEET A0.1 DESIGN IMAGERY A0.2 AERIAL MAP A0.3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING SITE A0.4 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT A0.5 CIRCULATION PLAN A0.6 OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS A0.7 RENDERING A0.8 RENDERING A0.9 SHADOW STUDY A0.10 EXISTING BUILDING SITE PLAN A0.11 EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS A1.0 SITE PLAN A2.0 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 A2.1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 A2.2 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3 A2.3 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 4 A2.4 BUILDING ROOF PLAN OWNER KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC. 445 N. WHISMAN ROAD, SUITE 200 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043 Phone: 650.965.0700(13) Contact: Ken Rodrigues Email:kenr@krparchitects.com CSPN LLC 8 THE GREEN, SUITE A DOVER, DE 19901 Phone: 212.228.1601 Contact: David Blatt Email: dblatt@capstackpartners.com ARCHITECT THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP, INC 181 GREENWICH STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 Phone: 415.433.4674 Contact: Gary Laymon Email: glaymon@tgp-inc.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SANDIS 1700 S WINCHESTER BLVD, SUITE 200 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 Phone: 408.963.9469 Contact: Tim Kim Email: tkim@sandis.net CIVIL ENGINEER PROPERTY ADDRESS APN EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED USES OCCUPANCY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 2 LEVELS BELOW GRADE PARKING 4 LEVELS ABOVE GRADE HOUSING TOTAL GARAGE AREA TOTAL HOUSING AREA 151 EAST MAIN STREET IS A 4-STORY MIXED USE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING LOCATED ON 0.425 ACRE SITE AT THE CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND HIGH SCHOOL COURT IN LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. THE GROUND LEVEL INCLUDES 2,416 SQUARE FEET OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMERCIAL WHICH COULD BE LEASED TO A RETAIL OR RESTAURANT TENANT. RESIDENTIAL (FOR SALE ) UNITS ARE LOCATED ON ALL FOUR LEVELS OF THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES 30 UNITS, 24 MARKET RATE UNITS AND 6 AFFORDABLE UNITS RANGING FROM 743 SQUARE FEET TO 2,188 SQUARE FEET. ALL 6 OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS PROPOSED (OR 20% OF THE 30 TOTAL UNITS) WILL BE SOLD TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 50079.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. MEANING, THOSE WHOSE INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED 80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME. PROPOSED PROJECT UNITS ARE 1 BEDROOM UP TO 3 BEDROOMS WITH OUTDOOR PATIOS. THERE ARE TWO(2) OPTIONS FOR THE UNDERGROUND PARKING, OPTION 1- A TWO LEVEL PARKING GARAGE WITH 47 INDIVIDUAL PARKING STALLS. OPTION 2 - A ONE LEVEL PARKING GARAGE WITH 39 PARKING STALLS THAT INCLUDE 16 CAR STACKERS. THE PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS TAKES ITS CUE FROM LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED NEXT DOOR AND THE MANY SIGNIFICANT BRICK STRUCTURES LOCATED ON MAIN STREET AND NORTH SANTA CRUZ IN DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS. BUILDING MATERIALS INCLUDE BRICK WALLS, PRECAST CONCRETE FACADE DETAILING, IRON BALCONIES, METAL GRID WINDOWS AND CANVAS AWNINGS. THESE MATERIALS CAN BE FOUND IN DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS IN OTHER KEY BUILDINGS. THE FOURTH FLOOR IS STEPPED BACK TO REDUCE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF MASS AND HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, MATERIALS ON THE FOURTH FLOOR INCLUDE EXTERIOR PLASTER WALLS, PRECAST CONCRETE DETAILING, AND A SLOPED CLAY TILE ROOF TO FURTHER REDUCE THE BUILDING MASSING. OUTDOOR PATIOS WITH WOOD TRELLIS FEATURES AND LANDSCAPING PROVIDE OWNERS VIEWS TO THE FOOTHILLS AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. P R O J E C T I N F O R M A T I O N P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N Phone: 650.965.0700(20) Contact: Yichao Li Email:yichao@krparchitects.com ARCHITECTURAL E MAIN ST CHURCH ST HIGH SCHOOL CT 143 E MAIN STREET 151 E MAIN STREET 529-28-001 529-28-002 C-2 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE MERCANTILE AND RESIDENTIAL TYPE I-B TYPE IV-B 30,996 SF 47,580 SF SITE SUMMARY SITE AREA AREA CALCULATION BUILDING GROSS AREA CIRCULATION AREA USABLE FLOOR AREA RESIDENTIAL AREA AMENITY SPACE COMMERCIAL/RETAIL / RESTAURANT UNITS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE (GROUND FLOOR BUILDING FOOTPRINT 13,375 SF) FAR EXISTING SITE COVERAGE EXISTING BUILDING SIZE S H E E T I N D E X P R O J E C T T E A M V I C I N I T Y M A P L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2.0 LANDSCAPE IMAGERY L3.0 SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN L3.1 4TH FLOOR ROOF DECK LANDSCAPE PLAN L4.0 HYDROZONE PLAN L6.0 DETAILS T1.0 TREE DISPOSITION PLAN T1.1 ARBORIST REPORT T1.2 ARBORIST REPORT LANDSCAPE Phone: 415.433.4672(17) Contact: Colin Bly Email:cbly@tgp-inc.com 18,516 SF (0.425 AC) 47,580 SF 11,427 SF 36,153 SF 32,727 SF 1,010 SF 2,416 SF 30 71 UNITS / AC 72% 2.57 45% 8,258 SF A2.5 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 1) A2.6 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 2 (OPTION 1) A2.7 ALTERNATE BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 2) A2.8 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS A2.9 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS A3.0 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.2 STREETSCAPE ELEVATION A3.3 BUILDING MATERIALS AND FINISHES A4.0 BUILDING SECTIONS A4.1 BASEMENT DRIVEWAY SECTION A4.2 WALL SECTIONS AND ENLARGED ELEVATIONS A4.3 WALL SECTIONS AND ENLARGED ELEVATIONS A4.4 SITE CROSS SECTION A5.0 TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS A5.1 CAR STACKER SPECIFICATION PARKING CALCULATION TOTAL PARKING STALLS RETAIL/HOUSING SHARED HOUSING ACCESSIBLE STANDARD STALLS(HC) ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS(HCV) LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS EV(STANDARD) EV(ACCESSIBLE) EV(VAN ACCESSIBLE) TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING MOTORCYCLES VISITOR PARKING OPT1 47 8 39 1 1 26 24 1 1 80 72 8 2 0 OPT2 39 0 39 1 1 25 23 1 1 49 41 8 1 0 NOTES: 1. A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PV SYSTEM THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE PERFORMANCE OR PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS. THE SEPARATE PV SYSTEM PERMIT MUST BE FINALED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2. THIS MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE WILL COMPLY WITH THE TOWN'S ALL ELECTRIC APPLIANCE, ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE. 3. BUILDING IS FULLY SPRINKLERED. A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED. 4. FIRE ALARM WILL BE PROVIDED. A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED. 5. FIRE HYDRANTS WILL BE PROVIDED. SEE CIVIL PLANS. 6. TWO WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. 7. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO SYSTEM IS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. 8. STANDPIPES DRAWINGS ARE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. MARKET RATE UNITS AFFORDABLE UNITS TOTAL UNITS 24 6 30 0' 150' 300' Phone: 408.813.3275 Contact: Samir Patel Email:spatel@sandis.net C-1.0 COVER SHEET C-1.1 CONSTRUCTION NOTES C-1.2 CONSTRUCTION NOTES C-2.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY C-2.1 PROPOSED PARCELIZATION PLAN C-3.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C-4.0 UTILITY PLAN C-5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN C-5.1 SILVA CELL DETAIL C-6.0 FIRE ACCESS PLAN C-6.1 FIRE STAGING AREA C-7.0 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-7.1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-7.2 BMP NOTES REVISION #2 08.30.2024 REVISION #3 10.30.2024 CIVIL DESIGN IMAGERY A0.1 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL AERIAL MAP A0.2200'400' AERIAL MAP 1"=100'-0"1 0' 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL CHURCH ST E.MAIN STHIGH WAY 17 PROJECT PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE A0.3100'200' PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SITE NTS 1 1 2 6 4 5 3 CONTEXT SITE PLANAIMAGES OF SITEB 1 3 5 6 4 2 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL VIEW FROM MAIN STREET VIEW FROM MAIN STREET VIEW FROM CHURCH STREET VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM CHURCH STREET VIEW LOOKING SOUTH FROM CHURCH STREET VIEW FROM MAIN STREET (BUILDING HEIGHT: ±20') M A I N S T R E E T PROJECT SITE C H U R C H S T R E E T H I G H S C H O O L C O U R TGENERAL NOTES: 1.EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT ±20' 2.EXISTING BUILDING AND PARKING LOT TO BE DEMOLISHED 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT A0.4 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT NTS 1 PROJECT SITE 1 23 CONTEXT SITE PLANAIMAGES OF ADJACENT BUILDINGSB 1 3 5 6 4 2 FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST (BUILDING HEIGHT: ±29')EL GATO PENTHOUSE (BUILDING HEIGHT: ±54') HOTEL LOS GATOS (BUILDING HEIGHT: ±30')LGS RECREATION (ADULT RECREATION CENTER) (BUILDING HEIGHT: ±18') LOS GATOS LIBRARY (BUILDING HEIGHT: ±30')PURPLE ONION CAFE (BUILDING HEIGHT: ±25') 4 5 200'400'0' 20 E MAIN ST, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 238 E MAIN ST, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 210 E MAIN ST, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 208 E MAIN ST, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 100 VILLA AVE, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 6 26 E MAIN ST, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL CIRCULATION PLAN A0.5 C H U R C H S T R E E T S T R E E TH I G H S C H O O L V I L L A A V E N U E20'40' C O U R TE A S T 0' LEGEND EXISTING BIKE PATH PEDESTRIAN PATH DRIVEWAY/RAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING PUBLIC STREET BUILDING ENTRY SITE ENTRY/ VEHICLE ENTRY LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL LOS GATOS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH LOS GATOS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER HOTEL LOS GATOS M A I N COMMERCIAL RETAIL/ RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL UNIT EXISTING 1-STORY BUILDING 131 E MAIN ST LOS GATOS LOBBY & CIRCULATION ENTRY LOBBY COMMERCIAL/ RETAIL/ RESTAURANT 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS A0.620'40'0' OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS 1"=20'-0"1 1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 1" = 20'-0"2 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 1" = 20'-0" 3 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3 1" = 20'-0"4 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 4 1" = 20'-0" AREA CALCULATIONS 582 SF2,328 SF2,231 SF 1,170 SF 2,231SF NOTE: REFER SHEET A2.0,A2.1,A2.2,A2.33 FOR PRIVATE RECREATION SPACE AND AMENITY AREA PER EACH FLOOR LOT AREA 18,516 SF (0.425 AC) BUILDING FOOTPRINT 13,375 SF PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT 72% HARDSCAPE 2,231 SF PERCENTAGE OF HARDSCAPE 12% LANDSCAPE 2,328 SF PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE 13% PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPING OPEN TO SKY 10% PRIVATE RECREATION SPACE 582 SF PERCENTAGE OF PRIVATE RECREATION SPACE 3% 505 SF 505 SF LANDSCAPE 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL PRIVATE RECREATION SPACE 66 SF 117 SF PRIVATE RECREATION SPACE PER UNIT 803 SF 1,170 SF 3,212 SF 1,170 SF 582 SF 6,134 SF RESIDENT AMENITY PRIVATE RECREATION COMMUNITY RECREATION 1,170 SF 3,212 SF 6,134 SF 0 SF 2,328 SF 1,010SF 0 SF 201 SF 16 SF 16 SF 102 SF102 SF 32 SF 61 SF 413 SF 192 SF 713 SF 128 SF 435 SF 34 SF38 SF70 SF341 SF48 SF52 SF 98 SF 452 SF98 SF 72 SF 440 SF 246 SF 363 SF 66 SF 78 SF 78 SF 78 SF 78 SF 13,375 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 234 SF117 SF 117 SF 803 SF 803 SF 803 SF 803 SF LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 TOTAL HARDSCAPEBUILDING FOOTPRINTFLOOR 13,375 SF 13,375 SF AREA CALCULATIONS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 TOTAL FLOOR 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 234 SF 803 SF 803 SF 803 SF 78 SF 78 SF 78 SF 78 SF 102 SF 102 SF AMENITY 505 SF AMENITY 505 SF 5 PERCENTAGE OF FRONT SETBACK AREA IS LANDSCAPED 1" = 20'-0" FRONT SETBACK AREA 1,183 SF AREA LANDSCAPED (GREEN HATCHED AREA 201SF+32SF+61SF+192SF) 486 SF PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE AREA 41% - 5 201 SF 16 SF 16 SF32 SF 61 SF 413 SF 192 SF N FRONT SETBACK LINE 67 SF 185 SF 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE01.15.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002NREVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALA0.9SHADOW STUDYSUMMER SOLSTICE 9AM11"=60'-0"SUMMER SOLSTICE NOON21"=60'-0"SUMMER SOLSTICE 3PM31"=60'-0"WINTER SOLSTICE 9AM41"=60'-0"WINTER SOLSTICE NOON51"=60'-0"WINTER SOLSTICE 3PM61"=60'-0"60' 0'120'SHADOW STUDY1"=60'-0"1151 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 950304-STORIES151 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 950304-STORIES151 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 950304-STORIES151 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 950304-STORIES151 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 950304-STORIES111 CHURCH ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030131 MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030151 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 950304-STORIES200 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030238 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030208 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030JUNE 21JUNE 21JUNE 21DECEMBER 21DECEMBER 21DECEMBER 21LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,LOS GATOS,CA 950303-STORYLOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,LOS GATOS,CA 950303-STORYLOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,LOS GATOS,CA 950303-STORYLOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,LOS GATOS,CA 950303-STORYLOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,LOS GATOS,CA 950303-STORYLOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,LOS GATOS,CA 950303-STORY08.30.20242ND REVISED SUBMITTALLOT SIZE 0.24ACFLOOR AREA 7,074 SF1-STORYFAR 0.68LOT SIZE 0.62ACFLOOR AREA 10,619 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 1.88ACFLOOR AREA 58,207 SF2-STORYFAR 0.71LOT SIZE 0.7ACFLOOR AREA 11,890 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 2.24ACFLOOR AREA 31,065 SF1-STORYFAR 0.32111 CHURCH ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030131 MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030200 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030238 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030208 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030LOT SIZE 0.24ACFLOOR AREA 7,074 SF1-STORYFAR 0.68LOT SIZE 0.62ACFLOOR AREA 10,619 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 1.88ACFLOOR AREA 58,207 SF2-STORYFAR 0.71LOT SIZE 0.7ACFLOOR AREA 11,890 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 2.24ACFLOOR AREA 31,065 SF1-STORYFAR 0.32111 CHURCH ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030131 MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030200 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030238 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030208 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030LOT SIZE 0.24ACFLOOR AREA 7,074 SF1-STORYFAR 0.68LOT SIZE 0.62ACFLOOR AREA 10,619 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 1.88ACFLOOR AREA 58,207 SF2-STORYFAR 0.71LOT SIZE 0.7ACFLOOR AREA 11,890 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 2.24ACFLOOR AREA 31,065 SF1-STORYFAR 0.32111 CHURCH ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030131 MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030200 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030238 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030208 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030LOT SIZE 0.24ACFLOOR AREA 7,074 SF1-STORYFAR 0.68LOT SIZE 0.62ACFLOOR AREA 10,619 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 1.88ACFLOOR AREA 58,207 SF2-STORYFAR 0.71LOT SIZE 0.7ACFLOOR AREA 11,890 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 2.24ACFLOOR AREA 31,065 SF1-STORYFAR 0.32111 CHURCH ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030131 MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030200 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030238 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030208 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030LOT SIZE 0.24ACFLOOR AREA 7,074 SF1-STORYFAR 0.68LOT SIZE 0.62ACFLOOR AREA 10,619 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 1.88ACFLOOR AREA 58,207 SF2-STORYFAR 0.71LOT SIZE 0.7ACFLOOR AREA 11,890 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 2.24ACFLOOR AREA 31,065 SF1-STORYFAR 0.32111 CHURCH ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030131 MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030200 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030238 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030208 EAST MAIN ST,LOS GATOS,CA 95030LOT SIZE 0.24ACFLOOR AREA 7,074 SF1-STORYFAR 0.68LOT SIZE 0.62ACFLOOR AREA 10,619 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 1.88ACFLOOR AREA 58,207 SF2-STORYFAR 0.71LOT SIZE 0.7ACFLOOR AREA 11,890 SF2-STORYFAR 0.39LOT SIZE 2.24ACFLOOR AREA 31,065 SF1-STORYFAR 0.32 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE01.15.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002NREVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALA0.10EXISTING BUILDINGSITE PLAN10' 0'20'EXISTING BUILDING SITE PLAN1"=10'-0"1131 EAST MAIN ST,BRICK & CONCRETE ROOFPEAK ELEVATION = 407.7± FEETC H U R C H S T R E E TE A S T M A I N S T R E E TH I G H S C H O O L C O U R T 22'-8"5'-4"21'-3"11'-4"8'-8"33'-4" 41'-4"21'-4"15'-4"16'-8"15'-4"14'-8"4'-4"17'-10"12'-6"32'-9" 16'-6"98'106'-7"95'-5"10'-1"106'-7"DEMO BUILDING151 EAST MAIN ST,ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDINGROOF PEAK ELEVATION = 400.6 ±FEET143 EAST MAIN ST08.30.20242ND REVISED SUBMITTALENTRY5'-8"SETBACK4'-8"SETBACKENTRYENTRYENTRYEXISTING OFF-SITE STREETTREE TYPICAL2A0.113A0.11A0.1114A0.1108.30.2024NOTESSEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DEMOLITION OFEXISTING TREES. REFER TO STREET T-1.0 FORON-SITE TREES TO BE REMOVED ANDREPLACEMENT TABLES & NEW PROPOSED TREESEXISTING PARKING22 STALLSTOTAL FLOOR AREA7,225 SFEXISTING ON-SITE TREES (3) TO BE REMOVED.SEE SHEET T-1.0,T-1.1 & T-1.2 FOR ON-SITETREES TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACEMENTTABLES OF NEW PROPOSED TREES14'9'-2"2'-2"2'-9"47'-4"10'EXISTINGLANDSCAPE ANDCONCRETE WALKS 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE01.15.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALA0.11EXISTING BUILDINGELEVATIONS10' 0'20'WEST ELEVATION1"=10'-0"408.30.20242ND REVISED SUBMITTALSOUTH ELEVATION1"=10'-0"1EAST ELEVATION1"=10'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION1"=10'-0"320'18'20'18'20'18'20'18' 0'-0"1ST FLOORT.O.ROOF18'-0"T.O.ROOF20'-0" 0'-0"1ST FLOORT.O.ROOF18'-0"T.O.ROOF20'-0" 0'-0"1ST FLOORT.O.ROOF18'-0"T.O.ROOF20'-0" 0'-0"1ST FLOORT.O.ROOF18'-0"T.O.ROOF20'-0"20' 18' 20' 18' 20' 18'20' 18' 0'-0"1ST FLOORT.O.ROOF18'-0"T.O.ROOF20'-0" 0'-0"1ST FLOORT.O.ROOF18'-0"T.O.ROOF20'-0" 0'-0"1ST FLOORT.O.ROOF18'-0"T.O.ROOF20'-0" 0'-0"1ST FLOORT.O.ROOF18'-0"T.O.ROOF20'-0"08.30.2024EXISTING PLANTER AND EXTERIOR COLUMNSEXISTING RECESSEDOUTDOOR SEATING AREAEXISTING SLOPEDROOF (TYPICAL)EXISTING MASONRY ANDPLASTER WALLS (TYPICAL)EXISTING WINDOW (TYPICAL)EXISTING DOORS (TYPICAL) 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL SITE PLAN A1.0 C H U R C H S T R E E T M A I N S T R E E TH I G H S C H O O L V I L L A A V E N U EBUILDING FOOTPRINT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING ZONING SETBACKS TRASH ROOM STAIRS UTILITY ROOM RAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE ELEVATORS RESIDENTS MAIL BOXES AND PARCEL DROP BIKE ROOM PRIMARY ENTRY AT GROUND LEVEL DRIVEWAY APRON KEYNOTES ROLL UP MESH GATE LANDSCAPE LOBBY 1 19 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK EXTERIOR TRASH ENCLOSURE GUEST BIKE PARKING (2 STALLS ON HIGH SCHOOL COURT AND 2 STALLS ON MAIN STREET) 20 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES. SEE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS21 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL22 C O U R TE A S T 1 DOWN TO GRARGE12 2 3 10 10 14 11 2 1 LOS GATOS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 111 CHURCH ST, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL 20 HIGH SCHOOL CT, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 HOTEL LOS GATOS 210 EAST MAIN ST, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 LOS GATOS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 208 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 16 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 COMMERCIAL RETAIL/RESTAURANT 57 7 SITE PLAN 1"=20'-0"1 15 4' 5'-11" RETAIL/RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL LOBBY & CIRCULATION LEGEND PRIMARY ENTRY AT GROUND LEVEL AUTO ENTRY TO UNDERGROUND PARKING AMENITY SPACE COMMERCIAL/ REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK6'5'-8"7'-5"9'-4" 11,427 SF 36,153 SF 32,727 SF 1,010 SF 2,416 SF 30 71 UNITS / AC 72% 2.57 45% 8,258 SF AREA CALCULATION BUILDING GROSS AREA CIRCULATION AREA USABLE FLOOR AREA RESIDENTIAL AREA AMENITY SPACE COMMERCIAL/RETAIL / RESTAURANT 6 9 20'40' 5'-5" 10' 4'-3" 2'-9" SETBACK UNIT 5 1718 23' ENTRANCE TO GARAGE 3 A 4.1 6"6"5'-6"4'-7" 1912'SETBACKTO EXISTING BUILDING19 5 13 4 4 4 MASONIC HALL 131 E.MAIN STREET 20 REQUIRED 10' FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE REQUIRED 52' REAR YAR D B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K L I N E REQUIRED 47' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5 21 2'-8" SETBA C K 2'-2"SETBAC K 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL REQUIRED 0' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE8'-10"SETBACK3'-7"4'-2"4'-11"SETBACK3 A4.4 1 A4.4 2 A4.4 2 A4.4 4'-8" SETBACK TO EXISTING BUILDING 5'-8" SETBACK TO EXISTING BUILDING UNITS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE (GROUND FLOOR BUILDING FOOTPRINT 13, FAR EXISTING SITE COVERAGE EXISTING BUILDING SIZE 18,516 SF (0.425 AC) SITE SUMMARY SITE AREA 22 VISION TRIANGLE 3 A4.4 1 A4.4 OPT1 47 8 39 1 1 26 24 1 1 80 72 8 2 0 OPT2 39 0 39 1 1 25 23 1 1 49 41 8 1 0 PARKING CALCULATION TOTAL PARKING STALLS RETAIL/HOUSING SHARED HOUSING ACCESSIBLE STANDARD STALLS(HC) ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS(HCV) LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS EV(STANDARD) EV(ACCESSIBLE) EV(VAN ACCESSIBLE) TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING MOTORCYCLES VISITOR PARKING FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 A2.0 C H U R C H S T R E E T E A S T M A I N S T R E E T 13 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTALDOWN TO GRARGELEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 1'=1/8"1 10'-0" 7'-5"6'4'-3" 8 17 11 2 3 15 117 3 11 16121615 UNIT 1 743 SF 1A COMMERCIAL RETAIL/RESTAURANT 2,416 SF INDOOR TRASH ROOM 233 SF LONG TERM BIKE ROOM 210 SF 6 10 8'16' UP DN UP DN AREA TABULATION LEVEL 1 GROSS AREA 13,375 SF CIRCULATION AREA USABLE FLOOR AREA COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL 4,350 SF (32%) 9,025 SF (68%) 2,416 SF 6,609 SF 1 EXTERIOR STUD WALL PROPERTY LINE TRASH ROOM AND TRASH CHUTE STAIRS UTILITY ROOM RAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE LOBBY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED SECURE BIKE ROOM PRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRY 6' WIDE AT GROUND LEVEL INTERIOR STUD WALL KEYNOTES INTERIOR DOOR (3' WIDE) EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK 19 HARDSCAPE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN LINE OF BUILDING BELOW 20 ROLL UP MESH GATE, BRONZE COLOR SEE DETAIL #5 ON SHEET A5.0 ELEVATORS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 WOOD TRELLIS IRON RAILING 21 BRICK CLADDING 22 MIDLINE BAND 23 FIRE HYDRANT 24 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 25 STANDPIPE 26 KNOX KEY BOX/LOCKS 27 RESIDENTS MAILBOXES AND PARCEL DROP 28 GUEST BIKE PARKING (2 STALLS ON HIGH SCHOOL COURT AND 2 STALLS ON MAIN STREET) 29 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 30 ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET L3.0/PLANT PALETTE FOR PROPOSED PLANTING TO SCREEN UTILITIES 31 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL 32 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTED AT 9' TYPICAL 18 5'-9" 4' UNIT 2 743 SF 1B UNIT 3 743 SF 1C UNIT 4 743 SF 1D UNIT 5 1,007 SF 1E UNIT 6 1,396 SF 1F UNIT 7 1,233 SF 1G 66 SF 78 SF 78 SF 102 SF 15 4 4 OPEN TO ABOVE 1 A4.0 1 A4.0 14 0' 2 A4.0 2 A4.0 25 23 26 163'-6" 11'-6"11'-6" 19'23'23'23'23'14'24'-6" 11'-6"11'-6"11' 5'-11" 5'-5" 2'-9" SETBACK 163'-6"5'-8"4'-11"SETBACK27'21'6'-8"13'-8"6'-8"20'25'13'-2"11'-6"11'-6" TRASH ENCLOSURE W/TRELLIS ABOVE 85'35'9'41'85'22'7'28'-10" H I G H S C H O O L C O U R T6'-9"3 A 2.9 23' 27 6"6"20'GATE SETBACK6'-9"6'8'-10"245'-6"14' FINISHED FLOOR 382.70 4'-7" 3 A4.1 3 A4.1 2 A 2.8 1 A 2.8 44 4 4 4 28 28 14 BIKES BMR UNIT 5 5 TOP OF RAMP 3'-4"SETBACK102 SF 5 29 14'-6"14'-6"28 2'-2"SETBAC K 2'-8" SET B A C K 1 A 5.0 ELEVATOR ELEVATOR REQUIRED 52' REAR YAR D B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K L I N E REQUIRED 47' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINEREQUIRED 10' FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINEREQUIRED 0' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL8'-10"SETBACK4'-2"2'-10"9'-4"30 3 A4.4 3 A4.4 NAME TYPE 1 BEDROOM UNIT SFUNIT# TYPE 100%30 UNIT #PERCENTAGE % 1 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 15 1343% 50% 2 BEDROOM 27% 1A 743 SF1B 1C 1D 2 1E 2 BEDROOM1F 2 BEDROOM1G 1,396 SF 1,233 SF7 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 BEDROOM 1(1) 3 4 5 6 1,007 SF LEVEL 1 TOTAL UNITS7 (1)BMR UNIT - ONE UNIT PRIVATE RECREAION SPACE 66 SF 78 SF 78 SF 78 SF 78 SF 102 SF 102 SF 582 SF32 7'-4" POSSIBLE OUTDOOR SEATING 200 SF45°45°16'8'8'5'5'3'-10"6'3'-10" 5'1'1'1'5'-0" 3'9'9'5'5'5'4'-8"21'-2" 1' 45°45°14'13'-2"14' 32 1'1'VISION TRIANGLE 32 31 31 2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"TYP7'-2" TYP 14'-4"2'-6"2'-6"7'-2" 38'-6"32'-9"14'-8"7'-7"45'20'-10"4'-2"31'10'-8"7'-7"29'-9"33'23'23'23'22'-9"35'-9"27'-3"14'-7"21'-2"4'-6"9'-9"39'-6"25'10'-8"1'-6"7'-7"2'TTP2' TYP 1'-6"1'-10"1'7'TYP5' 78 SF 78 SF 6'3'3'3'3'3'3'3' TYP 2'2'3'2'2'3'3'6'3'-9" 6'-10" FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 A2.1 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 1'=1/8"1 13 17 11 15 17 11 3 15 1 3 1215 2 UNIT 8 897 SF 2A UNIT 14 1,396 SF 2G OPEN TO BELOW 8'16' UP DN UP DN LEVEL 2 GROSS AREA 12,607 SF RESIDENTIAL UNIT TABULATION CIRCULATION AREA USABLE FLOOR AREA RESIDENTIAL 2,555 SF (20%) 10,052 SF (80%) 10,052 SF NAME TYPE 1 BEDROOM UNIT# 10 2A 897 SF 2B 2C 9(1) 2D 2 BEDROOM 2E 2 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 2G 2H 8 10 11 12 13 14(1) 15 1,108 SF 2 BEDROOM2J16 2 BEDROOM2K17 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 1 BEDROOM 743 SF 2F 1,396 SF 1,233 SF 1,298 SF 1,074 SF TYPE 100%30 UNIT #PERCENTAGE % 1 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 15 1343% 50% 2 BEDROOM 27% LEVEL 2 TOTAL UNITS 117 SF 117 SF 1170 SF PRIVATE RECREAION SPACE UNIT SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 1 EXTERIOR STUD WALL PROPERTY LINE TRASH ROOM AND TRASH CHUTE STAIRS UTILITY ROOM RAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE LOBBY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED SECURE BIKE ROOM PRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRY 6' WIDE AT GROUND LEVEL INTERIOR STUD WALL INTERIOR DOOR (3' WIDE) EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK 19 HARDSCAPE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN LINE OF BUILDING BELOW 20 ROLL UP MESH GATE, BRONZE COLOR SEE DETAIL #5 ON SHEET A5.0 ELEVATORS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 WOOD TRELLIS IRON RAILING 21 BRICK CLADDING 22 MIDLINE BAND 23 FIRE HYDRANT 24 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 25 STANDPIPE 26 KNOX KEY BOX/LOCKS 27 RESIDENTS MAILBOXES AND PARCEL DROP 28 GUEST BIKE PARKING (2 STALLS ON HIGH SCHOOL COURT AND 2 STALLS ON MAIN STREET) 29 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 30 ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET L3.0/PLANT PALETTE FOR