The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 1INITIAL STUDY 258 UNION AVENUE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION U -13 -012 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M -13 -004 ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S -13 -20 THROUGH S -13 -027 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND -13 -002 PREPARED FOR TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 110 E. MAIN STREET Los GATOS, CA 95030 NOVEMBER 2013 PREPARED BY GEIER & GEIER CONSULTING, INC. P.O. Box 5054 BERKELEY, CA 94705 -5054 510 /644 -2535 RECEIVED NOV 12 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION ATTACHMENT 1 TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: 258 Union Avenue Conditional Use Permit Application U -13 -012 Subdivision Application M -13 -004 Architecture and Site Application S -13 -20 through S -13 -027 Negative Declaration ND -13 -002 Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Property Owner: Valley One Investment LLC 12280 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Suite 107 Saratoga, CA 95070 General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location: 258 Union Avenue (Figure 1) Contact Person and Phone Number: Suzanne Avila, 408/354 -6875 Project Applicant: Chris Kummerer CKA Architects 2089 Avy Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 Zoning: C -1, Neighborhood Commercial The project applicant is requesting approval for the following on the 0.751 -acre site (APN 527 -44 -012 and 527 -44 -013): Conditional Use Permit for residential use in a C -1 zone; Create one parcel from the project site's two parcels; and Construct eight, detached condominiums on the site's one parcel. The project site is currently vacant. The property was previously used for agricultural and, more recently, comm ercia] purposes, with a restaurant and bar occupying the 0.751 -acre project site from 1973 through 2001. The vacant restaurant and bar were demolished in 2001. The project proposal entails the development of detached condominiums on one parcel combining the two existing site parcels. Proposed lots on the site would be 32,708 square feet (s.f.). Three floor plans ranging in size from 2,214 to 2,721 s.f. (plus attics, porches, and garages) are proposed for the eight condominiums. Types A and C (Units 1, 4,6 — 8) would have four bedrooms, 2V2 or 3 baths, two -car garages, balconies, and covered porches. Type B would be the smallest with 3 bedrooms and 211 baths with two -car garage, and covered porches. One lot (Unit 5, Type B.1) would accommodate NOVEMBER 2013 PnniRC'T LOCATION FIGURE 1 0 258 NO SCALE UNION AVENUE INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE a Below Market Price (BMP) unit. All of the homes would be two -story with private yards to be individually owned. The proposed site plan is included as Attachment 1. The configuration of homes on the project site would entail four residences (Units 1 — 4) fronting on Union Avenue and four residences (Units 5 — 8) situated to the rear of the fronting homes. Each of four proposed driveways would serve two homes. All four of the residences along Union Avenue would include front yard areas (ranging in size from 371 to 401 s.f.). Of these four units, two (Units 1 and 4) would also have rear yards, while Units 3 and 4 would back onto an 800 s.f. Common Area. Similarly, Units 5 (BMP) and 8 would have both front and rear yards, while Units 6 and 7 would have rear vards and front onto the Common Area in the center of the project site. These rear yards would range from 605 to 1,115 s.f. in size. As part of the condominium development, the proposed project would include private driveways, parking, guest parking, and common space that would be owned and maintained by a Home Owners Association (HOA). A total of 22 parking spaces would be provided: 16 garage (covered) spaces for eight single - family units, and six driveway guest spaces on -site along the private driveways. Project plans also include the retention of existing landscaping on the site along with the installation of new landscaping throughout the site. Six of seven camphor, willow, and oak trees lining the eastern perimeter of the property would be preserved to ensure existing screening of the site from the rear yards of adjoining residential properties to the east along Howes and Hershner courts. One dead tree on this perimeter would be removed and replaced with three 24 -inch box camphor trees. An eight -foot high masonry wall on the eastern perimeter of the site provides privacy for the residential properties to the east. A wood fence and landscaping on the northern site boundary separates the project site from two residences to the north, while low hedge plantings and other landscaping bounds the site on the south as part of a commercial building site. The project plans would include planting of four street trees along Union Avenue and installation of three bioswales in the front yard areas of Units I — 4 for stormwater treatment and groundwater recharge. Additional landscaping, hardscape features, and fencing would be installed throughout the proposed development, as well as along the southern perimeter of the site. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site is comprised of approximately 0.751 acre located on the east side of Union Avenue, approximately 375 feet south of its intersection with Los Gatos Almaden Road. The project site is bounded by Union Avenue on the west, residential uses on the north and east, and a commercial building on the south. A shopping center, the Downing Center of Los Gatos, is located across Union Avenue from the project site. The subject property was historically used for agricultural and, more recently, commercial purposes, with a restaurant and bar occupying the 0.751 -acre project site from 1973 through 2001. The vacant restaurant and bar were demolished in 2001. The site has remained vacant since that time, although the project applicant has indicated that there have been past conceptual proposals for residential development of the project site that were reviewed by the Town's Conceptual Development Advisory Committee. There is a mix of land uses in the project vicinity. Land uses adjoining the project site include commercial uses to the south and west and residential uses to the north and east. Two single - family residences adjoin the project site to the north at 5236 and 5238 Union Avenue. Single - family residences to the east include: 255, 259, 261 Howes Court and 285 and 287 Hershner Court. Residential duplexes line Union Avenue to the south of the commercial building immediately adjoining the project site. Commercial uses west of the site include a Safeway grocery store, Chase bank, a furniture store, mail center, and similar retail services. Access to the site is available from Union Avenue. Although the site was previously developed with a restaurant and bar, demolition of these structures included the removal of access drives and all other facilities related to this past use. NOVEMBER 2013 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED No other agencies would issue permits or approve financing or participation agreements for this project. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is considered potentially significant but reduced to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: F1 Aesthetics Agriculture Resources ® ® Air Quality Geology /Soils F1 Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology /Water Quality F] Greenhouse Gases [] Land Use /Planning Mineral F1 l R ® Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ ❑ Recreation Mandatory Findings of F1 TransportationlTraffic ❑ Utilities /Service Systems Significance DETERMINATION: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: lord that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and GATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. d that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, e will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been e by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE CLARATION will be prepared. d that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is r uired. d that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact" or "potentially nificant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been quately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has n addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descri bed on attached ets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the ects that remain to be addressed. nd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, cause all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required, 4Baily,VICP, �111121(3 Director of Co unity Development Date NOVEMBER 2013 4 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following checklist and discussion of environm ental effects presents conclusions regazding the potential levels of impacts on natural resources and the man-made environment, and mitigation measures required to alleviate or minimize these impacts. In the first column (Potentially Significant Impact), the checklist identifies potentially significant impacts that require further evaluation in an EIR because identified mitigation measures may not reduce the impact to a less- than - significant level. The second column (Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) identifies impacts that are potentially significant or significant but implementation of specified mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less -than- significant level. The third column (Less than Significant) identifies impacts that are either less than significant and do not require implementation mitigation measures, while the fourth column (No Impact) indicates that this impact would not apply to the project. Implementation of all mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study will be performed and verified through the preparation and application of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as required by California Public Resources Code (PRC) §21081.6. Issues: Existing views of the project site consist of a vacant urban lot covered with low grasses and various weeds. The demolition of previous commercial uses on the site (restaurant and bar) removed most structures and improvements related to the past development. Six trees and an eight -foot masonry wall remain on the eastern perimeter of the site. Presently, there are views to the Santa Cruz Mountains for pedestrians and motorists traveling southbound along Union Avenue. Public and private landscaping as well as residential and commercial development on Union Avenue moderate distant views of the Santa Cruz Mountains ridgelines for southbound travellers. For nearby residents, ridgeline and mountain views are available to the residents of 5236 and 5238 Union Avenue (San Jose) from side yard windows. Views from the rear yards of single - family residences to the east of the project site are obscured by mature landscape trees on the respective properties of Howes and Hershner courts. There are no scenic vista views across the project site from the commercial building (246 Union Avenue) to the south of the project site. With the proposed project, views of mountain ridgelines from Union Avenue to the south would remain as currently available. The development of the project's two -story single - family residences, specifically Units 1 and 5, would introduce residential buildings adjacent to the two residences immediately north of the site. The site's residences would be separated from these adjoining properties by the access drive for NOVEMBER 2013 1 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and Sup Drfing Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No 1. Aesthetics -Would the project: Im ct Inco orated Impact 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 highway? El El c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Ia. Scenic Vistas Existing views of the project site consist of a vacant urban lot covered with low grasses and various weeds. The demolition of previous commercial uses on the site (restaurant and bar) removed most structures and improvements related to the past development. Six trees and an eight -foot masonry wall remain on the eastern perimeter of the site. Presently, there are views to the Santa Cruz Mountains for pedestrians and motorists traveling southbound along Union Avenue. Public and private landscaping as well as residential and commercial development on Union Avenue moderate distant views of the Santa Cruz Mountains ridgelines for southbound travellers. For nearby residents, ridgeline and mountain views are available to the residents of 5236 and 5238 Union Avenue (San Jose) from side yard windows. Views from the rear yards of single - family residences to the east of the project site are obscured by mature landscape trees on the respective properties of Howes and Hershner courts. There are no scenic vista views across the project site from the commercial building (246 Union Avenue) to the south of the project site. With the proposed project, views of mountain ridgelines from Union Avenue to the south would remain as currently available. The development of the project's two -story single - family residences, specifically Units 1 and 5, would introduce residential buildings adjacent to the two residences immediately north of the site. The site's residences would be separated from these adjoining properties by the access drive for NOVEMBER 2013 1 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE Units 1 and 5. Views of the site from existing homes located on Union Avenue are oriented toward the west and east and scenic vistas of the Santa Cruz Mountains (to the south) are not available in these directions. Limited side yard views of the Santa Cruz Mountains from two residences north of the project site would be replaced with views of new residences. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant effect On any scenic vistas of the mountains that are available from these homes. lb. Scenic Resources Within a State Scenic Highway There are no state- designated scenic highways in the project vicinity and therefore, the project would not affect scenic resources within a state scenic highway. lc. Visual Character The proposed project would modify the existing visual character of this section of Union Avenue. At present, the project site is a vacant lot that is surrounded primarily by residential development. The commercial building on the southern boundary of the project site includes design elements consistent with residential development. Residential development in San Jose to the north of the site is similar in design and site configuration to the proposed project. Adjacent residential buildings on Union Avenue as well as the shopping center immediately west of the site define the visual character of the project site's neighborhood. The vacant lot comprising the project site is inconsistent with the visual character of the project area and the development of residential uses on the site would contribute to the cohesiveness of the residential character in the project vicinity. The Town retained Cannon Design Group (CDG) to evaluate the project's architectural design and site plan for consistency with Design Standard objectives. CDG reviewed and provided comments on the site plan in April 2013. Copies of this CDG review are on file at the Community Development Department. CDG acknowledged that the project is very well designed, and identified a few concerns such as an awkward arrangement of guest parking spaces, privacy issues for facing windows on certain units, porch depths, facades at the ends of entry driveways, and the use of fiber cement shingles. The recommendations and comments include the following items: • Privacy issues related to facing second story windows could be addressed by selective use of translucent glass and /or higher windows in some locations to avoid large bedroom windows from directly facing each other. • Minor design recommendations regarding porch depths and use of wood shingles could be addressed. Less - than - optimal porch depths could be acceptable given the low- fenced yard areas facing onto Union Avenue, where distinct personalities for each house can be created. The Town has accepted the use of fiber cement shingles upon review of materials submitted by the applicant. The applicant has agreed to these recommendations and has revised the design details in consultation with Town staff. Id. Light or Glare There are no existing improvements on the site such as exterior lighting. Street lighting is proposed to be limited to the one existing streetlight on Union Avenue and no streetlights would be added as part of the proposed project. To reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the project will need to satisfy Town Code Section 29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlight onto any area outside the project boundary). 6 NOVEMBER 2013 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the Less Than maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Significant Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- Potentially With Less Than _ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigan a Significant No Impact 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources — In determining Incorporated Impact Impact whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California E) El 0 Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. 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 El refer to information compiled by the California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, E] and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the El F� 11 maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural 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 E) El 0 (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in 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 forest El non - use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to E] their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e. Farmland, Agricultural, and Forestry Uses The 0.751 -acre project site is currently vacant. Development of the proposed project would replace the site's previous commercial use with new residential development. The site's agricultural timberland production potential is low due to surrounding urban development. State farmland mapping shows the project site as "Urban and Built -Up Land," indicating that this land has already been converted to non- agricultural use.' There are no existing agricultural or forestry uses /operations at or adjacent to the site. 1 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, 2003. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2002. July. NovEhMER 2013 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and SuPPort, - 3. Air Quality - Would the project: mplementation of the applicable air a) Conflict with or obstruct i ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment ® ❑ under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard ❑ ❑ (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? C) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ people? 3a. Air Quality Planning The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as non - attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PM,o). To address these exceedances, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG, prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAOS) in September 2005 and Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule (PMIS) in November 2005. The PMIS discusses how the BAAQMD implements the California Air Resources Board's 103 particulate matter control measures. The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Basin is the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP), which updates the BAOS and was adopted by the BAAQMD in September 2010. This CAP outlines how the San Francisco Bay Area will attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The consistency of the proposed project with the most recently adopted regional air quality plan, the CAP, is determined by comparing the project's consistency with pertinent land use and transportation control measures contained in the CAP. The project site is located adjacent to the VTA bus route 49 and the proposed commercial development would be consistent with CAP Policy TCM D -3, which promotes provision of employment development near transit to promote walking, bicycling, and transit use. The project's construction - related and operational emissions were determined to not exceed the BAAQMD's CEQA significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed project's emissions would be consistent with the BAAQMD's CAP (the most recently adopted regional air quality plan). Also, the CAP is based on the Town's General Plan in effect at the time the CAP was approved, and therefore, consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the CAP. Although the project site is designated for neighborhood commercial use in the Los Gatos General Plan, the proposed residential use would generate lower traffic levels than a commercial use and therefore, it's operational air pollutant emissions are expected to be lower than would occur under the designated use. In addition, project - related operational emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants (see discussion below under Section 3b). Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, a less - than- significant impact. NovEMBER2013 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE 3b. Air Quality Standards Regulatory and Planning Framework. The BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and/or maintaining air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) within Federal and State air quality standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the Basin and to develop and implement strategies to attain the applicable Federal and State standards. In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which provides guidance for assessing air quality impacts under CEQA. However, on March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. On August 13, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the Alameda County Superior Court judgment that invalidated the BAAQMD's CEQA thresholds of significance. In a published ruling, the Court directed that the Superior Court vacate the writ of mandate issued in March 2012, ordering the BAAQMD to set aside its June 2010 resolution (Res. #2010 -06) "Adopting Thresholds for Use in Determining the Significance of Projects' Environmental Effects Under the California Environmental Quality Act." Therefore, the 2010/2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and significance thresholds will be back in effect as soon as the Superior Court complies with the appellate court ruling. Significance Thresholds. Exercising its own discretion as Lead Agency and similar to many other San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions, the Town has decided to rely on the thresholds within the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009)2 prepared by the BAAQMD, which serve as the basis for the 2010/2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and significance thresholds. The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report establishes the following thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2010/2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines: NOx and ROG: 54 pounds /day PMIO: 82 pounds /day PM2.5: 54 pounds /day In addition to establishing the above significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions, the BAAQMD, in its Options and Justification Report and 2010/2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, also recommended the following quantitative thresholds to determine the significance of construction- related and operational emissions of toxic air contaminants from individual project and cumulative sources on cancer and non -cancer health risks: • Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million for individual projects and >100 in a million (from all local sources) for cumulative sources; • Increased non -cancer risk of >1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) for individual projects and >10.0 Hazard Index (from all local sources) for cumulative sources; and • Ambient PM2.5 increase: >0.3 µg /m' annual average for individual projects and >0.8 µg /m' annual average (from all local sources) for cumulative sources. Project Emissions. The project's construction- related and operational emissions are estimated and compared to the above significance thresholds in Table 1. As shown in this table, the project's ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report. October. Available online at NOVEMBER 2013 9 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE construction - related and operational air pollutant emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, a less- than - significant impact. However, the BAAQMD recommends that all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures be implemented for all construction projects, whether or not construction- related emissions exceed these significance thresholds. Therefore, the project's construction - related and operational increases in criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1. TABLE 1 PROJECT- RELATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS Average Daily Emissions (pounds /day) PMI0 PM2.s CCU CCL � Project Construction -20144 45.5 15.0 9.6 0.0 1.8 1.3 - Off -Road Equipment Emissions - Unmitigated 45.5 15.0 9.6 0.0 1.3 1.1 - Off -Road Equipment Emissions - Mitigated 10 54 - - 82 54 Si nificance Thresholds 54 No No No No Exceeds Si gm Thresholds? 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Project Operation 16.4 0.2 19.8 0.0 2.7 2.7 - Area Source Emissions 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - EnergyEmissions 0,8 0_7 3_1 0_0 0_4 1 1 - Mobile Source Emissions Tntnl 172 1.0 22.9 0.0 3.1 2.8 -c Average Annual Emissions (tons /year) PM10 PM2.5 CfU CCL na.Lnu Project Construction -2014 - 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 - Off -Road Equipment Emissions - Unmitigated 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 - Off -Road Equipment Emissions - Mitigated 10 10 - - 15 10 Significance Thresholds Project Operation 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Area Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Energy Emissions 0_1 01 _ 0_5 0_0 0_1 0_0 - Mobile Source Emissions Total 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 I. - 15 10 �...... .. _.. - - No No 11v Exceeds Si nificance Thresholds? NOTES: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO =carbon monoxide; SOz = sulfur dioxide; exhaust PMto = particulate matter less than IO microns; exhaust PM2.5 = particulate matter Tess titan 2.5 microns. a Constmction assumptions: Site Prep over 1 day using 1 grader and 1 loaderlbackhoe; grading over 2 days using 1 dozer, 1 concrete saw, and 2 loaderslbackhces; constmMion over 100 days using 1 crane, 2 forklifts, and 2loaders/backhoes; and paving over 5 days: 1 mixer, 1 paver, 1 roller, and 1 loader /backhce. b CO: )f localized carbon monoxide estimated emissions exceed 550 pounds /day, more detailed analysis is required. Therefore, emissions below this threshold indicate that CO emissions would be less than significant. ent decades. C SO,; The SOr state and federal standards are currently being met throughout the Bay Area and have been me[ in rec Therefore, the project's estimated emissions would be less than significant SOURCE: CalEEMod Output (see Attachment 2) NOVEMBER 2013 10 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE 3c. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts To address cumulative impacts on regional air quality, the Town utilizes the thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD for construction- related and operational criteria pollutants and precursor emissions (specified above). These thresholds represent the levels at which a project's individual emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB's existing air quality conditions. If daily average or annual emissions exceed these thresholds, the project would result in a cumulatively significant impact. Since the project's construction- related and operational criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds specified above, the project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less than significant. 3d. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates vehicle fuels with the intent to reduce emissions. Diesel exhaust is a serious concern throughout California. The CARB identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant and human carcinogen. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic. Many of these toxic compounds adhere to the diesel particles, which are very small and can penetrate deeply into the lungs. Diesel engine particulate matter has been identified as a human carcinogen. Mobile sources such as trucks, buses, and automobiles are some of the primary sources of diesel emissions. Studies show that diesel particulate matter concentrations are much higher near heavily traveled highways and intersections. The cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust is much higher than the risk associated with any other toxic air pollutant routinely measured in the region. Diesel exhaust contains both pulmonary irritants and hazardous compounds that can affect sensitive receptors such as young children, senior citizens, or those susceptible to chronic respiratory disease such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. In 2005, the CARB approved a regulatory measure to reduce emissions of toxic and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of new heavy -duty diesel vehicles, which altered five sections of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. The changes relevant to the proposed project are in Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel - Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, which limit idling of a vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes in any location (with some exceptions) or operation of a diesel - fueled auxiliary power system within 100 feet of residential areas. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air Pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include residential uses adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries. The adjacent residence to the north (5238 Union Avenue) is considered to be the closest sensitive receptor to project construction and the maximally- exposed individual (MEI, see Attachment 2 for location). The two closest schools, Union Middle School and Stratford School, are located approximately 800 feet to the west and 1,000 feet to the east, respectively. Operation of the proposed residences would not generate toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose a health risks to adjacent or nearby uses. However, during project construction, combustion emissions from operation of off -road construction equipment on the project site would be generated and could expose adjacent and nearby receptors to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other toxic air contaminants (TACs) that are associated with various health risk factors. Due to the proximity of sensitive receptors to the project site, a screening -level construction - related health risk analysis was completed for the project at the MEI, which is the residence to the north at 5238 Union Avenue (see Attachment 2 for location). DPM NovENmER 2013 11 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE exhaust emissions for on -site project construction from off -road heavy equipment were calculated using the CaIEEMod computer model (included in Attachment 2). The results of the health risk screening are summarized in Table 2. As indicated in this table, the project's construction- related DPM emissions would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for cancer and non - cancer health risks for infants (up to 2 years in age), which have the highest age sensitivity factor (ASF). Therefore, the project's construction- related DPM emissions would result in temporary health risks that would be less than significant to infants, children, and adults. TABLE 2 CANCER RISK AND CHRONIC NON-CANCER HEALTH RISKS AT THE CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS To DPM EXPOSURE DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DUE PM2.5 Annual Average PM2.5 (one -hour x 0.1) Annual Average PM2.5 Significance Threshold Age- Weighted Excess Risk for Infants Children Adults Cancer Risk Significance Threshold Chronic Non - Cancer Hazard Index Chronic Non - Cancer Significance Threshold Acute Non -Cancer Hazard Index Acute Non -Cancer Significance Threshold PM2.s Exposure; Excess Cancer Risk," and Chronic and Acute` Non - Cancer Hazard Index from Project Construction Activities at 0.161 µ9/m' 0.3 µg/m' No 7.53 in a million 2.26 in a million 0.75 in a million Excess Cancer Risk >10 x 10.6 No 0.032 Hazard Index >1.0 0.019 Hazard Index >1.0 No NOTES: a The predicted maximum one -hour DPM concentration is 1.606 /m' resulting from on -site total project pg g DPM emissions of 0.053 tons. The hourly to annual scaling factor is 0.1. AERSCREEN output thus indicates that project construction will produce a maximum annual DPM concentration of 0.0161 pg/m'. b The excess individual cancer risk factor for DPM exposure is approximately 300 in a million per 1 pg /m' of lifetime exposure (DPM (pg/ms) x ASF x 300 x le) +70 years. More recent research has determined that young children are substantially more sensitive to DPM exposure risk. If exposure occurs in the first several years of life, an age sensitivity factor (ASF) of 10 should be applied. For toddlers though mid -teens, the ASF is 3. C Based upon the ratio of speciated organic gases to DPM in diesel exhaust relative to peak 1 -hour concentrations. SOURCES: A screening -level individual cancer analysis was conducted to determine the maximum PM2. concentration from diesel exhaust. This concentration was combined with the DPM exposure unit risk factor to calculate the inhalation cancer risk from project - related construction activities at the closest sensitive receptor. The EPA AERSCREEN air dispersion model was used to evaluate concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 from diesel exhaust. The AERSCREEN model was developed to provide an easy to use method of obtaining pollutant concentration estimates and is a single source Gaussian plume model which provides a maximum one -hour round -level concentration. The model out it for this analysis is included in Attachment 2 of this report. NovEmBER2013 12 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE In addition to the above construction- related risk and hazard impacts, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would be exposed to cumulative risk and hazard impacts from the project's construction - related emissions in combination with existing stationary and mobile sources within approximately 1,000 feet of the project area. Therefore, in addition to project construction, possible local stationary or vehicular source emissions must be added to this concentration to determine the cumulative total. Specifically, the BAAQMD requires that existing stationary and mobile emissions (i.e. freeways or roadways with more than 10,000 vehicles per day) sources within 1,000 feet of the project area also be considered. Any potential cumulative health risk would, therefore, derive from project activities plus any existing identified risk sources within the project vicinity. According to BAAQMD records, there are no permitted sources within 1,000 feet of the project site or the MEI. There are no freeways within 1,000 feet of the site or MEI, but there are two roadways with average daily traffic volumes exceeding 10,000. When emissions from these roadways are considered, cumulative health risks woul at the MEI d be as indicated in Table 3. TABLE 3 CUMULATIVE RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS AT MEI FROM EXISTING MOBILE SOURCES Roadways with ADT of PM2s Excess Cancer Risk Concentration n uWrVY Union Avenue 10 feet 17,000 4.338 �V✓ Los Gatos Almaden Road 300 feet 10,000 1.097 0.169 To Roadwa s 5.435 NOTES: There were no freeways located 0.032 0.201 within 1,000 feet of the project site. a Interpolated for site - specific distances and ADTs. SOURCE: BAAQMD County surface Street Screening Tables, April 29, 2011. Available online at hnnJ/www 6e�.....e .......u_— _...