PROPOSED PLANTING TO SCREEN UTILITIES 31 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL 32 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTED AT 9' TYPICAL UNIT 9 743 SF 2B UNIT 13 1,108 SF 2F UNIT 15 1,233 SF 2H UNIT 16 1,298 SF 2J UNIT 17 1,074 SF 2K 20 20 20 17 15 117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF 117 SF117 SF 117 SF117 SF 1 A4.0 1 A4.0 14 0' 6 7 2 A4.0 2 A4.0 163'-6" 33'46'46'14'24'-6" 163'-6" 38'-6"6'-6"14'6'-6"32'-6"33'32'-6"85'35'9'41'85'35'9'41'10'12'12'12'12'12'12'10'12'12'12'12' UTILITY ROOM TRASH ROOM 10'10'10'UNIT 10 743 SF 2C UNIT 11 743 SF 2D UNIT 12 743 SF 2E 5'-11"SETBACK FOR DECK9'-5"SETBACK FOR DECK12'-11"SETBACK FOR DECK3'SETBACK FOR DECK2'SETBACK FOR DECK5'-6"SETBACK2'-9" SETBACK 3 A4.1 3 A4.1 2 A 2.8 1 A 2.8 10'-2"BMR UNIT BMR UNIT 15'13'-7"1'-2"FINISHED FLOOR 393.70 2'-2"SETBAC K 2'-8" SET B A C K ELEVATOR ELEVATOR 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL 5'-5" 4'-7"4'-2"2'-10" 3 A4.4 3 A4.4 31 2'TTP10'1'1'-6"21'-2" 1'1'1'2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"TYP7'-2" TYP 14'-6"2'-6"2'-6"7'-2" 38'-6"32'-9"14'-8"7'-7"32'-9"33'4'-3"25'10'-8"7'-7"29'-9"33'23'23'23'22'-9"35'-9"27'-3"8'-7"21'-2"4'-6"9'-6"39'-6"25'10'-8"7'-7"7'24'-9"4'3'2' TYP 2' TYP 3'7'TYP2' TYP 1'4'1'-6"4'-8"4'1'1'4'7'TYP2'TYP1'5' 2' TYP 3' TYP FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3 A2.2 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 1'=1/8"1 13 17 11 15 15 17 11 2 3 15 1 3 1215 15 UNIT 18 897 SF 3A UNIT 19 743 SF 3B UNIT 24 1,396 SF 3G AMENITY SPACE 505 SF 8'16' DNUP AREA TABULATION RESIDENTIAL UNIT TABULATION LEVEL 3 GROSS AREA 13,085 SF CIRCULATION AREA USABLE FLOOR AREA AMENITY SPACE RESIDENTIAL 2,722 SF (20%) 10,363 SF (80%) 505 SF 9,858 SF 1 BEDROOM 9 3A 897 SF 3B 3C 3D 743 SF19(1) 3E 2 BEDROOM3F 3G 1,108 SF 1,396 SF24(1) 18 20 21 22 23 3H 1,233 SF25 3J 2,188 SF26 743 SF 743 SF 743 SF 2 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM LEVEL 3 TOTAL UNITS TYPE 100%30 UNIT #PERCENTAGE % 1 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 15 1343% 50% 2 BEDROOM 27% (1)BMR UNIT - TWO UNITS NAME TYPEUNIT# 1,170 SF PRIVATE RECREAION SPACE UNIT SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 234 SF 1 EXTERIOR STUD WALL PROPERTY LINE TRASH ROOM AND TRASH CHUTE STAIRS UTILITY ROOM RAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE LOBBY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED SECURE BIKE ROOM PRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRY 6' WIDE AT GROUND LEVEL INTERIOR STUD WALL INTERIOR DOOR (3' WIDE) EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK 19 HARDSCAPE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN LINE OF BUILDING BELOW 20 ROLL UP MESH GATE, BRONZE COLOR SEE DETAIL #5 ON SHEET A5.0 ELEVATORS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 WOOD TRELLIS IRON RAILING 21 BRICK CLADDING 22 MIDLINE BAND 23 FIRE HYDRANT 24 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 25 STANDPIPE 26 KNOX KEY BOX/LOCKS 27 RESIDENTS MAILBOXES AND PARCEL DROP 28 GUEST BIKE PARKING (2 STALLS ON HIGH SCHOOL COURT AND 2 STALLS ON MAIN STREET) 29 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM UNIT 23 1,108 SF 3F UNIT 25 1,233 SF 3H UNIT 26 2,188 SF 3J 117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF 117 SF117 SF 234 SF 20 1520 20 1 A4.0 1 A4.0 14 0' 6 7 163'-6" 33'46'46'14'24'-6" 163'-6" 38'-6"6'-6"14'6'-6"65'-6"32'-6"85'35'9'41'85'35'9'41'2 A4.0 2 A4.0 10'12'12'12'12'12'12'10'24'12'12' UTILITY ROOM TRASH ROOM 10'10'10'UNIT 20 743 SF 3C UNIT 22 743 SF 3E UNIT 21 743 SF 3D 5'-11"SETBACK FOR DECK9'-5"SETBACK FOR DECK12'-11"SETBACK FOR DECK3'SETBACK FOR DECK2'SETBACK FOR DECK5'-6"SETBACK2'-9" SETBACK 3 A4.1 3 A4.1 2 A 2.8 1 A 2.8 10'-2"2 17 BMR UNIT BMR UNIT 15'13'-7"1'-2"FINISHED FLOOR 404.70 2'-2"SETBAC K 2'-8" SET B A C K ELEVATOR ELEVATOR 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL 5'-5" 4'-7"4'-2"2'-10" 3 A4.4 3 A4.4 2'TTP10'1'-6"40'-1" 1'1'1'2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"TYP7'-2" TYP 14'-4"2'-6"2'-6"7'-2" 38'-6"32'-9"14'-8"7'-7"65'-9"4'-3"25'10'-8"7'-7"29'-9"33'23'23'23'22'-9"35'-9"27'-3"8'-7"21'-2"4'-6"9'-6"39'-6"25'10'-8"7'-7"7'24'-9"4'3'2' TYP 2' TYP 7'TYP2' TYP 1'4'1'-6"4'-8"4'1'1'4'7'TYP2'TYP1'5' 2' TYP 3' TYP 18'-10" FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 4 A2.3 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN 1'=1/8"1 13 17 11 15 15 11 1 3 19122 5 5 15 UNIT 27 1,381 SF 4A UNIT 29 1,344 SF 4C 8'16' DN UNIT 30 1,344 SF 4D 803 SF 803 SF 19 19 1915 19 19 5 19 1120 1119 803 SF 20 2020 RESIDENTIAL UNIT TABULATION LEVEL 4 GROSS AREA 8,513 SF CIRCULATION AREA USABLE FLOOR AREA AMENITY SPACE RESIDENTIAL 1,800 SF (21%) 6,713 SF (79%) 505 SF 6,208 SF 2 BEDROOM4A 3 BEDROOM4B 2 BEDROOM4C 2 BEDROOM4D 1,759 SF 1,344 SF 1,344 SF 1,381 SF TYPE 100%30 UNIT #PERCENTAGE % 1 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 15 1343% 50% 2 BEDROOM 27% 28 27(1) 29 30 4 LEVEL 4 TOTAL UNITS (1)BMR UNIT - ONE UNIT NAME TYPEUNIT# 803 SF 803 SF 803 SF 803 SF 3,212 SF PRIVATE RECREAION SPACE UNIT SF 1 EXTERIOR STUD WALL PROPERTY LINE TRASH ROOM AND TRASH CHUTE STAIRS UTILITY ROOM RAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE LOBBY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED SECURE BIKE ROOM PRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRY 6' WIDE AT GROUND LEVEL INTERIOR STUD WALL KEYNOTES INTERIOR DOOR (3' WIDE) EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK 19 HARDSCAPE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN LINE OF BUILDING BELOW 20 ROLL UP MESH GATE, BRONZE COLOR SEE DETAIL #5 ON SHEET A5.0 ELEVATORS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 WOOD TRELLIS IRON RAILING 21 BRICK CLADDING 22 MIDLINE BAND 23 FIRE HYDRANT 24 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 25 STANDPIPE 26 KNOX KEY BOX/LOCKS 27 RESIDENTS MAILBOXES AND PARCEL DROP 28 GUEST BIKE PARKING (2 STALLS ON HIGH SCHOOL COURT AND 2 STALLS ON MAIN STREET) 29 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 30 ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET L3.0/PLANT PALETTE FOR PROPOSED PLANTING TO SCREEN UTILITIES 31 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL 32 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTED AT 9' TYPICAL 1 A4.0 1 A4.0 0' 14 AMENITY SPACE 505 SF UNIT 28 1,759 SF 4B 6 7 163'-6" 4'-6"59'-6"46'14'10' 163'-6" 10'5'-8"15'-8"5'-8"4'-6"85'31'5'11'85'31'23'31'2 A4.0 2 A4.0 15'14'-6" 15'46'15'46'7'31'17'-10"10'-3"13'-11"16'-6" 14'26'-11"15'-8" 14'-10" 11'-5" 10'-10" TRASH AND UTILITY ROOM 5'-6"7'-6"13'-4"EXTERIOR DECKEXTERIOR DECK EXTERIOR DECK 803 SF EXTERIOR DECK 9'-2"15'-10"5'-10"3 A4.1 3 A4.1 1 A 2.9 15'30'-6"61' 15'30'-6"61' 15'30'-6"61' 15'30'-6"61'7'-6"7'-6"17 17 BMR UNIT 15'13'-7"FINISHED FLOOR 415.70 ELEVATOR ELEVATOR 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL BUILT UP FLAT ROOF BUILT UP FLAT ROOF 3 A4.4 3 A4.4 13'-9"45'-9"59'-6"35'-9"7'-7"23'10'-8"27'-9"2'-6"TYP2'-6"TYP2'-6"TYP2'-6"TYP5'-10"5'-10"7'-6"7'-6"7'-7"23'10'-8"27'-9"46'-3"14'-8"46'-3"7'-7"4'-3"2'2'13'-6"13'-6" 5'-6" 20'-7"20'-7" 5' 11' 32 32 17 3' TYP 10'-2"18'-10" 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL ROOF PLAN A2.4 ROOF PLAN 1'=1/8"1 +40'-0" T.O.P. +45'-0" T.O.TRELLIS +52'-0" T.O.P. SLOPE 7" PER FT SLOPE 7" PER FT SLOPE7" PER FTSLOPE7" PER FTSLOPE 7" PER FT SLOPE 7" PER FT SLOPE 7" PER FT SLOPE 7" PER FT +45'-0" T.O.TRELLIS +45'-0" T.O.TRELLIS T.O.TRELLIS +45'-0"+52'-0" T.O.P. +47'-0" T.O.D SLOPE SLOPE1/4" / FT. MIN.SLOPE1/4" / FT. MIN.+47'-6" T.O.RIDGE SLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE RWL OD RWL OD RWL OD RWL OD RWL OD RWL OD SHEET KEYNOTES 1 3 4 BUILT UP RIGID INSULATION CRICKET - MIN. SLOPE 1/2" PER FOOT RWL OD RAIN WATER LEADER TO EXTEND 5' BEYOND BLDG. SLAB EDGE, CONNECT TO STORM SEWER. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS OVERFLOW DRAIN. 5 ROOF DRAIN AND PIPING, SEE PLUMBING DWGS. 6 7 8 9 10 +0'-0" T.O.P.TOP OF PARAPET T.O.D.TOP OF DECK DENOTES ELEVATION POINT DENOTES ROOF SLOPE DIRECTION DENOTES EXTENT OF BUILT UP ROOF CRICKET - MIN. SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT GENERAL NOTES NOT ALL NOTES APPLY TO THIS SHEET1. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE SLOPE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROOFING MATERIAL. ALL AREAS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF 1/4" PER FOOT. 2. ALL ROOFING SHALL BE "CLASS A" FIRE RESISTANT 3. ALL FUTURE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION 4. ROOF MOUNTED HVAC EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW BY LOCATING THE UNITS SO THAT THE TOP OF THE UNIT IS BELOW THE TOP OF THE PARAPET WALL OR BY THE ADDITION OF ROOF SCREENS 5. ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS (ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) SHALL OCCUR PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF ROOFING 6. ELEVATIONS ARE GIVEN FROM THE BUILDING DATUM (0.00' REFERENCE ELEV. ON PLANS) 7. GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND VERIFICATION OF ALL POSITIVE ROOF SLOPES TO MEET AND PERFORM AS SHOWN ON ALL ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, LANDSCAPE, MECHANICAL, AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. 8. T.O.C.TOP OF CANOPY ELEVATION SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER METAL DECK PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS RUN SINGLE PLY ROOF AT BACK OF PARAPET WALLS, TURN UP AND TERMINATE UNDER METAL FLASHING CAP INSULATION NOTES PROPERTY LINE LINE OF MONUMENT FEATURE ABOVE 24 GA. METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT 2 CLAY TILE ROOFING WOODEN TRELLIS IRON RAILING BELOW 11 WALL OF BUILDING BELOW 12 ELEVATOR OVERRIDE TO BE SCREENED BY ROOF PARAPET 13 HVAC EQUIPMENT LOCATION 14 FUTURE PV PANEL LOCATIONS. BUILDING PLUMBING TO BE PIPED TO THESE LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE PANEL INSTALLATION. 15 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL 1 3 26 4 5 6778 9 10 1 A4.0 1 A4.0 8'16'0' 163'-6" 4'-6"47'-6"28'-4"10' 163'-6" 10'28'-4"4'-6"85'31'23'85'31'23'31'2 A4.0 2 A4.0 12'-10"12'-10" 12'-10"47'-6"12'-10"47'-6"31'47'-6"22'6'-10"7'22'6'-10"7'22'6'-10"22'6'-10"6'-10"21'-4"6'-10"21'-4" 11 1112 3 A4.1 3 A4.1 10'-2"13 13 13 13 6'-10"6'-10"7'7'15'13'-7"14 14 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL BUILT UP FLAT ROOF BUILT UP FLAT ROOF +52'-0" T.O.P. 3 A4.4 3 A4.4 TOP OF ROOF 51'-6" 15 EVEVEVEVEV EV EVEVVANEV HCHC VANEVEVEV 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 1) A2.5 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 1)1'=1/8"1 1 2 3 CONCRETE PERIMETER WALL 5 4 CONCRETE DRIVE ACCESS RAMP 6 8 9 7 UTILITY ROOM LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING EXIT STAIRS SURFACE MOUNTED LED LIGHTS (10' LONG) LOBBY10 PROPERTY LINE LINE OF DRIVEWAY ABOVE INTERIOR STUD WALL STANDARD PARKING STALL 9'-0" X 18'-0"11 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL12 4" WIDE PAINTED PARKING STRIPE - WHITE13 SIGNAGE AT ACCESSIBLE SPACES14 KEYNOTES EV CHARGER15 PARKING SIGN. SEE DETAIL 5/A2.516 TANDEM PARKING STALL20 STACKER PARKING STALL21 6" RAISED CONCRETE CURB17 MOTORCYCLE PARKING STALL 4'-0"X6'-0"18 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM19 STEEL SUPPORTS FOR STACKER22 2' PARKING OVERHANG23 DN PARKING SUMMARY BASEMENT B1 BASEMENT B2 TOTAL BASEMENT PARKING 25 STALLS 22 STALLS TOTAL PARKING STALLS RETAIL/HOUSING SHARED HOUSING 47 STALLS 47 8 39 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS (HCV) LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS ELECTRIC VEHICLE (ACCESSIBLE) ELECTRIC VEHICLE (VAN ACCESSIBLE) LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING MOTORCYCLE PARKING 0 0 12 1 0 2 1 ACCESSIBLE STANDARD STALLS (HC) 15,498 SF 15,498 SF 30,996 SF ELECTRIC VEHICLE (STANDARD) TOTAL LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS (55%)26 LEVEL B1 LEVEL B1&B2 REGULAR STANDARD STALLS 10 LEVEL B1 10 9'7 2 10 LOBBY UTILITY ROOM 1336 5 1 4 7 2 UP 25'18'18'25'9'8'9'416' 1124'1'-2"2'-6"24'26'9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"2'-2"9'-6"8'-6"9'-6"3'1'-2"9'-6"9'9'-6"3'3'3'-4"3'4'3'1 A4.0 1 A4.0 14 8'16'0' 2 A4.0 2 A4.0 3 A4.1 3 A4.1 21'-2" 16'2'-2" 9'-6"13'-3"24' 4'-0"11'-7"7'-9"5'18'-6"RETAIL/HOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSING2HOUSING10'-9"25'33HOUSING10 HOUSINGRETAIL/ HOUSING 9 TOP OF RAMPBOTTOM OF RAMP9 9 SHARED RETAIL/HOUSING HOUSING PARKING TOTAL PARKING THIS LEVEL 7 STALLS 14 STALLS 22 STALLS16'PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONTYPICAL 129 204'-5"120'-5"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 5HOUSING6HOUSINGHOUSING8HOUSING9HOUSING8111213HOUSING14UPDNDNUPR35'R35' NOTE: RETAIL HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE POSTED ABOVE EACH PARKING STALL 8AM TO 6PM. NO RESIDENTIAL PARKING ALLOWED DURING THESE TIMES. TYPICAL SIGN TEXTURED CONCRETE FLOOR ELEVATOR ELEVATOR FINISHED FLOOR 371.70 2' 2'217 TYPICALTYPICAL17 17 17 17 17 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL RETAIL/ HOUSING RETAIL/ HOUSING RETAIL/ HOUSING RETAIL/ HOUSING RETAIL/ HOUSING RETAIL/ HOUSING ALL LEVELS OF GARAGE PARKING TO PROVIDE A LIGHT LEVEL TO MEET THE CBC. CURRENT DASHED LED LIGHTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE CBC. CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. LIGHTING NOTE 19 3'7'3'-6"STORAGE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF UNITS 30 PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 38 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 47 VAN EV VAN EV LEGEND HANDICAP PARKING HANDICAP VAN PARKING ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (ACCESSIBLE) ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (VAN) ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (STANDARD) EV CHARGER4'6"HOUSING2'18 HOUSING 2 HOUSING 3 25' 9'9'9'9'9'9'9'9'9'-6"6'-7"3'-6"6"471023 23 23 15 RAISED CONCRETE ACCESS PATH FINISH MATERIAL, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO BE SUBMITTED WITH BUILDING PERMIT DRAWINGS6'3'6'-2"ADA SHARED RETAIL/HOUSING 1 STALLS 9'8'9'9'16'2'9'16'2'ACCESSIBLE VAN STALL REQUIREMENTS 1"=10'2EV STALL REQUIREMENT 1"=10'3PARKING STALL DETAIL 1"=10'4SIGNNTS5 5 - 16 PARKING 3'6'-2"- 4A 4"4"1'-6" 2' OVERHANG 6" CURB 4" WIDE PAINTED STRIPES DOUBLE STRIPE DETAIL 4A 1"=2' EV CHARGER PARKING SIGN 4" WIDE PAINTED STRIPES 18'- 4A - 4A IDENTIFICATION SIGN 8' ACCESSIBLE AISLE SIGNAGE AT ACCESSIBLE SPACES LEVEL 2 EVCS (55% REQUIRED FOR 47 STALLS=26 STALLS REQUIRED PER CALGREEN BUILDING CODE) HCHCVANEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EV 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL A2.6 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 2 (OPTION 1)1'=1/8"1 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 2 (OPTION 1) 1 2 3 CONCRETE PERIMETER WALL 5 4 CONCRETE DRIVE ACCESS RAMP 6 8 9 7 UTILITY ROOM LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING EXIT STAIRS SURFACE MOUNTED LED LIGHTS (10' LONG) LOBBY10 PROPERTY LINE LINE OF DRIVEWAY ABOVE INTERIOR STUD WALL STANDARD PARKING STALL 9'-0" X 18'-0"11 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL12 4" WIDE PAINTED PARKING STRIPE - WHITE13 SIGNAGE AT ACCESSIBLE SPACES14 KEYNOTES EV CHARGER15 PARKING SIGN. SEE DETAIL 5/A2.516 TANDEM PARKING STALL20 STACKER PARKING STALL21 6" RAISED CONCRETE CURB17 MOTORCYCLE PARKING STALL 4'-0"X6'-0"18 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM19 STEEL SUPPORTS FOR STACKER22 2' PARKING OVERHANG23 7 2 10 LOBBY BIKE ROOM 8 1 4 7 2 11 9'-6"UP 25'16'16'25'9'8'9'16'9'-6"1'-2"2'-6"24'26'9'-6"9'-6"3'2'-2"9'-6"8'-6"9'-6"3'1'-2"9'-6"9'9'-6"3'3'3'-4"3'3'3'8'-6"9'-6"9'1 A4.0 1 A4.0 3 14 3 8'16'0' 2 A4.0 2 A4.0 3 A4.1 3 A4.1 21'-2" 7'-8"24' 4'-0"11'-7"7'-9"5'18'25'16'1'-11"2HOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSING3BOTTOM OF RAMP10'-9"4HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING 9 9 HOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSING33HOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGTYP HOUSING PARKING TOTAL PARKING THIS LEVEL 25 STALLS 25 STALLS16'58 BIKES SEE SHEET A2.9 DETAIL 3 FOR RACK SPECIFICATIONS AND DIMENSIONS 3 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION9 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 27282931323335363738UPUP204'-5"120'-5"LONG TERM R35' TEXTURED CONCRETE FLOOR ELEVATOR ELEVATOR FINISHED FLOOR 360.70 PAD HEIGHT 359.70 2'2'2' 18 13 17 TYPICALTYPICAL17 17 17 5 17 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL ALL LEVELS OF GARAGE PARKING TO PROVIDE A LIGHT LEVEL TO MEET THE CBC. CURRENT DASHED LED LIGHTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE CBC. CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. LIGHTING NOTE 19 7'3'6" 12'-8" STORAGE 30343915 26259'-6" 10 9'9'9'9'9'9'9'9'9'-6" 3'3'6'-2"3'6'-2"6'2'6"23 2315 23 LEVEL 2 BASEMENT PARKING IS RESERVED FOR PRIVATE UNIT OWNERS. NO VISITOR OR RETAIL PARKING ALLOWED. 2' 16'2'2'-2" PARKING SUMMARY TOTAL PARKING STALLS 47 39 ACCESSIBLE STANDARD STALLS (HC) ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS (HCV) MOTORCYCLE PARKING 1 1 58 0 LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS ELECTRIC VEHICLE (ACCESSIBLE) ELECTRIC VEHICLE (VAN ACCESSIBLE) 14 0 0 LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING ELECTRIC VEHICLE (STANDARD)14 RETAIL/HOUSING SHARED HOUSING 26 LEVEL B2 BASEMENT B1 BASEMENT B2 TOTAL BASEMENT PARKING 25 STALLS 22 STALLS 47 STALLS 15,498 SF 15,498 SF 30,996 SF LEVEL B1&B2 8 REGULAR STANDARD STALLS 9 LEVEL B2 TOTAL LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS (55%) STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF UNITS 30 PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 38 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 47 VAN EV VAN EV LEGEND HANDICAP PARKING HANDICAP VAN PARKING ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (ACCESSIBLE) ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (VAN) ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (STANDARD) EV CHARGER RAISED CONCRETE ACCESS PATH FINISH MATE COLOR AND TEXTURE TO BE SUBMITTED WITH BUILDING PERMIT DRAWINGS LEVEL 2 EVCS (55% REQUIRED FOR 47 STALLS=26 STALLS REQUIRED PER CALGREEN BUILDING CODE) 15 15 HCVANEVVANEV EV EVHCEV EVEV EV EV EV EV HCHC VAN EV ALTERNATE BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 2) A2.7 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 N REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL ALTERNATE BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 2)1'=1/8"1 1 2 3 CONCRETE PERIMETER WALL 5 4 CONCRETE DRIVE ACCESS RAMP 6 8 9 7 UTILITY ROOM LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING EXIT STAIRS SURFACE MOUNTED LED LIGHTS (10' LONG) LOBBY10 PROPERTY LINE LINE OF DRIVEWAY ABOVE INTERIOR STUD WALL STANDARD PARKING STALL 9'-0" X 18'-0"11 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL12 4" WIDE PAINTED PARKING STRIPE - WHITE13 SIGNAGE AT ACCESSIBLE SPACES14 KEYNOTES EV CHARGER15 PARKING SIGN. SEE DETAIL 5/A2.516 TANDEM PARKING STALL20 STACKER PARKING STALL21 6" RAISED CONCRETE CURB17 MOTORCYCLE PARKING STALL 4'-0"X6'-0"18 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM19 STEEL SUPPORTS FOR STACKER22 2' PARKING OVERHANG23 PARKING SUMMARY TOTAL BASEMENT PARKING 15,498 SF TOTAL PARKING STALLS 39 0 39 ACCESSIBLE STANDARD STALLS (HC) ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS (HCV) MOTORCYCLE PARKING 1 1 27 1 39 STALLS LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS ELECTRIC VEHICLE (ACCESSIBLE) ELECTRIC VEHICLE (VAN ACCESSIBLE) 25 1 1 LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING ELECTRIC VEHICLE (STACKER)23 RETAIL/HOUSING SHARED HOUSING 25 LEVEL B1 BASEMENT B1 15,498 SF39 STALLS LEVEL B1 TANDEM PARKING STALLS STACKER STANDARD PARKING STALLS 6 6 LEVEL B1 TOTAL LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS (64%) 7 8'16' 2 10 LOBBY UTILITY ROOM 21 12 36 5 1 20 7 2 UP 25'18'10'-9"18'25'9'8'9'HC 213'4"24'26'9'8'5'3'3'-10"9'-6"3'1 A4.0 1 A4.0 14159'-6"8'-6"25'9'4'8 2 A4.0 2 A4.0 9'-6"8'-6"9'-6"3'1'-2"9'-6"8'-6"9'3'3'21'-2" 19' 9'6'-10"36'-8" 4'-0"11'-7"7'-9"5'25'20'20'3'1'-2"19'HOUSING PARKING TOTAL PARKING THIS LEVEL 39 STALLS 39 STALLS 9 9 TYP HOUSINGPEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONBOTTOM OF RAMPHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSING19 HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING 6HOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSINGBIKE ROOM 27 BIKES 5HOUSINGHOUSINGHOUSING39 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 LONG TERM 21222426272932313033UPDNDNUP343536393837SEE 3/A4.4 AND A5.1FOR CARLIFT SPECIFICATIONS STACKER STALLS 29STANDARD STALLS 10120'-5"R35' TEXTURED CONCRETE FLOOR ELEVATOR ELEVATOR FINISHED FLOOR 366.70 PAD HEIGHT 365.70 2@1ST LEVEL RES. FREE SPACE @ 2ND LEVEL 153@1ST LEVEL RES. 5 @ 2ND LEVEL 3@1ST LEVEL RES. 5 @ 2ND LEVEL11@1ST LEVEL RES. FREE SPACE @ 2ND LEVEL 2@1ST LEVEL RES. 11 @ 2ND LEVEL 3@1ST LEVEL RES. 12 @ 2ND LEVEL 4@1ST LEVEL RES. 13 @ 2ND LEVEL 5@1ST LEVEL RES. 14 @ 2ND LEVEL 6@1ST LEVEL RES. 15 @ 2ND LEVEL 7@1ST LEVEL RES. 16 @ 2ND LEVEL 8@1ST LEVEL RES. 17 @ 2ND LEVEL 9@1ST LEVEL RES. 18 @ 2ND LEVEL 10@1ST LEVEL RES. 19 @ 2ND LEVEL 3'1817 17 17 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL ALL LEVELS OF GARAGE PARKING TO PROVIDE A LIGHT LEVEL TO MEET THE CBC. CURRENT DASHED LED LIGHTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE CBC. CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. LIGHTING NOTE SEE SHEET A5.1 FOR CAR STACKER SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES. CAR STACKER NOTE 3 A4.4 3 A4.4 19 3'2'-6"15 STORAGE 22 22 3'6'-2"9'9'9'1'9'9'9'9'1'9'9'-6"3'6'-2"6'18'-6" 204'-5" 0' 9'8'9'9'16'2'ACCESSIBLE VAN STALL REQUIREMENTS 1"=10'2EV STALL REQUIREMENT 1"=10'3PARKING STALL DETAIL 1"=10'4 - 4A 4"4"1'-6" 2' OVERHANG 6" CURB 4" WIDE PAINTED STRIPES DOUBLE STRIPE DETAIL 4A 1"=2'18'- 4A IDENTIFICATION SIGN 8' ACCESSIBLE AISLE SIGNAGE AT ACCESSIBLE SPACES 9'16'2'EV CHARGER PARKING SIGN 4" WIDE PAINTED STRIPES - 4A VAN EV VAN EV LEGEND HANDICAP PARKING HANDICAP VAN PARKING ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (ACCESSIBLE) ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (VAN) ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (STANDARD) EV CHARGER RAISED CONCRETE ACCESS PATH FINISH MATE COLOR AND TEXTURE TO BE SUBMITTED WITH BUILDING PERMIT DRAWINGS NOTE STALLS 1, 22 AND 27 ARE FREE SPACES AT EACH ONE OF THESE LOCATIONS TO RETRIEVE RESIDENTS CARS. LEVEL 2 EVCS (55% REQUIRED FOR 39 STALLS=22 STALLS REQUIRED PER CALGREEN BUILDING CODE) 1@1ST LEVEL RES. 4@ 2ND LEVEL 2@1ST LEVEL RES. FREE SPACE @ 2ND LEVEL 1@1ST LEVEL RES. 4@ 2ND LEVEL3'3'-8"STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF UNITS 30 PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 38 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 39 22 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL KEY NOTES 12'-0"11'-0"10'-0"15'-10"7'-2" 46 1 3 KITCHEN/DINING 11'-2" X 15'-0" LIVING 12'-2" X 11'-2" CL 7'-0" X 2'-11" EXTERIOR BALCONY 11'-3" X 9'-0" 100 SF 27'-6"4'-0"PRIMARY BEDROOM 10'-6" X 13'-0" PRIMARY BATH 9'-10" X 6'-8" CL 2'-0" X 4'-0" 2 6'-2"6'-5"20'-5"8'-2"42'-0"21'-0"12'-0" 4 5 1 KITCHEN 15'-0" X 10'-0" LIVING 11'-4" X 16'-6" BEDROOM 10'-0" X 13'-0" W.I.C 6'-8" X 4'-6" BATH 10'-0" X 8'-0" W/D 3'-6" X 3'-5" CL 2'-2" X 4'-0" EXTERIOR BALCONY 11'-3" X 9'-0" 100 SF PRIMARY BEDROOM 10'-0" X 13'-0" PRIMARY BATH 10'-0" X 10'-0" 2 W/D 3'-6" X 3'-3" 4' 0'8' TYPICAL UNIT PLAN A2.8 1 2 3 EXTERIOR STUD WALL 5 EXTERIOR WINDOW SYSTEM4 INTERIOR STUD WALL 6 INTERIOR DOOR UNIT ENTRY DOOR EXTERIOR BALCONY/DECK 36'-0"2'-6"25'-4"10'-0"4'-0"6 3 CL 3'-2" X 2'-11" DINING 14'-6" X 11'-4" CL 6'-2" X 2'-6"2'-6"ONE BEDROOM UNIT : 743 SF 1/4"1 TWO BEDROOM UNIT : 1,233 SF 1/4"2 5 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL KEY NOTES5'-6"9'-8"11'-0"46'-6"15'-0" 6 KITCHEN 11'-0" X 10'-10" LIVING 18'-4" X 13'-0" EXTERIOR DECK 30'-6" X 61'-0" 803 SF30'-6"42'-0"PRIMARY BEDROOM 14'-0" X 14'-0" PRIMARY BATH 10'-0" X 8'-8" 2 W.I.C 6'-2" X 5'-8" W/D 3'-6" X 5'-0" 4' 0'8' TYPICAL UNIT PLAN A2.9 1 2 3 EXTERIOR STUD WALL 5 EXTERIOR WINDOW SYSTEM4 INTERIOR STUD WALL 6 INTERIOR DOOR UNIT ENTRY DOOR EXTERIOR BALCONY/DECK 4 BIKE RACK SPECIFICATIONS NTS 3 VERTICAL BIKE STORAGE BY 'CYCLE SAFE' WALL RACK SYSTEM # 17502 16"20"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"20"5'-9" BIKE ROOM PLAN (OPT 1 & 2)1/4"2 TWO BEDROOM UNIT : 1,344 SF 1/4"1 11'-5"19'-11"15'-0" DINING 14'-6" X 9'-2" CL 8'-4" X 2'-6" CL 8'-4" X 2'-6"BATH 9'-10" X 5'-8" BEDROOM 16'-2" X 12'-6" 53 1 LONG TERM BIKE ROOM 14 BIKES 14 27 LONG TERM BIKE ROOM 27 BIKES 58 LONG TERM BIKE ROOM 58 BIKES BIKE ROOM PLAN (OPT 2)1/4"4LONG TERM BIKE ROOM PLAN (OPT 1)1/4"5 16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"32"64"57"16"16"16"16"16"57"64"16"16"16"16"16"16" 16"16"16"20"58"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"57"16"16"16"16"16"57"58"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16"16" ATTACHMENT POINTS 9' HEIGHT CLG. PROVIDE 2 POINTS OF ATTACHMENT TO WALL 9' HEIGHT CLG. 9' HEIGHT CLG.9'-10"16"9'-10"16" 16"16" 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL BUILDING MATERIALS AND FINISHES A3.3 2 9 1 BRICK VENEER- MUTUAL MATERIALS CO - INCA MISSION 2 CLEAR GLASS - GUARDIAN GLASS - GUARDIAN ULTRACLEAR LOW-IRON GLASS METAL, ANODIZED ALUMINUM COLOR: DARK BRONZE +0'-0'' FIRST FLOOR (F.F.E. 382.60') 1 ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0" +11'-0'' SECOND FLOOR +22'-0'' THIRD FLOOR +33'-0'' FOURTH FLOOR +44'-0'' T.O. ROOF +49'-0'' T.O. ROOF 3 14 65 4 FIXED FABRIC AWNING BLACK "SUNBRELLA" FABRIC OR YELLOW"SUNBRELLA" FABRIC 5 WOODEN TRELLIS CLAY TILE ROOF6 7 STUCCO PAINT: BENJAMIN MOORE WHITE HERON # OC - 57 8 STUCCO PAINT: BENJAMIN MOORE MANCHESTER TAN # HC - 81 WROUGHT IRON ANDALUCIA MEDIUM OUTDOOR LIGHT BY S-H STUDIOS 9 78 10 IRON RAILING AT BALCONIES 3 7 1 2 3 BRICK VENEER CLADDING 5 4 6 8 9 7 KEY NOTES WOOD TRELLIS PAINTED STUCCO WROUGHT IRON BALCONIES AWNINGS TO BE A MIN. VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 8' FROM A PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY CLEAR GLAZING WITH ALUMINUM FRAMES PRECAST CORNICE CLAY TILE ROOF MESH ROLL UP GATE TO PARKING BELOW. SEE SHEET A5.0 DETAIL 6 10 11 12 PRECAST WINDOW FRAME DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTED AT 9' TYPICAL PRECAST BASE 3 1742 2 11 2 7 9 7 125 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL NOTE: CUSTOM BUILT DECORATIVE LIGHTING FIXTURE AT 9' TYP. LIGHTING SHALL BE DIRECTED DOWNWARD WITH BULBS SHIELDED FROM VIEW WITH FROSTED GLASS. 10 86 9 11 EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE GRADE 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL BUILDING SECTIONS A4.0 BUILDING SECTION 1"=10'-0"2 1ST FLOOR (F.F. 382.60') 2ND FLOOR 11'-0" 3RD FLOOR 22'-0" 4TH FLOOR 33'-0" T.O. ROOF 49'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 44'-0"11'11'11'11'5'49'LEVEL B1 LEVEL B211'11'PLPL OPTION 1 PARKING RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CIRCULATION AMENITY AMENTIY 1ST FLOOR (F.F.379.60') 2ND FLOOR 14'-0" 3RD FLOOR 25'-0" 4TH FLOOR 36'-0" T.O. ROOF 52'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 47'-0"14'11'11'11'5'52'LEVEL B1 -11'-0" LEVEL B2 -22'-0"11'11'RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIALRESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL BUILDING SECTION 1"=10'-0"1 KEY NOTES 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER METAL DECK PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 24 GA. METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT TO BACK SPLASH 2 CLAY TILE ROOF WOOD TRELLIS IRON RAILING EXTERIOR STUD WALL INTERIOR STUD WALL BRICK VENEER AND CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR FACES CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR FACES 10 11 12 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM WITH CENTER SET CLEAR INSULATED GLAZING. STRUCTURAL BEAM, SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS BATT INSULATION AT WALLS CONCRETE SLAB / FOUNDATION, SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS.13 14 15 BELOW GRADE CONCRETE WALL WITH WATERPROOFING PERIMETER DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS 16 AWNINGS TO BE A MIN. VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 8' FROM PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY 17 PRECAST CORNICE 18 HVAC EQUIPMENT LOCATION 19 ELEVATOR OVERRIDE SCREENED BEHIND PARAPET WALL 234 5 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 CIRC. CIRC. CIRC. CIRC. RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL PL PL23 1 1 5 11 12 13 14 15 8 7 10 6 1ST FLOOR (F.F. 382.60') 2ND FLOOR 11'-0" 3RD FLOOR 22'-0" 4TH FLOOR 33'-0" T.O. ROOF 49'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 44'-0"11'11'11'11'5'49'LEVEL B1 -11'-0" LEVEL B2 -22'-0"11'11'1ST FLOOR (F.F. 379.60') 2ND FLOOR 14'-0" 3RD FLOOR 25'-0" 4TH FLOOR 36'-0" T.O. ROOF 52'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 47'-0"14'11'11'11'5'52'LEVEL B1 LEVEL B2 11'11'22'22'22'22'4'-10" SETBACK 3'-8" SETBACK 3'-8" SETBACK 10'-8" SETBACK3'3'181819 181819 10'-4"MIN.CLEAR10-4"MIN.CLEAR10'-4"MIN.CLEAR10'-4"MIN.CLEARHIGH SCHOOL COURT CHURCH STREETEAST MAIN STREET 0'10' 0'20' 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL OPTION 1 PARKING3'3'OPTION 1 PARKING OPTION 1 PARKING 12 EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE GRADE EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE GRADE EVEV2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL BASEMENT DRIVEWAY SECTIONS & PLANS A4.1 LEVEL B1 LEVEL B211'SLOPE 16. 2 % LONG TERM BIKE ROOM11'LEVEL B1 LEVEL B2 11'11'SLOPE 4.5% BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 1'=1/8"1 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 2 1'=1/8"2 PROPERTY LINE1 KEYNOTES EXIT STAIRS2 CONCRETE PERIMETER WALL3 CONCRETE DRIVE ACCESS RAMP4 LINE OF DRIVEWAY ABOVE5 UTILITY ROOM6 BIKE ROOM7 CHURCH STREET EAST MAIN STREET 8'-2"CLEARSLOPE 11.6% BASEMENT DRIVEWAY SECTION 1'=1/8"3 4 2 351 7 8 2351CHURCH STREETTOP OF RAMP BOTTOM OF RAMP UTILITY ROOM 16' 2 6 8 0'8' 0'16'24'4 SURFACE MOUNTED LED LIGHTS (10' LONG) LIGHT LEVELS TO MEET CBC REQUIREMENTS 8 PLPL 12UP DN R35' R 3 5 ' R3 5 ' 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL N FIRST FLOOR 382.60'8'-2"CLEARN13'-3"3'-6"9'-6"6'-7"3'-6"24'24' 1'-2" 2'-6"24'4'3'-8"4'6"3'6'-6"STORAGERETAIL/HOUSINGRETAIL/HOUSINGBIKE ROOMUP 9'-6"1'-2"2'-6"24'3'8'-6"9'-6"7'-8"16'2'HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING 3 BOTTOM OF RAMPHOUSINGHOUSING 58 BIKESSEE SHEET A2.9 DETAIL 3 FOR RACKSPECIFICATIONS AND DIMENSIONS163738 UPLONG TERM3'3'12'-8"STORAGE39159'-6"3'3'6'-6" UPDN 2' 16'2'6" 3' 3'-8" 3 A4.1 3 A4.1 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL SITE CROSS SECTIONS A4.422'18 18 19 8'-2"MIN.CLEAR1ST FLOOR (F.F. 382.60') 2ND FLOOR 11'-0" 3RD FLOOR 22'-0" 4TH FLOOR 33'-0" T.O. ROOF 49'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 44'-0"49'LEVEL B1 LEVEL B211'PL OPTION 1 PARKING CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SECTION 1"=20'-0"1 KEY NOTES 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER METAL DECK PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 24 GA. METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT TO BACK SPLASH 2 CLAY TILE ROOF WOOD TRELLIS IRON RAILING EXTERIOR STUD WALL INTERIOR STUD WALL BRICK VENEER AND CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR FACES CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR FACES 10 11 12 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM WITH CENTER SET CLEAR INSULATED GLAZING. STRUCTURAL BEAM, SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS BATT INSULATION AT WALLS CONCRETE SLAB / FOUNDATION, SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS.13 234 5 11 13 14 15 2 1 111 12 13 15 20'40' 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL 14 15 BELOW GRADE CONCRETE WALL WITH WATERPROOFING PERIMETER DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS 16 AWNINGS TO BE A MIN. VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 8' FROM PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY 17 PRECAST CORNICE 18 HVAC EQUIPMENT LOCATION 19 ELEVATOR OVERRIDE SCREENED BEHIND PARAPET WALL CIRCULATION CIRCULATION CIRCULATION 0' LOS GATOS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH THE MASONIC HALL 10'-2" SETBACK 6 8 CIRCULATION LOBBY AMENITY 4 7 8 17 08.30.202425'BUILDING SECTION 1"=20'-0"3 BUILDING SECTION 1"=20'-0"25'8'-2"MIN.CLEAR11'11'11'11'11'22'1ST FLOOR (F.F. 382.60') 2ND FLOOR 11'-0" 3RD FLOOR 22'-0" 4TH FLOOR 33'-0" T.O. ROOF 49'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 44'-0"49'LEVEL B1 LEVEL B2 11'5'11'11'11'11'11'PL 18'11'-7" SETBACK LGS RECREATION LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL 70'LGS RECREATION ADULT RECREATION CENTERCHURCH STREET10'-4"MIN.CLEAR10'-4"MIN.CLEARPL 11'-7" SETBACK 10'-2" SETBACK PL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL AMENITY OPTION 1 PARKING EAST MAIN STREET18'LOS GATOS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER35'18 HIGH SCHOOL COURT1ST FLOOR (F.F. 382.60') 2ND FLOOR 11'-0" 3RD FLOOR 22'-0" 4TH FLOOR 33'-0" T.O. ROOF 49'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 44'-0"49'LEVEL B116'PL OPTION 2 PARKING CIRCULATION 234 5 11 13 14 1 THE MASONIC HALL 10'-2" SETBACK 6 85'15'-4"MIN.CLEAR11'11'11'11'1ST FLOOR (F.F. 382.60') 2ND FLOOR 11'-0" 3RD FLOOR 22'-0" 4TH FLOOR 33'-0" T.O. ROOF 49'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 44'-0"49'5'16'11'11'11'11'PL 11'-7" SETBACK LGS RECREATION LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL B13'-4 5/8"MIN.CLEAR23'25'18'40'48'48'CIRCULATION CIRCULATION CIRCULATION 3'3'3'153'16'16'OPTION 1 PARKING OPTION 1 PARKING3'3'3'3'22'1ST FLOOR (F.F. 382.60') 2ND FLOOR 11'-0" 3RD FLOOR 22'-0" 4TH FLOOR 33'-0" T.O. ROOF 49'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 44'-0"49'LEVEL B1 LEVEL B211'5'11'11'11'11'11'3'3'22'1ST FLOOR (F.F. 382.60') 2ND FLOOR 11'-0" 3RD FLOOR 22'-0" 4TH FLOOR 33'-0" T.O. ROOF 49'-0"(431.60') B.O. ROOF 44'-0"49'LEVEL B1 LEVEL B2 11'5'11'11'11'11'11'3'3'14 19 19 HIGH SCHOOL COURT 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS & ELEVATIONS A5.0 6' GARBAGE BIN 10"6' GARBAGE BIN 4'-10"GARBAGE BIN14'-6"14'-6"4'-10"GARBAGE BIN14'-6"6'2'-10"14'-6" 6'7'-2"1'-4" ENLARGED TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN 1/4"1 15'14'-9"TRASH ENCLOSURE ROOF PLAN 1/4"2 TRASH ENCLOSURE WEST ELEVATION 1/4"3TRASH ENCLOSURE EAST ELEVATION 1/4"5TRASH ENCLOSURE NORTH ELEVATION 1/4"4 10'METAL ROOFING OVER STEEL FRAME WITH INTEGRATED DRAINAGE AND LIGHTING 6"1'-6"7'-8"4"10'6"1'-6"7'-8"4"WOOD CLADDING 10'6"1'-6"7'-8"4"TUBE STEEL POST METAL ROOFING OVER STEEL FRAMEWOOD CLADDINGTUBE STEEL POST METAL ROOFING OVER STEEL FRAME WOOD CLADDINGTUBE STEEL POST METAL ROOFING OVER STEEL FRAME 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL C H U R C H S T R E E T C H U R C H S T R E E T 15'13'13' 6 CY BIN 72"X58"X71" METAL ROOF ABOVE TRASH ROOM 6" CONCRETE PAD 08.30.2024 PARKING MESH GATE 1/4"6 DRAIN SEE CIVIL PLANS SHEET C-4.0 FOR DRAIN NOTE HOT & COLD WATER CAR STACKER SPECIFICATIONS A5.1 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 01.15.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 08.30.2024 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL #170#171#172#179#176#177#178#170UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES AND USESCAUTION :PROJECT DESCRIPTIONKEY MAPJPLEGENDEXISTINGGWEPPIVPROPOSEDÞABBREVIATIONSPIVJPCOVER SHEETC-1.0CIVIL SHEET INDEX2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALEAST MAIN STREETHIGH SCHOOL COURT151 EASTMAIN STREET131 EASTMAIN STREETLOS GATOS MIXED USEVESTING TENTATIVE MAP FORCONDOMINIUM PURPOSES151 EAST MAIN STLOS GATOS,CALIFORNIAVICINITY MAPSITEOWNER CONSTRUCTIONNOTESC-1.12024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALDISCREPANCIESUTILITY/POTHOLE NOTECONSTRUCTION NOTESFLOODZONEENCROACHMENT NOTE:UNDERGROUND WORK CAUTIONAPPLICABLE FIRE CODE NOTESFIRE DESIGN NOTE:DEMOLITION NOTESDIMENSIONSPAVEMENT SECTIONSCONSTRUCTION FENCERECORD DRAWING NOTEHAZARDOUS MATERIALS NOTEGENERAL UTILITY NOTES 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALCONSTRUCTIONNOTESC-1.2PROJECT SITE MAINTENANCE TREE PROTECTIONDUST CONTROL NOTESGENERAL SITE NOTES NOPARKINGLANDS OFESHKOCH LLC CSPN LLCPARCEL 1DEED DOC. NO. 25433226APN: 529-28-001 5,992± SQUARE FEET0.138± ACRESLANDS OFESHKOCH LLC CSPN LLCPARCEL 2DEED DOC. NO. 25433226APN: 529-28-002 12,524± SQUARE FEET0.288± ACRESBASIS OF BEARING CHURCH STREETHIGH SCHOOL COURT#170#171#172#179#176#177#178#175#174#170#173TOPOGRAPHICSURVEYC-2.02024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALBENCHMARKSURVEY NOTESLEGEND BOUNDARY NOTESURVEYOR'S STATEMENTSITE BENCHMARKMONUMENT PRESERVATION NOTICE’BASIS OF BEARINGSUNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTEABBREVIATIONSEXISTING PARKING SPACES0'1 INCH = 20'10'5'2'10 FT CHURCH STREETHIGH SCHOOL COURT#170#171#172#179#177#178#170PROPOSEDPARCEL 1 18,516± SQUAREFEET0.43± ACRESLANDS OFESHKOCH LLC CSPN LLCPARCEL 2DEED DOC. NO. 25433226APN: 529-28-002 12,524± SQUARE FEET0.288± ACRESLANDS OFESHKOCH LLC CSPN LLCPARCEL 1DEED DOC. NO. 25433226APN: 529-28-001 5,992± SQUARE FEET0.138± ACRESPROPOSEDPARCELIZATIONPLANC-2.12024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALUNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTESURVEY NOTESZONINGFLOOD ZONE DESIGNATIONOWNER AND SUBDIVIDERSITE ADDRESSSITE BENCHMARKBOUNDARY NOTEAREAPROPOSED SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND WATER SUPPLYUTILITY PROVIDERS0'1 INCH = 20'10'5'2'10 FT NOPARKCHURCH STREETHIGH SCHOOL COURT#170#171#172#179#176#177#178#175#174#170#173GRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANC-3.00'1 INCH = 20'10'5'2'10 FTLEGEND2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALEARTHWORK CALCULATIONSGRADING NOTES: BASIS OF BEARINGXINGEAST MAIN STREET CHURCH STREET HIGH SCHOOL COURT#170 #171#172#179#176 #177 #178 #170 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 10.30.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 08.16.2024 PLANNING: PLANCHECK RESPONSES 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL LEGEND STORM DRAIN NOTES SANITARY SEWER NOTES WATER SYSTEM NOTES 0' 1 INCH = 20'10'5'2' 10 FT UTILITY PLAN C-4.0 UTILITY PROVIDERS EXCAVATION NOTES: BASIS OF BEARINGXINGEAST MAIN STREET CHURCH STREET HIGH SCHOOL COURT#170 #171#172#179#176 #177 #178 #170 DMA 1 DMA 2 DMA 3 DMA 4 DMA 5DMA 6 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 10.30.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 08.16.2024 PLANNING: PLANCHECK RESPONSES 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL HYDROMODIFICATION NOTE: SITE TREATMENT AREA NOTE: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NOTES: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LEGEND 0' 1 INCH = 20'10'5'2' 10 FT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN C-5.0 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 38.675 CHECKED BY AS SHOWN 151 EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA LOS GATOS MIXED-USE 10.30.2024 APN# 529-28-001 APN# 529-28-002 REVISION CONSULTANTS 06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 08.16.2024 PLANNING: PLANCHECK RESPONSES 10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL SILVA CELL DETAIL C-5.1 XINGLOS GATOSHIGH SCHOOL#176#177#1782024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALLEGENDEAST MAIN STREETCHURCH STREETHIGH SCHOOL COURT 0'1 INCH = 40'20'10'4'20 FTFIRE ACCESS PLANC-6.0NOTESFIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTSPROJECT DESCRIPTION 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALCONSTRUCTIONDETAILSC-7.0 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALCONSTRUCTIONDETAILSC-7.1 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL08.16.2024PLANNING: PLANCHECKRESPONSES10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALBMP NOTESC-7.2 170 to Remain 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALTHEINC.GuzzardoPartnership,Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersPier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.comLANDSCAPEIMAGERYL2.0PAVINGBIKE RACKSCONCRETE PLANTER WALLS W/ PRECAST CAPTREE GRATESTREET LIGHT &STREET FURNITUREHANDRAILFan - Urban AccessoriesHexagonal Accent PaversStepstone Inc.ROOF PLANTERHexagonal Accent PaversStepstone Inc.RECESSED PLANTER LIGHT XINGBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAWAWAWAWRIRIAWAWAWLLAWRIAWLLAWRIAWLLLLLLPMAWPMPMAWAWPMPMAWPMPMCPCPCPCPCPCPCPANNUAL COLOREXISTING OFFSITE TREE #176 TO REMAIN.REFER TO SHEET T-1.0.BSBS2RHA MAJ36" Box1POD GRA36" Box3LAG IND48" Box4CER CAN48" Box1RHA MAJ36" Box4LAG IND48" Box4ACE RUB24" BoxBSBSPMPMPMAt Planting:10'h x 4'wAt Maturity:20'h x 8'wAt Planting: 10'h x 4'wAt Maturity: 20'h x 8'wAt Planting: 10'h x 3'w, columnarAt Maturity: 20'h x 5'wAt Planting: 12'h x 6'wAt Maturity: 18'h x 20'wAt Planting: 8'h x 3'wAt Maturity: 25'h x 8'wAt Planting: 12'h x 6'wAt Maturity: 20'h x 18'wAt Planting: 10'h x 3'w, columnarAt Maturity: 20'h x 5'w5AU2CY4ABgcLM7LP3CJgcAP3LP4CJgcAPgcAPgcAPgcAPgcLM2CYgcLM4ABgcLM2CJgcAP10LP7MH12LP9AB4CA3LT5AM4BST5AM7LT3AM2CA4CA9AB4AW3AW4AW2RI2LL11LL27LP4PM2RI4LLgcTYgcTYgcTYgcTYgcTYgcTYgcTY9EGPM4MCPMPM2POD GRA36" BoxPMPMPMPMPMPMPMPM10PMEXISTING OFFSITE TREES #177AND #178 TO REMAIN. REFER TOSHEET T-1.0.EXISTING OFFSITE TREE #170 TO REMAIN.REFER TO SHEET T-1.0Utilities to be 18"- 36" highmax, S.C.D. Screen plantingshall be 36" max at maturity.30'30'30'At Planting: 12'h x 6'wAt Maturity: 20'h x 18'w2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALTHEINC.GuzzardoPartnership,Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersPier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.comSCHEMATICPLANTING PLANL3.00'SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'20'E. MAIN STREETCHURCH STREETHIGH SCHOOL CT.GARAGERAMPPROPERTY LINEBOTANIC NAMESIZECOMMON NAMEKEYTREESSHRUBSPLANTING PALETTE VINESRJRosa 'Joseph's Coat'Climbing Rose5 galWUCOLSLLCER CANCercis canadensisRedbudLLAG INDLagerstroemia indica - Match ExistingCrape MyrtleBOTANIC NAMESIZECOMMON NAMEKEYWUCOLSQTYTOTAL21LRHA MAJRhaphiolepis 'Majestic Beauty' StandardMajestic Beauty Indian Hawthorn473CACalibrichoa hybrid redRed Million Bells1 galLLPLomandra 'Platinum Beauty'Platinum Beauty Matt Rush5 galLAZAnizoganthos 'Bush Gold'Kangaroo Paw5 galLMPOD GRAPodocarpus gracilior 'Icee Blue'Fern Pine3CJCallistemon 'Little John'Bottlebrush1 galLBSBuxus s. 'Green Beauty' Boxwood5 galMLLLomandra longifolia 'Lime Tuff'Lomandra5 galLLOLoropetalum 'Burgundy'Razzleberry5 galMMHMahonia aquifoliumOregon Grape5 galLPMPolystichum munitumSword fern5 galLRIRosa 'Iceberg' StandardRose5 galRORosmarinus o. 'Prostratus'Rosemary1 galLMAWAnemone x hybrida 'Whirlwind'Whirlwind Japanese Anemone5 galMLTLavadula x intermedia 'Provence'Provence Lavender5 galLCYCycas revolutaSago Palm5 galMABAgave attenuata 'Blue Glow'Fox Tail Agave5 galLLMLiriope muscari 'Royal Purple'Royal Purple Lily Turf5 galMAMAsparagus densiflorus 'Myersii'Myers Asparagus Fern5 galAUArbutus unedo 'Compacta'Compact Strawberry Tree5 galLMBSTBuxus s. 'Green Beauty' Topiary ConeTopiary BoxwoodSpecimenMLOTLoropetalum 'Burgundy' Topiary ConeTopiary RazzleberryMAPArctostaphylos 'Emerald Carpet'Emerald Carpet Manzanita1 galLSpecimen48" Box48" Box36" Box36" BoxMACE RUBAcer Rubrum 'Armstrong'Columnar Red Maple424" BoxQTY2613511-41094175911168GROUNDCOVERTYThymus praecoxMother of Thyme1 galLEGErigeron glaucus 'Bountiful'Seaside Daisy5 galL9Calamagrostis acurifolia 'Karl Forester'Feather Reed GrassMCK1 gal77CPColeonema pulchrum 'Sunset Gold'Golden Breath of Heaven5 galM7MCMuhlenbergia capillarisPink Muhly Grass5 gal4L Per Each PotPer Each PotPer Each PotPer Each PotPer Each PotPer Each PotPer Each PotPer Each Pot2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALTHEINC.GuzzardoPartnership,Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersPier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.com4th FLOORROOF DECKLANDSCAPE PLANL3.10'SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'20'E. MAIN STREETCHURCH STREETHIGH SCHOOL CT.RETAILPlanter Pots with Vine Planting at Roof TrellisesAccent Paving at Roof TerracesRoof Trellises by ArchitectRoof Terrace Guardrails and Parapet by Architect XING2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALTHEINC.GuzzardoPartnership,Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersPier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.comHYDROZONE PLANL4.00'SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'20'E. MAIN STREETCHURCH STREETHIGH SCHOOL CT.RETAILLOBBYGARAGERAMPPROPERTY LINEHYDROZONE LEGENDLow Water UseModerate Water UseKEYWUCOLS VALUE 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALTHEINC.GuzzardoPartnership,Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersPier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.comDETAILSL6.0Finish GradeFace of BuildingFace of Building 2nd floor3rd floorSection - At Egress Window Ladder Pad DiagramScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"3rd floor operable egresswindow sillLadder at 70 degrees to 3rdfloor window sill2nd floor operable egresswindow sillLadder at 70 degrees to2nd floor window sill6'Plan 3' EQ EQ Ladder pad - PlasticReinforced Cell PaversLadder pad - compactedsoil or paving, per planLadder4'4'6'2%C/L of operableegress windowor patioSill of egresswindowSill of egresswindow75 ° 75 °Finish GradeFace of Building 2nd floor3rd floorSection - At Private Balcony 3rd floor balcony guardrailLadder at 70 degrees to 3rdfloor balcony guardrail2nd floor balcony guardrailLadder at 70 degrees to2nd floor balcony guardrail6'Ladder pad - PlasticReinforced Cell Pavers4'2%3'-6" Assumed 3'-6" Assumed 2' Assumed 2' Assumed 75 ° 75 °126' Min.2' Min.2' Min.3' O.C.3' Min.PlanOn-Grade w/ Concrete Condition4"Bike RackScale: 3/4"=1'3' Min.Bike RackInstall per Manufacturer's Specifications.Edge of Building or Paving,See Layout Plans for Conditions.Pedestrian ConcretePavingPedestrian ConcretePaving(2) Embedding, ThreadedRods, See Manufacturer'sSpecifications.3 XING6" Magnolia (Offsite)Glossy Privet (Offsite)Glossy Privet (Offsite)12" Evergreen Pear Tree26.5" Oak Tree19" Evergreen Pear TreeTree ProtectionFencing, Type III.#170#171#172#179#176#178#177#173#174#175Tree ProtectionFencing, Type IIITree ProtectionFencing, Type I383.54383.97380.46379.82379.28381.46Tree ProtectionFencing, Type I7" Crape Myrtle (Offsite)8" Magnolia (Offsite)7 Magnolia (Offsite)5" Magnolia (Offsite)2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALTHEINC.GuzzardoPartnership,Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersPier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.comTREE DISPOSITIONPLANT-1.00'SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'20'E. MAIN STREETCHURCH STREETHIGH SCHOOL CT.RETAILLOBBYGARAGERAMPPROPERTY LINECANOPY SIZE OF REMOVED TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT* 10 feet or lessMore than 10 feet to 25 feetMore than 25 feet to 40 feetMore than 40 feet to 55 feetGreater than 55 feet (2) 24" box trees (10) 24" box trees or (5) 36" box trees (6) 24" box trees or (3) 36" box trees (4) 24" box trees or (2) 36" box trees (3) 24" box trees Replacement Standard Table 3-1 - Tree Canopy *NOTE: Single-family residential option not applicable replacementoption for this project.TREE DISPOSITION LEGENDExisting Tree to be Removed Existing Tree to Remain TREE DISPOSITION SUMMARYEXISTING ON SITE TREES TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING ON SITE TREES TO REMAINTOTAL EXISTING TREES ON SITE (4" DBH & GREATER) EXISTING TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED10030QTYPROPOSED NEW ON- SITE TREES - 24" BOX OR GREATER 21Refer to Planting Plan, sheet L-3 Note: Refer to Arborist Report prepared by Calyx on October 24,2024 for Tree Removal and Protection recommendations.36" BOX MIN. 24" BOX MIN.REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED PER TABLE 3-1132TOTAL REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED 15TOTAL EXISTING TREES OFF SITE 7EXISTING OFF SITE TREES TO REMAIN4EXISTING OFF SITE TREES TO BE REMOVED3Tree Protection FencingSec. 29.10.1005. - Protection of trees during construction.a.Protective tree fencing shall specify the following:1)Size and materials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inchdiameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of atleast two (2) feet at no more than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that willnot be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts maybe supported by a concrete base.2)Area type to be fenced. Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either theentire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by acertified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in aplanter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outerbranches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only(such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunkfrom the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards boundsecurely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark orbranches.3)Duration of Type I, II, III fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition,grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the workis completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arboriston record prior to removing a tree protection fence.4)Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight andone-half-inch by eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning--Tree ProtectionZone--This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according toTown Code 29.10.1025." 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALTHEINC.GuzzardoPartnership,Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersPier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.comARBORIST REPORTT-1.10'SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'20' Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 1 Summary The inventory contains 10 trees comprised of 5 species. Five of these were street trees. The following plan was reviewed to evaluate impacts to trees: • L1.0 Landscape Plan (The Guzzardo Partnership 1/14/24). • Civil plans (Sandis 8/16/24) Two street trees #170 and #176 would be preserved. The remaining trees would be removed to accommodate development. Introduction Assignment Provide an inventory and assessment of the trees located at 151 E. Main St. in Los Gatos, CA. The assessment shall include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health, structure, form), and suitability for preservation ratings. Prepare a report with tree preservation guidelines. Limits of the Assignment 1. Information in this report is limited to the condition of trees during my tree assessment on December 8, 2023. 2. Tree risk assessments were not performed. 3. Landscape plans were available for review. Assessment Methods Trees were numbered #170-179. The assessment included all trees within and immediately adjacent to development area. Tree condition was based on three components: health, structure, and form. The assessment considered both the health and structure for a combined condition rating (Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Ed. ISA 2019). 5 (81-100%) - Excellent = High vigor, nearly ideal and free of defects. 4 (61-80%) - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure. No significant insect or disease damage. Defects are minor and can be corrected. Function and aesthetics not compromised. 3 (41-60 %) - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. 2 (21-40%) - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple (The Civil Engineer's plans were also reviewed to evaluate tree impacts.) ARBORIST REPORT Los Gatos Mixed Use 151 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 December 20, 2023; updated October 15, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting 221 Main St. #83 Los Altos CA 94023 650.935.5822 Prepared for: The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115 San Francisco, CA 94111 Prepared by: Deanne Ecklund (Goff), ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #647 24, 2024Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 2 significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use. 1 (6-20%) - Very Poor = Poor vigor, dying with little live foliage. Tree in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. 0 (0-5%) - Dead/Unstable = Dead or failure imminent. A tree’s suitability for preservation considers its health, structure, age, species characteristics (e.g. disease resistance, drought tolerance), species tolerances to root disturbance and other construction impacts, species invasiveness, and its potential to continue to benefit the site. Trees were rated either “high” “moderate” or “low” suitability for preservation. High = Trees with good vigor, structural stability, and potential to function well long after construction. Moderate = Trees with fair vigor, and with health or structural defects that can be mitigated with treatment. These trees will require more management and monitoring before, during, and after construction, and may have shorter life spans after development. Low = Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site. Appraisal of value The reproduction value of trees was determined by using the Trunk Formula Technique methodology described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, Tenth Edition. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 3 Observations Ten (10) trees were measured and evaluated. Most trees were in poor and fair condition (Table 1), with varying degrees of crown dieback. Table 1. Tree species condition + quantity Species name Scientific name Poor (1-2) Fair (3) Good (4-5) Total Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - - 1 1 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 1 1 - 2 Southern magnolia Magnollia grandiflora 3 1 - 4 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 1 1 - 2 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - - 1 1 Total 5 3 2 10 50% 30% 20% A semi-mature coast live oak (#174) was in good condition. Soil level in its planter was approximately 2’ above sidewalk grade. Two evergreen pears were in fair and poor condition. Both had been previously topped and had many small branches (epicormic shoots) emerging from pruned ends. If left unmanaged, these shoots can become susceptible to failure. Southern magnolia street trees were in poor to fair condition. All three trees had significant trunk wounds on their southwest sides caused by sunburn. Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance The Town of Los Gatos municipal code (Chapter 29, Sec. 29.10.0960) Protected Tree definition includes the following description. (4) All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. Based on trunk size, all 10 trees evaluated for this report were considered Protected, and a permit is required for the removal of any Protected tree. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 4 Discussion and Recommendations I reviewed the Landscape Plan sheet L1.0 (The Guzzardo Partnership 1/14/24) and Civil Plan Set (Sandis 8/16/24) to evaluate tree impacts. The design requires that three on-site trees must be removed. Three street trees in poor condition will be removed and replaced. Street trees #170 and 176, which is outside development area, will be preserved and protected. Street tree #170 is expected to incur root impacts from sidewalk replacement. The tree is relatively young and the species tolerant of root impacts from construction. The following tree protection measures shall be employed to protect the tree in place. • Type III tree protection shall be used to protect the trunk of tree #170. • Type I tree protection shall be used to protect trees #177 and 178. • Existing sidewalk shall be removed in a manner that avoids damaging roots. • Any roots requiring pruning for sidewalk forms shall be cut cleanly at the edge of excavation. Adhering to these and the tree preservation guidelines in the next section will ensure root impacts are kept to a minimum. A total of six trees will be removed for development, six of which require mitigation. Tree removal and mitigation The Table 2 indicates the recommended replacement values. The applicant will be required to replace 6 protected trees according to the ordinance. Alternatively, it may be possible to create an approved landscape plan or provide an in-lieu payment. Table 2. Town of Los Gatos tree canopy replacement standard Canopy Size of Removed Tree Replacement Requirement (2)(4) 10 feet or less Two 24-inch box trees More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24-inch box trees More than 25 feet to 40 feet Four 24-inch box trees; or Two 36-inch box trees More than 40 feet to 55 feet Six 24-inch box trees; or Three 36-inch box trees Greater than 55 feet Ten 24-inch box trees; or Five 36-inch box trees The Landscape plan sheets and the Civil Engineer's plans werereviewed to evaluate tree impacts. 