�_ .. _. .... _ _ _ Table 4 presents total cumulative emissions at the MEI from mobile sources (Table 3) and the proposed project. As indicated in this table, cumulative emissions would not exceed the cumulative significance thresholds for risk and hazard impacts at new sensitive receptors. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative construction- related risk and hazard impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable, a less - than- significant impact. TABLE 4 CUMULATIVE RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS AT MEI FROM PROPOSED PROJECT AS WELL AS EXISTING MOBILE SOURCES Excess Cancer Risk PM2.5 Concentration Chronic Acute Ch TYPe (cases in a million) J...1-31 h Roadways 5.435 Proposed Project (worst -case) 7,528 Maximum Cumulative 12.96 Significance Threshold 100 SOURCES: Tables 1, 2, and 3. 3e. Odors 0.201 0.161 0.032 0.019 0.362 0.032 0.019 0.8 1 Project construction would generate nuisance diesel odors associated with operation of diesel construction equipment on -site (primarily during initial grading phases), but this effect would be localized, sporadic, and short-term in nature. Therefore, temporary impacts from nuisance diesel odors on adjacent residential NOVENWER 2013 13 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE receptors, which are located as close as five feet from the project boundary, are considered to be less than significant. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The project would not include any uses identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors. No new or unusual sources of nuisance odors would be associated with the proposed commercial use. Therefore, the project's potential for nuisance odor problems would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures — Air Quality (AQ) Although the project's construction- related air pollutant emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD's applicable significance thresholds, the BAAQMD recommends that the following measure be implemented on all construction projects to reduce the project - related construction emissions: AQ_I: Basic Construction Measures. To limit the project's construction - related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following BAAQMD- recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the project's grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications: a. 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. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. c visible v t vacuum street sweepers at least olnce per day. The use of dry power sweeping power sweeP ng is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No 4. Biological Resources - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, ❑ ❑ E sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? NOVEMBER 2013 14 INITIAL STUDY —258 UNION AVENUE c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands Less Than not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident Potentially With Less Than Issues (and SuPD01619 Information Sources) Significant Mitigati on Significant No b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other Im ct Inco orated Im ct impact sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and ❑ ❑ ❑ Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct ❑ ❑ ❑ removal, filling, 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 El ❑ ® ❑ 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? 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d. Special- Status Species, Sensitive Communities and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Movement, Corridors, Nursery Sites The project site is vacant with only landscape trees remaining from previous commercial use of the Property. Vegetation on the site consists of landscape trees along its eastern perimeter and sparse groundcover on the property. Trees along the eastern boundary of the site serve as an effective screening element for the nearby residential properties on Howes and Hershner courts. The habitat value of site vegetation is limited to urban- adapted species. There are no sensitive wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, nor are there any fish or wildlife migratory corridors or nursery sites on the site or in its vicinity. 4e. Tree and Biological Protection Ordinances Policy O.P.3.3 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasizes preservation of public and private landscaping along Town streets. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3 -1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy — Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24 -inch box size trees or two 36 -inch and/or 48 -inch box size trees, depending on the canopy size of the tree to be removed. A tree survey was prepared for the project by the Town's consulting arborist, Deborah Ellis, in April 2013. Copies of this study are on file with the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The Ellis assessment and revised project plans serve as the basis for the following evaluation of the project's potential effects on trees at the property. The Ellis survey identified a total of eight ordinance - protected trees of various species on the project site. ); one black walnut (Juglans calif These include: three camphor trees (Cinnamomum camphora); three evergreen ash (Fraxinus uhdei ornica); and one almond tree (Prunus dulcis). All of these trees are located NOVEMBER 2013 15 INITIAL STUDY —258 UNION AVENUE along the site's eastern perimeter, adjoining the rear yards of residential properties on Howes and Hershner courts. The arborist has evaluated each tree and determined that all of these trees are in fair to poor condition, with a recommendation to remove at least three of the trees in the southeast comer of the site. The project proposes to remove only one dead tree in this part of the site. As a potential option for future landscaping, the arborist has indicated that the project could remove all of these trees and replant trees or shrubs that would have a mature height of 20 to 25 feet. This would eliminate the need for future utility clearance pruning of the existing trees. However, the removal of all trees along the eastern site boundary would result in visual, screening, and privacy issues for the rear yards of the five homes adjoining the site to the east. The arborist's evaluation also identifies two off -site trees immediately north and south of the project site that will require protection similar to the site's protected trees. A hybrid madrone tree (Arbutus marina) is located near the northwest corner of the site. While the tree's canopy hangs low over the northern site boundary and extends approximately eight to ten feet onto the subject property, the tree is considered generally to be in good condition and in need of professional pruning. Additionally, an American sweet gum tree (Liquidambar styracii lua) is situated on the adjoining commercial property near the southwest comer of the site. This tree was recently topped and pruned and now has a "poor" structure. Project implementation would result in removal of one dead almond tree? ( #4 in arborist report or #5 in landscape plan). For screening purposes, the project proposes to plant three 24 -inch box camphor trees along the eastern property boundary. The Ellis report recommends the removal of a dead black walnut tree that was not included in the tree inventory of the Preliminary Landscape & Fencing Plan (Sheet LP- 1) and a third tree, an evergreen ash also in the southeast comer of the site (#2 in arborist report, #7 in landscape plan). Ellis' recommendations are included as Attachment 3. As a condition of project approval, the applicant will be required to comply with requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance (including Ellis' recommendations). Therefore, with this project condition, the project would not conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting trees. The Preliminary Landscape & Fencing Plan proposes to install purple leaf plum and dwarf citrus trees throughout the site along with four street trees. Other landscaping elements would include flowering vines on trellises, accent lawn areas along the Union Avenue units ( #'s 1 and 4) and in the common area, and bio- swales in front yard areas of units along Union Avenue. Private rear yard landscaping would be the responsibility of the individual owners. 4f. Habitat Conservation Plans The proposed project would not be in conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation significant No Issues (and Su Nn INOnnanon oou�w�� 5. Cultural Resources . Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.59 3 The almond tree is not a protected tree and the Tree Protection Ordinance does not require replacement trees for removed dead trees. NOVEMBER 2013 16 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENuF 5a. Historical Resources The project site is vacant with no structures on the property. Therefore, no significant impacts on historic resources would result from the project implementation. 5b, 5d. Archaeological Resources and Human Remains An archaeological literature review was undertaken by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University (file no. 12 -1659) to obtain information about recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites in and around the project area, and information about previous archaeological field studies of the project area and its surroundings. A copy of the Holman report is on file and available for public review at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The review of NWIC records' indicates that there has been no previous archaeological field inspection of the project area, and that there are no recorded historic or prehistoric sites within % mile of the project site. The lack of recorded prehistoric archaeological sites may be due to the relatively early historic buildout of this area, which precluded the systematic search for archaeological resources. Holman & Associates conducted a visual inspection of the project site on July 2, 2013. No evidence of historical or archaeological resources was discovered during the field inspection. A former structural pad, raised slightly above the remainder of the field, was evident in the northeast corner of the property; this was the location of the site's former restaurant and bar. Holman concluded that the project site has a low to moderate potential for containing buried cultural resources, and Ulerefore, mechanical subsurface presence /absence testing is not warranted, nor is it recommended that an archaeologist be present during construction- related earthmoving activities. However, the potential for discovery of obscured cultural resources during future development of the project site would still remain. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 would reduce this impact to a less- than- significant impact. 5c. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones), invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites, and marine coral), and fossils of microscopic plants and animals (microfossils). The age and abundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting, and particular geologic formation in which they are found. Fossil discoveries not only provide a historic record of past plant and animal life, but may assist geologists in dating rock formations. A review of records maintained by the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley indicates that the closest paleontological resources recorded in Santa Clara County occur approximately 15.5 miles west of Los Gatos. These resources were discovered in geologic strata dating from the Late Pliocene and Miocene epochs of the Tertiary Period (65 to 1.8 million years ago). NOVemaPat2013 17 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and SuPPortirig Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource Im aM Inco orated Im act Impact or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ 5a. Historical Resources The project site is vacant with no structures on the property. Therefore, no significant impacts on historic resources would result from the project implementation. 5b, 5d. Archaeological Resources and Human Remains An archaeological literature review was undertaken by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University (file no. 12 -1659) to obtain information about recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites in and around the project area, and information about previous archaeological field studies of the project area and its surroundings. A copy of the Holman report is on file and available for public review at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The review of NWIC records' indicates that there has been no previous archaeological field inspection of the project area, and that there are no recorded historic or prehistoric sites within % mile of the project site. The lack of recorded prehistoric archaeological sites may be due to the relatively early historic buildout of this area, which precluded the systematic search for archaeological resources. Holman & Associates conducted a visual inspection of the project site on July 2, 2013. No evidence of historical or archaeological resources was discovered during the field inspection. A former structural pad, raised slightly above the remainder of the field, was evident in the northeast corner of the property; this was the location of the site's former restaurant and bar. Holman concluded that the project site has a low to moderate potential for containing buried cultural resources, and Ulerefore, mechanical subsurface presence /absence testing is not warranted, nor is it recommended that an archaeologist be present during construction- related earthmoving activities. However, the potential for discovery of obscured cultural resources during future development of the project site would still remain. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 would reduce this impact to a less- than- significant impact. 5c. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones), invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites, and marine coral), and fossils of microscopic plants and animals (microfossils). The age and abundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting, and particular geologic formation in which they are found. Fossil discoveries not only provide a historic record of past plant and animal life, but may assist geologists in dating rock formations. A review of records maintained by the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley indicates that the closest paleontological resources recorded in Santa Clara County occur approximately 15.5 miles west of Los Gatos. These resources were discovered in geologic strata dating from the Late Pliocene and Miocene epochs of the Tertiary Period (65 to 1.8 million years ago). NOVemaPat2013 17 INITIAL STUDY —2$8 UNION AVENUE Geologic mapping° for the proposed project indicates the site is underlain by Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits. These deposits are more recent and differ in age from those containing the recorded paleontological resources. Consequently, the potential for encountering paleontological resources at the project site is considered to be low. Mitigation Measures — Cultural Resources (CUL) The following measures shall be implemented by the project applicant to reduce the project's potential impact on archaeological resources to a less - than - significant level: CUL -I: Observation by Construction Personnel. The project shall include the following conditions: a. Construction personnel involved with earthmoving shall be alerted to the potential for the discovery of prehistoric materials and in particular, concentrations of historic artifacts. Prehistoric archaeological resources could include but not be limited to the following: darker than surrounding soils of a friable nature, concentrations of stone, bone or fresh water shellfish, artifacts of these materials, and evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire altered earth or rock) and of course, burials, both human and animal. b. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 20 foot radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. c. In the event that it appears further earthmoving will affect a resource eligible for the California Register of Historic Resource (CRHR), a plan for evaluation of the resource through limited hand excavation should be submitted to the Town Planning Office for approval. If evaluative testing demonstrates that the project will affect a CRHR eligible resource, a plan for the mitigation of impacts to the resource should be submitted to the Community Development Department far approval before construction is allowed inside the zone designated as archaeologically sensitive. d. Mitigation can take the form of additional data retrieval through hand excavation combined with archaeological monitoring of all additional soil removal inside the zone of archaeological sensitivity to ensure that significant cultural resources are recorded and /or removed for further analysis before work is allowed to recommence. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No 6. Geology and Soils - Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) 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. 4 AMEC Geomatrix, Peer Review — Geotechnical Investigation Report and Plan, August 19, 2010. NOVEMBER 2013 18 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE A geotechnical investigation was conducted by Murray Engineers, Inc. in March 2013 to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the proposed project site and provide geotechnical recommendations for construction of site improvements' and a supplement was prepared in June 2013 that provides supplemental foundation recommendations.' The geotechnical report concluded that there are no substantial geotechnical hazards that would preclude the construction of the proposed improvements provided that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. This section presents the results of the geotechnical investigation along with published geologic information, which serve as the basis for the evaluation of geologic and seismic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. A copy of the geotechnical report and associated documents are included in Attachment 4. The proposed project site is located within the central region of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, which extends from the Oregon border south to the Transverse Ranges in Southern California. The topography is generally characterized by sub - parallel, northwest trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. The region has undergone a complex geologic history of volcanic activity, folding, faulting, uplift, erosion and sedimentation. The 0.75 -acre un -paved project site and immediate vicinity are relatively flat, though there is a 3 -foot high mound of fill materials in the northeast comer of the site. Based on published geologic mapping, the site is located in an area of upper Pleistocene -aged alluvial fan deposits (11,000 to 1.8 million years old).' The geotechnical evaluation for the project included the installation of four soil borings to depths of ' Murray Engineers, Inc., 2013. Geotechnical Investigation. Eight New Residences, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California. March 27. Murray Engineers, Inc., 2013. Post - Tensioned Slab Recommendations, Eight New Residences, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California. June 4. 7 Wentworth, C.M., Blake, M.C., McLaughlin, R.J., and Gmymer, R.W., 1999. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30x60 - Minute Quadrangle, California. Open -File Report 98 -795 Pan 7. Available online at ham:/ /pubs uses gov /of /] 998/of98- 795/of98 795 7b.odf. NOVEMBER 2013 19 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Imp ct Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No it) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ Impact iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) 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, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life ❑ ❑ ® El 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 waste water? A geotechnical investigation was conducted by Murray Engineers, Inc. in March 2013 to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the proposed project site and provide geotechnical recommendations for construction of site improvements' and a supplement was prepared in June 2013 that provides supplemental foundation recommendations.' The geotechnical report concluded that there are no substantial geotechnical hazards that would preclude the construction of the proposed improvements provided that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. This section presents the results of the geotechnical investigation along with published geologic information, which serve as the basis for the evaluation of geologic and seismic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. A copy of the geotechnical report and associated documents are included in Attachment 4. The proposed project site is located within the central region of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, which extends from the Oregon border south to the Transverse Ranges in Southern California. The topography is generally characterized by sub - parallel, northwest trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. The region has undergone a complex geologic history of volcanic activity, folding, faulting, uplift, erosion and sedimentation. The 0.75 -acre un -paved project site and immediate vicinity are relatively flat, though there is a 3 -foot high mound of fill materials in the northeast comer of the site. Based on published geologic mapping, the site is located in an area of upper Pleistocene -aged alluvial fan deposits (11,000 to 1.8 million years old).' The geotechnical evaluation for the project included the installation of four soil borings to depths of ' Murray Engineers, Inc., 2013. Geotechnical Investigation. Eight New Residences, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California. March 27. Murray Engineers, Inc., 2013. Post - Tensioned Slab Recommendations, Eight New Residences, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California. June 4. 7 Wentworth, C.M., Blake, M.C., McLaughlin, R.J., and Gmymer, R.W., 1999. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30x60 - Minute Quadrangle, California. Open -File Report 98 -795 Pan 7. Available online at ham:/ /pubs uses gov /of /] 998/of98- 795/of98 795 7b.odf. NOVEMBER 2013 19 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE approximately 12 to 16 feet below ground surface! The geologic materials encountered during this investigation were generally medium dense to very dense materials, and groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. Boring B -2, completed through the fill mound in the northeastern portion of the project site, encountered approximately 3 feet of fill materials comprised of medium dense clayey sand with gravel underlain by 21h feet of medium dense silty sand alluvium which is in turn underlain by dense to very dense silty sand with gravel. This was the only boring that encountered fill, and the materials encountered in each of the remaining borings consisted of alluvial materials comprised of stiff sandy to silty clay, and medium dense to very dense clayey sand with gravel, medium dense silty sand, or dense to very dense silty sand with gravel. With the exception of fine - grained materials encountered in the uppermost three feet of Boring B -1, all of the alluvial materials are coarse - grained. Drilling refusal was met at a depth of 14 feet in Boring B -4. 6a. Seismic Hazards The San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, and Greenville faults are major active strike -slip faults' in the San Francisco Bay Region. The USGS estimates that there is a 63% probability of a strong earthquake (magnitude [Mw] 6.7 or higher) occurring on one of these regional faults in the 30 -year period between 2003 and 2032. The active faults closest to the project site include the San Andreas Fault located approximately six miles to the southwest and the Hayward and Calaveras faults located approximately I I and 14 miles northeast of the project site, respectively. In additionally, the potentially active Monte Vista- Shannon Fault zone is located approximately 0.7 miles to the southwest of the project site. Potential seismic hazards resulting from earthquake activity on one of these faults include ground rupture (also called surface faulting); ground shaking; liquefaction and the related effects of settlement and lateral spreading; and landsliding. These hazards are discussed below. Ground Rupture. No known active faults cross the site, and the proposed project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone't or Santa Clara County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.12 Therefore the potential for fault rupture at the site is low and this impact is less than significant. Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. The degree of shaking that would be expected at a particular site is dependent on the distance from the earthquake source, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the type, thickness, and condition of the geologic materials (bedrock, sediment, soil, fill). Based on mapping prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project site could experience very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on the northern San Andreas Fault, the closest active fault to the project site." s Murray Engineers, Inc., 2013. Geotechnical Investigation. Eight New Residences, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California March 27. 9 Strike -slip faults involve the two blocks moving parallel to each other without a vertical component of movement. 10 U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), 2008. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2). By the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Open File Report 2007 -1437. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1437/ 11 State of California, Department of Conservation, 1991. State of California Special Studies Zones, Los Gatos Quadrangle, Revised Official Map. November 1. Available online at It :// mw.consrv.ca. ov /shm /download/ uad /LOS GATOS /ma s /LOSGATOS.PDF 12 The County of Santa Clara, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26. Accessed at hu : / /www.scc ov.or /sites/ tannin /GIS /GeoHazardZones /Documents /GeohazardMa sATLAS2, df 13 Association of Bay Area Governments, Hazard Maps, Shaking Maps, 2003. Accessed at httn I /eis3 abag ca gov/W ebsite /Shaking - Maps /viewer.btm on October 3, 2013. NOVEMBER 2013 20 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE In accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), applicants for a building permit are required to determine the appropriate seismic design criteria for the proposed structures to resist seismic forces. The criteria are determined on the basis of soil type, the magnitude of the controlling seismic event, slip rate of the nearest fault, and distance to the nearest active fault. The structural design for the proposed homes would be based on Chapter 16 of the 2010 CBC, which provides criteria for the seismic design of buildings. The seismic design parameters, determined in accordance with the CBC, are listed in Table 5. TABLE 5 CBC SITE CATEGORIZATION AND SITE COEFFICIENTS Site Class .� 0.2- second Period Mapped Spectral Accele=Acceleration— _ I- second Period Mapped Spectral Accelera0.7818 Z.osg 0.2- sedond Period, Design Earthquake Spection — SDS 1.4038 I- second Period, Design Earthquake Spectron — SDI 0.78lg SOURCE: Murray Engineers, 2013 Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead and live loads. Therefore, structures designed in accordance with the CBC should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. While conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, it is reasonable to expect that a well- designed and well - constructed structure would not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake. As part of its review, the Town of Los Gatos Building Division would review the planned design to confirm compliance with the CBC. Because compliance with the CBC should ensure that the buildings constructed under the proposed project do not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake, impacts related to groundshaking would be less than significant. Liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary, but essentially total loss of shear strength because of pore pressure build -up under the stresses associated with earthquakes. The project site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction potential14 or identified Santa Clara County Liquefaction Hazard Zone." The geotechnical report for the project also concludes that potential for liquefaction is low because the groundwater level is below 16 feet and the underlying geologic materials are generally cohesive and well consolidated alluvial materials. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction are less than significant. 14 California Geological Survey, 2002. State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Los Gatos Quadrangle, September 23.Accessed at htt :!/ mw.consrv.ca.00v /sbm /download! uad/LOS GATOS /ma s /ozn loaf. df 1° The County of Santa Clara, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26. Accessed at httP: / /www sccaov ore /sites /planning /GIS /GeoHazardZones/ Documents /Geobg7a MapsATI.AS2 ndf NOVEMBER 2013 21 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE Seismic Landsiiding. The proposed project site is relatively level, and is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake- induced landslide potential16 or Santa Clara County Landslide Hazard Zone." Therefore, the potential for seismically- induced landslides is low and this impact is less than significant. 6b. Soil Erosion and Loss of Topsoil Without proper soil stabilization controls, construction activities such as excavation, backfilling, and grading can increase the potential for soil loss and erosion by wind and stormwater runoff through the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of areas of loose soil, even on relatively flat properties such as the proposed project site. During construction of the proposed project, soil disturbance would occur over much of the 0.75 -acre site for excavation, grading, and other earth moving activities and these construction- related activities would increase the potential for soil erosion. However, once the project is constructed, the site would be completely covered with buildings, pavement, landscaping, or stormwater controls that would promote groundwater infiltration. Further, the proposed project would not involve construction on an existing slope or result in newly created slopes that would substantially increase the potential for long -term erosion. Therefore, potential erosion - related impacts would be restricted to the construction period. During construction, the project applicant would be required to comply with the requirements of Chapter 12 of the Town Code (Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control) as a condition of project approval as discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Compliance with the Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control provisions of the Town Code includes obtaining a grading permit and implementing an approved erosion and sediment control plan that would specify the use of best management practices to restrict soil erosion during construction. With implementation of the legally required actions of the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control requirements of the Town Code as a condition of approval, geologic impacts related to erosion during construction would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site has been historically developed and the previous buildings have been demolished. Construction of the previous development would have removed any topsoil historically present. Therefore, there is not a well- developed topsoil horizon at the project site, and there would be no impact related to loss of topsoil. 6c. Instability The project site is not located within a Santa Clara County Compressible Soil or Landslide Hazard Zone1s indicating that neither of these potential hazards would affect the project site. Further, the project would not include construction of basements or other subsurface structures that would involve substantial excavations that could become unstable. However, the geotechnical report for the project concludes that in the event of a major earthquake, the fill materials in the northeastern corner of the project site could experience differential settlement relative to the surrounding medium dense to very dense alluvial materials. Therefore, impacts related to location on a geologic unit or soil that could become unstable as a result of the project are considered significant. This impact would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 16 California Geological Survey, 2002. State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Los Gatos Quadrangle, September 23. Accessed at htt // mw consrn ca ov /shmp /download /quad /LOS GATOS /maps /ozn Igat -pdf The County of Santa Clara, 2012. Santa Clara County Georgic Hazard Zones. October 26. A Accessed pdf at 'a The County of Santa Clara, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26. Accessed at httpl//WWNV.Sccgov.org/si ;/ lanni g IGIS/GeoHavirdZones[Documents/GeohazardMapsATLAS2.pd f NovEmBen2013 22 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE GEO -1, which species implementation of the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation addressing removal of non - engineered soft geologic materials and replacement with engineered fill as well as appropriate design of the building foundations and building slabs to avoid damage from differential settlement. If the recommendations of the geotechnical report are implemented, differential settlement over 30 years should not exceed 1 inch across any 20 -foot span." 6d. Expansive Soils Expansive soils can undergo significant volume changes with variations in moisture content and are known to shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. The geotechnical report for the project found that the surficial soils have a plasticity index of 5 percent and a liquid limit of 21 percent, corresponding to a low expansion potential. Therefore, impacts related to risks to life and property as a result of construction on expansive soils would be less than significant. 6e. Wastewater Treatment The proposed project would be served by the West Valley Sanitation District sanitary sewer, and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact related to this topic. Mitigation Measures — Geology and Soils (GEO) The following measure shall be implemented by the applicant to reduce the project's seismic, geologic, and soil impacts to less - than- significant levels: GEO-l: Implement Geotechnicallnvestigation Recommendations. The recommendations of the Murray Engineers geotechnical investigation (March 27, 2013), Post- Tensioned Slab Recommendations (June 4, 2013), and any subsequent geotechnical investigations shall be incorporated in the final construction plans for the proposed project (Attachment 4). These recommendations address removal of non - engineered soft geologic materials and replacement with engineered fill or compacted materials as well as appropriate design of the building foundations and building slab to avoid damage from differential settlement. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No Ira act Inco orated 7. Greenhouse Gases -Would the project: Impact Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any F-1 El applicable threshold of significance? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, 19 Murray Engineers, Inc., 2013. Geotechnical Investigation, Eight New Residences March 27. Avenue, 258 Union Aven, Los Gams, California. NoVEMBER2013 23 INITIAL STUDY —258 UNION AVENUE and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. GHGs are typically reported in the "carbon dioxide equivalent" measure (CO2e) ?o Significance Thresholds and Criteria. Exercising its own discretion as lead agency and similar to other San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions, the Town of Los Gatos s decided in the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared Y e BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the BAAQMD's 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The Town believes that these recommendations still represent the best available science on the subject of what constitutes significant GHG effects on climate change (particularly in light of the California Court of Appeal's reversal of the Alameda County Superior Court judgment that invalidated the BAAQMD's CEQA thresholds of significance), and they are as follows: Corn with a Qualified Climate Action Plan (or similar adopted policies, ordinances, an d m programs) that includes enforceable measures to reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 goals or Executive Order S -03 -05 targets; OR 1,100 MT CO-2e per year OR • 6.7 MT CO2e per capita per year (residential) / 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year (mixed use) For purposes of this report, project compliance with the 1,100 MT CO2e /year threshold is used as the primary basis to determine significance. The project's consistency with operative goals and policies of the Sustainability Plan that are designed to avoid environmental impacts also is analyzed as a secondary basis for assessing significance. To fully implement the Sustainability Plan, though, the Town Council must take a number of future steps, such as adopting a Green Building Ordinance and developing GreenPoint Rated Building Guidelines. Consistency of any proposed project or program with the Sustainability Plan is one of the criteria used to determine the significance of a project's GHG emissions under CEQA. Because many of the Plan's most stringent aspects will only become fully operational when such future measures are in place, however, compliance with existing Sustainability Plan requirements, by itself, is not sufficient at this time to support a determination that a project's greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant by definition. Although the Plan contains a comprehensive long -range strategy to achieve sustainability in transportation, land use, energy conservation, water use, solid waste reduction and open space preservation, the Plan will not be fully implemented until the Town Council takes a number of future steps, such as adopting a Green Building Ordinance and developing GreenPoint Rated Building Guidelines.21 When these steps have been taken, the Town intends that compliance with the Plan and its implementing actions (e.g., the Green Building Ordinance) should be sufficient by itself to reduce projects' greenhouse gas emissions to less - than- significant levels. (See CEQA Section 15183.5 m Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in " carbon- ad each dioxide - equivalents," which represent a weighted average based on the heat absorption (or "climate change') p gas. This allows the total GHG emissions resulting from a project or activity to be expressed as a single number that represents the total carbon footprint resulting from that project or activity. 21 The Town Council adopted the Build -it -Green standards for residential development in 2008. The applicant has completed a GreenPoint Rated Checklist that indicates the project would exceed the minimum standard of 50 points for green certification. The Town will include a condition of approval requiring the project to be certified by a qualified GreenPoint evaluation. NOVEMBER 2013 24 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE [compliance with the requirements of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be sufficient to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from individual projects to less - than- significant levels].) 7a. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Short-term GHG emissions would be generated by project - related construction activities. In addition, project implementation would also contribute to long -term increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from direct sources (traffic increases). The proposed project would also result in other indirect operational increases in GHG emissions as a result of electricity generation to meet project - related increases in energy demand. Electricity generation in California is mainly from natural gas -fired power plants. However, since California imports about 20 to 25 percent of its total electricity (mainly from the northwestern and southwestern states), GHG emissions associated with electricity generation could also occur outside of California. Space or water heating, water delivery, wastewater processing and solid waste disposal also generate GHG emissions. The CalEEMod 2011. 1.1 computer model was used to calculate GHG emissions that would be generated by the construction and operation of proposed residences, and results are presented in Table 6. TABLE 6 Project - Related Construction and Operational GHG Emissions GHG Source Project MT CO=e/year 2014 Construction Emissions 63.3 Operational Emissions - Area 1.6 - Energy 31.7 - Mobile 741 - Waste 4.4 - Water 1.8 Total 113.6 CEQA Significance Threshold <11100 MT COZe SOURCE: CalEEMod Output (see Attachment 2) As indicated in Table 6, project construction would generate up to approximately 63 metric tons of CO2- equivalents (MT COze) per year.' The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for construction- related GHG emissions, but the project's estimated construction - related GHG emissions are expected to have a less - than - significant impact on global climate change. For comparison purposes, this emissions rate is well below this report's operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of COZe per year, which would be an indication that the project's construction- related GHG emissions would be less than significant. The proposed project would also be subject to the existing CARB regulation (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485), which limits idling of diesel vehicles, and compliance with this regulation would further reduce GHG emissi - fueled commercial motor ons associated with project construction vehicles (compliance with idling limits is required under Mo h nsa ass ss Measure h u Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs. GHG emissions are frequently measured in "carbon dioxide - equivalents" or COie, which present a weighted average based on each gas's heat absorption (or "global warming ") potential. When CO, and non -0O2 GHG emissions are considered together, they are referenced as COfe, which add approximately 0.9 percent to CO 2 emissions from diesel equipment exhaust (California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1, January 2009. Available online at bttR://www.climatemgist!y.org/1001s/pmtocols/gencral reporting - protocol hlml. See Attachment 2 for other construction assumpuons. NOVEMBER 2013 25 INITIAL STUDY —258 UNION AVENUE in Section 3, Air Quality). The BAAQMD also encourages implementation of construction- related GHG reduction strategies where feasible, such as: using altemative- fueled (e. g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles /equipment such that these vehicles /equipment comprise at least 15 percent of the fleet; using local building materials such that these materials comprise at least 10 percent of all construction materials; and recycling or reusing at least 50% of construction waste or demolition materials. None of these measures is specifically proposed as part of the project, but the project would be required to divert at least 50% of construction waste or demolition materials as required by the Town Building Code. Project operation is estimated to generate approximately 114 MT Cote per year. Such an increase would not exceed this report's significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the project's operational GHG emissions would be less than significant. 7b. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, Policies, and Regulations California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is in the process of developing CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions but thresholds have yet to be established. GHG statutes and executive orders (EO) include EO S -1 -07, EO S -3 -05, EO S- 13 -08, EO S- 14-08, EO S- 20 -04, EO S- 21 -09, AB 32, AB 1493, AB 3018, SB 97, S13375, SB 1078/107, and SB 1368. AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to reduced statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Pursuant to this requirement, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies to achieve required reductions by 2020. As indicated above, the project's construction - related and operational GHG emissions would not exceed this report's significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e. This threshold is based on the BAAQMD's 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which in turn, relates to AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Therefore, the project's GHG emissions would not conflict with plans and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, a less - than- significant impact. In October 2012, the Town of Los Gatos adopted a Sustainability Plan, which outlines communitywide GHG emission reduction measures necessary to reduce GHG emissions in Los Gatos. By 2020, the Sustainability Plan documents that GHG emissions will be reduced by approximately 15% from the business -as -usual (BALI) assumption. The emissions reductions vary by sector. The Sustainability Plan contains GHG reduction measures and implements goals and policies of the Environment and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. In general, the proposed project would be consistent with currently applicable Sustainability Plan GHG reduction measures and associated General Plan policies. Project consistency with these policies is discussed in the following project consistency analysis table. GB. I: Green Building Ordinance. Develop a Green Building Ordinance that requires energy - efficient design, in excess of Title 24 standards, for all new residential and non - residential buildings. When developing the Ordinance, consider development - level thresholds for when certain requirements are triggered. Require 30 percent above the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency standards in Title 24 to coincide with the Voluntary Tier 2 standards of the California Green Building Code (CALGreen). Encourage the use of cement substitutes and recvcled building materials for new construction. NovEmBER 2013 Since the Town has not yet adopted a Green Building Ordinance that would require projects to achieve energy efficiency 30% greater than required by the 2008 version of Title 24, project residences are not required to comply with this ordinance. However, the project design would achieve energy efficiency 15% greater than Title 24 requirements. Appliances meeting ENERGY STAR standards have not been specified in project plans. 26 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE Plan Require new development to use energy - efficient appliances that meet ENERGY STAR standards and energy - efficient lighting technologies that exceed Title 24 standards by 30%. GB -2 GreenPoint Rated Building Guidelines. Require all new and significantly remodeled homes to follow the Town's adopted GreenPoint Rated Building Guidelines. Significantly remodeled homes include remodels of 50 percent or more of the square footage or wall area of the home, and addition as of 50 percent or more of the square footage or wall area of the home. un -a incennves jor Green Building Certification. Allow greater flexibility and other incentives (e.g., permitting- related) for LEED Silver certification or equivalent GreenPoint rating, for example, by giving green projects priority in plan review and A GreenPoint Rated checklist for the project has been completed and incorporated into project plans, as required by the Town. A home is considered green if it fulfills the prerequisites, earns at least 50 points, and meets the following minimum points per category: Energy (30), Indoor Air Quality Health (5), Resources (6), and Water (9). The project design would meet these criteria with an overall score of 61 and points that slightly exceed the above minimum nointa in Path Because the Town has not yet developed incentives for Green Building Certification, no such incentives are currently available to the project. GB -4: Solar Orientation. Require measures that Passive solar design has been considered in the project reduce energy use through solar orientation by design. Depending on each residence's location on the site, taking advantage of shade, prevailing winds, the west sides of project residences would be designed landscaping, and sun screens. with porches, large overhangs, awnings, garages, and/or proper solar orientation (i.e., south facing roof area less west - facing glazing to reduce summer heat gain. sloped at 20° to 55° from the horizontal); clear Larger glazing would be located on the east side of all access on the south sloped roof (i.e., no chimneys, residences to promote desirable morning sun and reduce heating vents, or plumbing vents); electrical conduit the use of electric lighting. A crawl space and attic have installed for solar electric system wiring • plumbing been provided for in each unit to fully insulate units and reduce heating requirements. Most rooms are designed with more than one window to allow natural cross ventilation. RE -2 New Solar Homes Partnership. Require that The Town will require the project applicant to participate residential projects of six units or more participate in in the New Solar Homes Partnership. the California Energy Commission's New Solar Homes Partnership, which provides rebates to developers of six or more units who offer solar power in 50 percent of new units and is a component of the California Solar Initiative, or a similar program with solar power requirements equal to or greater than those of the California Energy Commission's New Solar Homes Partnership. RE -5 Solar Ready Features. Where feasible, require Proposed residences would be designed to be "solar ready" that all new buildings be constructed to allow for the and proposed locations of solar photovoltaic panels (facing easy, cost effective installation offuture solar energy "Solar west and south) are shown on project plans. Photovoltaics systems. Ready" features should include: has not been shown on Units 1 and 4 for aesthetic reasons proper solar orientation (i.e., south facing roof area (views from Union Avenue). sloped at 20° to 55° from the horizontal); clear access on the south sloped roof (i.e., no chimneys, heating vents, or plumbing vents); electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring • plumbing NOVEMBER 2013 27 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE ailed for hot water system; and space a solar hot water storage tank. EC -1: Energy - Efficient Appliances and Lighting. Require new development to use energy - efficient appliances that meet ENERGY STAR standards and energy - efficient lighting technologies that exceed Title 24 standards by 30 %. EC -2: Promotion of Energy Conservation. Partner with Pacific Gas & Electric and other appropriate energy providers to promote energy conservation, including the following, which would be primarily funded by the energy providers: • Promote the purchase of ENERGY STAR appliances. • Promote individualized energy management planning and related services for large energy users. • Fund and schedule energy efficiency retrofits or "tune -ups" of existing buildings. • Pursue incentives and grants for energy conservation. EC -3: Energy- Efficient Outdoor Lighting. Require outdoor lighting fixtures to be energy - efficient. Require parking lot light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings to be on full cut -off fixtures, except emergency exit or safety lighting, and all permanently installed exterior lighting shall be controlled by either a photocell or an astronomical time switch. Prohibit continuous all night outdoor lighting in construction sites unless required for security reasons. Because the Town has not yet coordinated with PG &E to promote energy conservation as contemplated by Policy EC -2, the project would not be subject to the anticipated future requirements that may come out of such a coordinated effort. The project, however, will be required to meet CALGreen building standards for insulation, which would reduce the amount of heating and cooling necessary for the building. Design details, such as smart meters, programmable interior lights, motion sensors on lighting, programmable thermostats by zone, have not been specified by the applicant and but will be reviewed by the Town as part of Architecture and Site (A &S) review. Mandatory CalGreen measures will be included in the construction plans. Project plans indicate that fluorescent ENERGY STAR - certified exterior lighting fixtures would be used. db n WW -1: Water Use and Efficiency Requirements. For All landscaped areas are proposed to be watere y a underground irrigation system using `smart' irrigation new development, require all water use and measures identified as voluntary in the controller to installed along with rain- sensing override efficiency California Green Building Standards Code, and devices. All lawn and ground cover area would be valve systems. The system would be consider more stringent targets. California Green irrigated on separate installed in conformance with all local codes and Building Standards Code requirements include: 1) use by 20 percent after ordinances and water - efficient landscape ordinances. reduce indoor potable water the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture The proposed landscaping plan indicates that turf areas meeting performance requirements, and 2) reduce outdoor would be minimized (510% of landscaped area) and shade potable water use by 50 percent from a calibrated trees would be planted. mid - summer baseline case, for example, through High efficiency toilets are proposed to be installed in irrigation efficiency, plant species, recycled project residences. wastewater, and captured rainwater. Establish Town requirements for discretionary projects regarding watering timing, water - efficient irrigation equipment, water - efficient fixtures, and offsetting demand so that there is no net increase in imported water use. Include clear parameters for integrating water conservation infrastructure and technologies, including low-flush toilets and low-flow Nov wBER2013 28 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE Sustainability Plan GHG Reduction Measures showerheads. As appropriate, partner with local water conservation companies on the development and implementation of this measure. Pro'ect Consistent Analysis WW -3: Bay Friendly Landscaping. Require new development to use native or other Non - invasive, native species are included in the proposed plants landscaping plan. appropriate non - invasive plants that are drought - Significant Mitigation significant No lm tolerant, as described in the Bay Friendly act Into orated lm ct Im act Landscaping Guidelines, available at StopWaste.org and BayFriendlyCoalition.org. ❑ ® ❑ El SW -l: Construction Waste Diversion. Revise the existing Diversion of 50 percent of construction waste is already construction and demolition ordinance to require at least 50 percent diversion (i.e. reuse required as part of the Town Building Code and indicated or recycling) of non - hazardous construction waste from ,i:....,..... r on the project's GreenPoint Rated checklist that it would be implemented. Consistency of the project with most of the above GHG reduction measures will be determined by the Town as part of A &S review and the Town will presumably require incorporation of design measures to ensure consistency with the Sustainability Plan. Based on this review and the project's less -than- significant GHG emissions, the proposed project would not hinder the state's GHG reduction goals established by AB 32, a less- than- significant impact. NOVEMBER 2013 29 Less Than significant Potentially with Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation significant No lm 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: act Into orated lm ct Im act a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ❑ ® ❑ El 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, would it 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 public use airport, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in ❑ ❑ ❑ the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ® El NOVEMBER 2013 29 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ® El involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are El adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 8a. Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Development of the new residences under the proposed project would result in an increase in the generation of household hazardous wastes that are typical of any residential area. Common household hazardous wastes such as paint, pesticides, used oil and antifreeze, could result in direct or indirect effects on human health and the environment if not appropriately handled and disposed of. In addition to water quality impacts from stormwater runoff, other potential impacts could result from improper handling or disposal of hazardous household chemicals. The household hazardous wastes may be disposed of at one of the Santa Clara County household hazardous waste facilities by making and appointment with the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program. Although Los Gatos residents can legally dispose of household hazardous wastes under the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, the project's impacts related to the generation and disposal of hazardous waste would be potentially significant because not all residents are knowledgeable in the identification of hazardous wastes and appropriate disposal requirements. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, which requires implementation of a Buyer Education Program to educate residents about the identification of household hazardous wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. 8b, 8d. Release of or Exposure to Hazardous Materials A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was prepared for the project site in 2013 to identify conditions that could affect soil or groundwater quality at the site.' The Phase I ESA included a review of historical sources (historic aerial photographs between 1948 and 2005, local City Directories from as early as 1968, and local building department records)24 to identify historic land uses that could have involved the use of hazardous materials; site observations; and a review of environmental databases to evaluate whether there are current or past hazardous materials uses at the site or in the vicinity that could affect soil and groundwater quality at the proposed project site. Site History. Historical sources reviewed for the Phase I ESA indicate that the site was used for orchards until sometime between 1956 and 1968. By 1968, the site consisted of a vacant grassy field, and there was a gasoline service station located nearby at the intersection of Union Avenue and Los Gatos Almaden Road which is approximately 325 feet to the north. In 1973, the Country Oaks Woodpit Bar -B -Q was constructed in the northeast corner of the project site. Historic city directories indicate that this restaurant was on the property until about 1984. The 1998 aerial photograph indicates that the building had been demolished. However, historic city directories show that O'Shea's Bar and Grill was on the property between about 1993 and 1998, and the building department records reviewed include a 2001 permit to demolish O /Shea's Restaurant and bar at the site. The city directories do not list any businesses on the za Piers Environmental Services, Inc., 2013. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for: 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California. August. v Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are commonly reviewed for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, but the Phase I ESA reports that there is no coverage for the proposed project site. NOVFMBFR2013 30 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE property between 1998 and 2008. The 2002 aerial photograph also indicates that the gasoline service station to the north was demolished. The project site is currently a vacant lot. The site reconnaissance identified a sewer cleanout and two pieces of sewer pipe in the area of the former building. As also noted in Section 6, Geology and Soils, there is a large pile of debris and fill material in the northeast comer of the project site. The project site is not listed in any of the environmental databases reviewed for the Phase I ESA. In addition, the adjoining land uses to the north, east, and south are residential while a Safeway store and strip mall area located across Union Avenue to the east. None of the surrounding sites identified in the environmental database review were considered to have the potential to affect soil or groundwater quality at the proposed project site. Impact Assessment. Because the site was used for orchards after 1944, organochlorine pesticides, including DDT, may have been used for pest control.25 Pesticides that contain arsenic may have also been used. However, because the site has historically been developed for restaurant purposes since use for orchards, and would have been graded for construction and removal of the buildings and associated parking lot, there is a low potential that the remaining site soils would contain pesticides at substantial levels. Therefore, impacts associated with exposure to hazardous materials in the soil would be less than significant. 8c. Hazardous Emissions or Use of Extremely Hazardous Materials Hazardous air emissions are toxic air contaminants identified by the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Extremely hazardous materials are defined by the State of California in Section 25532 (2)(g) of the Health and Safety Code. The proposed project is located approximately 800 feet east of Union Middle School and 1,000 feet west of Stratford School. However, only common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cements, adhesives, and petroleum products (such as asphalt, oil, and fuel) would be used during construction, none of which are considered extremely hazardous materials. Once constructed, the residents would not use extremely hazardous materials nor emit toxic air contaminants. The only toxic air contaminant that would be emitted during construction is diesel particulate matter (DPM) and impacts associated with these emissions are addressed in Section 3d, Air Quality, Exposure of Sensitive Receptors. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or the use of extremely hazardous substances within V4 -mile of a school would be less than significant. 8e, 8f. Airports/Airstrips The nearest airports or airstrips to the project site are the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport and Reid Hillview Airport, located 7 or more miles to the northeast. Therefore, there is no impact associated with safety hazards due to location of the project within 2 miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. 8g. Emergency Plans The project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan because the project would be required to comply with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications to ensure adequate emergency access to project buildings by fire engines and ladder trucks. Therefore, the project's impact related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant. u Califomia Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2008. Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision). August 7. Available online at http: / /www dtsc,ca.eov /Schools /unload /Ae- Guidance Rev 3 Au ust 7 2008 2 odf NOVENMER 2013 31 INITIAL STUDY —258 UNION AVENUE 8h. Wildland Fire Hazards The proposed project site is not located in a fire hazard severity zone within a local responsibility azeaZb or state responsibility area." in addition, fire protection would be provided by the Mountain View Fire Department and there is adequate water pressure and water quantity for fire protection during construction and operation of the project as discussed in Section 17, Utilities and Service Systems. Therefore, impacts related to wildland fire hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures — Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ) The following measures shall be implemented by the project applicant to reduce the project's hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less - than - significant levels: HAZ -1: Buyer Education Program. The project sponsor, working with the Town of Los Gatos and County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, shall implement a Buyer Education Program for Household Hazardous Waste. The program shall include developing materials to educate buyers about the identification of household hazardous wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. At a minimum, the materials shall provide a list of example household hazardous wastes, discuss the environmental impacts of improper disposal, explain how to make an appointment for disposal, and list safer and less toxic alternatives to hazardous products commonly used. The educational materials shall be provided to the buyer at the time of purchase. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su ortin Information Sources impact Inco orated Impact Im act 9. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ® ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ® ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ❑ ❑ in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ® El through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ❑ ❑ or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? u California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007. Santa Clara County Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. October 4. Available online at htt /lwww.f'ire.m.gov/fire prevention /fhsz mans samadarA-012. r° California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007. Santa Clara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. November 7. Available online at hup,//www.fire.ca.R0v/fire prevention /fhsz maps santaclara.php. NOVEMBER 2013 32 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE The project site is located in the urbanized, storm - sewered Union Avenue area of Los Gatos, in the Guadalupe River watershed .28 Storm drains in the vicinity of the project site discharge into Ross Creek where it is contained in an engineered channel.29 This creek flows through San Jose, joining Guadalupe River approximately 3 miles downstream of the project site, and stream flows from the river ultimately discharge into San Francisco Bay via Alviso Slough. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCV WD) has implemented two recent flood control projects downstream of the proposed project site, including a bank repair program immediately upstream of the crossing with Harwood Road 3' and a sediment removal project near the crossing with Meridian Avenue." 9a, 9f. Water Quality The Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program regulates water quality degradation. This program was established by the Clean Water Act to control and reduce pollutants carried to water bodies from point and non -point discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program through nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from the Town of Los Gatos is a permit that is issued to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program ( SCVURPPP), referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The SCVURPPP is an association of thirteen cities /towns in the Santa Clara Valley (including Los Gatos), Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District that share a common NPDES permit to discharge stormwater to South San Francisco Bay. To reduce pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum" extent practicable, the SCVURPP 'a Eisenberg, Oliveris & Associates, 2013. 258 Union Avenue — Second Review of Project Submittals for Compliance with Stormwater Requirements. August 27. ' Sowers, Janet M. and Givler, Robert S ( William Lettis & Associates), 2006. Creek & Watershed Map of South San Jose. Available online at htto:// museumca.org /emeks/WholeMaos /14 Sou th %20San%20Jose %20Creek%20Mao odf. " Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2013. Neighborhood Work12013, Ross Creek Bank Repair Project. August 19. Available online at www.valleVwater.orpJWorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10228. " Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Neighborhood Work, Ross Creek Sediment Removal. July 25. Available online at wwwvallevwaterore /WorkArea/DownloadAsseLasox ?id 8404. NOVEMBER 2013 33 Less Than Issues (and SuPPOrting Information Sources) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Potentially Significant Im act ❑ Significant With Mitigation Inco orated ❑ Less Than Significant Impact ® No Impact ❑ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ F1 ❑ ❑ h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project site is located in the urbanized, storm - sewered Union Avenue area of Los Gatos, in the Guadalupe River watershed .28 Storm drains in the vicinity of the project site discharge into Ross Creek where it is contained in an engineered channel.29 This creek flows through San Jose, joining Guadalupe River approximately 3 miles downstream of the project site, and stream flows from the river ultimately discharge into San Francisco Bay via Alviso Slough. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCV WD) has implemented two recent flood control projects downstream of the proposed project site, including a bank repair program immediately upstream of the crossing with Harwood Road 3' and a sediment removal project near the crossing with Meridian Avenue." 