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.CPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYSCALEDATEK E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C .4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 038.675CHECKED BYAS SHOWN151 EAST MAIN STREETLOS GATOS, CALIFORNIALOS GATOSMIXED-USE10.30.2024APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002REVISIONCONSULTANTS06.15.20241ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.20243RD REVISED SUBMITTALTHEINC.GuzzardoPartnership,Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersPier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.comARBORIST REPORTT-1.20'SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'20'Los Gatos Mixed Use Tree Inventory Map 151 E. Main St. (#170-179)Deanne Ecklund Certiﬁed Arborist WE9067-A Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting December 20, 2023171179170178177176175174173172Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 5 (2) Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with a combination of both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund. (4) Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures, overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native species shall be strongly encouraged. Tree Protection Guidelines Design recommendations 1. Provide sufficient clearance between trees and proposed features to avoid damage to roots. 2. Enlarge tree wells to increase water access and reduce sidewalk damage potential. 3. Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the tree protection zone (TPZ). a. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. 4. Utilize novel design and construction techniques to preserve roots where utilities or features must be within tree TPZs. Pre-construction 1. The construction superintendent shall meet with the Project Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. 2. Fence street trees with Type III fencing prior to demolition, grubbing, or grading. a. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only: orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 6 b. Duration: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. c. Warning sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5x11 sign stating: "Warning—Tree Protection Zone—This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." i. Do not attach signs, wire, or rope to any protected tree. 3. Pruning trees to provide construction and access clearance may be required. a. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2019) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). b. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent possible, tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests. Construction 1. Tree protection fence layout must be approved by the Project Arborist. Fences must remain in this configuration throughout construction. a. No construction activities shall occur within tree protection fencing. Construction activities include, but are not limited to: i. Vehicle or pedestrian traffic ii. Materials storage iii. Vehicle exhaust iv. Concrete cleanout water dumping b. If tree protection fencing dimensions need to be reduced to allow for site access, protect tree protection zones against compaction by laying full sheets of plywood attached together with tie plates over coarse bark mulch. c. After construction is complete, tree protection fencing may be moved as needed for hardscape and landscape installation. Contact Project Arborist prior to removal. 2. Demolition of paving, utilities, and features within tree protection zones shall be done carefully avoid damaging roots. 3. If live roots over one inch in diameter are encountered at any time, in any location, prune with a sharp saw or bypass pruners, as close as practical to the edge of the disturbed area. 4. Any major root pruning (roots 2” and greater in diameter) shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Project Arborist. 5. If excavated areas are to be left open for longer than 3-4 days, cover exposed or severed roots with burlap or jute fabric. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 7 a. Irrigate fabric daily to keep fabric moist until excavation work is completed. 6. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel. Violations 1. If a violation occurs prior to proposed development, then discretionary applications and/or building permit applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director. 2. Incomplete applications will not be processed further until the violation has been remedied. If an application has been deemed complete, it may be denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial at the Director's discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a condition of approval. 3. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. 4. If a violation occurs during construction, the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s) or the applicant(s) or both, and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security in the discretion of the Director. Maintenance of remaining trees Because of changes in the growing environment after construction, preserved trees may require additional maintenance. Tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases; therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my observations or recommendations. Sincerely, Deanne Ecklund (Goff) Registered Consulting Arborist #647 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 Tag # Common name Trunk Diam. (in.) Est. Canopy Diam. (ft.) Condition (1=poor 5=excel.) Tree Disposition Suitability for Preservation Appraised Value Expected Impact Saved/ Removed/Pruned Height range (ft.) Comments 170 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 7 19 5 Street tree High $ 1,800.00 Moderate Save 15 Street tree; good form and structure. 171 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 8 12 2 Street tree Low $ 650.00 -Remove12 Street tree; nice crown; large trunk wound from base to 5'. 172 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 7 7 2 Street tree Low $ 550.00 -Remove10 Street tree; small crown; large trunk wound from base to 5'. 173 Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 19 20 3 Protected Moderate $ 5,050.00 -Remove20 Previously topped at ~12'; good form, fair structure. 174 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 26.5 34 4 Large protected High $ 33,250.00 -Remove23 Good form and structure; minor thinning in upper crown. 175 Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 12 12 2 Protected Low $ 1,300.00 -Remove15 Previously topped at ~12'; poor form and structure. 176 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 6 18 3 Street tree Low $ 650.00 n/a Save 13 Street tree; dense crown; large trunk wound from base to 5'. 177 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 2.5,2.5,2 10 2 Exempt (species) Low $ 400.00 Moderate Save 11 Growing against building; leans east; poor form and structure. 178 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 7,6.5 15 3 Exempt (species) Low $ 550.00 Moderate Save 9 Growing against building; leans east; fair form and structure. 179 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 5 8 2 Street tree Low $ 500.00 -Remove13 Street tree; large trunk wound; thin crown. Tree Assessment 8 Physical Conditions,Reason for RemovalLow suitability for preservation.Conflict with site plan.Conflict with site plan.Low suitability for preservation.Low suitability for preservation.Conflict with site plan. CalEEMod Results B APPENDIX 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 1 / 64 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated 3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 2 / 64 3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated 3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated 3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated 3.10. Paving (2026) - Mitigated 3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated 3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.1.2. Mitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 3 / 64 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.3.2. Mitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.4.2. Mitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.5.2. Mitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.6.2. Mitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.7.2. Mitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.8.2. Mitigated 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 4 / 64 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.9.2. Mitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 5 / 64 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.9.2. Mitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 6 / 64 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.11.2. Mitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.12.2. Mitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.13.2. Mitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.14.2. Mitigated 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.15.2. Mitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 7 / 64 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 8 / 64 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 9 / 64 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Construction Start Date 1/5/2026 Operational Year 2028 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)3.00 Precipitation (days)12.8 Location 151 E Main St, Los Gatos, CA 95030, USA County Santa Clara City Los Gatos Air District Bay Area AQMD Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area TAZ 1790 EDFZ 1 Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Apartments Mid Rise 30.0 Dwelling Unit 0.00 33,737 0.00 —90.0 — 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 10 / 64 Strip Mall 2.42 1000sqft 0.00 2,416 2,325 ——— Enclosed Parking Structure 47.0 Space 0.29 30,996 0.00 ——— Other Asphalt Surfaces 11.4 1000sqft 0.26 11,400 0.00 ——— 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector #Measure Title Transportation T-4 Integrate A ordable and Below Market Rate Housing Transportation T-14*Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Energy E-15 Require All-Electric Development * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results. 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Unmit.102 5.24 0.19 0.60 0.18 0.28 1,945 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Unmit.2.42 95.4 1.25 24.7 1.22 8.69 71,600 Average Daily (Max)——————— Unmit.1.61 2.17 0.07 0.33 0.06 0.13 983 Annual (Max)——————— Unmit.0.29 0.40 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 163 Exceeds (Daily Max)——————— Threshold 54.0 54.0 82.0 —54.0 —— Unmit.Yes Yes No —No —— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 11 / 64 Exceeds (Average Daily) ——————— Threshold 54.0 54.0 82.0 —54.0 —— Unmit.No No No —No —— 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer (Max)——————— 2026 102 5.24 0.19 0.60 0.18 0.28 1,945 Daily - Winter (Max)——————— 2026 2.42 95.4 1.25 24.7 1.22 8.69 71,600 Average Daily ——————— 2026 1.61 2.17 0.07 0.33 0.06 0.13 983 Annual ——————— 2026 0.29 0.40 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 163 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer (Max)——————— 2026 102 5.24 0.19 0.60 0.18 0.28 1,945 Daily - Winter (Max)——————— 2026 2.42 95.4 1.25 24.7 1.22 8.69 71,600 Average Daily ——————— 2026 1.61 2.17 0.07 0.33 0.06 0.13 983 Annual ——————— 2026 0.29 0.40 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 163 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 12 / 64 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Unmit.1.55 0.68 0.04 1.15 0.04 0.32 1,814 Mit.1.55 0.61 0.03 1.15 0.03 0.32 1,730 % Reduced < 0.5%10%14%< 0.5%14%2%5% Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Unmit.1.08 0.69 0.04 1.15 0.04 0.32 1,729 Mit.1.07 0.63 0.03 1.14 0.03 0.31 1,645 % Reduced < 0.5%10%15%< 0.5%15%2%5% Average Daily (Max)——————— Unmit.1.29 0.40 0.01 1.12 0.01 0.29 1,379 Mit.1.29 0.33 0.01 1.11 0.01 0.29 1,295 % Reduced < 0.5%17%38%< 0.5%40%2%6% Annual (Max)——————— Unmit.0.24 0.07 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 228 Mit.0.24 0.06 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 214 % Reduced < 0.5%17%38%< 0.5%40%2%6% Exceeds (Daily Max)——————— Threshold 54.0 54.0 —82.0 —54.0 — Unmit.No No —No —No — Mit.No No —No —No — Exceeds (Average Daily) ——————— Threshold 54.0 54.0 —82.0 —54.0 — Unmit.No No —No —No — Mit.No No —No —No — 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 13 / 64 Exceeds (Annual)——————— Threshold 10.0 10.0 —15.0 —10.0 — Unmit.No No —No —No — Mit.No No —No —No — 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Mobile 0.14 0.28 0.01 1.12 0.01 0.29 1,147 Area 1.40 0.33 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 389 Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 220 Water ——————11.5 Waste ——————46.8 Refrig.——————0.26 Total 1.55 0.68 0.04 1.15 0.04 0.32 1,814 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Mobile 0.14 0.33 0.01 1.12 0.01 0.29 1,075 Area 0.93 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 376 Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 220 Water ——————11.5 Waste ——————46.8 Refrig.——————0.26 Total 1.08 0.69 0.04 1.15 0.04 0.32 1,729 Average Daily ——————— Mobile 0.14 0.31 0.01 1.11 0.01 0.29 1,085 Area 1.15 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.5 Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 220 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 14 / 64 Water ——————11.5 Waste ——————46.8 Refrig.——————0.26 Total 1.29 0.40 0.01 1.12 0.01 0.29 1,379 Annual ——————— Mobile 0.03 0.06 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 180 Area 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.57 Energy < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 36.4 Water ——————1.90 Waste ——————7.74 Refrig.——————0.04 Total 0.24 0.07 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 228 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Mobile 0.14 0.28 0.01 1.12 0.01 0.29 1,147 Area 1.40 0.33 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 389 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 136 Water ——————11.5 Waste ——————46.8 Refrig.——————0.26 Total 1.55 0.61 0.03 1.15 0.03 0.32 1,730 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Mobile 0.14 0.33 0.01 1.12 0.01 0.29 1,075 Area 0.93 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 376 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 136 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 15 / 64 Water ——————11.5 Waste ——————46.8 Refrig.——————0.26 Total 1.07 0.63 0.03 1.14 0.03 0.31 1,645 Average Daily ——————— Mobile 0.14 0.31 0.01 1.11 0.01 0.29 1,085 Area 1.15 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.5 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 136 Water ——————11.5 Waste ——————46.8 Refrig.——————0.26 Total 1.29 0.33 0.01 1.11 0.01 0.29 1,295 Annual ——————— Mobile 0.03 0.06 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 180 Area 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.57 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.5 Water ——————1.90 Waste ——————7.74 Refrig.——————0.04 Total 0.24 0.06 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 214 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 16 / 64 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.44 4.09 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 855 Demolition ———0.53 —0.08 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.4 Demolition ———0.01 —< 0.005 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.88 Demolition ———< 0.005 —< 0.005 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Worker 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.02 79.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.86 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.06 700 Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 2.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.2 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.18 3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 17 / 64 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.44 4.09 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 855 Demolition ———0.53 —0.08 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.4 Demolition ———0.01 —< 0.005 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.88 Demolition ———< 0.005 —< 0.005 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Worker 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.02 79.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.86 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.06 700 Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 2.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.2 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.36 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 18 / 64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.18 3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.44 3.74 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 861 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 39.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.11 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 19 / 64 Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.44 3.74 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 861 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 39.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.11 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 20 / 64 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 1.02 9.19 0.42 0.42 0.39 0.39 1,720 Dust From Material Movement ———5.82 —2.65 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.43 Dust From Material Movement ———0.03 —0.01 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.56 Dust From Material Movement ———0.01 —< 0.005 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Worker 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 59.2 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 21 / 64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.38 86.2 0.84 18.4 0.84 5.64 69,820 Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.46 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 383 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 63.4 3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 1.02 9.19 0.42 0.42 0.39 0.39 1,720 Dust From Material Movement ———5.82 —2.65 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.43 Dust From Material Movement ———0.03 —0.01 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.56 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 22 / 64 —< 0.005—0.01———Dust From Material Movement Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Worker 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 59.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.38 86.2 0.84 18.4 0.84 5.64 69,820 Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.46 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 383 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 63.4 3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.81 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.81 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 23 / 64 Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.14 1.32 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 359 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 59.4 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Worker 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.08 343 Vendor 0.01 0.35 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 293 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Worker 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.08 317 Vendor 0.01 0.37 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 293 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Worker 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.02 87.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 80.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 14.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 24 / 64 Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.81 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.81 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.14 1.32 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 359 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 59.4 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Worker 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.08 343 Vendor 0.01 0.35 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 293 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Worker 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.08 317 Vendor 0.01 0.37 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 293 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ——————— Worker 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.02 87.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 80.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 14.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.3 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 25 / 64 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.24 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 826 Paving 0.29 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.3 Paving < 0.005 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Paving < 0.005 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Worker 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.03 149 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 1.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 26 / 64 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.32 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10. Paving (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.49 4.24 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 826 Paving 0.29 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.3 Paving < 0.005 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Paving < 0.005 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Worker 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.03 149 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 27 / 64 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 1.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.32 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.12 0.86 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 134 Architectural Coatings 102 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.84 Architectural Coatings 1.40 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 Architectural Coatings 0.26 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 28 / 64 Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Worker 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 68.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.88 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Off-Road Equipment 0.12 0.86 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 134 Architectural Coatings 102 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Average Daily ——————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.84 Architectural Coatings 1.40 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 29 / 64 Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 Architectural Coatings 0.26 —————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————— Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Worker 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 68.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Average Daily ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.88 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available. 4.1.2. Mitigated Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available. 4.2. Energy 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 30 / 64 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————57.8 Strip Mall ——————11.7 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————61.3 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————131 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————57.8 Strip Mall ——————11.7 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————61.3 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————131 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————9.56 Strip Mall ——————1.93 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————10.1 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————21.6 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 31 / 64 Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————58.7 Strip Mall ——————11.7 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————61.3 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————132 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————58.7 Strip Mall ——————11.7 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————61.3 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————132 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————9.72 Strip Mall ——————1.93 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————10.1 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————21.8 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 32 / 64 Apartments Mid Rise < 0.005 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 84.9 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.42 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 89.3 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise < 0.005 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 84.9 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.42 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 89.3 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.1 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.73 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.8 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.42 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 33 / 64 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.42 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.42 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.42 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.73 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.73 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Hearths 0.02 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 376 Consumer Products 0.78 —————— Architectural Coatings 0.14 —————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 34 / 64 Landscape Equipment 0.47 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.6 Total 1.40 0.33 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 389 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Hearths 0.02 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 376 Consumer Products 0.78 —————— Architectural Coatings 0.14 —————— Total 0.93 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 376 Annual ——————— Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.54 Consumer Products 0.14 —————— Architectural Coatings 0.03 —————— Landscape Equipment 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.03 Total 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.57 4.3.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Hearths 0.02 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 376 Consumer Products 0.78 —————— Architectural Coatings 0.14 —————— Landscape Equipment 0.47 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.6 Total 1.40 0.33 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 389 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Hearths 0.02 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 376 Consumer Products 0.78 —————— Architectural Coatings 0.14 —————— Total 0.93 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 376 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 35 / 64 Annual ——————— Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.54 Consumer Products 0.14 —————— Architectural Coatings 0.03 —————— Landscape Equipment 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.03 Total 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.57 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————9.80 Strip Mall ——————1.68 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————11.5 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————9.80 Strip Mall ——————1.68 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————11.5 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————1.62 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 36 / 64 Strip Mall ——————0.28 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————1.90 4.4.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————9.80 Strip Mall ——————1.68 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————11.5 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————9.80 Strip Mall ——————1.68 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————11.5 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————1.62 Strip Mall ——————0.28 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 37 / 64 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————1.90 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————42.0 Strip Mall ——————4.78 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————46.8 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————42.0 Strip Mall ——————4.78 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————46.8 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————6.95 Strip Mall ——————0.79 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 38 / 64 0.00——————Other Asphalt Surfaces Total ——————7.74 4.5.