9a, 9f. Water Quality The Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program regulates water quality degradation. This program was established by the Clean Water Act to control and reduce pollutants carried to water bodies from point and non -point discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program through nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from the Town of Los Gatos is a permit that is issued to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program ( SCVURPPP), referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The SCVURPPP is an association of thirteen cities /towns in the Santa Clara Valley (including Los Gatos), Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District that share a common NPDES permit to discharge stormwater to South San Francisco Bay. To reduce pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum" extent practicable, the SCVURPP 'a Eisenberg, Oliveris & Associates, 2013. 258 Union Avenue — Second Review of Project Submittals for Compliance with Stormwater Requirements. August 27. ' Sowers, Janet M. and Givler, Robert S ( William Lettis & Associates), 2006. Creek & Watershed Map of South San Jose. Available online at htto:// museumca.org /emeks/WholeMaos /14 Sou th %20San%20Jose %20Creek%20Mao odf. " Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2013. Neighborhood Work12013, Ross Creek Bank Repair Project. August 19. Available online at www.valleVwater.orpJWorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10228. " Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Neighborhood Work, Ross Creek Sediment Removal. July 25. Available online at wwwvallevwaterore /WorkArea/DownloadAsseLasox ?id 8404. NOVEMBER 2013 33 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE incorporates regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed at improving the water quality of south San Francisco Bay and the streams of Santa Clara Valley. Construction. During construction an accidental discharge of stormwater or release of soil materials could cause erosion and downstream sedimentation. Consequently, the project's construction activities would have the potential to degrade local water quality in Ross Creek. However, the project applicant would be required to obtain a grading permit from the Town of Los Gatos in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Town of Los Gatos municipal code which specifies that all grading must be conducted in a manner that the levels of dirt, rock, debris, and other materials are not discharged to a water body in excess of natural levels unless specifically provided for in a permit. Accordingly, the project applicant would need to prepare a site map and grading plan as well as an erosion and sediment control plan. An interim erosion and sediment control plan would be required if construction is started before October V, and the final erosion and sediment controls are not in place. Interim erosion control measures could include methods such as silt fences, fiber rolls, erosion control blankets, seeding, filter berms, check dams, and retention basins. Further, excavation, grading, and drainage activities must meet the design standards specified in Chapter 12. The Town would not issue a grading permit until the site map, grading plan, and interim and final erosion and sediment control plans are approved. Compliance with the Town grading permit would ensure that construction activities do not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise result in water quality degradation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant during construction. Projects which disturb one or more acres of soil, or projects which disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that disturbs one or more acres in total, are required to obtain coverage under the SWRCB General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. The project would not be required to obtain coverage under this permit because the total area of land disturbance would be 0.75 acre which is less than the one -acre threshold. Post - Construction. In accordance with the MRP, projects that create or replace more than 10,000 square feet (sf) of impervious surfaces must incorporate a minimum of three types of stormwater controls: site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment measures. Low impact development (LID) treatment measures must be used to treat 100 percent of the design storm runoff from the project's drainage area. Potential LID measures include rainwater harvesting, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment (if the prior LID measures are determined to be infeasible). Projects that disturb more than one acre of land must also include hydromodification measures to manage stormwater flows in a manner that would not induce erosion. The project would construct eight new residences on an approximately 32,708 sf (0.75 acre) unpaved vacant lot that is entirely comprised of pervious surfaces. The proposed project would construct approximately 21,256 sf of new impervious surfaces, including parking areas, driveways, residences, and concreted areas. This would represent approximately 65 percent of the site area. Approximately 11,452 sf (35 percent) of the site would be landscaped, including three bioretention systems, and would remain pervious. Because the project would create more than 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces, it would be a Regulated Project under the MRP NPDES permit and would need to incorporate site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment measures for the management of post - construction stormwater runoff. The hydromodification requirement of the MRP would not apply to this project because it would create less than one acre of impervious surfaces. As part of the application submittal, the project applicant provided a C.3 Data Form that describes the conceptual stormwater treatment plan for the project, including how the project will comply with the C.3 stormwater management requirements of the MRP. To ensure compliance, the Town's contract engineering consultant, Eisenberg, Olivieri 8r Associates (EOA), reviewed the conceptual plan presented in the C.3 Data Form and supporting information. EOA's review was conducted on August 27, 2013 NOVEMBER 2013 34 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE (included as Attachment 5), and concluded that the plan is in compliance with the Town requirements provided that conditions specified in their review are addressed, as discussed below, and that the project applicant provides a maintenance plan and agreement for the installed stormwater control features. The Town of Los Gatos would include requirements for implementation of the proposed stormwater controls and any modifications identified by EOA in their conditions of approval for the proposed project The C.3 Data Form for the project identifies the following feasible site design measures: 1) minimizing impervious surfaces; 2) directing runoff to vegetated areas; 3) disconnecting downspouts, with roof runoff to vegetated areas; and 4) providing pervious pavement and permeable surfaces. The form also indicates the project would include three pollutant source control measures: 1) beneficial landscaping (i.e., drought tolerant and/or native plants to minimize over - irrigation and the use of pesticides on the landscaping); 2) maintenance (pavement sweeping, catch basin cleaning, good housekeeping); and 3) as recommended by the EOA review, storm drain labeling. The site is divided into three drainage areas and stormwater treatment measures specified on the C.3 Data Form include three bioretention systems (one for each drainage area) that would treat and infiltrate stormwater conveyed through storm drains installed in both impervious and pervious areas of the site. The applicant provided calculations as part of the application submittal that demonstrate that the site soils have a sufficient infiltration rate to allow the use of infiltration stormwater controls and that the bioretention systems are appropriately sized. The EOA review concurred with the calculations although additional details are needed to construct the systems and these details would need to be provided in the final stormwater control plan. However, the review also noted that the driveway entrances do not drain to the bioretention systems and recommended that the project could utilize an interceptor tree credit 132 provide pervious pavement to facilitate direct infiltration, or provide a slot drain to direct flow from the driveway entrances to bioretention features. The alternative selected will also need to be addressed in the final stormwater control plan. Stormwater from the residence roofs would he directed to the landscaped yards through downspouts. All wastewater from the project site would be discharged into the existing sanitary sewer system where it would be treated by the West Valley Sanitation District in accordance with state water treatment requirements. Implementation of the infiltration stormwater control features in accordance with the C.3 requirements of the MRP as described above would reduce the production of stormwater pollutants at the project site, and provide for removal of stormwater - related pollutants. Therefore, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. However, as discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the new residents at the project site would likely use common household hazardous wastes such as paint, pesticides, used oil and antifreeze. These materials could degrade water quality if discharged to the storm sewer or to the sanitary sewer system via indoor sink drains. Although Los Gatos residents can legally dispose of household hazardous wastes under the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, the project's water quality impacts related to the generation of hazardous waste would be potentially significant because not all residents are knowledgeable in the identification of hazardous wastes and appropriate disposal requirements. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, which requires implementation of a Buyer Education Program to educate "The interceptor tree credit is described in Chapter 4 of the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook available at http://www-scvurppp-w2k.com/p4fs/1112/C3 Handbook Chanters 042012 Web udf. The credit would use the four new trees proposed in the planting strip along Union Avenue. NOVEMBER 2013 35 INITIAL STUDY — 258. UNION AVENUE residents about the identification of household hazardous wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. 9b. Groundwater Resources The project would not involve any groundwater dewatering during construction nor use groundwater resources for any purpose once constructed. Potable water would be supplied to the residences from the local public water supply provided by the San Jose Water Company, which consists of both surface water and groundwater sources. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to groundwater depletion beyond any impacts associated with the provision of water by the San Jose Water Company and the agencies from which it directly or indirectly receives water, including the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Water Resources. In addition, the project site is currently unpaved which allows for infiltration of stormwater to the underlying groundwater system. Although the project includes the construction of 21,256 s.f. of new impervious surfaces, it would not interfere with groundwater recharge because once constructed, all of the stormwater runoff would be infiltrated to the groundwater through landscaping or bioretention systems, with the exception of any minor overflows from the bioretention systems during particularly large storms. Therefore, impacts related to depletion of groundwater resources and interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant. 9c, 9d, 9e. Drainage As described in 9a and 9f above, once the project is constructed, all of the stormwater drainage from the site would be infiltrated to the groundwater through landscaping or bioretention systems. Therefore, the project would not alter the drainage patterns of the site in a manner that would cause on- or off -site erosion, siltation, or flooding. Further, only minor amounts of stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the bioretention systems would be intermittently discharged to the storm sewer system and therefore, the capacity of the storm water collection system would not be exceeded. As described above, the stormwater control plan for the project includes source control measures that would reduce the production of stormwater pollutants. In addition, the landscaping and biorentention systems would provide stormwater treatment, which would reduce pollutant loads in the runoff. Therefore, impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns, exceeding the capacity of a storm sewer system, and providing an additional source of polluted runoff would be less than significant. 9g, 9h, 9i, 9j. Flood Hazards According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Santa Clara County, the project site is located outside of the 100 -year flood zone in an area mapped as Zone X.33 This zone consists of areas with 0.2% annual chance of flood, areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from one percent chance flood. The FEMA Flood Zones map of the 2020 General Plan Safety Element (Figure SAF-4) also indicates that the project site is located outside mapped 100 -year flood hazard zones. Therefore, impacts associated with placement of housing within a 100 -year flood zone and redirection or impedance of flood flows would be less than significant. The Dams and Dam Inundation Areas map of the 2020 General Plan Safety Element (Figure SAF -5) also indicates that the project site is not in an area designated as a dam failure inundation zone. Therefore, impacts related to flooding as a result of failure of a dam or levee would be less than significant. " Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Flood Insurance Rare Map, Santa Clara County, California and Unincorporated Areas. Map Number o6085C0881 H, Map 381 or 830. May 18. NOVEMBER 2013 36 INITIAL STUDY -258 UNION AVENUE The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 265 feet msl, more than 12 miles south of the bay shoreline; therefore, there would be no risk associated with tsunamis which are large sea waves. Seiches are standing waves caused by large- scale, short - duration phenomena (e.g. wind or atmospheric variations or seismic activity) that result from the oscillation of confined bodies of water (such as reservoirs and lakes) that may damage low -lying adjacent areas as a result of changes in the surface water elevation. The project site would not be subject to a seiche because the nearest large water body is Vasona Reservoir located almost two miles to the west. The project is not dependent on access to the reservoir and is located away from the edge of the reservoir and would therefore not be adversely affected by a change in the surface water elevation. As such, even if a seiche were to occur, inundation of the project site by seiche is not anticipated, due to distance from the reservoir. Therefore, there are no impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving seiche or tsunami. Risks associated with landslide - induced mudflows are discussed in Section 6, Geology and Soils, Impact 6a. Less Than significant Potentially with Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 10. Land Use and Planning -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? ❑ 10a. Divide an Established Community The project plans propose to develop the project site with eight detached residential condominiums. Land uses adjoining the project site include an office building at 246 Union Avenue to the south of the project site, single - family residences to the north and east, and various retail commercial uses in the Downing Center of Los Gatos to the west across Union Avenue. Given the mix of land uses in the project vicinity, the proposed project would not divide an established community. The development of the proposed project would provide a transition from the single - family homes east of the site to the more intensive neighborhood commercial uses at the Downing Center immediately west of this property. 10b. Project Consistency with Land Use Plans and Policies The site was previously developed with a restaurant and bar from approximately 1973 until 200 1. The vacant commercial facilities were demolished in 2001 and the property has been vacant since then. The project application indicates that there have been no proposals for commercial development of the site since the removal of the previous commercial use. Site access and property size have hampered past proposals for residential development. Town staff has determined that shared driveways would be an acceptable method of access for site homes provided that one driveway serves no more than two units. The project site is currently designated as "Neighborhood Commercial' by the 2020 General Plan. The Neighborhood Commercial designation provides for "necessary day -to -day commercial goods and services required by residents of the adjacent neighborhoods. This designation encourages concentrated and coordinated commercial development at easily accessible locations." The General Plan indicates that NOVEM13ER2013 37 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE most commercial parcels in Los Gatos are located along the Santa Cruz Avenue or Los Gatos Boulevard corridors. In support of the General Plan's land use designation for the subject property, the project site is zoned "C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial." The C -1 zone allows retailing, personal service businesses, businesses necessary for the conduct of households, office activities, and limited manufacturing uses. The proposed residential use is a conditional use in the C -1 zone.34 The project applicant cannot propose to add a Planned Development (PD) designation since the site is less than the minimum parcel size of 40,000 s.f. required by Town municipal code for the PD overlay zone.35 While the proposed project does not specify commercial use of the site, the proposed residential use would be permitted under a conditional use permit for the project. The project would not conflict with the land use designation for the site and is consistent with the provisions of the site's zoning. The project area includes a mix of land uses as specified by the General Plan. The 2020 General Plan designates the properties to the west (Downing Center) of the site as Neighborhood Commercial, while the parcel to the south is shown as Office Professional. The neighborhood to the east of the project site is designated and developed with Low Density Residential (0 — 5 dwelling units /acre). Based on the Los Gatos General Plan's pattern of commercial and residential land use designations in the project site vicinity, the site is on the boundary between residential uses to the east, south, and north , and commercial uses to the west. Therefore, development of solely residential use on the project site would not appear to conflict with the pattern of General Plan land uses in the project vicinity. Properties to the north of the site and generally north of Los Gatos Almaden Road are located in San Jose and subject to community planning and development by that jurisdiction. The San Jose General Plan land use designation and zoning for the properties immediately north of the site are "Residential Neighborhood" and Agricultural Zoning District with Planned Development overlay zoning, A(PD). The residential development to the north of the project site has a site configuration similar to the proposed project, i.e. three private driveways serving 15 single - family units, with each drive providing access to two units fronting on Union Avenue and three units to the rear of the 1.2 -acre property. The Town Zoning Map designates properties to the west as C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial). The parcel to the south of the project site is zoned O (Office); one other property northwest of the project site and the Downing Center is also zoned for office uses. Parcels to the south and east of the site are zoned Residential Duplex (RD) and Single Family Residential (R -1:8, 8,000 s.f. minimum lot size). The proposed density of the project would be 9.33 units per acre (8 units on 0.751 -acre. Existing nearby residential duplex uses located to the south on Union Avenue and to the west on Pinehurst Avenue are developed at similar densities. Based on the Zoning Ordinance's pattern of commercial and residential land use designations and allowable densities in the project vicinity, the proposed residential use and density would not appear to conflict with existing Zoning Ordinance designations in the site vicinity. The project's consistency with CEQA - relevant plans and policies is presented in the table below. The Los Gatos General Plan contains goals, policies, and implementation strategies that pertain to future development of the project site. However, Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the "economic and social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effect on the environment." Many of the goals, policies, and strategies of these plans and guidelines relate to the economic and fiscal well -being of the community as well as architectural design, and are not a subject for discussion in this CEQA document. Only those goals, policies, strategies, and guidelines that could result in a physical environmental change are listed and evaluated in project consistency table below. Other General Plan i4 Los Gatos Town Code Section 29.20.185 35 ibid., Section 29.80.105 NovEmBER 2013 38 l INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE General Plan Policies LU -4.2: Allow development only with adequate physical infrastructure (e.g. transportation, sewers, utilities, etc.) and social services (e.g, education, public safety, etc.). LU -4.4 Project applicants shall evaluate and Provide appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on urban services including schools, utilities, police, and fire. LU -43: Only approve projects for which public costs can be justified by the overall benefit to the community. Community Design Element Goal CD -3 To require utilities, landscaping and streetscapes to contribute to Los Gatos's high - quality character. CD -3.1 Encourage the undergrounding of utilities on substantial remodels. CD -3.3 Consider new street lighting only when required for safety. Goal CD -6 To promote and protect the physical and other distinctive qualities of residential neighborhoods. CD -6.1 Reduce the visual impact of new construction andlor remodels on the Town and its neighborhoods. CD -6.2 Balance the size and number of units to achieve appropriate intensity. CD -6.4 New homes shall be sited to maximize privacy, livability, protection of natural plant and wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and adequate solar access and wind conditions. Siting should take advantage of scenic views but should not create significant ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces, public places, or other properties. Goal CD -7 To preserve the quality of the private open space throughout Los Gatos. CD -7.1 Maximize quality usable open space in all new developments. NOVEMBER 2013 Proiect Consistent Analysis Existing services and utilities are currently provided in the project area and would be extended to project residences pursuant to Town requirements and agency regulations. The development of the site will reduce impacts to urban services because of recommendations, oversight, and approval authority of the Town and relevant public service agencies. The project would be required to pay school fees according to SB 50 and these fees will reduce impacts on schools. The economic effects of a project are not a CEQA issue unless it results in a physical change (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). The physical environmental impacts associated with project implementation are identified in the respective sections of the Initial Study based on criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation measures are also identified in the Initial Study, and they would reduce identified impacts to a less - than- significant level. The proposed development of residential use would benefit the surrounding neighborhood by increasing land use compatibility with surrounding residential uses in Los Gatos, and by eliminating a blighted condition in the neighborhood. As indicated on the proposed Tentative Map (Attachment 1) for the proposed project, all required utilities would be underground. The landscape plan identifies proposed plantings and hardscape improvements that would be consistent with adjoining residential uses. Street lighting would be limited to the one existing light on Union Avenue. As indicated above, the project would increase visual compatibility of the site with existing adjacent residential neighborhood, a beneficial impact. The size and number of residential units on this property would be consistent with the number of lots currently with frontage on Union Avenue. As indicated in the site plan (Attachment 1), four residences would front onto Union Avenue. There are five Medium Density Residential units (duplexes) to the south of the project site on Union Avenue as well as 15 similar units immediately north of the site in San Jose. In addition, there is Medium Density Residential development on Downing Court to the southwest of the project site and along Pinehurst Avenue to the southwostof the Downing Center retail development. The proposed project's design provides for the installation of photovoltaic systems on most of the units while ensuring that existing and proposed landscaping maintains privacy for existing residential uses to the east of the property. The proposed development includes a common area for the residential development and provides front and rear yard space for six of the units; two units only have rear yard private space. 0 F� INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE policies related to community design will be considered separately by Town staff, as part of the Town's project review and approval process. General Plan Policies Project Consistency Analysis Land Use Element Goal LU -1: To preserve, promote, and protect the The project would develop 8 detached residential existing small -town character and quality of life condominium units on the vacant 0.751 -acre property. at a within Las Gatos. density that is less than or equal to adjacent residential LU- 1.4 1nfill projects shall be designed in context densities. The project's proposed density of 9.33 units per acre would be consistent within the General Plan's allowable with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning respect to the existing scale and character of density of 5 to 12 units per acre. Project implementation with surrounding structures, and should blend rather would increase land use compatibility with surrounding uses since it would establish new residential uses than compete with the established character of the residential on a that has been vacant and blighted for at least 12 area property years after the demolition of previous commercial uses on the LU -6.5: The type, density and intensity of new land site. The project would constitute an infill project and be use shall be consistent with that of the immediate subject to the Town's policies regarding infill development. neighborhood. nei g The project would also provide one BMP unit to ensure that LU -6.7 Continue to encourage a variety of housing there is a variety of Town housing that addresses all of the types and sizes that is balanced throughout the community's needs while remaining compatible with the Town and within neighborhoods, and that is also character of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the compatible with the character of the surrounding project would protect the quality of life for surrounding neighborhood. residences and blend with the established character of the LU -6.8 New construction, remodels and additions area. shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood. LU- 7.3 1nfill projects shall contribute to the further development of the surrounding neighborhood (e.g. improve circulation, contribute to or provide neighborhood unity, eliminate a blighted area) and shall not detract from the existing quality of life. LU- 7.4 Infill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. LU -1.3: Preserve existing trees, natural The project would retain at least 75% of the protected trees on vegetation, natural topography, and riparian and the site based on the proposed site design. Tree removal would wildlife habitats, and promote tasteful, high be confined to the replacement of two dead trees with the quality, well designed, environmentally conscious appropriate number of new landscape trees. and diverse landscaping in new developments. Regarding Policy CD -4.3, proposed demolition, street and CD-4.3 Trees that are protected under the Town's utility locations, and potential building pads would limit tree disturbance so that about 79% of the protected Tree Preservation Ordinance, as well as existing native, heritage, and specimen trees should be removal and trees on -site would be preserved as part of the project. preserved and protected as a part of any development proposal. NOVEMBER 2013 39 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE General Plan Policies Project Consistency Analysis Environment and Sustamability Element Goal ENV -12: To conserve the air resources of the Town and maintain and improve acceptable air quality in Los Gatos. ENV -12.1: Local land use decisions shall consider air quality goals as part of the environmental review process. ENV -12.2: Require consideration of alternatives to individual auto use whenever the environmental review document concludes that the traffic generated by a development project would result in adverse impacts from air and noise pollution. ENV -12.4: Support Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), State, and federal planning efforts and programs aimed at reducing air pollution within the airshed. ENV -12.5: Site plans shall be reviewed to include an assessment of the potential adverse impact from air pollution and recommend alternatives to reduce such impacts. cry v- tz.,s: tcequlre design criteria for site plans to reduce the effects of high air pollution concentrations associated with roadways by appropriate placement of structures, use of landscaping, and parking arrangements. The project s construction- related and operational air quality impacts are evaluated in Section 3. The project's construction - related emissions were determined to be less than significant with implementation of dust and emission controls outlined in Mitigation Measure AIR -1. Construction- related health risks associated with the project's construction - related diesel particulate emissions were determined to be less than significant. With respect to Policy ENV -12.2 and ENV -12.5, the project would not significantly increase traffic volumes on local residential streets and would be located adjacent to neighborhood commercial services and 500 feet from a bus stop (see Section 16f). Regarding Policy ENV -12.4, the BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA Guidelines were used as a basis for determining appropriate CEQA significance thresholds applied in the impact analysis in Section 3, Air Quality. In Section 3, Table 4 presents the cumulative health risks associated with toxic air contaminants from all roadway sources in the project vicinity (there are no stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the site). As indicated in Section 3, cumulative health risks from these sources were determined to be less than significant. 10c. Conflict with Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that apply to the project site. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues and Su Significant Mitigation Significant No ( Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incomorated impact Impact 11. Mineral Resources - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ El 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 on a local general plan, specific ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or other land use plan? lla, 11b. Mineral Resources The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally- important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity. NOVEMBER 2013 41 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12. Noise - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ® ❑ El standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne E ® El vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ® El project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 E airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? A detailed noise assessment study was completed by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. in July 201336 and is included in Attachment 6. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long -term medical and mental care facilities, places of worship, and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. In addition to the proposed residential use, existing sensitive receptors located in the project vicinity include residential uses located immediately adjacent to the project site to the north and east. 12a. Noise Compatibility of Proposed Use Applicable Noise Guidelines and Standards. The Noise Element of the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan establishes goals and policies for reducing noise levels in the Town. Policies aimed at reducing noise levels must address specific sources of unwanted noise, as well as noise - sensitive receptors. The Noise Element contains guidelines for use in land use planning to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities (Figure N01-1 of the Noise Element). These guidelines define acceptability by land use and the following would pertain to proposed single - family residential uses: noise levels up to 60 CNL or CNEL are "normally acceptable" while noise levels between 55 and 70 DNL /CNEL are "conditionally acceptable." Noise levels between 70 and 75 DNL/CNEL are "normally unacceptable" and noise levels above 75 DNL /CNEL are "clearly unacceptable" for this use.37 w Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., Noise Assessment Study for the Planned "Union Orchards" Single- Family Development, Union Avenue, Los Gatos. July 16, 2013. 37 Under Normally Acceptable conditions, no special noise insulation requirements are needed. Under Conditionally Acceptable, a detailed noise analysis and needed noise attenuation design measures are required, but conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Where noise levels are considered NOVEMBER2013 42 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE The Noise Element also establishes outdoor noise limits (Table N0I -2 of the Noise Element), which represent long -range community goals for different land use designations within the Town. For residential uses, the goal is 55 DNL. Policy N0I -2.2 requires that all noise - sensitive developments adjacent to or within an area where noise levels exceed community aspirations include a noise study and recommendations for reducing noise impacts to an acceptable level. This requirement is met by the noise study included in Attachment 6. Existing and Future Noise Levels. The primary source of noise at the project site is traffic on Union Avenue. Noise from the Downing Center shopping center is not distinctly noticeable at the site and any noise from the center is included in the noise measurement data. The loading dock for the Safeway store is on the west side of the shopping center and is accessed from Los Gatos - Almaden Road. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located immediately north and east of the site. To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made a location 70 feet from the centerline of Union Avenue. This location corresponds to the proposed minimum setback of project homes from Union Avenue (see Figure 2 of Attachment 6 for measurement locations). The measurements were made on June 26 -27, 2013 for a continuous period of 24 hours and included representative hours during the daytime and nighttime periods of the DNL index." The results of the field survey indicate that the DNL is 64 at the measurement location (70 feet from the centerline of Union Avenue), while Leq's ranged from 58.0 to 64.5 dBA during the daytime and from 43.4 to 59.7 dBA at night (measurement results are presented in more detail in Appendix C of Attachment 6). The DNL noise level is calculated to be 64 DNL. Traffic noise dissipates at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the source (centerline of the roadway) to the receiver. Therefore, other locations on the site farther from Union Avenue are subject to lower noise levels. It should be noted that project buildings would provide noise shielding, which would help to reduce noise levels at certain locations. Future traffic volumes for Union Avenue are expected to remain at 12,000 ADT (average daily traffic), and therefore, no increases in the existing traffic noise levels listed are expected. Based on measured noise levels, estimated future noise exposure at the most impacted area of each rear yard of proposed residences are presented in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, the noise exposures in the rear yards of Lots 2 and 3 would exceed the Town's 55- dB (DNL) threshold (as defined in the Town's 2020 General Plan Noise Element), by up to 9 dB. Although the Town's 55 -dB (DNL) residential noise goal may not be met in rear yards of these proposed residences, the Town's Noise Element (Policy NOI -1.3) states that these noise limits represent the "long range community aspirations" and acknowledges that such goals may not be attainable at this time. Such goals may be more appropriate for residential neighborhoods that are located away from major noise sources (such as freeways or arterial roadways). In areas where the Town's noise goal cannot be met, the Town also uses the land use compatibility noise guidelines included in the Town's Noise Element as a criterion for defining significance of a noise impact under CEQA. These noise guidelines define noise limits for single - family residential uses as follows: normally acceptable up to 60 dB (DNL) in exterior living areas; conditionally acceptable between 55 and 70 dB (DNL); normally unacceptable between 70 and 75 dB (DNL); and clearly unacceptable above 75 dB (DNL). Normally Unacceptable, new construction is generally discouraged but if it proceeds, a detailed noise study and needed noise attenuation design measures are required. "The noise level data were acquired using a Larson -Davis Model 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter. The meter yields, by direct readout, a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time, which are commonly used to describe community noise, as described in Appendix B of Attachment 6. The measured descriptors include the Ll, L10, L50, and L90, i.e., those levels exceeded 1%, 10%, 50% and 90% of the time. Also measured were the maximum and minimum levels and the continuous equivalent- energy levels (Leq), which are used to calculate the DNLs. NovE mBe.22013 43 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE TABLE 7 EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE EXPOSURES AT REAR YARDS OF PROJECT RESIDENCES (DB, DNL) Lot Distance to Centerline' Existing/Future 1 125 »/» 2 87 61/61 3 70 64/64 4 125 55/55 5 194 54/54 6 175 53/53 7 175 53/53 R 194 54/54 NOTES: Bolded numbers exceed the Town's 55 dB DNL threshold. 5 Distance from roadway centerline to most impacts area of each rear yard of proposed residences. SOURCE: Table I of Pack Study (Attachment 6) The rear yards of Lots 1 through 4 would be subject to noise levels that are considered "conditionally acceptable," a significant noise impact. With implementation of noise reduction measures specified in Mitigation Measure N0I -1, provision of a noise barrier between Lots 1 and 2, noise levels in rear yards of all proposed residences would be reduced to "normally acceptable" levels and this noise impact would reduced to less -than- significant levels. Interior noise exposures in the living spaces of project residences were evaluated. A 25 -dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposure to represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under a closed window condition. The closed window condition assumes that standard dual -pane thermal insulating windows are installed. In addition, the Mechanical Code will require full -time ventilation to allow residents to keep the windows closed at all times for noise control at their option and maintain adequate ventilation. The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Union Avenue are estimated to be 39 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions. Thus, interior noise exposures at all project residences would be within the Town's 45 -dB DNL interior noise limit specified in the Los Gatos General Plan Noise Element. 12b. Groundborne Noise and Vibration Since construction of project facilities would not involve construction of subsurface facilities (i.e. tunnels or basements), generation of construction- related groundborne noise levels that could result in noise disturbance at the closest residential receptors would be less than significant. In addition, since project construction would not involve use of impact equipment (i.e. pile drivers), generation of construction- related groundbome vibration that could result in cosmetic damage to adjacent structures would be less than significant. In general, cosmetic or threshold damage to adjacent buildings could occur if vibrations exceeded 0.5 inches per second (in /sec) peak particle velocity (PPV).39 Vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment (used for projects similar to the proposed project) range from 0.012 to 0.352 in /sec PPV at 10 feet from the source of activity. Since only minimal grading would occur and 39 California Department of Transportation, 2004. Transportation- and Construction - Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Contract No. 43AO049, Task Order No. 18. June. NOVEMBER2013 44 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE heavy equipment operated on the site are expected to be located more than 10 feet from adjacent structures most of the time, the effects of construction- related vibration would be less than significant. 12c. Long -term Noise Increases For purposes of determining the significance of project - related traffic noise increases, the significance thresholds contained in the 2020 General Plan EIe are appropriate to apply to the project site since noise measurements indicate existing noise levels of 64 dBA (DNL) at 70 feet from the centerline of Union Avenue, and they are as follows: Ambient Noise Levels Below 60 DNL (or CNEL): 5 dBA or more noise increase would be significant. Ambient Noise Levels Between 60 and 65 DNL (or CNEL): 3 dBA or more increase would be significant. • Ambient Noise Levels Above 65 DNL (CNEL): 1.5 dBA or more increase would be significant Project implementation would result in traffic - related noise increases on Union Avenue when compared to existing conditions (vacant site), but less traffic noise overall than occurred during operation of the former restaurant/bar use, which generated noise from truck deliveries and higher traffic volumes. Based on the estimated distribution of project traffic and the locations of project driveways, it is estimated that the project would generate up to approximately 80 trips per day on Union Avenue. Assuming all project - related traffic traveled on the same segment of Union Avenue (maximum impact), project - related traffic volumes would generate noise levels of approximately 47 DNL at 50 feet along Union Avenue. As indicated above, existing ambient noise levels were measured to be 64 DNL at 70 feet from the centerline of Union Avenue. When project- related traffic noise levels of 47 DNL are added to existing ambient noise levels, project- related traffic increases would increase noise levels by less than 1 dBA. Such a noise increase would be less than significant when compared to significance thresholds presented above. When compared to the former restaurant/bar use, the project would result in a decrease in traffic noise along Union Avenue because the proposed residential use would generate less traffic. 12d. Short -Term Noise Increases Short -Term Construction Noise. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 76 to 85 dBA" at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment with slightly higher levels of about 88 to 91 dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced by 1 to 16 dBA, depending on the type of equipment. The potential for construction- related noise increases to adversely affect nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities to these receptors. The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m, on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Construction equipment would operate for a brief time along the project boundaries (as close as approximately 10 feet from adjacent residences to the north and 30 feet from adjacent residences to the east) during installation of utilities, landscaping, and driveways. However, most of the time, construction equipment is expected to operate at least 25 feet from adjacent residences most of the time. At 25 feet, the ordinance noise limit would result in maximum noise °p See Table 4.10 -8 of the General Plan EIR. Environmental noise is measured in units of dBA. The dBA, or A- weighted decibel, refers to a scale of noise measurement that approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies. NOVEMBER 2013 45 INITIAL STUDY 258 UNION AVENUE levels of 81 to 85 dBA at the closest residences. Existing masonry and wood fencing along project boundaries would be maintained and would help slightly reduce construction- related noise levels. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA.42 To maintain such interior noise levels, exterior noise levels at the closest residences (with windows closed) should not exceed 85 dBA and this exterior noise level is used as a significance threshold or criterion for this project based on the existing noise environment. Since construction noise levels could be maintained at or below 85 dBA at property boundaries most of the time, enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance would be adequate to maintain construction - related noise at less - than- significant levels. 12e. Airport- Related Issues The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. There is no public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip located within the Town's boundaries or within two miles of the project site. For air travel, the closest international airports are San Jose International Airport (SJQ, San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and Oakland International Airport. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive airport- related noise levels. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures — Noise and Vibration (NOI) To reduce the significant noise impacts identified above for project residences, the following noise attenuation measures will be incorporated into the project design to ensure that acceptable interior noise levels are achieved, reducing identified impacts to a less - than- significant level: NOI -l: Provide Noise Barrier. The recommendations of the Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. noise assessment study (dated July 16, 2013, Attachment 6) shall be added to project plans. These recommendations specify construction of an eight foot high acoustically - effective barrier at the rear of Lot 3 to connect the house on Lot 2 with the house on Lot 3 (see Figure 1 of Attachment 6). The barrier height is in reference to the nearest rear yard ground elevation. This barrier would also provide acceptable noise shielding for the side yard of Lot 2. With an eight foot high barrier at the specified location, both the Town's long -term noise goal of 55 dBA (DNL) and /or Town noise guideline of 60 dBA (DNL) would be met. However, if a lower barrier height is desired for aesthetic reasons, the following alternative barrier heights would result in the following noise exposures (all would meet the 60 -dB Town noise guideline, but only an eight foot high barrier would meet the Town's 55 -dB noise goal): Barrier Height Reduced Noise Level g feet 54 dB (DNL) 7 feet 56 dB (DNL) 6 feet 57 dB (DNL) 02 In indoor noise environments, the highest noise level that permits relaxed conversation with 100% intelligibility throughout the room is 45 dBA. Speech interference is considered to become intolerable when normal conversation is precluded at 3 feet, which occurs when background noise levels exceed 60 dBA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Condensed Version), 1974). NOVEMBER 2013 46 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ El the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the El El construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13a. Growth - Inducement Impacts A detailed evaluation of the population and housing conditions in the San Francisco Bay area, including the Town of Los Gatos, has been prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as part of its Projections 2009 assessment of population, housing, and employment for the region. This ABAG report serves as a basis for the formulation of the Town's 2007 — 2014 Housing Element. ABAG's Projections 2001 provided the background data used for the Town's 2002 — 2007 Housing Element. The 2007 — 2014 Housing Element and its supporting technical analyses are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed project would develop the 0.751 -acre site with eight detached residential condominiums and would increase the Town's population. The new homes would generate approximately 19 additional residents in Los Gatos. The project's addition of 19 persons would represent a 0.06% increase over the Town's currently estimated population of 30,497.43 Therefore, project - related increases in population would not represent a significant increase in local or regional population. The project would not otherwise be considered growth- inducing since it would involve development of a project that does not extend roads or infrastructure to any adjacent properties. Since the project site was previously developed with a restaurant and bar, the proposed residential uses would constitute a redevelopment of the site and would be considered an in -fill development. 131b, 13c. Displacement of Housing or Residents The project site is presently vacant and provides no residential uses. No housing or residents would be displaced from the project site. Rather, the project would provide new residential uses on the project site to serve the community's future housing needs. 43 Town of Los Gatos, 2013. About Los Gatos: History. Available at http: / /www.t own .los- gatos.ca.us /index.aspx ?NID =515. NOVEMBER 2013 47 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorp- . it Impact Impact 13. Population and Housing - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ El the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the El El construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13a. Growth - Inducement Impacts A detailed evaluation of the population and housing conditions in the San Francisco Bay area, including the Town of Los Gatos, has been prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as part of its Projections 2009 assessment of population, housing, and employment for the region. This ABAG report serves as a basis for the formulation of the Town's 2007 — 2014 Housing Element. ABAG's Projections 2001 provided the background data used for the Town's 2002 — 2007 Housing Element. The 2007 — 2014 Housing Element and its supporting technical analyses are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed project would develop the 0.751 -acre site with eight detached residential condominiums and would increase the Town's population. The new homes would generate approximately 19 additional residents in Los Gatos. The project's addition of 19 persons would represent a 0.06% increase over the Town's currently estimated population of 30,497.43 Therefore, project - related increases in population would not represent a significant increase in local or regional population. The project would not otherwise be considered growth- inducing since it would involve development of a project that does not extend roads or infrastructure to any adjacent properties. Since the project site was previously developed with a restaurant and bar, the proposed residential uses would constitute a redevelopment of the site and would be considered an in -fill development. 131b, 13c. Displacement of Housing or Residents The project site is presently vacant and provides no residential uses. No housing or residents would be displaced from the project site. Rather, the project would provide new residential uses on the project site to serve the community's future housing needs. 43 Town of Los Gatos, 2013. About Los Gatos: History. Available at http: / /www.t own .los- gatos.ca.us /index.aspx ?NID =515. NOVEMBER 2013 47 INITIAL STUDY —258 UNION AVENUE Services are currently provided to the project site as well as to adjacent commercial and residential uses. No significant increase in demand on public safety services is expected to be required for the proposed project since services were previously provided to the former restaurant use on the site and continue to be provided for the property. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the project plans for site access and water supply, and the project will be required to meet Department requirements for minimum fire flow 11,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 psi], automatic fire sprinklers, hydrant spacing /location, building access requirements, etc." The project will be required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system, appropriate fire lane marking, and fire department emergency access key lock box. Adequate fire apparatus (engine) access will need to be provided on any access roads, which includes 20 -foot pavement width, a minimum turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15 percent. The Fire Department also requires potable water supplies to be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. The proposed plan will be subject to formal plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department to determine compliance with adopted model codes. As with fire protection services, the Los Gatos /Monte Serene, Police Department currently patrols the project area and would be able to provide its high level of police protection service for the new residential development. The Department has also indicated that its response times would generally remain unaffected by the need to serve the proposed residential development from the substation on Los Gatos Boulevard. The project would increase Town population by 0.06 %, which would incrementally increase demand for recreational facilities. The project's potential impact on the demand for recreational facilities is discussed in Section 15, Recreation, below. Based upon population growth estimates in Projections 2009 from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project would add two new students to the Union Elementary School District and two students to the Campbell Union High School District. Project students would attend Alta Vista or ° Santa Clara County Fire Department, Development Review Comments, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, April 4, 2013. NOVEMBER 2013 48 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. Public Services - a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause governmental significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain service ratios, response times or other performance acceptable objectives for any of the public services: ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? 14a. Public Services Services are currently provided to the project site as well as to adjacent commercial and residential uses. No significant increase in demand on public safety services is expected to be required for the proposed project since services were previously provided to the former restaurant use on the site and continue to be provided for the property. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the project plans for site access and water supply, and the project will be required to meet Department requirements for minimum fire flow 11,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 psi], automatic fire sprinklers, hydrant spacing /location, building access requirements, etc." The project will be required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system, appropriate fire lane marking, and fire department emergency access key lock box. Adequate fire apparatus (engine) access will need to be provided on any access roads, which includes 20 -foot pavement width, a minimum turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15 percent. The Fire Department also requires potable water supplies to be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. The proposed plan will be subject to formal plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department to determine compliance with adopted model codes. As with fire protection services, the Los Gatos /Monte Serene, Police Department currently patrols the project area and would be able to provide its high level of police protection service for the new residential development. The Department has also indicated that its response times would generally remain unaffected by the need to serve the proposed residential development from the substation on Los Gatos Boulevard. The project would increase Town population by 0.06 %, which would incrementally increase demand for recreational facilities. The project's potential impact on the demand for recreational facilities is discussed in Section 15, Recreation, below. Based upon population growth estimates in Projections 2009 from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project would add two new students to the Union Elementary School District and two students to the Campbell Union High School District. Project students would attend Alta Vista or ° Santa Clara County Fire Department, Development Review Comments, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, April 4, 2013. NOVEMBER 2013 48 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE Carlton Elementary School, Union Middle School, and Leigh High School. The Districts have indicated that the respective district school facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new students generated by the proposed project.45 To offset potential additional service costs for enrolling new students from the proposed project, the Union Elementary School District and Campbell Union High School District will charge the project applicant impact fees based on the size of new homes (per square foot basis) and by supplemental parcel taxes on the new residential parcels. Payment of impact fees and supplemental taxes would mitigate the project's impacts on school services to a less - than- significant level, and therefore, its incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on these schools and the school districts overall would not be cumulatively considerable.46 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorpor ted Impact Impact 15. Recreation - 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? 15a. Demand for Recreational Facilities The proposed net addition of eight single - family residences would increase local population, and thereby incrementally increase demand for recreational facilities. Private open space associated with the eight single - family residences would be provided as front and rear yards for six of the units, and rear yards for two units. The project plans also specify an open space common area in the center of the site. Nearby recreational facilities include Alta Vista Elementary School (0.5 mile to the west), Union Middle School (800 feet to the west), Heintz Open Space Preserve (0.5 mile to the south), and Belgatos Park (approximately one mile to the southeast. The project's incremental increase in demand for recreational facilities is considered to be less than significant given the project's proximity to existing recreational facilities, and proposed provision of private open space on the project site. 151b. Impacts Related to Construction of Recreational Facilities No specific recreational facilities are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no impacts related to the construction any recreational facilities would occur as part of project construction. 45 Telephone communications with Ms. Colleen Thompson, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Business Services, Union Elementary School District; Ms. Toni Selzler, Business Secretary, Campbell Union High School District. October 30, 2013. m Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, payment of these fees "is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in government organization or reorganization." NOVEMBER 2013 49 INITIAL STUDY —258 UNION AVENUE 16a, 16b. Impacts on the Circulation System and Conflicts with Congestion Management Program The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991 -174) requires preparation of a detailed traffic study for any project with the potential to generate 20 or more additional AM or PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would generate 80 trips per day with 6 trips during the AM peak hour and 8 trips during the PM peak hour. Although CEQA requires that a project's impact be compared to existing conditions (currently a vacant lot generating no traffic), the Town's Traffic Impact Policy requires that the former use on a site be considered. The former 85 -seat, high turnover restaurant and bar generated more traffic than would be generated by the proposed 8 residential units. Therefore, when compared to the former restaurant use, the project would result in a decrease in traffic generated on the site. Based on the Town's Traffic Impact Policy, a detailed traffic impact study was not required and traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant changes to existing traffic conditions, a less -than- significant traffic impact. 16c. Air Traffic Patterns The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is there a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip located in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, would not directly increase air traffic levels, nor would there be any change in location resulting in substantial safety risks. NOVEMBER 2013 50 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Support ng Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16. Transportation/Traffic - Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including El ❑ ® ❑ mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel El El ® El measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an in El El El increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ El ® El or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding El ❑ ® El transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 16a, 16b. Impacts on the Circulation System and Conflicts with Congestion Management Program The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991 -174) requires preparation of a detailed traffic study for any project with the potential to generate 20 or more additional AM or PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would generate 80 trips per day with 6 trips during the AM peak hour and 8 trips during the PM peak hour. Although CEQA requires that a project's impact be compared to existing conditions (currently a vacant lot generating no traffic), the Town's Traffic Impact Policy requires that the former use on a site be considered. The former 85 -seat, high turnover restaurant and bar generated more traffic than would be generated by the proposed 8 residential units. Therefore, when compared to the former restaurant use, the project would result in a decrease in traffic generated on the site. Based on the Town's Traffic Impact Policy, a detailed traffic impact study was not required and traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant changes to existing traffic conditions, a less -than- significant traffic impact. 16c. Air Traffic Patterns The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is there a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip located in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, would not directly increase air traffic levels, nor would there be any change in location resulting in substantial safety risks. NOVEMBER 2013 50 MIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE 16d. Traffic Safety Hazards Project residences would be accessed by four shared driveways, and each driveway would provide access to two project residences (one residence that fronts onto Union Avenue and one located behind (east of) the front residence). Although the project would add four driveways on Union Avenue, each driveway would be designed so that vehicles and fire trucks can turnaround and no vehicles would back onto Union Avenue. This configuration combined good visibility in both directions and a two -way left -turn lane along Union Avenue would reduce the potential for conflicts with traffic on Union Avenue. It should be noted that most residences front onto Union Avenue so that they back onto Union Avenue from their driveways. Each of the four proposed driveways is designed to provide access to two units and permit on- site turnaround and parking, thereby avoiding Union Avenue access problems that may affect nearby residences. Therefore, no significant traffic safety problems would be posed by the proposed site access configuration. 16e. Emergency Access The project site has frontage on Union Avenue, a public street, and direct emergency access to project residences would be available from this street. Therefore, public safety impacts associated with emergency access would be less than significant. 16L Conflicts with Alternative Transportation (Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access) Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access. At present, there are sidewalks along both sides of Union Avenue and all nearby streets in the project vicinity. The project site is expected to generate some pedestrian traffic on Union Avenue and Los Gatos Almaden Road, as project residents access the Downing Center across the street as well as nearby schools. The Union Avenue /Los Gatos Almaden Road intersection has pedestrian signals and crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection, providing adequate controlled pedestrian access to the project site. Currently, there are no existing or planned bikeways along Union Avenue or Los Gatos Almaden Road in the project vicinity. The closest planned bikeway is a proposed Class II bikeway along Blossom Hill Road, approximately one -half mile south of the site. Given the small size of the project combined with the fact that there are no existing or planned bikeways in the site vicinity, the project is not expected to significantly increase demand on Town bikeways. The VTA's Bus Line 27 runs along Union Avenue (north of Los Gatos Almaden Road) and Los Gatos Almaden Road (east of Union Avenue). The nearest bus stop for Line 27 is located 500 feet north of the project site. There are no bus stops along the site frontage on Union Avenue. Line 27 extends from Good Samaritan Hospital at Los Gatos Boulevard /Highway 85 (about 1.3 miles to the northwest of the site) to Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center on Santa Teresa Boulevard (about seven miles to the east). This bus line also extends near a number of middle and high schools as well shopping centers. This bus route traverses the Ohlone /Chynoweth- Almaden Light Rail line, and stops near the Almaden Light Rail station (access to station via connecting Bus Line 64). Given its small size, the proposed project would not significantly increase demand for transit facilities. NOVEMBER 2013 51 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact 17. Utilities and Service Systems — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? El El NOVEMBER 2013 51 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE 17a, 17e. Wastewater Facilities and Service The West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) provides wastewater collection and disposal services for the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, much of Saratoga and some unincorporated areas of the county within the district boundary. WVSD serves approximately 112,000 persons, including the entire population of the Town of Los Gatos. The WVSD's system within the Town of Los Gatos consists of gravity mains ranging from 6 inches to 27 inches in diameter. The collection system flows north, exiting the Town limits through multiple trunk sewers. These systems continue to the north through the City of San Jose trunk sewers and ultimately to the San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant in Alviso. The San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant treats the wastewater of approximately 1,500,000 people that live and work in the 300 -square -mile area encompassing the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno. The plant has the capacity to treat 167 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd) utilizing an advanced, tertiary wastewater system. Most of the final treated water from the Plant is discharged as fresh water through Artesian Slough and into South San Francisco Bay. About 10 percent is recycled through South Bay Water Recycling pipelines for landscaping, agricultural irrigation, and industrial needs around the South Bay. The WVSD has a contract with the City of San Jose for a percentage of the capacity of their sewage treatment facilities. In return, the contract requires the WVSD to pay its share of debt service, operation, maintenance and improvement costs. There are approximately 8,419 connections for single - family residential uses, 3,188 connections for multi- family uses, 756 connections for commercial /industrial uses for a total of 12,363 connections in the Town of Los Gatos. The WVSD has a fixed allocation of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, which was 13.052 mgd in fiscal year (FY) 2004 -2005. In FY 2004 -2005, the WVSD collected and conveyed 10.675 mgd of wastewater to the treatment plant, which was far less than its allocated capacity. Because of the excess capacity, the WVSD sold 1.0 mgd of treatment plant capacity to the City of Milpitas in 2006 and now has the capacity for 12.052 mgd. In FY 2009 -2010, the WVSD NOVEMBER 2013 52 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than SignificantMitigaRon Significant No m Issues (and Supporting Infor f on Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage El El ® El or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ® ❑ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ❑ ❑ capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ❑ ® ❑ related to solid waste? 17a, 17e. Wastewater Facilities and Service The West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) provides wastewater collection and disposal services for the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, much of Saratoga and some unincorporated areas of the county within the district boundary. WVSD serves approximately 112,000 persons, including the entire population of the Town of Los Gatos. The WVSD's system within the Town of Los Gatos consists of gravity mains ranging from 6 inches to 27 inches in diameter. The collection system flows north, exiting the Town limits through multiple trunk sewers. These systems continue to the north through the City of San Jose trunk sewers and ultimately to the San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant in Alviso. The San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant treats the wastewater of approximately 1,500,000 people that live and work in the 300 -square -mile area encompassing the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno. The plant has the capacity to treat 167 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd) utilizing an advanced, tertiary wastewater system. Most of the final treated water from the Plant is discharged as fresh water through Artesian Slough and into South San Francisco Bay. About 10 percent is recycled through South Bay Water Recycling pipelines for landscaping, agricultural irrigation, and industrial needs around the South Bay. The WVSD has a contract with the City of San Jose for a percentage of the capacity of their sewage treatment facilities. In return, the contract requires the WVSD to pay its share of debt service, operation, maintenance and improvement costs. There are approximately 8,419 connections for single - family residential uses, 3,188 connections for multi- family uses, 756 connections for commercial /industrial uses for a total of 12,363 connections in the Town of Los Gatos. The WVSD has a fixed allocation of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, which was 13.052 mgd in fiscal year (FY) 2004 -2005. In FY 2004 -2005, the WVSD collected and conveyed 10.675 mgd of wastewater to the treatment plant, which was far less than its allocated capacity. Because of the excess capacity, the WVSD sold 1.0 mgd of treatment plant capacity to the City of Milpitas in 2006 and now has the capacity for 12.052 mgd. In FY 2009 -2010, the WVSD NOVEMBER 2013 52 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE collected and conveyed 10.417 mgd, a decrease from the 2004 -2005 wastewater flow levels, and below the contracted capacity of 12.052 mgd. The project unit's sanitary sewer laterals would connect to an 84nch sewer main extending along Union Avenue. Using the 2020 General Plan's estimated wastewater generation rate of 121 gallons per unit per day for residential uses, the project's eight new single - family residences would generate an additional 968 gallons per day. Based upon wastewater treatment plant allocations for the WVSD as described above, the District has adequate collection facilities and treatment capacity to accommodate wastewater flows from the proposed residential development. Therefore, the project's impact on wastewater service would be less than significant. 17b, 17d. Water Facilities and Service Water service to the project area is provided by the San Jose Water Company (SJWC). The SJWC supplies domestic water to Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, San Jose, Campbell, Saratoga, and Cupertino. Water supply sources include ground water, mountain surface water, imported surface water, and the Cupertino Water System. Groundwater is pumped from over 100 wells that draw water from the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin. During 2000, groundwater pumped from deep wells was approximately 39 percent of SJWC's supply. Surface water imported from the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and purchased from the SCV WD comprises 51 percent of SJWC's supply. A smaller portion is impounded in local reservoirs in Santa Clara County. Local surface water from the watershed in the Santa Cruz Mountains is 10 percent of SJWC's supply. The SJWC currently provides water service to residential and commercial uses surrounding the site. A 12 -inch water distribution line is located in Union Avenue adjoining the site, and project homes would connect to these facilities. The existing 12 -inch water line presently provides a fire flow that meets the minimum fire flow of 1,000 gpm required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department to serve residential and commercial uses along Union Avenue. 17c. Stormwater Drainage Facilities There are existing storm drain facilities on and adjacent to the site, but the concept for the proposed storm drain system would be to reduce impervious surfaces and increase infiltration, thereby reducing stormwater runoff volumes. Proposed storm drainage facilities are discussed above in more detail under Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. 17f, 17g. Solid Waste The West Valley Collection & Recycling, LLC (WVCR) is the exclusive recycling, green waste, and garbage hauler for the Town of Los Gatos, the cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga and unincorporated Santa Clara County. All recycling, green waste, and garbage are picked up by WVCR and transported directly to the Guadalupe Landfill, located in the City of San Jose. The Guadalupe Landfill is a Class III solid waste landfill. The total permitted capacity of the landfill is 16.5 million cubic yards. As of the end of 2008, the landfill has used approximately 4.8 million cubic yards or 29 percent of its capacity. The projected capacity remaining as of the end of 2008 is 11.7 million cubic yards. Currently, the landfill is expected to reach its capacity in 2031. WVCR provides single stream recycling to single - family and multi - family residents as well as commercial customers. Single stream recycling means all recyclables are placed in a single bin and do not need to be sorted based on the material type (i.e. paper, plastic, metal, etc.). All recyclable materials are sorted at WVCR's Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the City of San Jose. WVCR also collects green waste, or yard trimmings, from residential customers. The green waste is taken to the Guadalupe Landfill. NOVEMBER 2013 53 INITIAL STUDY — 258 UNION AVENUE The 2020 General Plan EIR provides estimates of solid waste generation for new development within Los Gatos over the next 10 years. Using the General Plan's estimated generation rate of 12.23 pounds per unit per day for residential land uses, the proposed eight new single - family residential units would generate approximately 98 pounds of solid waste per day. The implementation of the General Plan policies for solid waste handling would promote waste reduction and compliance with recycling regulations. Consequently, the project's impact on solid waste services would be less than significant. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues oinu JY YiYU ..uv.vu......... . . 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance - a) Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal 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? 18a, 18c. Significant Impacts on the Natural and Man -Made Environments This Initial Study indicates the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and adversely affect human beings in the following manner: • Air Quality: Although the project's construction- related and operational air pollutant emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD recommends that all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures be implemented for all construction projects, whether or not construction - related emissions exceed these significance thresholds. • Cultural Resources: Potential to encountered unknown buried archaeological resources. • Geology and Soils: Seismic - related ground shaking hazards and geotechnical concerns with undocumented fill. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Public health risks from hazardous materials potentially occurring on -site. • Hydrology and Water Quality: Project residents would likely use common household hazardous wastes such as paint, pesticides, used oil and antifreeze, and these materials could degrade water quality if discharged to the storm sewer or to the sanitary sewer system via indoor sink drains. • Noise and Vibration: Exposure of future residents to high ambient noise levels. Mitigation measures outlined in this Initial Study would reduce these impacts to less- than - significant levels. NOVEMBER 2013 54 INITIAL STUDY -258 UNION AVENUE 18b. Cumulative Impacts The CEQA Guidelines provide that a lead agency may describe the cumulative environment by either: (1) a listing of pending, proposed, or reasonably anticipated projects, or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or a related planning document that describes area -wide or regional cumulative conditions. The geographic scope and method of the cumulative analysis varies by resource area because the influence of cumulative impacts varies by resource. The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality analysis is regional (San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin), while the geographic scope of the cumulative energy resources analysis is state wide and cumulative greenhouse gas analysis is state wide and global. For analysis with large geographic scopes, the Plan Method is used. The cumulative impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, geology /soils, hydrology /water quality, traffic, noise and vibration, hazards/hazardous materials, and cultural resources, are typically site - specific in nature and depend on conditions within the site vicinity. For these topics, the List Method offers the appropriate analysis method, but only those projects located in the project's immediate vicinity are included. For the evaluation of cumulative impacts on public services, utilities, and recreation, the geographic scopes vary with each service agency's service boundary, which is the Town of Los Gatos boundary in some cases, and the Plan Method was used. There are no other approved, proposed, or planned projects in the project site vicinity, and therefore, the project would not contribute to the following localized cumulative impacts: • any cumulative land use changes in the project vicinity related to physically dividing an established community or conflicting with applicable plans, policies, and regulations (including the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan). • any cumulative aesthetic impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, or light/glare. any cumulative impacts related to seismic hazards, soil erosion, or soil instability and expansivity. any cumulative degradation of water quality in Ross Creek since it would treat stormwater runoff on -site, before storm water is released to Ross Creek. • any cumulative traffic impacts on local roadways or traffic- related cumulative air quality, greenhouse gas, or noise impacts in the site vicinity. • any local or regional cumulative effects related to the exposure to hazardous materials during construction or operation of the proposed project. • any cumulative impacts related to historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. With respect to the project's contribution to community-wide or regional impacts, the project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable, as described below: The construction - related and operational thresholds of significance presented in Section 3 are based on the level above which a project's individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB's existing air quality conditions. As indicated in Section 3, the proposed project's construction- related and operational emissions as well as health risks would not exceed any applicable significance thresholds and therefore, the project's construction-related and operational air quality emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable (less than significant). Similarly, the GHG significance threshold presented in Section 7 indicate whether the project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the region's or state's GHG emissions. As demonstrated in Section 7, the project's GHG emissions would not exceed the applicable GHG significance threshold, indicating the project's contribution to significant GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. NOVEMBER 2013 55 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE • The project's contribution to cumulative increases in peak flows in Ross Creek would be less than significant because each cumulative project (including the proposed project) would be required to control runoff from its site. The project's estimated population growth would be consistent with the planned growth rate in the 2020 General Plan. Therefore, increased demand for public services, utilities, recreational facilities, and energy resources would not be cumulatively considerable (less than significant). NOVEMBER 2013 56 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN MARCH 24, 2013 E _ a ZC058 tl0'SO1V0 SO'1'30NJAtl NOW BSZ ° SCIHVHObO NOINfI ¢gym INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE ATTACHMENT 2 AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT N C O .N N W 0 N M � N 6 O IL v N N c7 y? O 01 W): a LL ❑ a v' a•. A`I 0 'N 'N Z. Q'• O O N A L G ' E y JJ-m c E c o N Q io O d � a CO m Nm O 1 I y •• O I 1 I I LL N C m N c O A V 0 U O a ar 7 N oq Z Z: A G m O (V U Cl) N a O O U U Z -Np N N _m o V 24 .......... W w IT y L i A U_ c C M O W A m 'lp N Z „ a 0 J •' .c U � O c a a°i 'O W c O O U LU •O to d O •y L L U _.0 W IL m I.' N d f..l a L m U � o psi m O r N a E = 03 C1 N o 0 5 v > Oc 1 a U U N C O .N N W 0 N 2i O O Ul 0 E LU E Cl) E K 0 2 w .2 o 2 0 t; 0 o > L) 0 ui > 0 C 0 m m Y O Cli m. Ro Lq cq O c2 ff to C 0 16 ci is Vj yv m m Y O Cli Lq 16 ci is Vj yv q n , M , LO OI !n c G O mN� n N r •M •M m a ii �. t0 OO N M q O V :. O � N � M A ,N OO , •M •N Omi •� N � � Z m IoM I e O Ina 1 N ° O N m Id 1 N N IOM I v r O - p I tD I �� 1� 1 o Z ,- 0 l is 0 1 N 0 110° I C N ____4___•I "� 1� I N v � N I IN O o o � M I 1 � U �. I ^O 10 N _ N 100 �N N O a i 1� N m O n N Iv 1 N N Im �m N U ": 1ao �m �m m 'o ! m l0 1� 10 a Irn Im 1n M -- i,°0 m 'a, m to I° m U O�i �m im O M O U Q 10 IN OI o. m Im Im n � IOO 1^ fV O .A °� In i1MO d W 10, Im A Z' I iN A (0 O IM I^ N O as n ^ O m ID ' �. A A N O N rr -- }a..ra N m � N H I I IN 1 Q t aaaa1 aaaaiaaaa �O. d 180 1_^ m NgAa 10 INM I� d O d~ N InO 10 fV �F d y m ��O �� n I� I N 1 10 N O �N L.:R' IqM l °M N {O Id IN w - Cmj' Ig° Im0 m N L�. m 11°00 I °O 0 m w IN Im 0. w 1•j In0 Imo N O i �____ Ivl Im M Zm._ ` 1 IN ry N ry q ] N I I lQ � d� u 1 t o � ,mom... � I N N 0 0 d .___1 1° LLB' � I to c °A aF.: A I0M Im m m IM o 0o n Ids I IOO Im ego° 1V Ivi io 1" ul- n Imo 1° i1n°o IM o ____�___.�____ _,. N to m 11n I �+O A I q j q O I I ____i____G____ ry^ Iom IaM n E+_°' n Iq Im o 0 w1 T .. N 1�0 Ilom N Im Ici %q� Imo ISO In 1100 m q a -� _ ___ ILA q N Im j0- I IN N 1'. r- � G 1 IN N 1 Im n jC I IN ry 1 IN N Via. w � �o C �y - � Im m _•__I 1 IL I 10 0 .: ; ____i ____ 1t .... ___ 1 1 _i _.__i __ -_ v I d I q m °o IOO °oM jOM m N Igo o N la IN O N I°°v m� In°o ivmig N '• M o M __• .r Iv 11n O O m Im 1� n N In IA m N U, n 10 I° O m to Iv n O _m io ;ni N U., m �o Im m ___ _ __ I N _4 _' 1 W l7 O Z .�- 1� IN m N io Ijp y O !M 'O I^ INm C I� O 10 �O O Z N i0 ;1O pmj v ° ' - - --- 4____4 °'� ° 1 O I OO O - - -- - � d d O [C m Iv�o In � ro O — r O n I °M 1� m IA N i Q. O Iwo 1� r; Icti I° � A 2' °.. m Iy0 .m- m IMO Io n O � dl O •: iG:isa:: z U U W ,� f •q` Q F N .w �E fV 7 2 CL N N M O N N_ d O lV a N N 0 2 W W m U c 0 N c 2 LL LL R C Q N 01 C =s U o � a � A! L Ell 1 1 1 1 1 O I �yyd� I I I 1 N I cc 1 I 1 I O m. i is �a iv O D `• 1 I O 1 O I O Ip N IN IN IN IN V 0 Wr,. Im r ICJ jN �m �� •� 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 @ .- � N IN 17 ;!n_ C O 1 Z m c 1 1.0 1,5 za o U i 0 O N O 'O d;m;m;mIE y O_ y 1 N l 9 1> I to L d O C e C d 'D • N 4) d W L a � a ��•, E ; gy m d c 13 r Oi lb O C c c v IL Z! IL) 3 'a 'N Q Q Q M , 'cu 'm a a N N M O N r N N n3 O O IL IL N M 0 N 0 0 Z. w w m U 0 O 0 2 w w is U •r ,(7 O ,n N T ON n t+1 t➢ N ' ' 1(1 ' ,V U MI R J` ..'. a In � Ivl Ir Im Im In I,n tin io in Im ?`. n IOI mf IN IOO IN Im 101 1 IN Im Iw In I 1 I t I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I pe I I 1 f 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I m` O 10 'O 10 •O 10 'O 10 r0 10 r0 10 10 Df 2 1 I N � I I , 1 I I I I I I I - T-- T-- T-- T-- T�- T-- T-- T�- T-- T -�T - -T " 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I U I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I E. I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 r 1 I Q 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I d 1 1 1 I N 1 N 1 I N I I N N I I y I ry m 1 I N G. 1 O 1 N 1 O 1 O 1 yl I 1 O R, IL l; IL IL IX_ 1 IL 1 E. 'U I(n y ' ' U �� ' 'U 1 UL R R R R "s Im im O iN 1 N 1 N 1❑ 1 N I W 1N ;p la rR �In U 1 C I, IR `p ; N ' � ' H I O I O m �m �o �0 �m Iro iU �'� �� IE �> '°-' �m U' IF U I I¢ IF iU iILL '°' IR io If m' N,. . O . o : o ; m a o, 7 V Ty ''mo 7 V ;- U ,p ' •U U � ') : A n a ' • � a, a � c c c c, c ; m' m ; m • m d L an •m •c7 •cs 'c7 'm' •m' 'm' •a 'a 'a •a •¢ C. m i00O 1 G to i m L h ❑ :O :❑ .❑ .❑ I � R 1 I 'o I - o ?O VO 10 a � R. 1 ix R 2I 1... o 10 To .o IO O 10 10 10 10 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ow xC(...( O+ �+: OI i ❑1 i ❑1 :01 OI IJ J IJ IJ IJ ° {. aI: o o ipop io jo 'N IN 4: 1 o io io -io 10 i i i I 1 I I 1 I I 1 °a ivo lo iov �vo Ni IN I N Ni IN I cu i c Tvi ire �� i00O 1 G to i o; o o ; o o n,,1. E? O I � R 1 I 'o I - o ?O VO 10 a � O E 1 I 1... o 10 To .o IO O 10 10 10 10 yl � N :O i0 m 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 cu i c Tvi ire �� C O U 7 U) C O U v N d O m Cl) t0 d Q N n LL I G i > O r R b :0 :m a � ,U C O U 7 U) C O U v N d O m Cl) t0 d Q N n LL I G a v N N (h N n N m f6 O N O CD lU Id EL (V Cl) O N O o v w c W N U C cc G O it y I > a 0 d ° a w co W N U N lM N N O' • [+ •O° m O° U O •O •N i 2" I Z I 1 I 1 U' N O U s °0 1 Oni ° 1 O Y y', ^O O la IN N 1m YI m . RV O O O l0 Im ° 4 b r yrrrr rr 1 O _ m Im m m_ o Im m E0 4 i o 0 1 t o' mo 97 ��. 0 l I O N N o c Wd, O 10 IN to a ' o to l0 0 Po O 1 O 1 2 °' N Im a O 10 IN o to m 0 1 0 m °. °mot tg. a_` ` 0 im O 16 m OO IU. Y'• T �l V a O O ° 1c 16 10 1c m I I N t N Imo I °mm Im° om felt', Ord I of m° Oi I° Im Im m m o i °o 10 1n jo Ipa 1 r ry. o oa k o Im IP m P Z IP P o Io IP 1- O U o l0 1m 0 1OO 10 m 0 % O'. S S 10 o P �o ,o I 1 r 'a LL N N O'' •N O �O •N N U O •O •N i � 1 I Z I I I 1 o i °o lom °m ^O la IN N O:, O l0 Im b O o' 0 l _.. --------- rrr I I O 10 IN N a ' o to l0 0 I I 0y1 O 10 IN m YEN O 10 to O LLd O �O i0O O O O ° 1c 16 10 1c O o t Imo 0 Ord e I° ad o i °o 10 0 jo Ipa ry. o oa IR o Io IP O U o l0 1m 0 1OO 10 m 0 % z S S 10 o o e �o ,o I 1 N N O N 1` N 61 N R O N O t` d a N I N a 0 m w w t0 U c 0 N 0 w w w i6 U d N ro- , C _O O v V INS e ` o a N o' N OJ � 8 :g A �O •N .........:... N N O 10 IN 1 1. °0 1 Im m o lo$ IC 1 M u o t to c e F ° 1° N o 0 o i� ' I 1 Ate' °°o _L .... L.._. O o m d N N O 10 IN N o� o to to e u o t to c e V5. o ip i t Ix to °o Ate' °°o Ix I °0° 00 d jO and °o o° io i%1 °o n 0 IL a� O 10 10 O 1I 1i ----F----t---- 1 o� o i= u o io id e o° Ix I °0° S5 d jO and °o o° io i%1 °o n 0 IL i lo G ° OO 1I 1i O I 1 IC IW YI ° Ig IN to Im y o o io io m 6 O Z o o° Ig 1 1 1� lo° to C o io is c U, Go 1 1 tpg 1 m o io lo a V a a N N M O N N rn N l O N m a N M O N a 2 W W N U Q r n N N O C W R W U Cl) 6 N p •Q y - � •IN(I N I I _ I I Z I � p ON U. 1 to lo° Z ; oOO io �M � IN � a. I o x: T" IN 'o ;o N •, I i vl r o iNm Nm Q 1m N N N �N M3 rl o jo If Inm nm b O'r Z •1 ____ U $ rrrrrrrrrtrrrr 0 m l' r r�r 1 i O8 'A 1p O 1 8 1 N I o 0 0_ to l0 0 I I o0 10 Io Ip I �m m� NN oo jg Ipo Io O la a o ;m I 1 ° Iw 0 AN O Im � I O G LLLL O �O �p I la N o 0 m o o loo l0 0 Imo, o Id d o o io 1• 8 Io Ipo 00 t� NO. O i0 i�0 O 10 I O Ir n0 m n F ' v I .op � m� o to p i0 ;O O m °a i°o i$N om N LLYL "i O � 1 G m c 1° IJ r O' I_ i Ip O N 1C • -T I �N C N OU Im 0 I 1 m m % S jo jo O O x, °o IS to Im m �0 0 16 N I� I o (if O �ry °p 1O la O is IN N N m m O' •F R � o U � ;O LL N p •Q O' V - ,p O i0 o � o • °o ao I I I I Z I I 1 I o to Ip � p U. to lo° o U oOO io �M � o 0 r 'o ;o N •, I i vl O O 10 In n Q oo Io In n M3 rl o jo If O 1,2 O'r m'. $ rrrrrrrrrtrrrr i O8 'A 1p O 1 8 1 N N o 0 0_ to l0 I I o0 10 Io �m m� oo jg Ipo Io o ;m I 1 'N o to to � O f0 10 O G LLLL O �O �p o o loo l0 0 a o Id d o o io 1• 8 Io Ipo 00 t� O i0 i�0 Ir n0 m n p to le l0 v 0 .op � m� o to p i0 ;O O LL °a i°o i$N om N O 10 I(p0 1^O m c 1° IJ r I_ i O o Ig Im m I 1 % S jo jo O O °o IS to 0 �0 0 16 (if O °p 1O la O is IN N i 7 7 N N Cl) O N n N 0) « R 0 O N O m N 0 CL N Cl) N 'D 0 2 W W U c .N 7 0 m W _LI R U N G O C O C N 1 N � e CM n -c L � O m M c5 g N O C M C L) r g O N 2 __ _F__ _. ^__ �N �F O r____ 2 O o p° j 1°0 1°po o n g4 T.._ _;. c Io I 1 °O I m c° u afi. 0 1� to e jid O �O �O C p� _k _k d d I OO Id T m ° to Im m k ° a ro k op I$ 1� LLd o �N �F O 1 i 10 IN 10 2 O O 1 OO `OO OO 1 1 min mN o °o ° io id I° fov g wa ° Ig IC o' o t In r afi. 0 1� to e jid O �O �O C p� O O I 1 10 IN N IO IN b d d 1 1 v T m ° to Im m k ° a ro k op I$ 1� LLd o le �o e ---- kQ---- k- ---Oaayl, J °o o I �o Id d o I� 16 to o �o �d e ) O O �O ip p I g I r tQi R •� F G n. N N c+� N r N m N itl 0 0 O O m t0 a N a N O Q N O W O W ;. N 7 U Q N C rn O U Of a c 2 `g w LL m 0 U d e+i •n " °m N m m O Z N N m e U � m O O 0 Z cr er O N N r a P__m ° IC o a_ IN I� o im jm O 'N m p r O r 6 of N N le 1� ui e„ 0 A O. m O:. N O O 6 m f " ON nj.• o O m b m Via, y c o )N N ma; O i0 �d p Iu°ip I�o LL JN t0� m m lya O IN N ---IN 1 1 o I m 1 O In ISO 1 IOO � O Q$O WlLi � 0 O °O Im I� LLd o I� Ir m �a _m o 0 m m O 0 m 0 . N j m m m O Z o d e o e q 2 d � � s I�jld O' 0 O fJ •n " °m y O g •N �m °o 0 I 1 O I 1 Z I I I I 1 o Ipe Ipm om a U' ° IC a_ IN I� o im jm N m o 'N � o to Im IN IN of �, le 1� ui e„ 0 O m IN Im N N O U+ 6 m " N IN o Nq p p IOm IOm ° IulO le° In N_ °' nr N o O i0 �d p Iu°ip I�o am �a JN t0� lya O IN N ---IN 1 1 o I m 1 O In ISO 1 IOO � O Q$O v y �N O °O Im I� LLd o I� Ir m 0 ur ° Imo$ l0 0 la Id 0 f O N 1N 1 5 - °o I d O IN I� I�jld m :' IN IN fJ mom. O INO 10 O p Ib 10 O id im $ Ige 1°pe I e N p (� ° loo lop 1a lu! op m c N Im ° Im Im m O c I to Z o o �6 0 c Im i� 0 O O R d o 0 (L a N N M O N N N m N 10 0 O N O O (d a N N 0 O LU W _W U C O O a O Lu W _W <B U _v O N N C N O C O Q N C p O r U m � C C U v � �M� M W R M mi N C O 7 r N C O U a d 0 J o m r N a �o °a W i O U O a a °o i id Id l 0 N m° U �N �cJ I I 4�II O 1II I I 1 I I N Z I ° I 1 I I I I 1 1 _ o°mOMv 0 j o O I d 1 s I IpM �M U ° 1'N S R ° IN I� N o _ ci P I N r - - - -IN IM vl N O p In IN N w [➢ Z o IN IM � J o m r N a �o °a W i O U O a a I� In I I m 1 I m ° 1N0 10 O O IOi 10 O I ° Id Im � IN IfV N 4 •� 1 I °o to Im e ° Im Ic c 0o Io°P loo° ° o to °o to °° e°oo ° IN IM I N O Im IN M 16 IN 0 1° I o° Im Im m O 10 10 O I t IN IP In a IN I o ° to l0 0 1 1 9 Y r >C ,0 F •3 °o i id Id l 0 N III o IIi v 1II I lo.g. 1 I ° o°mOMv 0 IO°o° v?N ° 9 Y r >C ,0 F •3 2 CL N N M O N N W Y1 O N O r N m a N ri 0 N 0 O 2 W W 6 U o a r W O N 7 0 � C w aA U In ri m $ • °o 'OO •O °o O O o ° •$ 00 U i I Z Z 1 I N I n I n n 2 U N 0 1 c o 10 0 U N 10 vio I°o N ^lo m o N I m N O � I N •o N ° Z O I I O U 2 0 $$ 1 O O '6 �"" ID i 1 1 -F -F o i0 ION °N �,N sE �N(e � jO tN0 a. O 10 O O 10 10 o IS Iv to Io 'm I to u m I N 2�, 1 I 1 LL 4' r I$ r I IN N 0 o 1 O uri I $ uri V 1 pP iSN N O 1° IN CI o n r 0 c I .a Ic 1 O%'. LLa, 0 10 1 Z 0 d 10 10 - --- Ir -� -- -- --- I I c n m 1 O •O •m a c I o (n Q I p 1 M I r I r x Z 1 1 I 0 N 1° N I° O D 0O a m $ • °o 'OO •O °o O O U O •O O •O o •o •m m Z 1 I I I I 1 p 1$ IN 10 10 m O -1_ O a- 8' 10 NO" U 0 $ io 1n n f o j0 im O 10 I� m O' O: O 2 0 $$ 1 O O '6 �"" p 1 OO 1 OO OO 1 1 -F -F o i0 ION °N �,N sE I I my �N O 10 10 o IS Iv to Io O e p 0 I 1 A• I IN N 0 o 1 O 16 iSN N O 1° IN CI o n r 0 c I Ic O%'. 0 10 0 Z 0 d 10 10 - --- Ir -� -- -- --- I I c n m Qp •O •m a q N O 'O v a r0 O O rp p _ m Om m G O I I ° •O ° CL I •o °o Io Io 0 (=J O i0 i0 O N N O 1 C1 O 1O 1 Z I o'- f O Or O 1O It` n 1 I I m'; 0 :p" to Im m n ____L____L n , o N I N }rrrr }rrrr I m o � c I O 1 O I tmp m 1 I N'N O 0 1 O 1p ION pm () N 1 O N N pm Ip Gm �O ?N i O jo �r(pi aF Yj 0 lo° to O N � I I I I °O 10 Ism cr7 om om O O 00 Oa O Ip IrnO InO r v 63 1 m O' o to im m I I mom., p Ip I� N N 10 Id � g to IOm pm so N O O N •F 0 r�r rr I m O (V 1 pmj 10 0 Z °o Ip l0 0 fmO o d d C a o l0 0 I 0 R Tn m O cam. � jo o m N O' I ;0 0 � r a R LL I CL G O N N 1 O N 1 N 10 vs m a moo.' 1 IL d 1 I N � 1 O 1 O O i O (`7 1 OU N , N N O I n N H U N Q m CLN ) 0 c _p O [mm V N > . O CC I � ' • W > m a o U 0o" ri 2 N O 'O r0 O O rp p _ m I 1 O I I 2 1 1 I 1 I I °o Io Io 0 (=J O i0 i0 O N a O 1O 1 q O o i0 in n o'- f Or O 1O It` n 1 I m'; 0 :p" to Im m ____L____L O' }rrrr }rrrr I m 2 I O 1 O I tmp m 1 I N'N O 0 1 O 1p ION pm RN p I° I� I I ?N i O jo �r(pi aF Yj 0 lo° to O I I I I °O 10 Ism cr7 J-5 O O 00 Oa O Ip IrnO InO r v ! 1 m O' o to im m I I mom., p Ip I� N 10 Id � g to IOm pm N : 0 Io 100 O° IN N •F 0 Z °o Ip l0 0 o d d C o 0 R •5 U ;0 0 � r a a N N ch O N N ai N O O 7 U m CL N tM O V N � O N 2 W C W L) R U p c U O � N 3 O M W LG W Q U t0 Of N O U $ •N o O N I I I N N z i I jo l0 0 0 y, � i O 1m Q I $ •� ° I i , 1 N N ° ffi I N IN O 1. p °r. m Im m U $ I$ $ I vi N y C Ic o Ij W, 10 G 1 1I ry mN I Im m � NJ: 1 LL 6 IJ O I N n i $ I° I$ °o I uNi I vNi N Tn o j t�ii O IN mom; I 1 $m In$ pOm r$ O K - 0 IN I Im 01 N m I' 1 In I U n n Z. �N N N IN m Z jo � •a a O 10 IOm Om 'z r d O 10 IN Cl a` i I 1 Z I I , p 1 Im m U $ I$ In m I 10 0 I Im m N Ur: $ I° I$ Im Iv o O N� O 10 IOm Om d O 10 IN Cl O 1 1° 1 1 °m am �cQ L $.' 1 to O w.a o 1° im m I Ian° m j$Opm INO N(1$ �•• O O m $ is d y V ° �.n $ i$ i$Nm o a o Io le 0 10 f I I� � I 0 O Q 125 Im I� m n $ to l0 0 1 1 I �A5 s° x Z'. o o ° ° �° ° ° o Mlti •' '.' .... 1 r____�____ co o I$ Im 1^ 0 o Io l0 c x w U SP a 0 R D O 7 NT gNg gy vg� a U ° •N N Q Q •o C .0 •C C N Q M Z I Z 1 1 I 1 a ° o °o all U I�O x j jg °' °E N m T 1 °° o I Id m S] m o SX � m� N O O i0 i0 O Z IN n m: jo 18 ° 0 Q ;S Sg O b °o rize 10 O N O IN N NfGN O 18 1Q�Q0 00 T Eha 1 IN N Io �m w ° O IN N �O q�. °a O 1$4q$ Im Ix IgO o T a % T GYp� o Io Ig° O 1 lai el 'T lLa Q 0 i0 n° nlI! g N Q O 10 Id'y O lO IOp O _ C4 ° N IN 1° 1.= N Im Iq m m N LU w c � 1 C o n g I° '� p R R Iii r p l0 10 •� � (/% � L Q O 1 O L Q O I O I N N 10 N I ° (t O O I10 uj Q m v •� c ° 'a m N SP a 0 R D O 7 2 CL a N N 0 N n N N l0 N 0 N CL CL N ri O d Co 0 G G W N W y U � N � LLL m C > c Or 2 Of W A U r v N' 1 O' i 1 I to 2" C � 1 N 1� O 10 _r- N IN N O m Im m N IN O ` i q o io 1 p Op 6 100 d''^ Wzi .vim iro lL 1 m im 6r' O IC -r y 1' O 1 pOm lOm IepO 5� Ip� I �a m Im o Ic i� N'.� umio �No N IN In U o Io -r 1 N IW X O c I o to I n Ir p 10 ;a d m •m C O CR O C f0 E E 3 CL H N It m 2 C) °m o a o a o U _- a ti o F` O pj (n N C "U O O N Z • U o V O vi 2 y U o o m � a 2 3 -- U ov � N C R E m QN C � d T CL LL H N m !J o 0 O '✓1 O O � O N o m o o o M o M o 0 0 m N I N o0 a N Q N = O O N N O J'. O J 0 N � N � o m u a °o N � O J p ai o ° J � O O D T d ui W U O N O U m m O N •tn ° °p Op d �v c) Ira 0 0 N -- U U m lO o F. 6 0 0 T N IOP m 'm °U Zm ,m D m o N� oo a N O D lb -�0 n100 ° _t x no YN 0 �d N �O i ^O rn� W2 � r ,ri a 0 tL d m m Vo x � vl VI m 'N° `a � a - N 0. oy oe LLa ' No NO v d O� In0 O N v id 0 0 m m n ° t z WL LU L I y m 'm d L f0 ZO c io j 00 �° m= c d c ° 'y � 00 ,d oo ro °o R °o Imo J U MMRW c v W D iJ r N C O1 LU c� (Q U C U i0 O C W J pit F- T Z u .Z7 ui m 0 2 a v N N c7 0 N N m N itl 0 N O d a N ri O N O 2 W W N U C O cO L W W m v N l0 li0 w R Z N N a C J a T d YI W ei N N N N NO. U m TO m m � 1 U 1 o Im o to IN i. V N 0 0 6 b U m Im 1 m 110 N -' A O U d n cn cn m L � U _ O1a Y . d L �o m Im - t _ T5� ^ n n In 4 m Im N �N vj a o. Br @ N N° I Jh 1 ;N N' �v °N INO o° 0 W No Imo 4; a. m _ n 'e �F. n I_ mo vi d ng ui O IN IN Z, Z2, c N c to >oa, a. CJ: p LL e m d O.� O m � o 0 m 0 o m 0 0 d ,�1 O Z V' � m m A Y)ii r n is q z p- r E m LL vmi _ in R W Q N d 3 N d D G R m d m L N c I g ac � m �m NO. U m TO m m � 1 1 o Im o to IN i. V N 0 I U m Im 1 m 110 N -' A d m L � O1a Y . 1 1 �o m Im - t _ T5� ^ n n In x m Im N �N � a o. Br N° I Jh 1 �v °N INO o° 0 W No Imo N iN OU n 'e I_ O IN IN Z, N c to I CJ: p N 1N m n z ;d m � E V' � Is M d U. o •o •m .m o 1 1 1 I Ion loin IOO om N no 1 I° 0 0 g I 1 1 r I Im I (h Z 1 t o I p i 1 1 c O - I to ^ 1O r N Z I Im Iv I Io IpM m c W LLJ z U O o U Chi o O jo jn jm 10 IQ I� b R r m a o � lm I to a m i to Im y N m U. •n n •`a W n y m • ,N N •� mR; O I 1 1 10 1°J° 10 U N °� •ua •� d O 10 IN 1 I I IN N O pN o Io 1� IpMO n N p RN 1 I I c N am m to to Ion gF. O o to Ilp lo°o im b N 1 1 1 r� o° to Im log m jam 1 Q 1 1 1 I Ion loin IOO om no 1 I° 0 0 g N r ui r O I to ^ 1O 0 W LLJ z U i i° i�g o Chi r m a o � lm I to y W W •� ° U N °� •ua •� a a N N M O N r` N ai r) 0 O O 0 m t0 CL cV M O N 0 O W w O ca d U c @ o � 3 m N ° a 0 LU R 9 W d ID I d co Q R U N R �', N t d p •o ,o ,� n °p •n m O' U U) y rn _ d 2 fd C d O .o ° .o •N m o •o t1 m L m to N rn R M 1 I I R N a 0 m I m Z ao of I 1 d i io iSo m g a la N T O l0 Im lam � 0' -tl h '. T --jr--- �____ o Im m O 'm m m 01 0:, It n o, • rrrrfrrrrTrrrrNrrr 10 10 IN m I'BLL~ OO 10 IN Ioj I N I 1 1 I 1 O 10 10 Ism O O I b NN �N:: 1 S iS im lSg e .. r ---- r____F ?N I I I I 1 1 � d 1 I I per.. O l0 Im iS$ u d,. o Ic IN IN I I I `x ¢. O I IN I� 1 N T r. - - -1m I I I id id I IOOm ISm 8 m s`,° i imp iS� mg Im Im n 0 I IS 1 b m 1 Im I° ___ -�_. It - ___ ---- d i _ ;n ipm 0 m . % °z I I° Iln ____I____'_.__' -___ a IN Im Im ° U' O m Im Ip IN 6 IS Im Ip N m 6 CD I I I E� :� •W •J C O .d+ d rn d 7 O O T t d M y ;a, d U) y rn _ d 2 fd C d O N 7 co d 2 C d O w O c O L m to N rn R M : 0) R N a r- r co ao of C O .d+ d rn d 7 O O T .ter' m �'Y; N N 2' N «P 3l0 r N i+ w 0 �di�.. O r 0 O e O O A O 4 C C OC N ) T I I I I Q OC I I I I I Lo O c A ❑ b I i I CL I I a c0 N 0 � 1• N • • C1 p O I I LL 07 1 •i N N c cc cu cl ;? Z Jn N ct l30 m _ O ru s E c C7 co O o U r c 0 24 LU .' W •� A d a t0 O m O W m w L s o m fn U O) '�. -. E f'ti d v N +� ❑ rn ' a 0 I[7 a O om a C C 10 2 n `i0 : d c Gl o c d m W c c o' W m N g a J Wei r=-' O .q m T nl N W f< a E = av € M 0 r r r U Uc r a J 2 IL 0 O OJ O N a 0 Lil r- uj o co C) 0 0 > C.) _0 V 0 ui LLJ 0> U C) 17 041 C 0 0 ci E IT, 6 d TL FO O ro C; A.i LLa o0 00 m ho lit O om Yo O v Lx C 0 0 ci E O z 6 cN— 0 E cF- N— O 0 Z 0 .6 m -is -6 in N 00 h;; CR M. ro C; A.i g S. lit O z 6 cN— 0 E cF- N— O 0 Z 0 .6 m -is -6 in N 00 h;; CR M. i a N N Cl) O N n N 03 N N U) N O co N a A EL N CM O N 'C O w W W U C c 0 c o � m d a a > O 0 w N m w O> w m U N N \ \ LLI j / j LU 3 # | g o k 2 22 ®\ ci IR � ~ / ^! � ! � ! { �! \\� k § k ( U IL a 2 a 0 N N co N N N l0 O N O N N a a N m N 'a 0 i w w U C O O W w U - O ;•O 'M ;'N N M O G O ;O C M VV ;O ;O ;C ;G �O O ;O O U LT N J ;.: v I n Y IIp n 1Fm -I m I n -roi Yvi 1`0 �rr i o0 10 :TM c � 1 `= 1 - -T�TTT�TTTT- T - -R• -- ' - I '� I^ IN 1� IN IN ,V 1� 1� •1� j� i I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 j I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I r I 1 I E I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I ¢ I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1__1 --- --- __1 - - {__ aNi i i im i 1 Id iw 1 I , m �;. o i3 I is 1 ;o Im 1 i t o I I p I C I m 1 JY01 j 1 4� I= 1 1 1 O 1 L `Y � IN Im IF Ic 1 I IC I10 I 1 IJ �p u' 0 c c ; c B O• o • o m o , 0 2 0 .2 C . C . c , U o- N �k U L P Q 0 1 1 i i"o i< la p v �� ;o ;o io 0 - v i i i j Z 1 1 , I , I I r 1 1 N 1 IS I jA 1 o e � 1« I iU N O iO a is is �a Im NN O la ,33 b m 1 m I= I c it L 10 N 1 1 N :� 4m Sa..Ita a o :. C W � L a CL N w o •c �m i C N 2 m d A Oi c m :V N U' N O d c gym' �a ;a Ur FnCi Ur O. !_° w - O ;•O 'M ;'N N M O G O ;O C M VV ;O ;O ;C ;G �O O ;O O U LT N J ;.: v I n Y IIp n 1Fm -I m I n -roi Yvi 1`0 �rr i o0 10 :TM c � 1 `= 1 - -T�TTT�TTTT- T - -R• -- ' - I '� I^ IN 1� IN IN ,V 1� 1� •1� j� i I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 j I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I r I 1 I E I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I ¢ I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1__1 --- --- __1 - - {__ aNi i i im i 1 Id iw 1 I , m �;. o i3 I is 1 ;o Im 1 i t o I I p I C I m 1 JY01 j 1 4� I= 1 1 1 O 1 L `Y � IN Im IF Ic 1 I IC I10 I 1 IJ �p u' 0 c c ; c B O• o • o m o , 0 2 0 .2 C . C . c , U CL N N N 0 N N rn N 0 N O N d N (7 O N 0 2 W W m U O j 1- O L 9 W C W N � U H C W O �la)� 4 V 1 °o IOO °o 7 N 1 o u N I � 1 2 O U +o S r W I I ry N > 1 1 I � I � W � Q O C o m OI 2i ❑ ;0 _.i °o .0 -0 00 j 00, a a O �O ; i0 m 0 I J 1 p. 0 Ip a [+7 10 PM n In I1� In 1n I 1 I I I I I I > 1 I 1 1 O I N I 1 j� m I p J I I I I 3 I _;__ O 10 'O 'O 10 a n roz' -io :o o o .O •o 10 o E 1 j > o _1_ o io :o to o to to to to n t_ �4. O Imp j wa p2 8 I I 1 1 I I I I do I I I I cv is iln in _ G i� N I I I I I I 1 n i i i j Q O wo �a oe joa i i i I o o� O .. ... 1 1 1 �. `LQ 4F Ono Ie IS° O C m m .0 m o y 'm ;o ;m 6 • in C O O V 1 °o IOO °o 7 o l0 0 N 1 � c 2 O U 00 r W I� N U � W � Q C O R L C o m OI O 0 a X W A CL C w � m N r N N Cl) C-i O 1 °o IOO °o o l0 0 1 � 2 °o loo 00 I� U p IN la e m F o O i0 C o la a o p. 0 Ip a O O ° ID O .O • 1 j N t_ �4. O Imp gp wa o ie° do �a oe joa sa o� `LQ 4F Ono Ie IS° ry° n W le d° LLa I r____ ry °o O la °o I Id Om � gm D 10$ o $ Ih n Im 1'i Id � Z z INg Iv° In �____ I� n O Q Ia I n Ih I U ;O o '0 N c___I____'____ rl N O Io0 Ipo 00 Z 1d 10 0 0 c O I I I I N 1$ 1$ m U I$ I$ o $ 10 10 e v 0 N U Is 1$ 1N N E $ 10 Ip p F OO i :O ..$ I$ 10 O m' ai. � O i's 16 OO $ 0 0 ; °o °o ! I 1 .4 r o 10 1°$ o $$ $ $ 1$ 1$ $ 0 I a m d Ip LLd po Io lop o° 10 ION ON ntyO °O 1 100$ $$ •. p1 0 1N H I � _ I 1 j0. $ Ip0 10 O F $ 1$ 10 O O O O 1 O 1 O O C f f 1 I Op 100 o- QN LL2 o Io t loo 00 1 1N N � l I I 0 Ip to 0 IR Io $ 0 10 1c o N�____�____ Cl) r 0 to ii L 0e N U Flo to Ip$ 00 0 t o I � W uj ca O Z o 0 0 U Y p Ip IN N C 3 r0 O C 0 l Imo# 10 I m � > CL I � O CL LU 7a (A - �°- U a e y C 0 C O N C U d 2 2 CL N N Cl) O N r N m R N N p m m a N vi N 0 r o a to W w N O U c c o C V O R ` N > c c a v U 0 a mo W N N w N m 6 U N M N m C A 0 M Cl) AN Q t1• O �O •O G I o to $ p z o io l0 0 Z • ry4 0 �o �d o j u16 'i I I i ° IN N F f 2 +! $ Ip I$ o iA 1 O i0 O c 10 N O 10 10 O O to O Z I N OU O C U' d 10 10 m o io d m. A° W �• 0 m o I o ' 00.0 � C I I LLa 1 i 6 om $QO lo° 00 o 1$ to °o$ d N °o$ m •�� y S i$ i $ o Imo °.lo ly4 ° Im sW,: to Io ,AI11 ' 6 rn� ME NO 0 d � to IN n I ino d 00 to I$ p U �a j�o $ I$ I o �o io o 0 Im° Im 1 m m V 10 O LLn v O I° I� N 1____ II ____ -1 to to $ I I� U I loo I In 0 n t I is z ° 10 IN 4 �- - -- g I° 0 I$m 1OO N A, o oa U' p 1 oo iNO No io° I I N m C A 0 M Cl) O°o I o to $ p z o io U ° IN N F f A O i0 O c 0 1 o IN n O O Z I OU o 1O $ m o io d A° W �• ° 1 ¢i m I � C LLa 1 i 6 om $QO lo° 00 r Im ° 1a I$o ry $o y rJ� $ o Imo °.lo ly4 ° Im o� O rn� 00 i NO Iv � I� d d 00 p U j�o yoo Im° Im 1 m m V 10 O v on LL 5 IL N N C] O N r N m d fQ N N O m rn m IL N ch O N 0 O W W f U C O r O O � N 1 � a o� o c 2 a W �p W A � U M ai d N C O c O .0 7 N c 0 U v 0 pO �O �N Nm N $ •O �O O N $ Io to $ Cl) 16 10 0 r I N o I$ Ipo °o m U o l0 1� Q 0 ° Ig Im m 0 �.. °o l0 10 0 r• 1 to c U } p m m f m 6 L 1°°N $ g0ry 0 N O O ji i° o ° ---- r---- II� I O °$ I IIt1Ir $o $ p N f O 16 I N ° O '1000 Im I_ __ r---- $ °o jo 0 1$ 0 Id 0 0 � m 1p O0 $O I11Ip O ° 1 ° 0m a 0 o ° 0 O $ l_I�l�I1 $ $ O 0N ---- Ir---- $ d Q 'T �1 O N . e _ ____rI I C 1 � m W U i o° V W O I 0 C ____ I r____ Q r U 0 io id b N C O R T' U (7 ° I° lopes p °a 0 10 10p C O Q O OO N ci N N > c p c U y 'O o 'S c � 5 's 3 LU m a U CO pj C+ 2 b\ co N N m N CQ In m m 0 N N O O R CL N It N p -p N O W C W 10 V U ` c O c C > U v of C 2 v W m U C7 Oo t� U n �m n m U I - I e N z o 0 JIB I ; °o ISW IW u o 0 O Wp N N 10 IN ° N N 'Q Im N O O a yaj N � m m V O _ --------- - Z a I�' ICJ N IN -t -E :J °o AA O O m O 1 S i8S 125 ti °OS tea„ � o___Iw iSm d gg b o° R;. „' n is Imo° o n SI N x`d F _� :.N m� 1OC 1 c OI)� S 6 ..411._ 0 �� 1[V o° 1 to of W p O o 1.6 �0 0 o 1 o iQb j8 o IITjo I °� b So U ro r - o ib i� n° n t s No C 1� Ifi v W Oa r C O e O H 0 U is n n L m U e N z o 0 a o 0 ° N N r b O a yaj N � m m V O _ Z :J °o o° 0 0 a gr o° a o n SI N x`d :.N m� �a ° � O a- o t s No C O C W Oa L °a ov N I n S if (�r N o o z 0 v O e 0 _ o U O r G a. N N O r N !P d N O N O1 ttl LL N CO a N O -p N y 0 w c y W O LLI m r O Q O C v 2 o c rte/, o C V N O U > c v m O O c U W V 9 0 111 m m U a a O N Ol C O a .v. �' m • o °m N 1q S m U N O O 10 O Q Z 'i Oo c � L,f Io I� 0 6 . . i; ____4____4____ I I � . T I U q I� Im ai n N f O I _ I __ L .... ! _ U i•�,5 �S � °o $ 0 m �F� d • o • 0 - I I N. N gyp. 