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————42.0 Strip Mall ——————4.78 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————46.8 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————42.0 Strip Mall ——————4.78 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————46.8 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————6.95 Strip Mall ——————0.79 Enclosed Parking Structure ——————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ——————0.00 Total ——————7.74 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 39 / 64 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————0.24 Strip Mall ——————0.02 Total ——————0.26 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————0.24 Strip Mall ——————0.02 Total ——————0.26 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————0.04 Strip Mall ——————< 0.005 Total ——————0.04 4.6.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————0.24 Strip Mall ——————0.02 Total ——————0.26 Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————0.24 Strip Mall ——————0.02 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 40 / 64 Total ——————0.26 Annual ——————— Apartments Mid Rise ——————0.04 Strip Mall ——————< 0.005 Total ——————0.04 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 4.7.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 41 / 64 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 4.8.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 42 / 64 Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 4.9.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 43 / 64 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Avoided ——————— Subtotal ——————— Sequestered ——————— Subtotal ——————— Removed ——————— Subtotal ——————— ———————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Avoided ——————— Subtotal ——————— Sequestered ——————— Subtotal ——————— Removed ——————— Subtotal ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 44 / 64 ———————— Annual ——————— Avoided ——————— Subtotal ——————— Sequestered ——————— Subtotal ——————— Removed ——————— Subtotal ——————— ———————— 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— Total ——————— 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Total ——————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Total ——————— Annual ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 45 / 64 Total ——————— 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max)——————— Avoided ——————— Subtotal ——————— Sequestered ——————— Subtotal ——————— Removed ——————— Subtotal ——————— ———————— Daily, Winter (Max)——————— Avoided ——————— Subtotal ——————— Sequestered ——————— Subtotal ——————— Removed ——————— Subtotal ——————— ———————— Annual ——————— Avoided ——————— Subtotal ——————— Sequestered ——————— Subtotal ——————— Removed ——————— Subtotal ——————— 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 46 / 64 ———————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/5/2026 1/19/2026 5.00 10.0 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/20/2026 1/21/2026 5.00 1.00 — Grading Grading 1/22/2026 1/24/2026 5.00 2.00 — Building Construction Building Construction 1/25/2026 6/14/2026 5.00 100 — Paving Paving 6/15/2026 6/22/2026 5.00 5.00 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/23/2026 6/30/2026 5.00 5.00 — 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 47 / 64 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.2.2. Mitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 48 / 64 0.3784.07.001.00AverageDieselPavingTractors/Loaders/Back hoes Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ———— Demolition Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 9.50 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Site Preparation ———— Site Preparation Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 947 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ———— Building Construction Worker 40.2 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 49 / 64 Building Construction Vendor 10.6 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving ———— Paving Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 8.04 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.3.2. Mitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ———— Demolition Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 9.50 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Site Preparation ———— Site Preparation Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 50 / 64 Grading Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 947 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ———— Building Construction Worker 40.2 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 10.6 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving ———— Paving Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 8.04 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —8.40 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Architectural Coating 68,317 22,772 4,188 1,271 1,436 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 51 / 64 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Building Square Footage) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,258 — Grading 0.00 15,150 0.43 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Demolished Area 2 36%36% 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Apartments Mid Rise —0% Strip Mall 0.00 0% Enclosed Parking Structure 0.29 100% Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.26 100% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 52 / 64 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 17.0 17.0 17.0 6,205 1,577 1,577 1,577 575,605 5.9.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 16.5 16.5 16.5 6,008 1,527 1,527 1,527 557,297 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Apartments Mid Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 15 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 15 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 5.10.1.2. Mitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 53 / 64 Apartments Mid Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 15 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 15 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 68317.425 22,772 4,188 1,271 1,436 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 180 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 180 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 54 / 64 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 102,344 204 0.0330 0.0040 264,122 Strip Mall 20,645 204 0.0330 0.0040 13,768 Enclosed Parking Structure 108,530 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.11.2. Mitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 104,012 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Strip Mall 20,645 204 0.0330 0.0040 13,768 Enclosed Parking Structure 108,530 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 1,087,992 0.00 Strip Mall 178,959 24,855 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 5.12.2. Mitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 55 / 64 Apartments Mid Rise 1,087,992 0.00 Strip Mall 178,959 24,855 Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Apartments Mid Rise 22.3 — Strip Mall 2.54 — Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 — Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 — 5.13.2. Mitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Apartments Mid Rise 22.3 — Strip Mall 2.54 — Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 — Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 56 / 64 Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 Strip Mall Other commercial A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 Strip Mall Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators and freezers R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0 5.14.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 Strip Mall Other commercial A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 Strip Mall Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators and freezers R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.15.2. Mitigated 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 57 / 64 Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 58 / 64 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 5.18.2.2. Mitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 11.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 12.3 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth Wildfire 12.1 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 59 / 64 Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation 4 0 0 N/A Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation 4 1 1 4 Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2 Wildfire 1 1 1 2 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 60 / 64 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 22.2 AQ-PM 8.89 AQ-DPM 32.9 Drinking Water 19.2 Lead Risk Housing 32.8 Pesticides 12.8 Toxic Releases 33.9 Traffic 80.7 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 2.59 Groundwater 90.5 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 83.2 Impaired Water Bodies 43.8 Solid Waste 0.00 Sensitive Population — Asthma 3.90 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 61 / 64 Cardio-vascular 3.07 Low Birth Weights 28.5 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 3.87 Housing 15.9 Linguistic 15.6 Poverty 3.54 Unemployment 35.0 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 98.80662133 Employed 67.86860003 Median HI 97.27960991 Education — Bachelor's or higher 97.80572308 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 95.7141024 Transportation — Auto Access 76.73553189 Active commuting 49.62145515 Social — 2-parent households 79.10945721 Voting 95.76543051 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 39.71512896 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 62 / 64 Park access 51.05864237 Retail density 45.07891698 Supermarket access 35.08276659 Tree canopy 97.89554729 Housing — Homeownership 65.48184268 Housing habitability 93.99461055 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 92.14679841 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 95.63711023 Uncrowded housing 96.93314513 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 96.85615296 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 93.7 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 24.3 Cognitively Disabled 96.9 Physically Disabled 71.5 Heart Attack ER Admissions 92.3 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 73.6 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 63 / 64 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 58.1 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 93.4 Elderly 13.9 English Speaking 85.0 Foreign-born 29.1 Outdoor Workers 81.9 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 87.5 Traffic Density 53.1 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 0.5 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 95.0 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)4.00 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)98.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No 143-151 E. Main Street_Unmitigated Detailed Report, 12/19/2024 64 / 64 Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Land Use Lot acreage set to zero for residential and retail use to account for mixed-use development residential and commercial above underground parking. Construction: Dust From Material Movement Adjusted to match project description Operations: Water and Waste Water No Septic Operations: Vehicle Data Trip rates adjusted to match traffic assessment Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity C APPENDIX 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 Appendix C Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity Species Status (Federal/State) Suitable Habitat Description Potential to Occur on Project Site American badger (Taxidea taxus) --/SSC Most abundant in drier, open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats. Need sufficient food and open, uncultivated ground with friable soils to dig burrows. Prey on burrowing rodents. Unlikely. Suitable open stages of shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats not present. Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) FT/-- Restricted to native grasslands on outcrops of serpentine soil in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Plantago erecta is the primary host plant; Castilleja densiflora and C. exserta are secondary host plants. Unlikely. Suitable grasslands on serpentine soils not present. Black swift (Cypseloides niger) --/SSC Breeds in small colonies on cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep canyons and sea bluffs above surf; forages widely. Unlikely. Suitable cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls not present. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) --/SSC Open, dry, annual or perennial grasslands, desert, or scrubland, with available small mammal burrows. Unlikely. Suitable grassland, desert, or scrubland with burrows not present California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) FE/SE Requires vast expanses of open savannah, grasslands, and foothill chaparral in mountain ranges of moderate altitude. Deep canyons containing clefts in the rocky walls provide nesting sites. Forages up to 100 miles from roost/nest. Unlikely. Suitable open savannah, grassland, and foothill chaparral not present. California giant salamander (Anodonta californiensis) --/SSC Known from wet coastal forests near streams and seeps from Mendocino County south to Monterey County and east to Napa County. Aquatic larvae found in cold, clear streams, occasionally in lakes and ponds. Adults known from wet forests under rocks and logs near streams and lakes. Unlikely. Suitable wet coastal forests not present. California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) FE/SE Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California. Colonial breeder on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates (sand beaches, alkali flats, landfills, or paved areas). Unlikely. Suitable sparsely vegetated flats in coastal areas not present. California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT/SSC Rivers, creeks, and stock ponds with pools and overhanging vegetation. Requires dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation, and prefers short riffles and pools with slow-moving, well-oxygenated water. Needs upland habitat to aestivate (remain dormant during dry months) in small mammal burrows, cracks in the soil, or moist leaf litter. Unlikely. Suitable rivers, creeks, and stock ponds not present. Site does not provide suitable upland habitat. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) FT/ST Grasslands and oak woodlands near seasonal pools and stock ponds in central and coastal California. Needs upland habitat to aestivate (remain dormant during dry months) in small mammal burrows, cracks in the soil, or moist leaf litter. Requires seasonal water sources that persist into late March for breeding habitat. Unlikely. Suitable grasslands and woodlands near seasonal pools and stock ponds not present. Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) --/SSC Arid grassland and scrubland habitats; prefers lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Requires open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burrowing, and abundant supply of ants and other insects for feeding. Unlikely. Suitable arid grassland or scrubland habitat not present. Appendix C 2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Species Status (Federal/State) Suitable Habitat Description Potential to Occur on Project Site Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) FE/SE Freshwater habitats; requires beds of loose, silt-free, coarse gravel for spawning, covered cool water, and sufficient oxygen levels. Unlikely. Suitable freshwater habitats not present. Cooper's hawk Accipter cooperii --/SSC Oak or riparian woodlands. Unlikely. Suitable oak or riparian woodlands not present. Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) --/SCE Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. Unlikely. Suitable food plants not present onsite. Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) --/SSC Partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Requires at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying and 15 weeks of available water to attain metamorphosis. Unlikely. Suitable partly shaded, shallow streams with rocky substrate not present. Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) --/SSC Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water. Unlikely. Suitable water source not present. Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) FC/-- Winter roost sites. Wind protected tree groves (Eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress) with nectar and water sources nearby. Unlikely. Suitable roost site not present. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) FT/SE Feeds near shore, and nests up to six miles inland from coast from Half Moon Bay to Santa Cruz in old-growth redwood forests, often in Douglas fir trees. Unlikely. Suitable old growth redwood or Douglas fir trees not present. Mount Hermon (=barbate) June beetle (Polyphylla barbata) FE/-- Sand hills at Mount Hermon. Unlikely. Outside of known habitat range. No sand hills on the project site. Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) --/SSC Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation, moist soils. Anniella pulchra is traditionally split into two subspecies: A. pulchra pulchra (silvery legless lizard) and A. pulchra nigra (black legless lizard), but these subspecies are typically no longer recognized. Unlikely. Suitable moist sandy or loamy soils not present. Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) --/SSC Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Needs basking sites (such as rocks or partially submerged logs) and suitable upland habitat for egg-laying (sandy banks or grassy open fields). Unlikely. Suitable aquatic habitat and associated uplands not present. Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone) FE/-- Remnant native grasslands in Santa Cruz County. Substrate is poorly drained clay or sandy clay soil over bedrock of Santa Cruz mudstone. Unlikely. Suitable native grassland not present. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) --/SSC Deserts, grasslands, scrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Unlikely. Suitable open habitats with rocky areas for roosting not present. Purple martin (Progne subis) --/SSC Inhabits woodlands, particularly low elevation coniferous forests (Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, and Monterey pine). Nests in cavities, often in tall, isolated trees or snags, and also in man-made structures. Unlikely. Suitable woodlands not present. 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 Species Status (Federal/State) Suitable Habitat Description Potential to Occur on Project Site San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) --/SSC Forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. Constructs nest of shredded grass, leaves, and other materials. Unlikely. Suitable forest habitat with dense understory not present. Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus niger) --/SSC Mixed deciduous and coniferous woodlands and coastal grasslands in San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara Counties. Adults found under rocks, talus, and damp woody debris. Unlikely. Suitable woodlands or grasslands with rocks and damp woody debris not present. Santa Cruz kangaroo rat (Dipodomys venustus venustus) --/-- Silverleaf manzanita mixed chaparral in the Zayante sand hills ecosystem of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Needs soft, well-drained sand. Unlikely. Suitable sand hills ecosystems not present. Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum) FE/SE Wet meadows near sea level in a few restricted locales in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. Aquatic larvae prefer shallow (<12 inches) water; use clumps of vegetation or debris for cover. Adults use mammal burrows. Unlikely. Suitable wet meadows not present. Outside of known occurrence range. Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) FE/-- Coastal dunes and coastal sage scrub plant communities. Host plants include Eriogonum latifolium and E. parvifolium for larval and adult stages. Unlikely. Suitable coastal dunes and coastal sage scrub communities not present. Host plant not present. Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) FT/-- Coastal stream with clean spawning gravel. Requires cool water and pools. Needs migratory access between natal stream and ocean. Unlikely. Suitable coastal streams not present. Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) --/ST Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas, such as grasslands or agricultural fields supporting rodent populations. Unlikely. Suitable foraging areas (grasslands and ag fields) not present. Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) FE/SSC Brackish water habitats, found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, still but not stagnant water with high oxygen levels. Unlikely. Suitable brackish water habitats not present. Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) --/SCT Inhabits a wide variety of habitats. Most common in mesic sites. Roosts in the open, hanging from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites limiting. Extremely sensitive to human disturbance. Unlikely. Suitable mesic sites with little human disturbance not present. Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) --/SE Areas adjacent to open water with protected nesting substrate, which typically consists of dense, emergent freshwater marsh vegetation. Unlikely. Suitable wetlands with emergent vegetation for nesting not present. Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) --/SCE Once common and widespread, species has declined precipitously from central CA to southern B.C., perhaps from disease Unlikely. Suitable high density floral resources not found within 100 m of the parcel. Yellow rail (Corturnicops noveboracensis) --/SSC Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevadas, prefers freshwater marshlands. Unlikely. Suitable freshwater marshlands not present. Zayante band-winged grasshopper (Trimerotropis infantilis) FE/-- Isolated sandstone deposits in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Zayante Hills ecosystem. Unlikely. Suitable sandstone deposits not present. Outside of known range. Appendix C 4 EMC Planning Group Inc. SOURCE: CDFW 2024 NOTE: Status Codes: Federal (USFWS) FE: Listed as Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. FT: Listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. FC: A Candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. FSC: Species of Special Concern. FD: Delisted under the Federal Endangered Species Act. State (CDFW) SE: Listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. ST: Listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. SR: Listed as Rare under the California Endangered Species Act. SC: A Candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. SSC: Species of Special Concern. SFP: Fully Protected species under the California Fish and Game Code. SD: Delisted under the California Endangered Species Act. 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 Appendix C Blooming Periods for Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site Species Status (Federal/State/CNPS) Suitable Habitat Description Blooming Period Anderson's manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii) --/--/1B.2 Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, and North Coast coniferous forest. Known only from the Santa Cruz Mountains. Prefers open sites in redwood forest; elevation 180-800m. Blooming Period: November - April. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable broadleaf forest, chaparral, north coniferous forest areas present. Arcuate bush-mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, in gravelly alluvium; elevation 80-355m. Blooming Period: April - September. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable chaparral habitat areas present. Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens) --/--/1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and ponderosa pine sand hills; elevation 50-800m. Blooming Period: June - October Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable chaparral, coniferous forest, or ponderosa pine sand hill areas present. Ben Lomond spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana) FE/--/1B.1 Lower montane coniferous forest; found on Ben Lomond sands and Zayante coarse sands in maritime ponderosa pine sand hills; elevation 120-470m. Blooming Period: April - July Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable coniferous forest, Ben Lomond sands, or Zayante sands in ponderosa pine sand hill areas present. Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) --/--/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland, on decomposed shale soils; elevation 3-500m. Blooming Period: March - June. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, or valley/foothill grassland areas present. Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis) --/--/1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland; sometimes on serpentine; elevation 35-1000m. Blooming Period: March - June Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable valley or foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland areas present. Bonny Doon manzanita (Arctostaphylos silvicola) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, and lower montane coniferous forest. Known only from inland marine Zayante sands in Santa Cruz County; elevation 120-390m. Blooming Period: February – March Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, or lower montane coniferous forest areas present. Bristly sedge (Carex comosa) --/--/2B.1 Marshes and swamps, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Lake margins, wet places; site below sea level is on a Delta island. -5-1010 m. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable marshes, swamps, coastal prairie, valley or foothill grassland areas present. Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) --/--/2B.2 Cismontane woodland and coastal scrub. Prefers drying alkaline flats; elevation 20-575m. Blooming Period: January - April. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable cismontane woodland or coastal scrub areas present. Choris' popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal prairie, mesic sites; elevation 15-100m. Blooming Period: March - June. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal prairie, or mesic sites present. Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi spp. congdonii) --/--/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline); elevation 1-230m. Known to occur on various substrates, and in disturbed and ruderal (weedy) areas. Blooming Period: June - November Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable alkaline valley or foothill grassland areas present. Appendix C 2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Species Status (Federal/State/CNPS) Suitable Habitat Description Blooming Period Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) FE/--/1B.1 Wet areas in cismontane woodland, playas (alkaline), valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools; elevation 0-470m. Blooming Period: March - June Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable wet areas in cismontane woodland, playas (alkaline), valley and foothill grassland, or vernal pools areas present. Coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisiae) FE/--/1B.1 Serpentine sites in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; elevation 120-460m. Blooming Period: January - May Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable serpentine sites in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland present. Deceiving sedge (Carex saliniformis) --/--/1B.2 Wet areas in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, and coastal salt marshes and swamps; elevation 3-230m. Blooming Period: June - July Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable wet areas in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, or coastal salt marshes and swamps present. Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi) --/SR/1B.2 Chaparral, North Coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland. Deep shady woods of older coast redwood forests, also in maritime chaparral; elevation 100-490m. Blooming Period: April - June Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable chaparral, North Coast coniferous forest, valley or foothill grassland present. Dwarf soaproot (Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. minus) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, serpentine; elevation 120-1220m. Blooming Period: May - August Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable serpentine chaparral areas present. Fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) --/--/1B.2 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and coastal prairie. Often on serpentine; various soils reported though usually clay in grassland; elevation 3-410m. Blooming Period: February - April. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, or coastal prairie present. Hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) --/--/1A Meadows and seeps (alkaline), marshes and swamps (coastal salt); elevation 15-180m. Blooming Period: March - May Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable meadows and seeps (alkaline), or marshes and swamps (coastal salt) present. Hall's bush-mallow (Malacothamnus hallii) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, some populations on serpentine; elevation 10-550m. Blooming Period: May - September Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable chaparral present. Humboldt County milk-vetch (Astragalus agnicidus) --/SE/1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, north coast coniferous forest. Disturbed openings in partially timbered forest lands; also along ridgelines; south aspects. 115-670 m. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable broadleafed upland forest, or north coast coniferous forest areas present. Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea) --/--/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime chaparral, coastal scrub, sandy or gravelly openings; elevation 10-200m. Blooming Period: April - September. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable sandy or gravelly openings in closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime chaparral, or coastal scrub present. Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina) --/--/1B.1 Wet areas on serpentine substrate in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and riparian woodland; elevation 30-860m. Blooming Period: May - October Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable wet areas on serpentine substrate in chaparral, cismontane woodland, or riparian woodland areas present. 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 Species Status (Federal/State/CNPS) Suitable Habitat Description Blooming Period Marsh microseris (Microseris paludosa) --/--/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; elevation 5-300m. Blooming Period: April - June. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, or valley/foothill grassland present. Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) FE/SE/1B.1 Sandy openings in freshwater or brackish marshes and swamps; elevation 3-170m. Blooming Period: May - August. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable sandy openings in freshwater or brackish marshes or swamps present. Metcalf Canyon jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus) FE/--/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Endemic to Santa Clara County. Relatively open areas in dry grassy meadows on serpentine soils/serpentine balds; elevation 45-245m. Blooming Period: April - July Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable valley and foothill grassland areas present. Minute pocket moss (Fissidens pauperculus) --/--/1B.2 North coast coniferous forest. Moss growing on damp soil along the coast. In dry streambeds and on stream banks; elevation 30-1025 m. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable north coast coniferous forest areas present. Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) FT/--/1B.2 Sandy openings in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; elevation 3-450m. Blooming Period: April - June Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable habitat areas present. Most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland; serpentine outcrops, on ridges and slopes; elevation 120-730m. Blooming Period: April - June Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable sandy openings in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, or valley and foothill grassland present. Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. campylon) --/--/1B.2 Serpentine seeps in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland; elevation 100-890m. Blooming Period: February - October Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable serpentine seeps in chaparral, cismontane woodland, or valley /foothill grassland areas present. Northern curly-leaved monardella (Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens) --/--/1B.2 Sandy sites in chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest (ponderosa pine sandhills); elevation 0-300m. Blooming Period: April - September. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable sandy sites in chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, or lower montane coniferous forest (ponderosa pine sandhills) present. Pacific Grove clover (Trifolium polyodon) --/SR/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, mesic; elevation 5-120m. Blooming Period: April - June Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable mesic areas in closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, meadows, seeps, or valley/foothill grassland present. Point Reyes horkelia (Horkelia marinensis) --/--/1B.2 Sandy sites in coastal dunes, coastal prairie, and coastal scrub; elevation 5-755m. Blooming Period: May - September. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable sandy sites in coastal dunes, coastal prairie, or coastal scrub habitat present. Appendix C 4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Species Status (Federal/State/CNPS) Suitable Habitat Description Blooming Period Robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta) FE/--/1B.1 Sandy or gravelly openings in cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub; prefers sandy terraces and bluffs or loose sand; elevation 3-300m. Blooming Period: April - July. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable sandy or gravelly openings in cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, or coastal scrub habitat present. Rock sanicle (Sanicula saxatilis) --/SR/1B.2 Rocky sites in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, and valley and foothill grassland; prefers bedrock outcrops and talus slopes; elevation 620-1175m. Blooming Period: April - May Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable rocky sites in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, or valley / foothill grassland habitats present. Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum) --/--/1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Prefers wet, alkaline sites; elevation 0-300m. Blooming Period: April - June. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, or vernal pools present. San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor) --/--/1B.2 Serpentine sites in closed cone coniferous forest and coastal scrub. Prefers decomposed shale (mudstone) mixed with humus; elevation 30-250m. Blooming Period: March - May. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable serpentine sites in closed cone coniferous forest or coastal scrub present. San Francisco popcornflower (Plagiobothrys diffusus) --/--/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, coastal prairie. Historically from grassy slopes with marine influence. 45-360 m. Unlikely, No suitable grasslands or coastal prairie present. Sanford's arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii) --/--/1B.2 Marshes and swamps. Found in standing or slow-moving freshwater ponds, marshes, and ditches; elevation 0-610m. Blooming Period: May - October Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable marshes or swamps present. Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii) FE/--/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland. Endemic to serpentine outcrops and on rocks within grassland or woodland in Santa Clara County; elevation 80-335m. Blooming Period: April - June Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable valley and foothill grassland, or cismontane woodland present. Santa Cruz clover (Trifolium buckwestiorum) --/--/1B.1 Broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland, and coastal prairie; prefers moist grassland and gravelly margins; elevation 105-610m. Blooming Period: April - October Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland, or coastal prairie present. Santa Cruz cypress (Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. abramsiana) FE/SE/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest and lower montane coniferous forest in the Santa Cruz Mountains on sandstone and granitic derived soils; elevation 300-800m. Evergreen Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable closed-cone coniferous forest or lower montane coniferous forest present. Santa Cruz microseris (Stebbinsoseris decipiens) --/--/1B Broadleaved upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, open areas, sometimes serpentine; elevation 10-500m. Blooming Period: April - May. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable broadleaved upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, or valley / foothill grassland present. Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongue (Penstemon rattanii var. kleei) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest. Sandy shale slopes in transition zone between forest and chaparral; elevation 400-1100m. Blooming Period: May - June Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable chaparral or lower montane coniferous forest present. 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Initial Study EMC Planning Group Inc. 5 Species Status (Federal/State/CNPS) Suitable Habitat Description Blooming Period Santa Cruz Mountains pussypaws (Calyptridium parryi var. hesseae) --/--/1B.1 Sandy or gravelly openings in chaparral and cismontane woodland; elevation 305-1530m. Blooming Period: May - August Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable sandy or gravelly openings in chaparral or cismontane woodland present. Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) FT/SE/1B.1 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; often on clay or sandy soils; elevation 10-220m. Blooming Period: June - October. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable coastal prairie, coastal scrub, or valley and foothill grassland present. Santa Cruz wallflower (Erysimum teretifolium) FE/SE/1B.1 Lower montane coniferous forest and chaparral. Pine Parkland Area, on inland marine sands (Zayante coarse sand); elevation 120-610m. Blooming Period: March - July Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable lower montane coniferous forest or chaparral present. Scotts Valley polygonum (Polygonum hickmanii) FE/SE/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Purisima sandstone or mudstone with a thin soil layer, vernally moist due to runoff; elevation 210-250m. Blooming Period: May - October Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable valley or foothill grassland present. Scotts Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii) FE/--/1B.1 Meadows, and valley and foothill grassland. In grasslands with mudstone and sandstone outcrops; elevation 230-245m. Blooming Period: April - July Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable meadows, valley or foothill grassland present. Smooth lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata) --/--/1B.2 Chaparral; endemic to Santa Clara County. Serpentine, often on roadsides; elevation 120-485m. Blooming Period: July - November Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable chaparral present. Swamp harebell (Campanula californica) --/--/1B.2 Mesic sites in bogs and fens, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, freshwater marshes and swamps, and North Coast coniferous forest; elevation 1-405m. Blooming Period: June - October Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable mesic sites in bogs and fens, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, freshwater marshes and swamps, or North Coast coniferous forest present. Tear drop moss (Dacryophyllum falcifolium) --/--/1B.3 Carbonate substrates in North Coast coniferous forest; elevation 50-275m. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable habitat areas present. Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) --/--/1B.2 Broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, closed cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland. Found on brushy slopes, in mesic sites, mostly in mixed evergreen and foothill woodland communities; elevation 30-550m. Blooming Period: January - April. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable carbonate substrates in North Coast coniferous forest present. White-flowered rein orchid (Piperia candida) --/--/1B.2 Broadleaf upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest, and North Coast coniferous forest; sometimes serpentine; elevation 30-1310m. Blooming Period: May - September Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable broadleaf upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest, or North Coast coniferous forest present. White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) FE/SE/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Open dry, rocky slopes and grassy areas, often on soils derived from serpentine bedrock; elevation 35-620m. Blooming Period: March - May. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable valley or foothill grassland present. Appendix C 6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Species Status (Federal/State/CNPS) Suitable Habitat Description Blooming Period Woodland woollythreads (Monolopia gracilens) --/--/1B.2 Serpentine, open sites in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland; elevation 100-1200m. Blooming Period: March - July. Unlikely, Developed site. No suitable serpentine, open sites in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, or valley and foothill grassland present. SOURCE: CDFW 2024, CNPS 2024 NOTE: Status Codes: Federal (USFWS) FE: Listed as Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. FT: Listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. FC: A Candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. FSC: Species of Special Concern. FD: Delisted under the Federal Endangered Species Act. State (CDFW) SE: Listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. ST: Listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. SR: Listed as Rare under the California Endangered Species Act. SC: A Candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. SSC: Species of Special Concern. SFP: Fully Protected species under the California Fish and Game Code. SD: Delisted under the California Endangered Species Act. CNPS Rare Plant Ranks and Threat Code Extensions 1B: Plants that are considered Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B: Plants that are considered Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. .1: Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat). .2: Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened). .3: Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known). Arborist Report D APPENDIX ARBORIST REPORT Los Gatos Mixed Use 151 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 December 20, 2023; updated October 15, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting 221 Main St. #83 Los Altos CA 94023 650.935.5822 Prepared for: The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115 San Francisco, CA 94111 Prepared by: Deanne Ecklund (Goff), ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #647 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 1 Summary The inventory contains 10 trees comprised of 5 species. Five of these were street trees. The following plan was reviewed to evaluate impacts to trees: • L1.0 Landscape Plan (The Guzzardo Partnership 1/14/24). • Civil plans (Sandis 8/16/24) Two street trees #170 and #176 would be preserved. The remaining trees would be removed to accommodate development. Introduction Assignment Provide an inventory and assessment of the trees located at 151 E. Main St. in Los Gatos, CA. The assessment shall include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health, structure, form), and suitability for preservation ratings. Prepare a report with tree preservation guidelines. Limits of the Assignment 1. Information in this report is limited to the condition of trees during my tree assessment on December 8, 2023. 2. Tree risk assessments were not performed. 3. Landscape plans were available for review. Assessment Methods Trees were numbered #170-179. The assessment included all trees within and immediately adjacent to development area. Tree condition was based on three components: health, structure, and form. The assessment considered both the health and structure for a combined condition rating (Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Ed. ISA 2019). 5 (81-100%) - Excellent = High vigor, nearly ideal and free of defects. 4 (61-80%) - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure. No significant insect or disease damage. Defects are minor and can be corrected. Function and aesthetics not compromised. 3 (41-60 %) - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. 2 (21-40%) - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple (The Civil Engineer's plans were also reviewed to evaluate tree impacts.) Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 2 significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use. 1 (6-20%) - Very Poor = Poor vigor, dying with little live foliage. Tree in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. 0 (0-5%) - Dead/Unstable = Dead or failure imminent. A tree’s suitability for preservation considers its health, structure, age, species characteristics (e.g. disease resistance, drought tolerance), species tolerances to root disturbance and other construction impacts, species invasiveness, and its potential to continue to benefit the site. Trees were rated either “high” “moderate” or “low” suitability for preservation. High = Trees with good vigor, structural stability, and potential to function well long after construction. Moderate = Trees with fair vigor, and with health or structural defects that can be mitigated with treatment. These trees will require more management and monitoring before, during, and after construction, and may have shorter life spans after development. Low = Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site. Appraisal of value The reproduction value of trees was determined by using the Trunk Formula Technique methodology described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, Tenth Edition. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 3 Observations Ten (10) trees were measured and evaluated. Most trees were in poor and fair condition (Table 1), with varying degrees of crown dieback. Table 1. Tree species condition + quantity Species name Scientific name Poor (1-2) Fair (3) Good (4-5) Total Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - - 1 1 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 1 1 - 2 Southern magnolia Magnollia grandiflora 3 1 - 4 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 1 1 - 2 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - - 1 1 Total 5 3 2 10 50% 30% 20% A semi-mature coast live oak (#174) was in good condition. Soil level in its planter was approximately 2’ above sidewalk grade. Two evergreen pears were in fair and poor condition. Both had been previously topped and had many small branches (epicormic shoots) emerging from pruned ends. If left unmanaged, these shoots can become susceptible to failure. Southern magnolia street trees were in poor to fair condition. All three trees had significant trunk wounds on their southwest sides caused by sunburn. Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance The Town of Los Gatos municipal code (Chapter 29, Sec. 29.10.0960) Protected Tree definition includes the following description. (4) All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. Based on trunk size, all 10 trees evaluated for this report were considered Protected, and a permit is required for the removal of any Protected tree. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 4 Discussion and Recommendations I reviewed the Landscape Plan sheet L1.0 (The Guzzardo Partnership 1/14/24) and Civil Plan Set (Sandis 8/16/24) to evaluate tree impacts. The design requires that three on-site trees must be removed. Three street trees in poor condition will be removed and replaced. Street trees #170 and 176, which is outside development area, will be preserved and protected. Street tree #170 is expected to incur root impacts from sidewalk replacement. The tree is relatively young and the species tolerant of root impacts from construction. The following tree protection measures shall be employed to protect the tree in place. • Type III tree protection shall be used to protect the trunk of tree #170. • Type I tree protection shall be used to protect trees #177 and 178. • Existing sidewalk shall be removed in a manner that avoids damaging roots. • Any roots requiring pruning for sidewalk forms shall be cut cleanly at the edge of excavation. Adhering to these and the tree preservation guidelines in the next section will ensure root impacts are kept to a minimum. A total of six trees will be removed for development, six of which require mitigation. Tree removal and mitigation The Table 2 indicates the recommended replacement values. The applicant will be required to replace 6 protected trees according to the ordinance. Alternatively, it may be possible to create an approved landscape plan or provide an in-lieu payment. Table 2. Town of Los Gatos tree canopy replacement standard Canopy Size of Removed Tree Replacement Requirement (2)(4) 10 feet or less Two 24-inch box trees More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24-inch box trees More than 25 feet to 40 feet Four 24-inch box trees; or Two 36-inch box trees More than 40 feet to 55 feet Six 24-inch box trees; or Three 36-inch box trees Greater than 55 feet Ten 24-inch box trees; or Five 36-inch box trees The Landscape plan sheets and the Civil Engineer's plans were reviewed to evaluate tree impacts. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 5 (2) Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with a combination of both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in- lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund. (4) Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures, overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native species shall be strongly encouraged. Tree Protection Guidelines Design recommendations 1. Provide sufficient clearance between trees and proposed features to avoid damage to roots. 2. Enlarge tree wells to increase water access and reduce sidewalk damage potential. 3. Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the tree protection zone (TPZ). a. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. 4. Utilize novel design and construction techniques to preserve roots where utilities or features must be within tree TPZs. Pre-construction 1. The construction superintendent shall meet with the Project Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. 2. Fence street trees with Type III fencing prior to demolition, grubbing, or grading. a. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only: orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 6 b. Duration: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. c. Warning sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5x11 sign stating: "Warning—Tree Protection Zone—This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." i. Do not attach signs, wire, or rope to any protected tree. 3. Pruning trees to provide construction and access clearance may be required. a. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2019) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). b. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent possible, tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests. Construction 1. Tree protection fence layout must be approved by the Project Arborist. Fences must remain in this configuration throughout construction. a. No construction activities shall occur within tree protection fencing. Construction activities include, but are not limited to: i. Vehicle or pedestrian traffic ii. Materials storage iii. Vehicle exhaust iv. Concrete cleanout water dumping b. If tree protection fencing dimensions need to be reduced to allow for site access, protect tree protection zones against compaction by laying full sheets of plywood attached together with tie plates over coarse bark mulch. c. After construction is complete, tree protection fencing may be moved as needed for hardscape and landscape installation. Contact Project Arborist prior to removal. 2. Demolition of paving, utilities, and features within tree protection zones shall be done carefully avoid damaging roots. 3. If live roots over one inch in diameter are encountered at any time, in any location, prune with a sharp saw or bypass pruners, as close as practical to the edge of the disturbed area. 4. Any major root pruning (roots 2” and greater in diameter) shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Project Arborist. 5. If excavated areas are to be left open for longer than 3-4 days, cover exposed or severed roots with burlap or jute fabric. Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 7 a. Irrigate fabric daily to keep fabric moist until excavation work is completed. 6. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel. Violations 1. If a violation occurs prior to proposed development, then discretionary applications and/or building permit applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director. 2. Incomplete applications will not be processed further until the violation has been remedied. If an application has been deemed complete, it may be denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial at the Director's discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a condition of approval. 3. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. 4. If a violation occurs during construction, the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s) or the applicant(s) or both, and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security in the discretion of the Director. Maintenance of remaining trees Because of changes in the growing environment after construction, preserved trees may require additional maintenance. Tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases; therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my observations or recommendations. Sincerely, Deanne Ecklund (Goff) Registered Consulting Arborist #647 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Los Gatos Mixed Use Arborist Report December 20, 2023; updated October 24, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC decklund.arborist@gmail.com 650.935.5822 Tag # Common name Trunk Diam. (in.) Est. Canopy Diam. (ft.) Condition (1=poor 5=excel.) Tree Disposition Suitability for Preservation Appraised Value Expected Impact Saved/ Removed /Pruned Height range (ft.) Comments 170 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 7 19 5 Street tree High $ 1,800.00 Moderate Save 15 Street tree; good form and structure. 171 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 8 12 2 Street tree Low $ 650.00 -Remove 12 Street tree; nice crown; large trunk wound from base to 5'. 172 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 7 7 2 Street tree Low $ 550.00 -Remove 10 Street tree; small crown; large trunk wound from base to 5'. 173 Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 19 20 3 Protected Moderate $ 5,050.00 -Remove 20 Previously topped at ~12'; good form, fair structure. 174 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 26.5 34 4 Large protected High $ 33,250.00 -Remove 23 Good form and structure; minor thinning in upper crown. 175 Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 12 12 2 Protected Low $ 1,300.00 -Remove 15 Previously topped at ~12'; poor form and structure. 176 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 6 18 3 Street tree Low $ 650.00 n/a Save 13 Street tree; dense crown; large trunk wound from base to 5'. 177 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 2.5,2. 5,2 10 2 Exempt (species) Low $ 400.00 Moderate Save 11 Growing against building; leans east; poor form and structure. 178 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 7,6.5 15 3 Exempt (species) Low $ 550.00 Moderate Save 9 Growing against building; leans east; fair form and structure. 179 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 5 8 2 Street tree Low $ 500.00 -Remove 13 Street tree; large trunk wound; thin crown. Tree Assessment 8 Physical Conditions,Reason for Removal Low suitability for preservation. Conflict with site plan. Conflict with site plan. Low suitability for preservation. Low suitability for preservation. Conflict with site plan. Los Gatos Mixed Use Tree Inventory Map 151 E. Main St. (#170-179) Deanne Ecklund Certiﬁed Arborist WE9067-A Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting December 20, 2023 171 179 170 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 143 and 151 E. Main Street Arborist’s Review November 5, 2024 November 5, 2024 Jennifer Armer Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Summary and Assignment I was asked to review the plans and the applicant’s arborist report and provide findings and recommendations. I Provided a review on July 16, 2024. The arborist’s report was provided by Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting dated December 20, 2023, revised dated August 21, 2024, and October 24, 2024. The prior deficiencies are now resolved as indicated below: •There are no specific tree protection measures regarding those proposed for retention - Sec. 29.10.1000. New property development. (c). Only the Street Trees could remain to be protected and would require a Type I or Type II protection scheme. Resolved •The table in the report does not indicate the disposition of each tree including “Protected” or “Large Protected”. - 29.10.1000. New property development (a)(3). Nor the report or table indicates which trees are Exempt Sec. 29.10.0970. Exceptions. (1) or (2), needs a column to be more specific as indicated in the ordinance. There is at least one Large Protected coast live oak and two Exempt privet. Resolved •No appraised values were provided - 29.10.1000. New property development. (c)(3). The report provides a total value. Resolved •No specific development plans were indicated as reviewed (remove or retain). However the arborist indicates all trees will be removed with the exception of the Street Trees and the plans confirm this. Resolved •There are no references to the Town’s ordinance and requirements for protection. Boiler plate information was provided as per author’s standard procedures. The Town uses Type I, II, and III protection schemes. Resolved •Correct report artifacts and inconsistencies. Resolved The plan set does not contain the required Tree Preservation Instructions (Sheet T-1) sheet Sec. 29.10.1000. New property development. (c) (1). Although sheet L3.0 Provides replacement tree information. Resolved Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 1 3 143 and 151 E. Main Street Arborist’s Review November 5, 2024 Qualiﬁcations, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 2 3 143 and 151 E. Main Street Arborist’s Review November 5, 2024 Certiﬁcation of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B Copyright © Copyright 2024, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 3 3 EMFAC Results E APPENDIX APPENDIX D EMFAC2021 143 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project 2028 Fuel Demand Vehicle Class Fuel Process Kgal/day Fuel Type Demand All Other Buses Dsl IDLEX 1.69E-06 Diesel All Other Buses Dsl RUNEX 0.000182 Kgal/day 0.01 LDA Dsl RUNEX 2.45E-05 KGal/yr 3.29 LDT1 Dsl RUNEX 6.25E-08 LDT2 Dsl RUNEX 3.67E-05 Gas LHD1 Dsl IDLEX 4.46E-06 Kgal/day 0.05 LHD1 Dsl RUNEX 0.000853 KGal/yr 17.96 LHD2 Dsl IDLEX 3.41E-06 LHD2 Dsl RUNEX 0.000471 Hybrid MDV Dsl RUNEX 0.0001 kgal/day 0.0006 MH Dsl RUNEX 3.46E-05 Kgal/yr 0.22 Motor Coach Dsl IDLEX 3.16E-06 Motor Coach Dsl RUNEX 6.58E-05 Total PTO Dsl RUNEX 0.000158 KGal/yr 21.47 SBUS Dsl IDLEX 4.74E-06 Gal/yr 21472.32 SBUS Dsl RUNEX 5.43E-05 T6 CAIRP Class 4 Dsl IDLEX 6.06E-09 T6 CAIRP Class 4 Dsl RUNEX 7.51E-07 T6 CAIRP Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 7.95E-09 Mileage T6 CAIRP Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 1.04E-06 Check: T6 CAIRP Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 2.81E-08 T6 CAIRP Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 2.62E-06 VMT/yr 575605 T6 CAIRP Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 4.51E-08 mpg 27 T6 CAIRP Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 1.56E-05 T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Dsl IDLEX 4.15E-06 T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Dsl RUNEX 7.80E-05 T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 4.76E-06 T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 9.11E-05 T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 9.12E-06 T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 0.000173 T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 1.35E-06 T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 3.80E-05 T6 Instate Other Class 4 Dsl IDLEX 7.84E-06 T6 Instate Other Class 4 Dsl RUNEX 0.000162 T6 Instate Other Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 1.59E-05 T6 Instate Other Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 0.00034 T6 Instate Other Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 1.51E-05 T6 Instate Other Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 0.000318 T6 Instate Other Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 6.59E-06 T6 Instate Other Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 0.000135 T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 5.75E-08 T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 1.45E-06 APPENDIX D EMFAC2021 143 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project 2028 Fuel Demand T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 2.04E-06 T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 5.22E-05 T6 OOS Class 4 Dsl IDLEX 3.48E-09 T6 OOS Class 4 Dsl RUNEX 4.28E-07 T6 OOS Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 4.54E-09 T6 OOS Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 5.91E-07 T6 OOS Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 1.62E-08 T6 OOS Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 1.50E-06 T6 OOS Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 2.31E-08 T6 OOS Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 1.03E-05 T6 Public Class 4 Dsl IDLEX 1.36E-06 T6 Public Class 4 Dsl RUNEX 1.77E-05 T6 Public Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 2.35E-06 T6 Public Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 3.09E-05 T6 Public Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 1.25E-06 T6 Public Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 1.67E-05 T6 Public Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 2.93E-06 T6 Public Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 5.06E-05 T6 Utility Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 4.93E-07 T6 Utility Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 1.39E-05 T6 Utility Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 9.32E-08 T6 Utility Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 2.61E-06 T6 Utility Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 1.04E-07 T6 Utility Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 3.59E-06 T7 CAIRP Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 7.62E-05 T7 CAIRP Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000971 T7 NNOOS Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 8.32E-05 T7 NNOOS Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.001155 T7 NOOS Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 3.66E-05 T7 NOOS Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000429 T7 Other Port Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 2.70E-06 T7 Other Port Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000114 T7 POAK Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 1.70E-05 T7 POAK Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000369 T7 POLA Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 2.54E-14 T7 POLA Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 6.93E-13 T7 Public Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 6.64E-06 T7 Public Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000167 T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 5.39E-06 T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.00014 T7 Single Dump Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 1.08E-05 T7 Single Dump Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000213 T7 Single Other Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 1.51E-05 T7 Single Other Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000264 APPENDIX D EMFAC2021 143 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project 2028 Fuel Demand T7 SWCV Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 2.72E-06 T7 SWCV Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000183 T7 Tractor Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 6.96E-05 T7 Tractor Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000864 T7 Utility Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 3.81E-07 T7 Utility Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 1.77E-05 UBUS Dsl RUNEX 0.000158 LDA Gas RUNEX 0.021253 LDA Gas STREX 0.000679 LDT1 Gas RUNEX 0.001814 LDT1 Gas STREX 6.57E-05 LDT2 Gas RUNEX 0.012801 LDT2 Gas STREX 0.000431 LHD1 Gas IDLEX 8.65E-06 LHD1 Gas RUNEX 0.002296 LHD1 Gas STREX 2.84E-05 LHD2 Gas IDLEX 1.27E-06 LHD2 Gas RUNEX 0.000317 LHD2 Gas STREX 3.51E-06 MCY Gas RUNEX 0.000119 MCY Gas STREX 9.93E-06 MDV Gas RUNEX 0.008323 MDV Gas STREX 0.000286 MH Gas RUNEX 0.000151 MH Gas STREX 2.52E-08 OBUS Gas IDLEX 5.59E-07 OBUS Gas RUNEX 0.000107 OBUS Gas STREX 9.25E-07 SBUS Gas IDLEX 1.87E-06 SBUS Gas RUNEX 2.85E-05 SBUS Gas STREX 1.65E-07 T6TS Gas IDLEX 2.73E-06 T6TS Gas RUNEX 0.000465 T6TS Gas STREX 4.60E-06 T7IS Gas RUNEX 1.15E-06 T7IS Gas STREX 5.52E-09 UBUS Gas RUNEX 1.58E-05 UBUS Gas STREX 2.50E-08 LDA Phe RUNEX 0.000457 LDA Phe STREX 2.21E-05 LDT1 Phe RUNEX 4.10E-06 LDT1 Phe STREX 2.17E-07 LDT2 Phe RUNEX 7.43E-05 LDT2 Phe STREX 4.37E-06 APPENDIX D EMFAC2021 143 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project 2028 Fuel Demand MDV Phe RUNEX 4.42E-05 MDV Phe STREX 3.27E-06 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Peer Review F APPENDIX Environmental Noise Assessment G APPENDIX 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 1 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT 143‐151 EAST MAIN STREET MIXED‐USE DEVELOPMENT LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA WJVA Report No. 24‐51 PREPARED FOR EMC PLANNING GROUP, INC. 601 ABREGO STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 PREPARED BY WJV ACOUSTICS, INC. VISALIA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 23, 2025 113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 ∙ 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 2 1. INTRODUCTION Project Description: The proposed project at 143‐151 E. Main Street is a 4‐story mixed use building with underground parking located on 0.42‐acre site at the corner of E. Main Street and High School Court, in Los Gatos, California. The ground level includes 2,416 square feet of pedestrian oriented commercial which could be leased to a retail or restaurant tenant. Residential (for sale) units are located on all four levels of the project. The proposed project includes 30 units, 26 market rate units and 4 affordable units ranging from 743 square feet to 2,188 square feet. The units are 1 bedroom up to 3 bedrooms with outdoor patios. There are two (2) options for the underground parking, option 1‐ a two‐level parking garages with 47 individual parking stalls. Option 2 ‐ a one‐level parking garage with 39 parking stalls that include 16 car stackers that provide 2 parking stalls per stacker. The project site plan is provided as Figure 1. The proposed exterior elevations take its cue from Los Gatos high school located next door and the many significant brick structures located on Main Street and N. Santa Cruz Avenue, in downtown Los Gatos. Building materials include brick walls, precast concrete facade detailing, iron balconies, metal grid windows and canvas awnings. These materials can be found in downtown Los Gatos in other key buildings. The fourth floor is stepped back to reduce the overall height of the proposed project, materials include exterior plaster walls, precast concrete detailing, and a sloped clay tile roof to further reduce the building massing. Outdoor patios with wood trellis features and landscaping provide owners views to the foothills and surrounding buildings. Environmental Noise Assessment: This environmental noise assessment has been prepared to determine if significant noise impacts will be produced by the project and to describe mitigation measures for noise if significant impacts are determined. The environmental noise assessment, prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA), is based upon the project site plan dated 1‐15‐24, the findings of on‐site noise level measurements and project information provided by the applicant. Revisions to the site plan or other project‐related information available to WJVA at the time the analysis was prepared may require a reevaluation of the findings and/or recommendations of the report. Appendix A provides definitions of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A‐weighted sound pressure levels in decibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighted sound levels, as they correlate well with public reaction to noise. Appendix B provides typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources. 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 3 2. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The CEQA Guidelines apply the following questions for the assessment of significant noise impacts for a project: a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a. Noise Level Standards Town of Los Gatos The Town of Los Gatos Environment and Sustainability Element of the 2040 General Plan (adopted 2022) provides goals, policies, and guidelines for minimizing noise levels within the Town. The Noise Element applies General Plan Guidelines to set noise and land use compatibility guidelines for the Town. The land use noise compatibility criteria are provided below. The following goals, policies and guidelines are considered relevant to the proposed project.  Require all interior residential noise levels to be 45 dB or less, as specified in the Town’s Noise Ordinance.  Require all exterior noise levels to be based on the compatibility criteria shown on Figure 8‐6 (Figure 1 below).  Protect existing and proposed residential areas from noise by requiring appropriate site and building design, sound walls, a minimum landscape buffer of five feet, and/or the use of noise attenuating construction techniques and materials.  Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed use. Use Town standards, including Figure 8‐6 (Land Use Noise Compatibility Criteria below) as a part of development review. 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 4 Source: California General Plan Guidelines, 2017 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 5 Additionally, The Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code provides further exterior noise limits applicable to the project.  §16.20.015 (Exterior noise levels for residential zones) states “No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or any combination of same in a residential zone, a noise level more than six (6) dB above the noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on the Noise Zone Map, during that particular time frame, at any point outside of the property plane”.  §16.20.025 (Noise levels for commercial and industrial zones) states “No person shall cause, make, suffer or allow to be made by any machine, animal, device or any combination of same, in any commercial or industrial zone, a noise level more than eight (8) dB above the noise level specified for that particular noise zone, as shown on the Noise Zone Map, during that particular time frame, at any point outside of the property plane”. WJVA reviewed the Town of Los Gatos Noise Zone Maps. Based upon the noise zone maps, the project site provides an ambient noise level of 48 dB between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., 55 dB between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 56 dB between the hours of 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The applicable Municipal Code exterior noise level limits (based upon the Town of Los Gatos Noise Zone Maps and project site location) or provided below in Table I. TABLE I TOWN OF LOS GATOS EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL LIMITS (dBA) LAND USE 6:00 A.M.‐ 1:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M.‐ 10:00 P.M. 10:00 P.M.‐ 6:00 A.M. Residential 61 62 54 Commercial/Industrial 63 64 56 Source: Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code State of California There are no state noise standards that are applicable to the project. Federal Noise Standards There are no federal noise standards that are applicable to the project. b. Construction Noise and Vibration §16.20.035 (Construction) of the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code establishes permissible hours for construction activity. The codes states “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 6 construction, alteration, or repair activities which are authorized by a valid Town permit or as otherwise allowed by Town permit, shall be allowed if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty‐five (85) dBA at twenty‐five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty‐five (25) feet from the device as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty‐five (85) dBA.” There are no Town of Los Gatos vibration level standards. Some guidance is provided by the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. The Manual provides guidance for determining annoyance potential criteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table II and Table III, and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). TABLE II GUIDELINE VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely Perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly Perceptible 0.9 0.1 Severe 2.0 0.4 Source: Caltrans TABLE III GUIDELINE VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile, historic buildings, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 Source: Caltrans 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 7 3. SETTING The proposed project site is currently an office use building land use, including a coffee shop, located at the combined addresses of 143 and 151 E. Main Street, within the Town of Los Gatos. The project site is generally surrounded by various office and retail land uses, with Los Gatos High School located to the northeast, a church and adult day care center located to the north, and a park located to the east of the site. E. Main Street borders the project site to the south. a. Background Noise Level Measurements The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by vehicle traffic along E. Main Street, as well as High School Court, and Church Street. Additional sources of noise observed during the project site visit include noise from school activities (human voices) at Los Gatos High School and the church to the north of the project site, as well as nearby commercial/retail land uses and nearby parks and museums, and occasional aircraft overflights. Measurements of existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity were conducted on August 21 & 22, 2024. Long‐term (24‐hour) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at two (2) locations (sites LT‐1 and LT‐2). Ambient noise levels were measured for a period of 24 continuous hours at both locations. Site LT‐1 was located within the northeast portion of the project site, near the intersection of Church Street and High School Court. Site LT‐2 was located within the southwestern portion of the project site, along E. Main Street. The locations of the ambient noise monitoring sites are provided as Figure 2. A photograph of ambient noise measurement sites LT‐1 and LT‐2 are provided as Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐1 ranged from a low of 40.6 dB between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. to a high of 59.0 dB between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐1 ranged from 59.8 to 88.7 dB. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 38.2 to 51.2 dB. The L90 is a statistical descriptor that defines the noise level exceeded 90% of the time during each hour of the sample period. The L90 is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft, and other local noise sources. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐1 was 59.8 dB Ldn. Figure 3 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at site LT‐1. Figure 4 provides a photograph of measurement site LT‐1. Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐2 ranged from a low of 46.8 dB between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to a high of 61.3 dB between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐2 ranged from 65.6 to 90.3 dB. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 45.2 to 52.8 dB. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐2 was 62.6 dB Ldn. Figure 5 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at site LT‐2. Figure 6 provides a photograph of measurement site LT‐2. Additionally, short‐term (15‐minute) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at six (6) locations (Sites ST‐1 through ST‐6). Two (2) individual measurements were taken at each of 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 8 the six short‐term sites to quantify ambient noise levels in the morning and afternoon hours. The locations of the long‐term and short‐term noise monitoring sites are shown in Figure 2. Table IV summarizes short‐term noise measurement results. The noise measurement data included energy average (Leq) maximum (Lmax) as well as five individual statistical parameters. Observations were made of the dominant noise sources affecting the measurements. The statistical parameters describe the percent of time a noise level was exceeded during the measurement period. For instance, the L90 describes the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time during the measurement period, and is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft, and other local noise sources. Short‐term noise measurements were conducted for 15‐minute periods at each of the six sites. Site ST‐1 was located near the church parking lot, north of the project site. Site ST‐2 was located within a multi‐family residential development northwest of the project site. Site ST‐3 was located within the park area outside of the New Museum Los Gatos, southwest of the project site. Site ST‐4 was located along E. Main Street, south of the project site. Site ST‐5 was located within the park area east of the project site and south of Los Gatos High School. Site ST‐6 was located near the northern terminus of High School Court, adjacent to Los Gatos High School. The overall noise measurement data indicate that noise in the project vicinity is highly influenced by vehicular traffic along adjacent roadways as well as human activities associated with the high school, museum, church, and other nearby commercial/retail land uses. TABLE IV SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA 115 E. MAIN STREET MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, LOS GATOS AUGUST 21 & 22, 2024 Site Time A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA Sources Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 L90 ST‐1 7:45 a.m. 55.0 68.2 61.4 57.2 55.5 54.6 49.1 TR, L ST‐1 4:00 p.m. 53.5 62.9 59.2 56.1 54.2 53.1 47.9 TR, AC ST‐2 8:05 a.m. 56.9 63.4 61.1 60.6 57.2 54.4 53.2 TR ST‐2 4:20 p.m. 55.6 60.7 60.6 59.2 56.6 53.9 52.3 TR ST‐3 8:25 a.m. 55.2 60.7 59.4 57.2 55.0 53.3 50.8 TR, C, B ST‐3 4:40 p.m. 53.7 58.6 58.0 57.1 54.7 53.2 49.4 TR, B ST‐4 8:45 a.m. 56.2 65.5 63.0 59.8 56.7 54.8 48.2 TR, AC ST‐4 5:00 p.m. 56.5 64.9 63.3 60.5 57.2 54.2 49.3 TR ST‐5 9:05 a.m. 50.8 55.4 54.4 53.8 51.2 50.5 47.6 TR, C, B ST‐5 5:20 p.m. 51.1 56.4 54.0 53.4 51.9 50.6 48.5 TR, B ST‐6 9:25 a.m. 53.2 66.6 60.1 54.8 50.3 48.6 48.0 TR, AC ST‐6 5:40 p.m. 51.7 64.4 59.4 54.5 50.8 49.7 48.4 TR TR: Traffic AC: Aircraft L: Landscaping Activities C: Construction Activities B: Birds D: Barking Dogs Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc. 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 9 4. PROJECT-RELATED NOISE LEVELS As described above, the 143 and 151 E. Main Street project is a 4‐story mixed‐use building with underground parking located on 0.42‐acre site at the corner of E. Main Street and High School Court in Los Gatos, California. The ground level includes 2,416 square feet of pedestrian oriented commercial which could be leased to a retail or restaurant tenant. Residential units are located on all four levels of the project. The retail or restaurant tenant information was not known at the time this analysis was prepared. A wide variety of noise sources can be associated with such mixed‐use (residential and commercial retail) developments. The noise levels produced by such sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact existing off‐site and proposed on‐site sensitive receptors. Typical examples of stationary noise sources associated with such land uses include:  HVAC/Mechanical equipment  Parking lot activities/vehicle movements  Refuse/Cardboard Compactor The closest noise‐sensitive receptors to the project site are generally located at distances of 150 feet or greater from the overall project site. These sensitive receptors are considered to be the church and high school located north of the project site and a hotel land use located approximately 150 feet south of the project site, across E. Main Street. HVAC Mechanical Equipment Based upon the project roof plan, the proposed mixed‐use building would include roof‐mounted Mechanical/HVAC units on the building. The heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) requirements for the buildings would likely require the use of multiple packaged roof‐top units. As indicated on the roof plan, the mechanical equipment would be shielded by means of a roof parapet. WJVA has conducted reference noise level measurements at numerous commercial and retail buildings with roof‐mounted HVAC units, and associated noise levels typically range between approximately 45‐50 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the building façade. At a distance of 150 feet, noise levels associated with any roof‐mounted mechanical equipment would be expected to be in the range of approximately 36‐41 dB. Such levels do not exceed any Town of Los Gatos noise levels or existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Vehicle Movements As described above, there are two (2) options for the underground parking, option 1‐ a two level parking garages with 47 individual parking stalls. Option 2 ‐ a one level parking garage with 39 parking stalls that include 16 car stackers that provide 2 parking stalls per stacker. Vehicles accessing the project site would enter and exit the underground parking via Church Street. All parking spaces will be located within an enclosed parking structure. Noise due to traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and is not usually considered to be significant. Human activity in parking lots that can produce noise includes voices, stereo systems and the opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. The noise levels associated with 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 10 these activities cannot be precisely defined due to variables such as the number of parking movements, time of day and other factors. It is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a maximum noise level of 60 to 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which is comparable to the level of a raised voice. However, all project parking spaces will be located within the structure of the building, below ground level, and noise associated with vehicle movements would not be audible at any nearby sensitive receptor locations. Compactor Commercial/Retail uses could include outdoor refuse and cardboard compactors. Based upon noise studies conducted by WJVA for other projects, the maximum noise level produced by a typical un‐enclosed trash compactor (Hydra‐Fab Model 1200) is approximately 74 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the equipment. It is not known if the project would include an exterior compactor, and if so, where it may be located. However, noise associated with compactors is generally of short duration and would likely be located at a distance of 100 feet or greater from any noise‐sensitive land use. At this distance noise levels associated with a compactor would not be expected to exceed 55 dB and would not exceed any Town of Los Gatos noise standards or exceed existing ambient noise levels. Project‐Related Changes to Traffic Noise Exposure A detailed analysis of project‐related traffic noise exposure was not included in this analysis. However, according to the project traffic engineer, the proposed project land uses would be expected to result in an overall reduction in trip generation as compared to the existing land uses on the project site. As such, the project would not be expected to result in an increase in traffic noise along roadways in the overall project area. 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 11 5. NOISE IMPACTS TO PROPOSED ON-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS, Exterior Noise Exposure The Town of Los Gatos General Plan establishes an exterior noise level standard of 65 dB Ldn for multi‐family residential land uses. While not explicitly stated in the General Plan, exterior noise level standards and land use compatibility criteria typically apply to outdoor activity areas of residential uses. Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single‐family residences and individual patios or decks and common outdoor activity areas of multi‐family developments. In addition to individual unit patios and balconies, the project would include approximately 1,010 square feet of amenity space on levels 3 and 4. However, these common use spaces would generally be located within interior spaces. As described above, existing project site noise exposure was measured at two locations within the project site. Project site noise exposure levels were measured to be in the range of approximately 60‐63 dB Ldn. The highest measured noise exposure level occurred along E. Main Street. Based upon the findings of the on‐site noise survey, exterior noise levels within the individual patios and balconies would not exceed the Town of Los Gatos exterior noise compatibility standard of 65 dB Ldn for multi‐family residential land uses. Interior Noise Exposure The Town of Los Gatos interior noise level standard is 45 dB Ldn. The worst‐case noise exposure within the proposed residential development would be approximately 63 dB Ldn. This means that the proposed residential construction must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of approximately 18 dB (63‐45=18). A specific analysis of interior noise levels was not performed. However, it may be assumed that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB if windows and doors are closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with the Town’s 45 dB Ldn interior standard at all proposed lots. Requiring that it be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation means that air conditioning or mechanical ventilation will be required. 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 12 6. CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION Construction noise could occur at various locations within the project site through the demolition and build‐out period. Table V provides typical construction‐related noise levels at reference distances of 25 feet, 50 feet, and 100 feet. Construction noise is not usually considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to the daytime hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. The Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code limits construction activities to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays. Construction activities should adhere to these time limits. Additionally, the Municipal Code states that no individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty‐five (85) dBA at twenty‐five (25) feet. The types of equipment that may be used during demolition and construction is not known at this time. If equipment which exceeds 85 dB at a distance of 25 feet is to be used, efforts should be made to increase the distance between the equipment and the adjacent land‐uses to reduce construction noise levels at nearby noise‐sensitive land uses or provide acceptable means of noise attenuation to mitigate construction noise levels to acceptable Town of Los Gatos construction noise level standards. If the above‐described considerations are incorporated into project construction, construction noise would not be considered to result in a significant impact. TABLE V TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS, dBA Type of Equipment 25 Ft. 50 Ft. 100 Ft. Backhoe 84 78 72 Concrete Saw 96 90 84 Crane 87 81 75 Excavator 87 81 75 Front End Loader 85 79 73 Jackhammer 95 89 83 Paver 83 77 71 Pneumatic Tools 91 85 79 Dozer 88 82 76 Rollers 86 80 74 Trucks 92 86 80 Pumps 86 80 74 Scrapers 93 87 81 Portable Generators 86 80 74 Excavator 92 86 80 Source: FHWA Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 13 Additionally, the incorporation of best management practices during construction activities would further reduce concerns associated with construction noise. Some construction noise best management practices are provided below. Best Management Practices: Noise levels associated with construction activities may be effectively reduced by incorporating appropriate best management practices. The following best management practices could be applied during periods of project construction.  All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.  Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.  All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses.  Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator. Vibration from demolition and construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses, especially during demolition (pavement/concrete breaking), movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if they were to occur). Typical vibration levels at distances of 25 feet, 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table VI. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for damage, but could result in annoyances, as provided above in Table II and Table III. Specifically, the use of a vibratory roller could result in annoyance if used in close proximity to a sensitive receptor. TABLE VI TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION PPV (in/sec) Equipment @ 25´ @ 100´ @ 300´ Bulldozer (Large) 0.089 0.019 0.006 Bulldozer (Small) 0.003 0.0006 0.0002 Loaded Truck 0.076 0.017 0.005 Jackhammer 0.035 0.008 0.002 Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.046 0.013 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.019 0.006 Source: Caltrans 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 14 After full project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities will result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Activities involved in trash bin collection could result in minor on‐site vibrations as the bin is placed back onto the ground. 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 15 7. IMPACT SUMMARY  Project‐related noise levels resulting from the proposed mixed‐use development, to be located at 143‐151 E. Main Street in the Town of Los Gatos, are not expected to exceed any applicable Town of Los Gatos noise level standards or result in any significant long‐ term increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity or throughout the Town. Project site demolition and project construction could result in‐short term increases in localized ambient noise levels. However, construction‐related noise levels are not considered to be a significant impact if local construction noise time limits are observed and equipment is properly maintained and muffled.  Project site noise exposure (predominantly associated with traffic along E. Main Street, Church Street, and High School Court) was measured to be in the range of approximately 60‐63 dB Ldn. The Town of Los Gatos has established a land use compatibility noise criterion of 65 dB Ldn as “normally acceptable” for multi‐family residential land uses. Project site noise exposure does not exceed the 65 dB Ldn land use compatibility standard.  Mechanical ventilation or air conditioning must be provided for residential units so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 16FIGURE 1: PROJECT SITE PLAN 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 17FIGURE 2: PROJECT VICINITY AND AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING SITES 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 18FIGURE 3: AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE LT-1 24‐51 (143‐151 E Main Street Mixed‐Use, Los Gatos) 1‐23‐25 19FIGURE 4: AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE LT-2 APPENDIX A‐1 ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. DECIBEL, dB: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). DNL/Ldn: Day/Night Average Sound Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. Leq: Equivalent Sound Level. The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods. NOTE: The CNEL and DNL represent daily levels of noise exposure averaged on an annual basis, while Leq represents the average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour. Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event. Ln: The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval (L90, L50, L10, etc.). For example, L10 equals the level exceeded 10 percent of the time. A‐2 ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant levels of noise exposure. CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise. NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION (NLR): The noise reduction between indoor and outdoor environments or between two rooms that is the numerical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those areas or rooms. A measurement of Anoise level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room. SEL or SENEL: Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level. The level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an aircraft overflight, with reference to a duration of one second. More specifically, it is the time‐integrated A‐weighted squared sound pressure for a stated time interval or event, based on a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second. SOUND LEVEL: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise. SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC): The single‐number rating of sound transmission loss for a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs. Transportation Study H APPENDIX Memorandum Date: January 23, 2025 To: Shoshana Lutz, EMC Planning Group From: Gary K. Black, Nivedha Baskarapandian Subject: Transportation Study for the Mixed-Use Development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street in Los Gatos, California Introduction Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation study for the proposed mixed-use development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street in Los Gatos, California. The project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of High School Court and E. Main Street (see Figure 1). The project proposes to demolish the existing office building and café and build 30 multi-family residential units with 2,416 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor commercial space (see Figure 2). Access to and from the project site will be provided by a full-access drive on Church Street. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impact All new development projects within Los Gatos are required to evaluate the effects of development on the transportation system using the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric for the purpose of evaluating transportation impacts per CEQA requirements. VMT was estimated using the VTA model and compared to the Los Gatos threshold for impacts under CEQA. Methodology Hexagon ran the latest VTA model for the 2020 base year. To isolate the project trips and VMT generated by the project, a separate TAZ (transportation analysis zone) was added to the model’s transportation network map where the project is located. The project’s 30 multi-family housing units were added to the model’s land use database. A complete model run for the project was performed, and the VMT per service population was calculated. Thresholds of Significance The Town Council adopted Resolution 2020-045, designating the use of VMT as the metric for conducting transportation analyses pursuant to the CEQA and establishing the thresholds of significance to comply with California Senate Bill 743. The thresholds balance the Town's priorities with respect to competing objectives, including Los Gatos's geographic and transportation context, greenhouse gas reduction goals, interest in achieving the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals, and the latest General Plan goals and policies related to land use mix, economic development, and housing provision. VMT analyses should evaluate a project's VMT impacts based on the thresholds established in the latest Council-adopted resolution. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 150643, the Town of Los Gatos has adopted the following thresholds of significance to guide in determining when a land use project will have a significant transportation impact. 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study January 23, 2025 P a g e | 2 Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the total VMT per service population for the project would exceed a level of 11.3% below the total VMT per service population for the Town of Los Gatos baseline conditions. Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total (boundary) County-wide VMT by 6.5% compared to baseline conditions. VMT Assessment The project TAZ, with a population of 78 residents, would generate 1,577 daily VMT, resulting in 20.1 VMT per service population. The service population for the project TAZ is assumed to be the number of residents of the project. The 2020 base year VMT was calculated from a complete model run by dividing the daily VMT generated by the Town’s land uses (1,651,854) by the service population: (36,948 population + 19,324 jobs = 56,272) = 29.4. Project Impact: The threshold of significance is 100%-11.3% = 88.7% of the Town’s Daily VMT per service population or 0.887 * 29.4 = 26.1. Since the VMT / service population for the project TAZ is 20.1, which is less than 26.1, the project would not have a significant project impact. Cumulative Project Effect: The Countywide total boundary VMT is 37,244,566. The project would add 1,577 VMTs or an increase of 0.0042%, which is less than 6.5% of baseline conditions. Therefore the project’s cumulative effect would be less than significant. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that show trip generation rates for many types of land uses. The data are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by the development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rate by the size of the development. The fitted curve equation published for “Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)” (Land Use Code 221) was used for the proposed multi-family units. The trip generation rates published for “Small Office Building” (Land Use Code 712) were used for the existing office building. The proposed commercial space is approximately the same size as the existing café and therefore would generate the same number of trips, or fewer. Los Gatos E Main StUniversity AveLos Gatos BlvdBella Vista AveN Santa Cruz AveNe w Y o r k A v e W M a i n S t Church St Nich o l s o n A v e Sarat o g a L o s G a t o s R d Ba c h m a n A v e L om a A l t a A v e Bea n A v e High School Ct17 Pageant WyPageant WyPageant Wy= Site Location LEGEND 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 1 Project Site Location 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 2 Site Plan 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study January 23, 2025 P a g e | 5 Based on the ITE trip generation rates, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 17 new daily trips (see Table 1) with no new trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, no off-site traffic operations analysis is necessary. Table 1 Project Trip Generation Site Plan Review A review of the project site plan was performed to determine if adequate site access and on-site circulation would be provided and to identify any access or circulation issues that should be improved. This review is based on the site plan prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners Inc., dated October 30, 2024, presented in Figure 2. Vehicle Site Access Site access would be provided via a new full access driveway along Church Street. The site plan shows that the proposed project driveway would be slightly closer to the western property line than the existing driveway and would be 23 feet wide. This meets the town’s standard of not less than 22 feet wide for a two-way driveway (Section 29.10.155). Sight Distance at Project Driveway The existing driveway was checked for adequate sight distance. Sight distance generally should be provided in accordance with Caltrans standards. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. There is no posted speed limit on Church Street and the site plan shows 150 feet of sight distance looking to the right and over 350 feet looking to the left at the driveway. According to the Caltrans stopping sight distance, this would be adequate for a design speed of 25 mph. Therefore, it can be concluded that sight distance is adequate. Currently, on-street parking is allowed on both sides of Church Street. Hexagon recommends 10 feet of No Parking (Red Zone) on both sides of the project driveway to allow vehicles better sight distance when entering and exiting the driveway. Land Use Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Multi-Family Homes 1 30 d.u.4.54 136 0.37 3 8 11 0.39 7 5 12 Existing Office Building 2 8,258 s.f.14.39 (119)1.67 (7)(7)(14)2.16 (9)(9)(18) Net Project Trips 17 (4)1 (3)(2)(4)(6) Notes d.u. = dwelling units 1 2 Trip generation rate for the existing office building are based on the ITE's Trip Generation online database rates for Land Use Code 712 "Small Office Building " in General Urban/Suburban areas. Trip generation rate for the proposed townhomes are based on the ITE's Trip Generation online database rates for Land Use Code 221 "Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) - Not Close to Rail Transit in a General Urban/Suburban area." Daily Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study January 23, 2025 P a g e | 6 Vehicle Parking According to the Town’s Zoning Code (29.10.150 (c)) multiple-unit dwellings in all zones must provide 1.5 parking spaces per unit, one visitor parking space per unit, and retail and commercial uses must provide one parking space per 235 s.f. of gross floor area. The project proposes 30 multi-family dwelling units and 2,416 s.f. of commercial space and would therefore need to provide 45 residential parking spaces, 30 visitor parking spaces, and 11 commercial parking spaces. The project proposes two options for the underground parking layout. The property previously purchased 12 parking spaces within the Town’s Parking Assessment District. Option 1 Option 1 would provide 39 residential parking spaces, no visitor parking spaces, and eight shared commercial and residential parking spaces, for a total of 47 parking spaces. Commercial customers would use the shared spaces from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This parking option would not meet the Town’s parking requirements. Option 2 Option 2 would provide 39 residential parking spaces, no visitor parking spaces, and no commercial parking spaces. Option 2 also proposes that 29 of these parking spaces would use car lifts with a minimum clearance of about 15.3 feet. This would accommodate larger passenger vehicles. This parking option would not meet the Town’s parking requirements. On-Site Circulation Parking for the proposed project would be located in an underground garage. The parking garage would be directly accessible from the project driveway. The town’s minimum width for two-way drive aisles is 22 feet. The parking garage entrance would be 23 feet wide, and the drive aisle in the parking garage would be 25 feet wide, which meets the town’s requirement. Parking layout Options 1 and 2 are shown on Figures 3 and 4. The two floors of basement parking would be connected via a two-way ramp (see Figure 5). The two-way ramp would have slopes of 16.2%, 4.5%, and 11.6% which meets typical design standards. However, since the ramp would have a slope of up to 16.2%, landings at the top and bottom of the ramp must be provided to avoid vehicles bottoming out. Top landings should not be less than five feet wide, and bottom landings should not be less than six feet wide. Hexagon recommends the project provide adequate landing space. The site plan shows a dead-end aisle at the southeast corner of each parking floor for both options. Figure 6 shows that larger passenger vehicles such as SUVs would have enough room at the dead-ends to turn around. Overall, the parking garage shows acceptable connectivity and maneuvering. Truck, Emergency, and Commercial Access and Circulation Trash trucks would use the curb along the project frontage on Church Street. The site plan shows an area for trash bins near the northwest corner of the building. Since the trash bins are located in an enclosure, the trash bins would need to be wheeled out to the curb on garbage collection days. Emergency vehicles could access the building along the frontages on Church Street, High School Court, and E. Main Street. Delivery vehicles would use E. Main Street because that is where the building entrance would be located. A curbside delivery space should be provided. Hexagon recommends striping a loading space along the project frontage on E. Main Street. 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 3A Parking Garage Layout – Option 1 Basement Parking Level 1 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 3B Parking Garage Layout – Option 1 Basement Parking Level 2 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 4 Parking Garage Layout – Option 2 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 5 Parking Garage Ramps 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 6 Passenger Car Turning Movement 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study January 23, 2025 P a g e | 12 Pedestrian Access and Circulation Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, and crosswalks at the nearby intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks are present along both sides of Church Street, High School Court, and E. Main Street. In the project vicinity, crosswalks are provided along the west leg of the High School Court/Church Street intersection, the north and east legs of the High School Court/E. Main Street intersection, the west and south legs of the Villa Avenue/E. Main Street intersection, the north and west legs of Church Street/E. Main Street intersection, and the east and south legs of the Pageant Way/E. Main Street intersection. The Los Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in March 2017, lists several proposed pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity. The Master Plan was updated in 2020. The proposed facilities are high visibility crosswalks at the intersections of Pageant Way and E. Main Street, Church Street and E. Main Street, Villa Avenue and E. Main Street, and High School Court and E. Main Street. The proposed pedestrian facilities are shown on Figure 7. Transit Services in the Project Vicinity Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the VTA. Route 27 serves the project area and travels between Winchester Station and Kaiser San Jose. The bus stop closest to the project site is located 0.1 mile from the project site on E. Main Street and Villa Avenue. Bus stops on the same route are also available along E. Main Street and Los Gatos Boulevard. Route 27 has headways of approximately 30 minutes on weekdays. The transit services and their operations are shown in Table 2 and Figure 8. Table 2 Transit Services Headways1 Route Route Description (minutes) VTA 27 Winchester Station - Santa Teresa Station 5:15 AM to 10:44 PM 20 Villa Avenue and E. Main Street 0.1 mile Notes: 1 Weekday Hours of Operation Nearby Bus Stops/Stations Walking Distance to Project Site Headways during weekday peak periods as of July 2024. Los Gatos Blvd E Main StUniversity AveVilla AveN Santa Cruz AveW M a i n S t Bella Vista AveBa c h m a n A v e Nic h o l s o n A v e L o m a A l t a A v e Bea n A v e Sarat o g a L o s G a t o s R d New Y o r k A v e Church St Los Gatos 17 High School CtHigh School CtPageant WyPageant WyHigh School CtPageant Wy= Site Location LEGEND Los Gatos Creek Trail= Existing Class II Bike Lanes = High Visibility Crosswalk = Existing Class I Bike Paths 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 7 Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Los Gatos Blvd E Main StUniversity AveVilla AveN Santa Cruz AveW M a i n S t Bella Vista AveBa c h m a n A v e Nic h o l s o n A v e L o m a A l t a A v e Bea n A v e Sarat o g a L o s G a t o s R d New Y o r k A v e Church St Los Gatos 17 High School CtHigh School CtPageant WyPageant WyHigh School CtPageant WyXX = Site Location LEGEND = Local Bus Route = Local Bus Route (Weekend Only) = Bus Stop XX 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study Figure 8 Transit Services 143 and 151 E. Main Street (Los Gatos) Transportation Study January 23, 2025 P a g e | 15 Bicycle Access and Circulation The Objective Design Standards dated January 31, 2023, requires one short-term bicycle space and one long-term bicycle space per dwelling unit and one short-term bicycle space per 2,000 s.f. of non-residential space. Per the Town’s requirement the project would be required to provide 32 short-term and 30 long-term bicycle parking spaces. The project proposes two options for the underground parking layout. Option 1 would provide 72 long-term bicycle parking spaces and eight short-term bicycle parking spaces. Option 2 would provide 41 long-term bicycle parking spaces and eight short-term bicycle parking spaces. For Option 1, the site plan shows a long-term bicycle storage room on the first floor with racks for 14 bicycles, a long-term bicycle storage room on the basement level of the parking garage with racks for 58 bicycles, and short-term racks on High School Court and E. Main Street. For Option 2, the site plan shows a long-term bicycle storage room on the first floor with racks for 14 bicycles, a long-term bicycle storage in the parking garage with racks for 27 bicycles, and short-term racks on High School Court and E. Main Street. The project would meet the long-term bicycle parking requirement but not the short-term requirement. Within the project vicinity, the Los Gatos Creek Trail exists parallel to State Route 17, with an entry point at Los Gatos High School and Class II bike lanes on E. Main Street. Overall, the site is well served with bicycle facilities. Existing bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 7. Conclusions The results of the transportation study for the 143 and 151 E. Main Street mixed-use project are summarized below. • The project would not have a VMT impact as the proposed project would generate a lower VMT than the Town’s Daily VMT threshold. • The project shows adequate site access and circulation for residents, loading, and emergency vehicles. o Hexagon recommends striping a loading space along the project frontage on E. Main Street. o Hexagon recommends 10 feet of No Parking (Red Zone) on both sides of the project driveway. o Hexagon recommends providing adequate landing space at the top and bottom of the garage ramps. • The project proposes two options for the underground parking garage, neither of which would meet the Town’s minimum parking requirements. • The project would not meet the short-term bicycle parking requirement.