'nm aYj� °5$ ioa iga �a o I o 0 N I Im m �OO � °o I 1 o jOa j °m io _ I I v� m� I o Iv Id Op Ipm Ipa °O :N 'mZE l p o$ LLa to I� ° Im Im d d to m 1 � no �a Wo i° mo o I- la na jpa d I in° ioo ?° Li r ° I. i _4____ ioa tom °m d i ' lo° lion° °O ° 46 vi Im I 0 I� O pOO ioo Ox W m I o I o to to I� IN m I gm I$ � $ C7 o 6 mg Io o Ip o 10 I g loom IO m m U I p vmi. I ° to d Im o Iv I6 op 1°00 1$a i x o p INp Imo $o O Z o In 10 I m n °o 6 INO I� Im d .':GiGGa :: - � a U a O N Ol C O a .v. �' m • o °m N o N BOO m U N O O 10 O Q o Io m I c � o m T I U q v°i 1 0 n N f O N. N Om IG' Om -F m Io �OO � °o Wa io _ I I v� m� I d to m 1 � no �a Wo i° mo I I d i � O m I I vi Ox m I o I $ o I gm I$ � $ C7 o 6 mg Io o Ip mo o IL O N N C] O N N m N (0 N N O r N R CL N M N 0 O LU w W l6 U o v > N O tm c w > w m U In t7 d N C 0 C v L N C O U d m p O ,O O •m o .o° •m I o •c �0 m m 0 N •O 1OO N ° p 0 z o l0 cs to oa n --'Q---'om 10 _ o 0 em 0 °Oa oo' I IN N a to Im m U o 0 N - 1 r- n 1 O U 4 b I I o 10o Io b CI c Iz z m N id Id U I. o . °o • o °o U o •o o •o •d 0 Fm ��... d 1 O to Ip o° io° 1oa --------- I pa N 0 C m I 1� Np o 10 10 0 wa I o 0 0 0 s.n tom 0 10 1oa oa _ od 10p o Ip 1� Op tip IJ to I 1 ---- n _ I I l___I o d °OO °QO z' a�. io i8� o to Imo °o I 1 o- T to °m to o IO l0 0 O .yam 00 �O 'O 0 0 0 iO 0 0 1 I d o Io log o a 0 Sa omp 10 o io 1 o °o ° °o y 0 1 ° Id e o I r____�.____ I N o° 1 0° I o 1° 1 0 pp O 1 o O 10 O I ISO _F f o to Id b 05 U 0 10 Io mO 0 Ip I� o to Iq° pC o° I I I m o io id o 1 loo o ri G oa x p°m ° Im I I o to i$' o Io ri i O S Io I O oo 1 1 of ai m I I 1 o < r ;a s C g d a t 'hg d N C 0 C v L N C O U d m N •O 1OO N ° O 0 z o l0 0 to oa n 10 °Oa U N Io a n 1 N o ` N 1 6 O CI o to 0 m N N Z 1 U o •o Fm d •d d --------- I N 0 C m Np I s.n tom ipo 0n �� od K,G ..�. to I 1 n _ I I o- to °m to L cm ° m°p iO m tCO � omp 10 pp o I m� 1 oR I LL I I I I p°m 1 m I O 1 m I I 1 o < r m I m C g o I a Z d � __I O___ o c I° O _ oo °0 00 i0 Om Z O1 c m U •a K : °F- a N N t7 O N t` N m N itl N O 7 N m a N M 0 N 0 0 W W N U c 0 O 2 W W m U N O1 C W CL d fN C O .0 N C O DU Y 2 O N O1 C A O U 3 V ,wdr L a m ai O o rN O I U Z o IS I .p I 1 Im g 1 _ m o IS IS S ° I 1 o IN o 1 1 ° IS I I 1OS � of I° O if U m � I I I- IN o - m 1 S IS Im M � O ISm °O °o a� o INS F O 10 S IS IN I° N m O U ' m o d to �d Iw id m o z J >N !__. O °OO jom °o r7 09 aF O iN0 I^ I NS ° m o ro - r- •0 tee+ 0 >° I I LLa b N O i °o° I If ?° =^ o `vr N aN It S I° IS ° Igo 1m 1 �o n x O Z l0 �0 0 0 dN ,wkA 0 1° I d o IN o 1 m• 2 q U •¢ O U o r W � I _ Sv LLa ° S i° 1 IS io °O I IS e °° o o o 1 1 o Io Im � o ,g i$o og 0 I° 1m of I 1 � I° 1m of I I o �9 •y m u O N O1 C A O U 3 V ,wdr L a m ai O o rN O I Z o IS I S � Im g 1 _ m S j In rmo n o H- ° I 1 o IN o O O I° O if N m � I Z I D m 1 O I N dl N� O ISm °O °o a� o INS n I� Id L g Im INO HO wa o I- I I 1 J >N LLa °OO jom °o r7 09 aF O iN0 I^ I NS W � I- >° I I LLa b N O i °o° lo° ISo ?° =^ o U I� Igo 1m 1 �o n x O Z l0 �0 0 0 ° jom n o IN o 1 m• 2 q U •¢ O U _ ;O r a C e C 0 w m 2 �' U a �O •O C N M 1 N m t l S I S I g 8 0 0 1 105 o I 1 0 in. o 16 o c m d .e •o d y;� $o i°O. i$ 0 °S 0 .. to l0 1 1 N o -- 0)0 a 4 F o 6 QN o i 1 d o° I� 1 IYl N _ r� I 1 o Ip IS a ma o IS ISN jo QN g dog N � IQ I o _ c io id 0 M O 47 N o to jm IS s o 7 O m _ _-_-_I�' p W W r 0 O gOSw ° C -°-e Il1 - "o U o °S e ° 0 1S o Y 0 �+ _ « w w d •� x A U m C C of C e C 0 w m 2 2 IL a N Cl) 0 N N m N iC N 0 N N a (V Cl) O N r a N LU W L) �j o w o W C O N �� :r v Q DC L ! U : l N 0 U O O w m U CO ri 2 m N d o m O w� d U) W N C O O r CL :? 012 v v y. 'o N O � m U p •o �o a 2 �m IOm g U. I I � m m m Im NO o to to 0 I -h m im N b -- --�-- -%---- 1 I p �O o to Io eg D .......... O Nm �o d~ y tis LE I O I NO iN0 h vN o �o m� wa o to o to .y- m ° 16 e ~ r *I 1 m2 �c °•?I $ I$ Io 0 z La o L �m �' O •O �O O O m C O +IOr o° •O Y :O rY 10°Nr °o op�N So N� �}�$ iyj�� h I 1°O 1g o p o Io I g 1� I O I 1 r o to :v mN., .dh o° O 10 1p 10 1O 0 3 bn: I -- m 1 I$ Ho 0N 1$g 88 q ° Ifl 8 I- I$ i N 1$ o loo 18 o. i$ i�og m� Io 2 o ---- g F ---- I io 1 r---- 1 Io N g N � 0 1d 10 0 � Igo 00 U 1$ 100 00 o 1.00 lm O U o Io to °o oa " m g 'm 1- U N d o m O w� d U) W N C O O r CL :? 012 v v 'o N O � m a 2 �m IOm g U. co l a � m m m Im NO U mo io F I -h m im N b ,o p �O N � D .......... I Nm �o d~ Im to 1° I om IOm tis LE NO iN0 ��I`yy,M vN o �o m� wa o to o to ° A a I IN m2 �c I i°o wa o �m m 1� C a Ic (J N I N p 10 m �m N C I Z o I I g 1� I O r o to :v N N CJ O N r N m N N N O r N m IL IL CV O N 0 0 2 w w U c O N d a w w _w U c O r m E O C T E E 0 a �L F N c 0 cc E O C m 0. _T a L T d c W N d Z N � a m c O c - W �p m rn U r_ O 2 Ld CD N N L� N N T N R N `o lb N R IL N M N O w w w m U C O O w W m U ry •N •� N ` ;.N �N • D <) U .D p •p •�n •In pa Ip0 pa loa °o O Z �O Iq° Imo I°y O I� IN IN N Oa G jN d I� °a Ipa Ipo Ipa ° o a 2 Oa °o °o � r I- IN IN m O 10 IN IN � N o to o o la to O r a; Ic I to I �n I ul I^ o p I I^ _ -- N O ° o m N z 16 I to I ui vi ° 0 m d d O N ry o ;o o•o O m m •o •o Q 1 IOm IOo LF i 1° 1N° IN o 1D Ip0 IpD a °oo 10 I� I �•1 I ;6 °o o lap Iop mN 00 m� I I I qm 1 I I oti r,. d I I I to loo °- 0 ;moo 2 xa 0 to loo o0 00 loo I� '•�I Q _ -- I 1 I p IQ Ipm lom o to °o °o °o Nq ra ° to Ic i� 1yl I �1 I I 1 I I dp ca Omo I Id i� O 1 loa iop � 1 10 10 I� t •'(. IW I pm Ipm O i I No o I- I m 0 Ux z r I Im �m O o L t o to z I to to U ----i--- IF- ---t---- I I I co I I y * .'t"e a °_'m ` m+ °°• ;ern m v E m i m E Em U w •w� z z� N m 7 z Z d N 7 C J a T d Of � d W U N C in 7 N N N O N Oa a Oa °o °o � m m � N o U N o 0 O r vi r N C) U O ° o m N z _ o ° 0 m d d O N ry O m m ti�i °oo °oo wa o0 00 m� om oti r,. om td2 °D °D xa o0 00 w '•�I Q _ -- Op w Omo oN vi m U t N °o H °o °m m 0 Ux z r o d m o L U U co Em `Y i e g mi � \ $ tm \ \ \ �} �ƒ m_= ) \: (! a_ a. \ ^. 23 F Eli 9 ; 2 \ \\ 7 / Ld ) goo } ^ 'o \f \q ° \ $ tm \ \ \ �} �ƒ m_= lb a. \ ^. 23 F Eli 9 ; 2 \ \\ 7 / Ld ) goo } 'o j / \fe- LLI \> / 3 G \ $ tm \ \ \ �} �ƒ m_= lb 23 12 IL N N M O N N m N R N O O N N ro a N M Cn (1 OY N � 0 0 w W a) W V) w D U v o � rn J > 0 T O cn W N N W C m U cn Lc; d a 7 h cd cts C 0 O l9 co d O >_ r a I� O r f0 f0 N N U a NO n e O r6 i m v �m Z oo �o T N 1� � dt F a N ov °a b a le n �n OU 0 r F N a o Io a N a, gy x m Via. o �o I w w'a m v' �4 I 1 in u. d a 7 h cd cts C 0 O l9 co d O >_ r a I� O r f0 f0 N U r6 i m v �m T N 1� F F N b a le n �n OU 0 a o Io Via. o �o I m° _ w'a �4 I 1 D I u' I o lom °o oo im I O m ' O l o '�2 d O Op IOp z I a O 'O ;a .m m m - E a N N c7 O N r N m m N N O N O m co CL CV cJ O N O W T W p A m U C1 R E U o a a9i 2 m m W d W U N E . c a N N m 0 N n N rn d N N O N N N m a CV C7 O N a O 2 T LU W O ca d U o � N 7 N N T o a � m w ad W N U m ` 1 d N d U) N d Y 0 L � m � O I � n � U O O r0 rN r0 rO U o o •o S 10- Io 'po Io 'o 00 a o 0 �° al; - --- I---- o jo ------ Ipm �---- Ipa , pm °o a ¢ U o to I Imo Ir? 1OO Iq � m iJ E � � fGp - � U ; �F.tp a.:.p 10 Ip IN to 10 Ir N ro 0 m 0 •o r r ro r ° to Im IN ro w!ro o to I� loe a~ o io io imo ° I I I I I I L`2 O 10 10 i° 100 im O ° >N I I I d I Im I Id alfO- ° i°p 0 '- La W T 1 I Im wa 1 I o Io° loo to cN og O to I to Ip I 1 I I I� to m � I Io to z 1 IN lI Im 10 In 10 N .0000 m° Q N �N �N �0O 10 1 C5 0 o = c o r ° `U � Q •J d N d U) N d Y 0 L � m � O I � n � U I� I So O io$ Id a 1� `o io O o 0 O N IN Im m m iJ E � 7 cli CO cz j d ] 0 ) $ ! ® § C) { «§ k § � ) k / ) ƒ / \! 9% w -- \ Jt� \[ § } \ in k § � ) k / ) ƒ / ! j \ 0 / ui LLJ m { C) J / i \ @v � , . � - .\ . ��\ < a «§� � ® { � >� I :% 6 \K- � § ! /\ \} 2 / \� }� . r 2 j d { 2 ! / § � - -- . \y� ) a N N Cl) O N r N m m N O N N N m t0 EL (V M O N a O ui w L9 m U C O N m` 0 O LU w w U CD H a c R J T a N W R .. Q N m IL N N rn2 w a R O L w 0 f0 C O W a 9 C O r R d `d O O T AERSCREEN 11126 / AERMOD 1135 09/16/13 14:41:36 TITLE: 258 Union, Los Gatos x * *x * *xx *xx *xx * * * * *x * *xx * *x * *x AREA PARAMETERS x * *x * *xx * *x * * * * *x * *xx *xx * *xx ---------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE: AREA EMISSION RATE: lb /(hr -m2) AREA HEIGHT: AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: RURAL OR URBAN: POPULATION: INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE 0.151E -02 g/s 0.502E -06 g /(s -m2) 4.57 meters 54.86 meters 54.86 meters 4.57 meters URBAN 50000 5000. meters 0.120E -01 lb /hr 0.399E -05 15.00 feet 180.00 feet 180.00 feet 15.00 feet 16404. feet xx * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *x * ** -- ----- --- ---- --- --- ---- BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON -POINT SOURCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ x * *xx * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *xx * *x * *xx * *x * * *x * *x * *x * *xx 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters ----------------------------------------- -------- -- ---- --- -------- - -- - -- MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR 20 SURFACE 1 -HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL SECTOR ----------------------------------------------------- ,ROUGHNESS (ug /m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD 1* 1.000 1.606 0 25.0 WIN * = worst case diagonal ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- MIN /MAX TEMPERATURE: 249.8 / 310.9 (K) MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 2.5 m/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Winter ALBEDO: 0.35 BOWEN RATIO: 1.50 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters) METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ------------------------------------------------------------- YR MO DY JDY HR 10 01 01 1 01 HO U* W* DT /DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M -O LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -37.34 0.346 -9.000 0.020 -999. 468. 85.2 1.000 1.50 0.35 2.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 249.8 2.0 METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT AMBIENT BOUNDARY IMPACT -------------------------------------------------------------- YR MO DY JDY HR 10 01 Ol 1 01 HO U* W* DT /DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M -0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REFWS- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -37.34 0.346 -9.000 9.020 -999. 468. 85.2 1.000 1.50 0.35 2.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 249.8 2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE ----------------------------------------- ---- ------- -------- ------- - -- -- MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DIST 1 -HR CONC DIST 1 -HR CONC (m) (ug /m3) (m) --------------------- (ug /m3) - -------------------- 1.00 1.036 2525.00 0.4725E -02 25.00 1.606 2550.00 0.4662E -02 50.01 1.311 2575.00 0.4599E -02 75.00 0.7352 2600.00 0.4538E -02 100.00 0.4816 2625.00 0.4478E -02 125.00 0.3458 2650.00 0.4420E -02 150.00 0.2638 2675.00 0.4363E -02 174.99 0.2100 2700.00 0.4308E -02 200.00 0.1724 2725.00 0.4253E -02 225.00 0.1450 2750.00 0.4200E -02 250.00 0.1243 2775.00 0.4148E -02 275.01 0.1081 2800.00 0.4097E -02 300.00 0.9525E -01 2824.99 0.4047E -02 325.00 0.8480E -01 2850.00 0.3998E -02 350.00 0.7620E -01 2875.00 0.3950E -02 375.00 0.6900E -01 2900.00 0.3903E -02 400.00 0.6287E -01 2925.00 0.3857E -02 425.00 0.5761E -01 2950.00 0.3812E -02 450.00 0.5308E -01 2975.00 0.3768E -02 475.00 0.4911E -01 2999.99 0.3724E -02 500.00 0.4563E -01 3025.00 0.3682E -02 525.00 0.4256E -01 3050.00 0.3640E -02 550.00 0.3982E -01 3075.00 0.3600E -02 575.00 0.3738E -01 3100.00 0.3560E -02 600.00 0.3518E -01 3125.00 0.3520E -02 625.00 0.3320E -01 3150.00 0.3482E -02 650.00 0.3140E -01 3174.99 0.3444E -02 675.00 0.2977E -01 3200.00 0.3407E -02 700.00 0.2827E -01 3225.00 0.3371E -02 725.00 0.2691E -01 3250.00 0.3335E -02 749.99 0.2565E -01 3274.99 0.3300E -02 775.00 0.2449E -01 3300.00 0.3266E -02 800.00 0.2342E -01 3325.00 0.3232E -02 825.00 0.2242E -01 3350.00 0.3199E -02 850.00 0.2150E -01 3375.00 0.3166E -02 875.00 0.2064E -01 3400.00 0.3134E -02 900.00 0.1984E -01 3425.00 0.3102E -02 925.00 0.1909E -01 3450.00 0.3071E -02 950.00 0.1843E -01 3475.00 0.3041E -02 975.00 0.1777E -01 3499.99 0.3011E -02 1000.00 0.1715E -01 3525.00 0.2982E -02 1025.00 0.1656E -01 3550.00 0.2953E -02 1050.00 0.1601E -01 3575.00 0.2924E -02 1075.00 0.1549E -01 3600.00 0.2897E -02 1100.00 0.1500E -01 3625.00 0.2869E -02 1125.00 0.1454E -01 3650.00 0.2842E -02 1149.99 0.1410E -01 3675.00 0.2815E -02 1175.00 0.1368E -01 3700.00 0.2789E -02 1200.00 0.1328E -01 3725.00 0.2764E -02 1225.00 0.1291E -01 3750.00 0.2738E -02 1249.99 0.1255E -01 3775.00 0.2713E -02 . 1275.00 0.1220E -01 3800.00 0.2689E -02 1300.00 0.1188E -01 3825.00 0.2664E -02 1325.00 0.1157E -01 3850.00 0.2641E -02 1350.00 0.1127E -01 3875.00 0.2617E -02 1375.00 0.1098E -01 3900.00 0.2594E -02 1400.00 0.1071E -01 3925.00 0.2571E -02 1425.00 0.1045E -01 3950.00 0.2549E -02 1450.00 0.1020E -01 3975.00 0.2527E -02 1475.00 0.9961E -02 4000.00 0.2505E -02 1500.00 0.9730E -02 4025.00 0.2484E -02 1525.00 0.9509E -02 4050.00 0.2463E -02 1550.00 0.9296E -02 4074.99 0.2442E -02 1574.99 0.9091E -02 4100.00 0.2422E -02 1600.00 0.8894E -02 4125.00 0.2401E -02 1625.00 0.8705E -02 4150.00 0.2382E -02 1650.00 0.8522E -02 4175.00 0.2362E -02 1674.99 0.8346E -02 4200.00 0.2343E -02 1700.00 0.8176E -02 4225.00 0.2324E -02 1725.00 0.8011E -02 4250.00 0.2305E -02 1750.00 0.7853E -02 4275.00 0.2286E -02 1774.99 0.7700E -02 4300.00 0.2268E -02 1800.00 0.7552E -02 4325.00 0.2250E -02 1824.99 0.7409E -02 4350.00 0.2232E -02 1850.00 0.7270E -02 4375.00 0.2215E -02 1875.00 0.7136E -02 4400.00 - 0.2197E -02 1899.99 0.7006E -02 4425.00 0.2180E -02 1924.99 0.6880E -02 4450.00 0.2164E -02 1950.00 0.6758E -02 4475.00 0.2147E -02 1975.00 0.6640E -02 4500.00 0.2131E -02 1999.99 0.6525E -02 4525.00 0.2114E -02 2025.00 0.6413E -02 4550.00 0.2098E -02 2050.00 0.6305E -02 4575.00 0.2083E -02 2075.00 0.6200E -02 4599.99 0.2067E -02 2100.00 0.6098E -02 4625.00 0.2052E -02 2124.99 0.5999E -02 4650.00 0.2037E -02 2150.00 0.5903E -02 4675.00 0.2022E -02 2175.00 0.5809E -02 4700.00 0.2007E -02 2199.99 0.5718E -02 4725.00 0.1992E -02 2224.99 0.5629E -02 4750.00 0.1978E -02 2250.00 0.5543E -02 4775.00 0.1964E -02 2275.00 0.5458E -02 4800.00 0.1950E -02 2300.00 0.5377E -02 4825.00 0.1936E -02 2325.00 0.5297E -02 4850.00 0.1922E -02 2350.00 0.5219E -02 4875.00 0.1909E -02 2375.00 0.5143E -02 4899.99 0.1895E -02 2399.99 0.5069E -02 4925.00 0.1882E -02 2425.00 0.4997E -02 4950.00 0.1869E -02 2449.99 0.4927E -02 4975.00 0.1856E -02 2475.00 0.4858E -02 4999.99 0.1843E -02 2500.00 0.4791E -02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 3 -hour, 8 -hour, and 24 -hour scaled concentrations are equal to the 1 -hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4) Report number EPA- 454/R -92 -019 http:// www. epa. gov /scram00l /guidance_permit.htm under Screening Guidance MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1 -HOUR 3 -HOUR 8 -HOUR 24 -HOUR ANNUAL CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug /m3) (ug /m3) (ug /m3) (ug /m3) (ug /m3) ---- ---- - - - -- -- ---- -- - - -- ---- - - - --- ---- -- - - -- - --- - - - - -- - - - -- FLAT TERRAIN 1.663 1.663 1.663 1.663 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 28.00 meters IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.036 1.036 1.036 1.036 1.00 meters MEI selected to be in closest proximity to both the project site and arterial roadways. Union Ave INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE ATTACHMENT3 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ARBORIST REPORT & LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 258 UNION AVENUE UNION ORCHARDS Los GATOS, CALIFORNIA BY DEBORAH ELLIS CONSULTING ARBORIST $ HORTICULTURIST APRIL 15, 2013 D u C 0 C m e Ca C W 0 c a1 v C U .0 _o `O ° O .0 a 0 N � a) x E N = C (D O O 7 d .0 o y a) � O C .0 (D d �- p- > ° O O � ° w a C W O c U o � N N O N O N Y 3r3 FCg 0 0 O U O U c N O O a oc0aa)) m �'0 U o C 4) O N C N C 3 0 7 U $o cyo� Nr p N C c u a oowa 0,'t e O` Q O t C E 1-hc E m ui N n °a O a u .m. O0 l N o — � C a v ¢ r of m � x w m° ¢ a o D N O w L n CL H O N O d o o`o`— � o o N ti ° 6 N a) T ° O c 0, C ACV` a c u h aa)i a r °= E N y m 3 � � c c N a a O. U O O a N m a) o. C LU c a al L O a L y U 3 O Q a N > C ° a a U = o y ° �a a Ac U N r N a 0 aa) o m E a p m `o+N U _O U U T O 0 o � a c v Q D Q O ° E = m 0.0 t O -a -y U a) E a O N '0 c c a O fl. W 'a i2 E c c — 4) a y c _a C z Q c `oC — a a t y C O a O U O c N C N6a) a)t O = 3 OW arC CD O E p O O N O c 6 0 U N a O U w C .t O y C 02 0i O? L .0 L �c N a) a ° U Q) ` O U a N ° E O t O Y G) O O ° `o 0 41 .L- e 3 c e O m p C 01 C a O C a L a F y o c n W} " 4) 0 0 0 p a C a) 3'� of Y0 . o B. 0-0 as O -o ° 4t O E u Qa) _ o` 0 N p a c0CUa) CL ? j 0 o` c v .Q a N am w o C° O U 0-0 a Z a°i O(D = Y 0 u (D a 3 o � o c C Y = owc a v C O O U p O wc w ` s a 3 Q C E -O � � a D u C 0 C m e Ca C W 0 c a1 v C U .0 _o `O ° O .0 a 0 N � a) x E N = C (D O O 7 d .0 o y a) � O C .0 (D d �- p- > ° O O � ° w a C W O c U o � N N O N O N Y 3r3 FCg 0 0 O U O U c N O O a oc0aa)) m �'0 U o C 4) O N C N C 3 0 7 U $o cyo� Nr p N C c u a oowa 0,'t e O` Q O t C E 1-hc E m ui N n °a O a u .m. O0 l N o — � C a v ¢ r of m � x w m° ¢ a o D N O w L n CL H O N O d o o`o`— � N O a) T ° O c Z c 0, C u _ c -0E U O N N °= E N y E> w Q a) 0L c N a a O. U O O a N m a) o. c y c ID 6c U � O Q O C 6 N O H u .'6 c N p C�OS y N Ac U N r a ) a -C C O p m `o+N 0 ° 0 o Q D Q O p 0.0 t a) E a O N N W 'a c c — — — 0 C a a a a t 'Om > 0 N C N6a) a)t O OW arC E�UU E p c 6 0 N O U w C 02 0i O? U c O)U O .0 L C a) a ° U > 3 O O U a N ° E Y G) O O c 02201 0--° C 01 L a F y o O L p o N W} " 4) 0 0 0 0 0 3'� of Y0 0-0 as O -o N o "6 a) •C oa Qa) _ � p a c0CUa) U C j 0 w E .Q a N L C C° O U 0-0 a Z a°i O(D toa'o� 0 u 'a M 3 o � o c d° C O O U p O w ` my 2 Q C E -O da a pO y in ao`c p 9 c° Z u> a) NE�ZZ Ot 3p W 4Oy OO- £ c dN� °y0 N cD p N t° a) y p U U c :C]p xy y o`er E Q ° co c =�0•�E V CL 0 O. O G N W •ja 0 7 C LLI c o m z a) w Q E r ri D u C 0 C m e Ca C W 0 c a1 v C U .0 _o `O ° O .0 a 0 N � a) x E N = C (D O O 7 d .0 o y a) � O C .0 (D d �- p- > ° O O � ° w a C W O c U o � N N O N O N Y 3r3 FCg 0 0 O U O U c N O O a oc0aa)) m �'0 U o C 4) O N C N C 3 0 7 U $o cyo� Nr p N C c u a oowa 0,'t e O` Q O t C E 1-hc E m ui N n °a O a u .m. O0 l N o — � C a v ¢ r of m � x w m° ¢ a o D N O w L n CL H O N O d � \ } § ) 5 « 3 \ 67 0� a\ \E 0 }\ ;f 0)} �0 �\ es �\ �) j \\ 'M \ \\ 20 ( !_§ ui U CL \ \\ \\\ ) I ci § x LU cc ; o «. § ; ;G, �% \\ CL \ \\ \\\ ) I ci § INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE ATTACHMENT 4 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION EIGHT NEW RESIDENCES 258 UNION AVENUE Los GATOS, CALIFORNIA BY MURRAY ENGINEERS, INC. MARCH 2013 THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR: VALLEYONE INVESTMENT, LLC ATTN: SHAWN WANG 12280 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD, SUITE 107 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 MARCH 2013 Eight New Residences 258 Union Avenue Los Gatos Geotechnical Investigation understood that these guidelines and parameters will not prevent damage to structures; rather they are intended to prevent catastrophic collapse of structures. e Differential Compaction — During moderate and large earthquakes, soft or loose, natural or fill soils can densify and settle, often unevenly across a site. In general, the alluvial soil materials encountered at the site are medium dense to very dense silty to clayey sands and gravels. However, we encountered fill in the upper 3 feet of Boring B -2 which has a high potential for differential compaction during a seismic setting. In our opinion, differential compaction of these materials should not constitute a significant hazard to the proposed improvements provided that they are supported on foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. o Liquefaction — Liquefaction is a soil softening response, by which an increase in the excess pore water pressure results in partial to full loss of soil shear strength. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following four factors are required: 1) saturated soil or soil situated below the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading (strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) contractive soil response during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as dean, uniformly graded sands, non - plastic silts, or gravels. Structures situated above temporarily liquefied soils may sink or tilt, potentially resulting in significant structural damage. Since we did not encounter shallow groundwater during our subsurface exploration and due to the generally cohesive and /or relatively well- consolidated nature of the alluvial soils encountered at the site, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction- related distress to the proposed improvements is low. In addition, the State of California Seismic Hazards Zones Map indicates that the subject property is not located in a liquefaction hazard zone. RECOMMENDATIONS We understand it is desired at this time to support the proposed residences on conventional spread footings, which we consider fundamentally appropriate from a geotechnical perspective. We recommend the spread footings gain support from the underlying competent colluvium or compacted engineered fill. The existing fill soils may be reprocessed as engineered fill for site grading provided the fill is placed and compacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report. In general, slabs -on -grade for the garages and exterior walkways should be underlain by sections of select granular fill. our detailed foundation, grading, and site drainage IN Page 6 Eight New Residences — 258 Union Avenue Los Gatos Geotechnica] In estigation recommendations and design criteria are presented in the following sections of this report. We should review the proposed layout and design, prior to completion of the final plans, to verify that the following recommendations are appropriate and have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the plans. 2010 CBC EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETER We have developed site - specific earthquake design parameters based on the procedures described in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2010 California Building Code (California Building Standards Commission, 2010). These procedures utilize State standardized spectral acceleration values for maximum considered earthquake ground motion taking into account historical seismicity, available paleoseismic data, and activity rates along known fault traces, as well as site - specific soil and bedrock response characteristics. Contour maps of Class B bedrock horizontal spectral acceleration values for the State of California are included as figures in Chapter 16 of the 2010 CBC, representing both short (0.2 seconds) and long (1.0 second) periods of spectral response and taking into account 5 percent of critical damping. Leyendecker and others (2011) have prepared a software program for public use that allows for site - specific adjustments of these acceleration values for different subsurface conditions, which are defined by site classes. Given representative latitude of 37.242 and longitude of - 121.931, in accordance with guidelines presented in the 2010 CBC, the following seismic design parameters will apply for this site: r • Site Class D — Soil Profile Name: Stiff Soil (Table 1613.5.2) • Mapped Spectral Accelerations for 0.2 second Period: SS 2.105 (Site Class B) • Mapped Spectral Accelerations for a 1- second Period: S,= 0.781 (Site Class B) • Design Spectral Accelerations for 0.2 second Period: SDS= 1.403 (Site Class D) • Design Spectral Accelerations for a 1- second Period: SDI= 0.781 (Site Class D) SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIONS The proposed residences may be supported on conventional spread footings that gain support from the underlying competent colluvium or engineered fill placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations in the Compaction section of this report. We note that some of our soil borings encountered relatively weak soils in the upper 2 to 3 feet; if soft soils are exposed at the bottoms of footing excavations at the time of construction, it will likely be necessary to compact the bases of footing excavations using equipment such as a jumping jack compactor prior to placement of steel and concrete. msixmts µt Page 7 Eight N w Residences — 25 Union Avenue L s Gat s Geotechnical lnvesti anon Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and isolated spread footings should have a minimum of 18 inches square. Spread footings should extend at least 24 inches deep below final adjacent exterior grade and 18 inches below bottom of interior slab. Footings may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 2,000 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads, with a one -third increase allowed for total loads including wind or seismic forces. The weight of the footings can be neglected for design purposes. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting native soil using a frictional resistance of 0.3. In addition to the above, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressures acting against foundations poured neat in the footing excavations starting at a depth of 1 foot below final grade. We recommend that an allowable passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot be used in design. All footings located adjacent to utility lines or other footings should bear below a 1:1 plane extended upward from the bottom edge of the utility trench or footing. Footing reinforcing should be established by the project structural engineer to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities based on the preceding design criteria and structural requirements. Our representative should observe the footing excavations prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete forms to evaluate whether they are founded in competent bearing material. Any loose soil that falls into the excavations during placement of reinforcing steel and formwork should be removed prior to placing concrete. If soft soils are encountered, it may be necessary to compact the bases of footing excavations using equipment such as a jumping jack compactor prior to placement of steel and concrete. Based on our engineering judgment, thirty-year differential foundation movement due to static loads is not expected to exceed approximately 1 -inch across any 20 -foot span of the footing- supported portions of the improvements. SLABS -ON -GRADE We anticipate concrete slabs -on -grade may be used for the garages, patios, and miscellaneous walkways. Slabs -on -grade for garages should be underlain by at least 8 inches of select granular fill, such as Class 2 aggregate baserock, compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Compaction section of this report. We recommend that other exterior slabs -on -grade for patios and walkways be underlain by at least 4 inches of select granular fill, such as Class 2 aggregate baserock. We note that placement of the above thickness of baserock beneath proposed slabs will in our opinion substantially mitigate but not completely eliminate the potential for differential movement of these slabs. .OI61NEBt51Nt Page 8 Eight New Residences — 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos Geotechnical Investigation Prior to placement of the select granular fill, the subgrade soils should be scarified and moisture conditioned, as necessary, to a depth of approximately 6 inches and recompacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report. In general, exterior slabs -on -grade should be designed as "free- floating" slabs, structurally isolated from adjacent foundations. Slabs should be provided with control joints at spacing of not more than about 10 feet. The project structural engineer should determine slab reinforcing based on anticipated use and loading. Select granular fill should be compacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report. Where slab surface moisture would be a significant concern, such as for the garages, we recommend that the slabs be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of a highly durable membrane not less than 10 mils thick (such as Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier by Stego Industries, LLC or equivalent), underlain by a capillary break consisting of 4 inches of to % -inch crushed rock. The capillary break may be considered the equivalent thickness as the upper 4 inches of select granular fill recommended above. Please also refer to the Vapor Retarder Considerations section below for additional information. Please note that these recommendations do not comprise a specification for "waterproofing." For greater protection against concrete dampness, we recommend that a waterproofing consultant be retained. Vapor Retarder Considerations Based on our understanding, two opposing schools of thought currently prevail concerning protection of the vapor retarder during construction. Some believe that 2 inches of sand should be placed above the vapor retarder to protect it from damage during construction and also to provide a small reservoir of moisture (when slightly wetted just prior to concrete Placement) to benefit the concrete curing process. Still others believe that protection of the vapor barrier and /or curing of concrete are not as critical design considerations when compared to the possibility of entrapment of moisture in the sand above the vapor barrier and below the slab. The presence of moisture in the sand could lead to post - construction absorption of the trapped moisture through the slab and result in mold or mildew forming at the upper surface of the slab. We understand that recent trends are to use a highly durable membrane (at least 10 mils thick) without the protective sand covering for interior slabs surfaced with floor coverings including, but not limited to, carpet, wood, or glued riles and linoleum. However, it is also noted that several special considerations are required to reduce the potential for concrete edge curling if sand will not be used, including slightly higher placement of reinforcement steel and a water - cement ratio not exceeding 0.5 (Holland and Walker, 1998). We Easiumtsdc Page 9 Eight New Residences - 258 Union Avenue Los Gatos Geotechnical Investigation recommend that you consult with other members of your design team, such as your structural engineer, architect, and waterproofing consultant for further guidance on this matter. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS Asphaltic Concrete Based on our investigation and laboratory testing, the pavement subgrade conditions at the site are likely to consist of native silty clay and silty sand soils. Based on this information, we assumed an R -value of 10 for compacted subgrade soils. Procedure 608 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual was used to develop the pavement sections presented in Table 1. Asphaltic concrete and aggregate base should conform to and be placed in accordance with the requirements of the California Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications, latest edition, except that the compaction standard should be ASTM D 1557 (latest edition). Table 1. Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Sections Aggregate Total Section Design Traffic* Asphaltic Concrete Baserock Thickness Index (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) 4.0 2.5 3.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 5.5 3.0 3.5 6.0 3.0 3.5 6.5 3.0 3.5 * The design traffic index should be anticipated use and vehicular loading. 7.0 6.0 8.5 7.5 10.0 9.0 11.0 10.0 12.5 11.5 14.5 13.5 1 by the pavement 9.5 9.0 11 10.5 12.5 12.0 14.0 13.5 15.5 15.0 17.5 17.0 designer based on We note that pavement design involves an understanding of the total vehicular loading that a pavement will experience over a 20 -year life, and these loads are typically estimated based on the traffic volume anticipated and the weight of an anticipated vehicle - the heavier the load, the more damage incurred on a pavement. Therefore, it is common to use truck traffic as EX61NE915 MC Page 10 Eight New Residences — 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos Geotechnical Investigation the controlling factor in design. In particular, the use of a 5.5 Traffic Index (or higher) is typical for occasional heavy truck loads, such as garbage or fire trucks. We also note that the Caltrans method of pavement design does not take into account the potential effects of heave from expansive soils. If broad areas of expansive or soft soils soil are encountered over the pavement subgrade, it may be necessary to increase the recommended baserock thickness. A representative from our office should observe and test the subgrade prior to placing baserock and should observe and test the compaction of the baserock during the course of construction. In general, in our opinion, the thinner sections of asphaltic concrete and aggregate baserock utilized in the pavement construction, the higher the potential for differential movement of the pavement surface imposed by variations in subsurface strength and expansion characteristics. A minor to moderate amount of earthwork is anticipated as part of the proposed development, including foundation excavations, subgrade preparation of building pads and beneath slabs -on- grade, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and backfill of utility trenches. Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations. Clearing & Site Preparation Initially, the areas of the proposed improvements should be cleared of any structures, foundations, pavements, utilities, and vegetation not designated to remain, and large tree roots. A representative from our office should observe the site immediately following demolition to assess the extent of existing excavations and depressions that may not have been evident at the time of this investigation. Excavations and depressions that extend below finished grade resulting from the removal of underground obstructions beneath the footprint of the proposed building(s) and associated site improvements should be backfilled with engineered fill placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented below. After clearing, the proposed building areas and any areas to receive fill should be adequately stripped to remove organic -laden topsoil. The stripped material should not be used for any planned engineered fills, but may be stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. Additionally, we recommend that a uniform building pad be established beneath the planned building areas and extending 5 feet beyond and /or to the nearest property boundary, whichever is closer, prior to construction. Specifically, we recommend that this be achieved by scarifying the upper 12 to 24 inches of soil beneath existing grade, aerating and /or EasixtmsiNCi Page 11 Eight New Residences 258 Union Avenue Los Gatos Geotechtucal lnvesti ae uon moisture conditioning as necessary, mixing, and re- compacting the material to 95% in accordance with the compaction recommendations below. Material for Fill All on -site soils below the stripped layer having an organic content of less than 3 percent organic material by volume (ASTM D 2974) should be suitable for use as engineered flll provided the material has a low potential for expansion. In general, f,ll material should not contain rocks or pieces larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, and should contain no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. Any required imported fill should be predominantly granular material or low plasticity material with a plasticity index of less than approximately 15 percent. Any proposed fill for import should be approved by Murray Engineers, Inc. prior to importing to the site. Our approval process may require index testing to establish the expansive potential of the soil; therefore, it is important that we receive samples of any proposed import material at least 3 days prior to planned importing. Class 2 aggregate baserock should meet the specifications outlined in the Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition. Temporary Slopes & Trench Excavations The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary cut slopes and trenches excavated at the site, and design and construction of any required shoring. Shoring and bracing should be provided in accordance with all applicable local and state safety regulations, including the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Because of the potential for variable soil conditions, field modifications of temporary cut slopes may be required. Unstable materials encountered on the slopes during the excavation should be trimmed off, even if this requires cutting the slope back at flatter inclinations. Compaction Prior to placing engineered fill, the subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted, as necessary. Material used for fill should be placed in uniform lifts, no more than 8- inches in uncompacted thickness. The fill material should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted in accordance with the specifications listed in Table 2 below. The relative compaction and moisture content specified in Table 2 are relative to ASTM D 1557 (latest edition). Compacted lifts should be firm and non - yielding under the weight of compaction equipment prior to the placement of successive lifts. IENGINEEkS pit Page 12 I_ Eight New Residences — 258 Union Avenue Los Gatos Geotechnical Investigation Table 2. Compaction Specifications Fill Element Relative Moisture Content* Compaction* General fill for raising of site grades, driveway, puking 90 percent —2 -3 percent over areas, and patio areas (for fills up to 4 feet thick) optimum For fills greater than 4 feet thick or beneath re- worked 95 percent —2 -3 percent over building footprint areas optimum Upper 6 inches of subgrade beneath slabs -on- grade, for 90 percent —2 -3 percent over non - expansive soils (PI <= 20°/,) opium Upper 6 to 12 inches of subgrade beneath slabs -on- grade, 88 to 90 percent At least 3 percent for expansive soils (PI >20 %) over optimum Aggregate baserock under slabs -on- grade, and upper 6 95 percent Near optimum inches of subgrade beneath asphalt '' /z- to '/. -inch Crushed Rock - Compact with at least 3 see note at left Not critical passes of a vibratory plate with lift - thickness < 12 inches. Backfill of utility trenches using on -site soil 90 percent —2 -3 percent over optimum Backfill of utility trenches using imported sand 90 percent Near optimum *Relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition. SITE DRAINAGE Roof run -off, rain, or irrigation water should not be allowed to pond near the planned structures, exterior slabs -on- grade, or pavement areas. The proposed structures should be provided with roof gutters and downspouts. Water collected in the gutters should not be allowed to discharge freely onto the ground surface adjacent to the foundations and should be conveyed away from the structures via splash blocks or via buried closed conduits and routed to a suitable discharge outlet. The finished grades should be designed to drain surface water away from the proposed structures, slabs, pavement areas, and landscape areas to suitable discharge points. The ground surface should have positive gradient away from the structures. Where such surface gradients are difficult to achieve, we recommend that area drains or surface drainage swales be installed to collect surface water and convey it to a suitable discharge location away from the structures. We recommend that annual maintenance of the surface drainage systems be performed. This maintenance should include inspection and testing to make sure that roof gutters and downspouts are in good working order and do not leak; inspection and flushing of area drains to make sure that they are free of debris and are in good working order; and inspection of surface drainage outfall locations to verify that introduced water flows freely through the discharge pipes and that no excessive erosion has occurred. If erosion is detected, this office should be contacted to evaluate its extent and to provide mitigation. FORM Page 13 INITIAL STUDY - 258 UNION AVENUE ATTACHMENT 5 REVIEW OF PROJECT SUBMITTALS wlq COMPLIANCE WITH STORMWATER REQUIREMENT 258 UNION AVENUE, LOS GATOS BY EISENBERG, OLIVIERI & ASSOCIATES AUGUST 27, 2013 ien & Associates ublic Health Engineering TO: Trang Tu- Nguyen, Town of Los Gatos FROM: Jill Bicknell, P.E. DATE: August 27, 2013 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: 258 Union Avenue - Second Review of Project Submittals for Compliance with Stormwater Requirements Project Description The proposed development project at 258 Union Avenue will be a residential project consisting of 8 dwelling units. The total site area of 0.751 acres is also the area of land disturbance. The site, which is currently a vacant lot, is located near the intersection of Union Avenue and Los Gatos Almaden Road. The C.3 Data Form indicates that the site is located within the Guadalupe River watershed. We previously reviewed a set of submittals for this project dated March 27, 2013 and provided a review memo with our findings on May 18, 2013 (attached). At that time, we were unable to make a determination as to whether the project was in compliance with the Town's stormwater permit requirements without additional information. Subsequently, I (Jill Bicknell) met with the engineer (Brajesh Tiwari, Hohbach- Lewin) and architects (Chris Kummerer and Audrey Kanemoto, CKA Architects) for the project on July 12, 2013 to discuss treatment options and the information needed to complete the stormwater control plan. The requested information has been provided for this second review. We reviewed the following submittals with regard to this project: • Union Orchards (258 Union Avenue) Plan Sheets, dated July 26, 2013 • C1.0 — Preliminary Grading Plan • C2.0 — C.3 Exhibit (Drainage Areas) 0 C3.0 — Stormwater Control Plan • Revised C.3 Data Form • Infiltration /Harvesting and Use Feasibility Screening Worksheet • Infiltration Feasibility Worksheet • Sizing Worksheets for Volume -Based Treatment Measures • Murray Engineers, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Eight New Residences, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California, March 2013. We reviewed the project submittals for compliance with the stormwater requirements in the Town of Los Gatos' NPDES Permit' (referenced herein as the Municipal Regional Permit or MRP) and consistency with related ordinances'. Our findings are presented below: i California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order No. R2- 2009 -0074, adopted October 14, 2009, Provision C.3. � 1 EOA, Inc. • 111 W. Evelyn Ave. • Sunnyvale, CA 94086 • Tel: (408) 720 -8811 • Fax: (408) 720 -8812 1. Applicability of NPDES Permit Provision C.3. Requirements a. Stormwater Treatment Requirements The C.3. Data Form indicates that the project proposes to create 21,256 square feet of new impervious surface. Since the site is currently a vacant plot, the project will not replace any impervious surface. Therefore, since the total amount of impervious surface to be created is greater than the C.3. threshold of 10,000 square feet3, the C.3. treatment requirements apply to this project. The low impact development (LID) treatment requirements apply to this project because it was approved after December 1, 2011.4 b. Hydromodification Control Requirements The project will create less than 1 acre of impervious surface. Therefore, the hydromodification control requirements do not apply to this projects. 2. Proposed Stormwater Management Measures and Sizing Calculations • The C.3 Data Form indicates that the project will include one site design measure: "minimized land disturbed ". It is unclear how there is "minimized land disturbed" when the C.3 Data Form also indicates that the total site area will be disturbed. Sheet C3.0 has a note stating that "sidewalks will be treated by directing the slopes to landscaped areas ". If this is true, then an appropriate site design measure would be "direct runoff to vegetated areas ". • The C.3. Data Form indicates that the project will include two pollutant source control measures: "beneficial landscaping" (i.e., drought tolerant and /or native plants, in order to minimize over - irrigation and the use of pesticides on the landscaping), and "maintenance" (pavement sweeping, catch basin cleaning and good housekeeping). Since there are a number of storm drain inlets proposed on the property, storm drain labeling is also required. • The applicant submitted a properly completed Infiltration /Harvesting and Use Feasibility Screening Worksheet. The Geotechnical Investigation Report indicates that the site consists of silty sands, and that depth to groundwater exceeds 16 feet below ground surface. Therefore, since site soils are likely to have a saturated hydraulic conductivity greater than 1.6 in /hr, infiltration is feasible on the site. The Infiltration Feasibility Worksheet indicated that there appear to be no constraints to use of infiltration for stormwater treatment on site. • The proposed stormwater treatment measures consist of three subsurface infiltration systems consisting of infiltration chambers underlain with gravel, similar to the Contech ChamberMaxx system. The site is divided into three drainage areas, one for each infiltration system, per Sheet C2.0. Storm drains will convey runoff from pervious and impervious surfaces within each drainage area and connect to a diversion manhole, from which the water quality design flow will be diverted into the infiltration system. • Sizing worksheets showing calculation of the water quality design volume for each infiltration system were submitted, and the calculations were performed correctly. 2 Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code, Chapter 12, Article II. Grading Permit, Sec. 12.20.050 Erosion control plan, Chapter 12, Article III. Design Standards, Sec. 12.30.080, Erosion and sediment control, and Chapter 22, Article III. Stormwater Pollution Control, Sec.22.30.035. New developmentfredevelopment. 3 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order No. R2- 2009 -0074, adopted October 14, 2009, Provision C.3.b.ii.(3). 41bid., Provision C.3.c.ii.(2) 51bid., Provision C.3.g. 258 Union Ave C.3 Review #2 Memo 8 -27 -13 A standard detail of a ChamberMaxx `typical subsurface infiltration system" is provided on Sheet C2.0, but no details or sections for the actual systems proposed on the project site are provided. The surface areas of the three infiltration systems are provided, as well as a "top" elevation (which appears to be equal to surrounding grade) and depth, but this is insufficient for construction. Sheet C3.0 shows an 8 -inch perforated pipe running through the infiltration areas but it is not clear how this relates to the ChamberMaxx system design. In addition, no design details were submitted for the diversion structures. The drainage areas to the subsurface infiltration systems do not include the impervious surfaces of the driveway entrances that will be constructed as part of the project. One option for addressing the runoff from the driveway entrances is to consider utilizing "interceptor tree credits" associated with the four new trees proposed in the planting strip along Union Avenue (for more information, see Chapter 4 of the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbooks). Other options include pervious paving in the driveway entrances and /or a slot drain at the base of the entrance ramp that conveys runoff back into the infiltration systems. 3. Consistency of SWPPP with Local Ordinances a. Since the disturbed area during construction is less than 1 acre, the applicant is not required to obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit7. b. No erosion control plan or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) was provided for review but neither is required for this review of the project, consistent with direction from the Town. 4. Conclusions a. The site design measure identified in the C.3 Data Form does not appear to be applicable to the project. At least one site design measure must be included in the project. One possibility is to direct runoff from the sidewalks to landscaping. b. The pollutant source control measures specified in the C.3 Data Form are appropriate for this type of project and land use and are acceptable if storm drain labeling is added. c. The conceptual stormwater treatment plan proposed for this project appears to be adequate to meet the Town's NPDES Permit Provision C.3 requirements. However, more design details need to be provided for the subsurface infiltration systems and diversion structures in the final plan. In addition, treatment and /or interceptor tree credit for the driveway entrances must be provided in the final plan. 5. Recommendations a. The Town may approve the conceptual stormwater treatment plan, site design measures, and source control measures proposed for the project, with the following conditions: i. The applicant should provide a final stormwater control plan as part of the submittal of construction documents, subject to a final C.3 review, that includes the following: 1) A section detail for each subsurface infiltration system, including the diversion structure, and demonstrate how the systems will collect, store, and infiltrate the s Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, C.3 Stormwater Handbook, April 2012. Available at: htto: / /www.scvur000- w2k.com /c3 handbook 2012.shtml 7 NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Water Quality Order 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, September 2009 (effective July 1, 2010). 258 Union Ave C.3 Review #2 Memo 8 -27 -13 water quality volume of runoff from their respective drainage areas, as well as bypass excess flows, and how the systems will be accessed for maintenance. 2) A plan and detail for how runoff from the impervious surfaces associated with the driveway entrances will be treated. 3) The addition of "Storm drain labeling" as a source control measure, indicated by note on the final stormwater control plan. 4) A plan to "direct runoff to vegetated areas" or incorporate another site design measure in the project, with the location of the site design measure indicated on the final stormwater control plan. ii. The applicant should revise the C.3 Data Form as follows: 1) Delete "Minimize land disturbed" from the list of site design measures, and add "Direct runoff to vegetated areas" if applicable, or select another site design measure and show it on the plan sheets; 2) Add "Storm drain labeling" to the list of source control measures; 3) Delete "infiltration basin or trench" from the list of LID treatment measures and add "Subsurface infiltration system ". iii. The applicant should provide a maintenance plan for the subsurface infiltration systems, diversion structures, and source control measures. b. Maintenance of the subsurface infiltration systems, diversion structures, and source control measures will be the responsibility of the property owner. The Town should require a maintenance agreement that establishes the property owner's responsibility and contains the maintenance plan submitted by the applicant. 258 Union Ave C.3 Review #2 Memo 8 -27 -13 INITIAL STUDY -258 UNION AVENUE ATTACHMENT6 NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR THE "UNION ORCHARDS" SINGLE - FAMILY DEVELOPMENT UNION AVENUE LOS GATOS BY EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. JULY 16,2013 EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 HAMILTON AVENUE SUITE 26 SAN JOSE. CA 95125 Ms. Valerie Geier Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 5054 Berkeley, CA 94705 Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408 -371 -1195 FAX: 408 - 371 -1196 w .pecksssodates.com July 16, 2013 Proiect No. 45 -023 Subject: Noise Assessment Study for the Planned "Union Orchards" Single - Family Development, Union Avenue, Los Gatos Dear Ms. Geier: This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned `Union Orchards" single - family development along Union Avenue in Los Gatos, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (a). The noise exposures at the site were evaluated against the standards of the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element, Ref. (b). The analysis of the on -site sound level measurements indicates that the existing noise environment at the site is due primarily to traffic sources on Union Avenue. The results of the study reveal that exterior noise exposure excesses occur and mitigation measures will be required. The interior noise exposures will be in compliance with the standards. Sections I and II of this report contain a summary of our findings and recommendations, respectively. Subsequent sections contain the site, traffic, and project descriptions, analyses and evaluations. Attached hereto are Appendices A, B. and C, which include the list of references, descriptions of the applicable standards, definitions of the terminology. descriptions of the acoustical instrumentation used for the field survey, general building shell controls, and the on -site noise measurement data and calculation tables. MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 2- I. Summary of Findings The noise assessment results presented in the findings were evaluated against the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element of the General Plan standards, Ref. (a), which uses the Day -Night Level (DNL) 24 -hour noise descriptor to define acceptable noise exposures for various land -uses. The acceptable limit for residential use is 55 decibels (dB) DNL. The DNL is defined further in Appendix B. The Town's Noise Element (Policy NOI -3) states that these noise limits represent the "long range community aspirations" and acknowledges that such goals may not be attainable at this time. The Noise Element specifies a limit of 45 dB DNL for residential interiors. Because each home of the development has a rear yard for the exterior living area, noise standards for the balconies of the project should be waived. The noise levels shown below are without the application of mitigation measures and represent the noise environment for existing site conditions. A. Exterior Noise Exposures Table I, below, provides the existing and future noise exposures in the most impacted area of each rear yard of the proposed project as shown on the plans. TABLE Existing and Future Exterior Noise Exposures, dB DNL Lot Dist. to Centerline Exist./Future 1 125 55 \55 2 87 61 \61 3 70 64 \64 4 125 55 \55 5 194 54 \54 6 175 53 \53 7 175 53 \53 8 194 54 \54 -3- As shown in Table I, the noise exposures in the rear yards of Lots 1 and 2 will exceed the 55 dB DNL limit of the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element. • Noise from the Downing Center shopping center is not distinctly noticeable at the site and any noise from the center is included in the noise measurement data. The loading dock for the Safeway store is on the west side of the shopping center and is accessed from Los Gatos - Almaden Road. As the exterior noise exposures in the rear yards of Lots 1 and 2 will exceed the 55 dB DNL limit of the Noise Element, noise mitigation measures will be required. The recommended measures are described in Section II, below. B. Interior Noise Exposures • The interior noise exposures in the most impacted planned dwelling units closest to Union Avenue will be up to 39 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the 45 dB DNL limit of the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element standards. IL Recommendations A. Exterior Noise Control To achieve compliance with the 55 dB DNL limit of the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element at the noise impacted rear yards, the following noise control barrier will be required. If the recommended barrier is higher than desired, lower height barriers may be constructed. Various barrier heights with the corresponding resultant noise exposures are provided herein. t� • Construct an 8 ft. high acoustically- effective barrier at the rear yard of Lot 3 to connect the house on Lot 2 with the house on Lot 3. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest rear yard ground elevation. This barrier will also provide acceptable noise shielding for the Lot 2 rear yard. Please see Figure 1 for the location of the recommended noise control barrier. If lower barrier heights are preferred, the following barrier height alternative will result in the following noise exposures: 8 ft. = 54 dB DNL 7 ft. =56 dB DNL 6 ft. = 57 dB DNL. To achieve an acoustically - effective barrier it must be constructed air- tight, i.e., without cracks, gaps or other openings, and must provide for long term durability. The barrier can be constructed of masonry, wood, concrete, stucco, metal, earth berm or a combination thereof, and must have a minimum surface weight of 2.5 lbs. per sq. ft. If wood fencing is used, homogeneous sheet materials are preferable to conventional wood fencing as the latter has a tendency to warp and form openings with age. However, high quality air -tight tongue- and - groove, board and batten or shiplap construction can be used provided that the construction is air -tight and the minimum surface weight is met. All connections with posts, pilasters and the building shells must be sealed air- tight. No openings are permitted between the barrier components and the ground. The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce the exterior noise exposures to 55 to 58 dB DNL or lower (depending on which barrier height is chosen) in the most noise impacted rear yards of the project. -5- �1 IS xexen'soro em annv wmvsx 0 S(MVHONO NOW 1 ii BO Bn 3.W.S.B3N 53' s I � ' E si E. IF IS E- Y .,5 '.l _ .. �► I �� 6 8 icy �pF La t m €57 I �1 M III. Site Traffic and Project Descriptions The planned project site is located at 258 Union Avenue south of Los Gatos - Almaden Road in Los Gatos. The vacant site is relatively flat and at -grade with Los Gatos - Almaden Road. Surrounding land uses include an office building adjacent to the south, single - family residential adjacent to the east and north and the Downing Center across Union Avenue to the west. The primary source of noise in the site vicinity is traffic on Union Avenue, which carries an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 12,000 vehicles as reported by the Town of Los Gatos, Ref. (c). The planned project includes the construction of 8 single - family homes. Ingress and egress to the project are by way of driveways off of Union Avenue. IV. Analysis of the Noise Levels A. Existing Noise Levels To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made a location 70 ft. from the centerline of Union Avenue. This location corresponds to the planned minimum setback of homes from Union Avenue. The noise measurement location is shown on Figure 2, below. The measurements were made on June 26 -27, 2013 for a continuous period of 24 hours and included representative hours during the daytime and nighttime periods of the DNL index. The noise level data were acquired using a Larson -Davis Model 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter. The meter yields, by direct readout, a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time, which are commonly used to describe community noise, as described in Appendix B. The measured descriptors include the L1, Lio, L5o, and Lgo, i.e., those levels exceeded 1 %, 10 %, 50% and 90% of the time. Also measured were the maximum and minimum levels and the continuous equivalent- energy levels (Leq), which are used to calculate the DNL's. The results of the measurements are shown in the data table sin Appendix C. -7- FIGURE 2 The results of the field survey reveal that the Ley's at the measurement location, 70 ft. from the centerline of Union Avenue, ranged from 58.0 to 64.5 dBA during the daytime and from 43.4 to 59.7 dBA at night. Traffic noise dissipates at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the source (centerline of the roadway) to the receiver. Therefore, other locations on the site at greater distances to the roadways will have lower noise levels. Additional noise shielding will be provided by interposed buildings of the project. Vehicular traffic noise contains wide spectra of frequency components (from 100 to 10,000 Hertz), which are associated with engine, tire, drive- train, exhaust and other sources. The frequency components are centered primarily in the 500 and 1,000 Hz octave bands and were used in determining the noise control measures recommended for this project. WE B. Future Noise Levels The future traffic volumes for Union Avenue were provided by the Town of Los Gatos, Ref. (c). The future traffic volume for Union Avenue is expected to remain at 12,000 ADT. Thus, no increase in the traffic noise levels is expected. V. Evaluations of the Noise Exuosures A. Exterior Noise Exposures To evaluate the on -site noise exposures against the Town of Los Gatos standards, the DNL for the survey location was calculated by decibel averaging of the Lays as they apply to the daily time periods of the DNL index. The DNL is a 24 -hour noise descriptor that uses the measured L�q values to calculate a 24 -hour time - weighted average noise exposure. The formula used to calculate the DNL is described in Appendix B. The 24- hour Ley's were calculated by decibel averaging of the hourly Lq's without daytime or nighttime weighting factors. Adjustments were made to the measured noise levels to account for the various building setback distances from the roadways and measurement location using methods established by the Highway Research Board, Ref. (d). The noise exposure calculations are shown in greater detail in Appendix C. The results of the calculations indicate that the existing exterior noise exposure at the measurement location, planned minimum building setback and in the most impacted rear yard, 70 ft. from the centerline of Union Avenue, is 64 dB DNL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 64 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 9 dB in excess of the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element standards. B. Interior Noise Exposures To evaluate the interior noise exposures in project living spaces, a 25 dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposure to represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under a closed window condition. The closed window condition assumes that standard dual -pane thermal insulating windows are installed. In addition, the Mechanical Code will require full time ventilation which will allow residents to keep the windows closed at all times for noise control at their option and maintain adequate ventilation. The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Union Avenue will be 39 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions. Thus, noise exposures will be within the 45 dB DNL limit of the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element standards. As shown by the above evaluations, exterior noise exposures excesses will occur and mitigation measures will be required. The recommended mitigation measures are in described in Section R of this report. This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned "Union Orchards" single - family development along Union Avenue in Los Gatos. The study findings and recommendations are based on field measurements and other data and are correct to the best of our knowledge. However, significant changes in the predicted traffic volumes, speed limits, motor vehicle technology, noise regulations, or other future changes beyond our control may produce long -range noise results different from our estimates. 10- If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please call me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President Attachments: Appendices A, B, and C APPENDIX A References (a) Site Plan, Union Orchards, by CKA Associates, April 26, 2013 (b) Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, Chapter 10, "Noise Element", Adopted September 20, 2010 (c) Information on Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Provided by Mr. Jesse Pu, Town of Los Gatos Transportation Department, by Telephone with Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., July 8, 2013 (d) Highway Research Board, "Highway Noise - A Design Guide for Highway Engineers ", Report 117, 1971 APPENDIX B Noise Standards Terminoloev. Instrumentation and Building Shell Controls 1. Noise Standards A. Town of Xos Gatos General Plan 2020 Noise Element Standards The Noise Element of the General Plan of the Town of Los Gatos, adopted July, 2000, specifies noise limits for various land uses. Land Use dB DNL dBA Lly(24) Residential 55 Commercial 70 Industrial 70 Open Space Intensive (developed park) 55 Passive (natural park) 50 Hospital 55 Educational 55 Interior noise exposures for single - family developments are specified to be the same as multi - family developments. This statement asserts coincidence with the standard of the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 24 noise limit of 45 dB DNL for all new housing. L3 2. Terminoloey A. Statistical Noise Levels Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Community Noise Analyzer. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined as follows: LI - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. Lio - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level. L5o - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level. L90 - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level. Leq - The continuous equivalent- energy level is that level of a steady -state noise having the same sound energy as a given time - varying noise. The Leq represents the decibel level of the time- averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL. ME B. Day - Night Level (DNLI Noise levels utilized in the standards are described in terms of the Day -Night Level (DNL). The DNL rating is determined by the cumulative noise exposures occurring over a 24 -hour day in terms of A- Weighted sound energy. The 24 -hour day is divided into two subperiods for the DNL index, i.e., the daytime period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the nighttime period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. A 10 dB weighting factor is applied (added) to the noise levels occurring during the nighttime period to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during these hours. The DNL is calculated from the measured Ley in accordance with the following mathematical formula: Where: DNL = [(Ld +l0logiol5) & (1,+10+101090)] - 10logio24 Ld = Ley for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) L.= Ley for the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 24- indicates the 24 -hour period & - denotes decibel addition. C. A- Weighted Sound Level The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA ". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear. M 3. Instrumentation The on -site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the precision acoustical instruments shown below. The acoustical instrumentation provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent - energy level (Leq). Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI 51.4 for Type I instruments. The "A" weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance with the applicable ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy. Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer 4. Building Shell Controls The following additional precautionary measures are required to assure the greatest potential for exterior -to- interior noise attenuation by the recommended mitigation measures. These measures apply at those units where closed windows are required: • Unshielded entry doors having a direct or side orientation toward the primary noise source must be 1 -5/8" or 1 -3/4" thick, insulated metal or solid -core wood construction with effective weather seals around the full perimeter. Mail slots should not be used in these doors or in the wall of a living space, as a significant noise leakage can occur through them. • If any penetrations in the building shell are required for vents, piping, conduit, etc., sound leakage around these penetrations can be controlled by sealing all cracks and clearance spaces with a non - hardening caulking compound. FM, APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables DNL CALCULATIONS CLIENT: GEIER & GEIER CONSULTING, INC. FILE: 45 -023 PROJECT: UNION ORCHARDS DATE: 6/26- 27/2013 SOURCE: UNION AVE. LOCATION 1 Dist. To Source TIME Union Ave. 70 ft. Leg 10ALeg/1 0 7:00 AM 61.5 1412537.5 8:00 AM 61.2 1318256.7 9:00 AM 60.5 1122018.5 10:00 AM 61.1 1288249.6 11:00 AM 59.3 851138.0 12:00 PM 59.8 954992.6 1:00 PM 63.0 1995262.3 2:00 PM 62.1 1621810.1 3:00 PM 61.1 1288249.6 4:00 PM 61.3 1348962.9 5:00 PM 61.5 1412537.5 6:00 PM 64.5 2818382.9 7:00 PM 64.2 2630268.0 8:00 PM 60.1 1023293.0 9:00 PM 58.0 630957.3 SUM= 21716917 10:00 PM 56.4 436515.8 Ld= 61.6 11:00 PM 54.5 281838.3 12:00 AM 52.2 165958.7 1:00 AM 47.7 58884.4 2:00 AM 43.4 21877.6 3:00 AM 57.5 562341.3 4:00 AM 56.7 467735.1 5:00 AM 56.8 478630.1 6:00 AM 59.7 933254.3 SUM= 3407036 1.0 Ln= 55.8 1.0 73.4 Nighttime Level= 75.3 DNL = 64 24 -Hour Leg= 60.2 NOTICE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LEAD AGENCY: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 PROTECT TITLE: 258 Union Avenue Conditional Use Permit Application U -13 -012 Subdivision Application M -13 -004 Architecture and Site Application S -13 -20 through S -13 -027 Negative Declaration ND -13 -002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RECEIVED NOV 12 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION The project applicant is requesting approval for the following on the 0.751 -acre site (APN 527-44 -012 and 527 -44 -013): Conditional Use Permit for residential use in a C -1 zone; Create one parcel from the project site's two parcels; and Construct eight, detached condominiums on the site's one parcel. The project site is currently vacant. The property was previously used for agricultural and, more recently, commercial purposes, with a restaurant and bar occupying the 0.751 -acre project site from 1973 through 2001. The vacant restaurant and bar were demolished in 2001. The project proposal entails the development of detached condominiums on one parcel combining the two existing site parcels. Proposed lots on the site would be 32,708 square feet (s.£). Three floor plans ranging in size from 2,214 to 2,721 s.f. (plus attics, porches, and garages) are proposed for the eight condominiums. Types A and C (Units 1, 4,6 — 8) would have four bedrooms, Zi or 3 baths, two -car garages, balconies, and covered porches. Type B would be the smallest with 3 bedrooms and Zi baths with two -car garage, and covered porches. One lot (Unit 5, Type B.1) would accommodate a Below Market Price (BMP) unit. All of the homes would be two -story with private yards to be individually owned. The proposed site plan is included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. The configuration of homes on the project site would entail four residences (Units 1 — 4) fronting on Union Avenue and four residences (Units 5 — 8) situated to the rear of the fronting homes. Each of four proposed driveways would serve two homes. All four of the residences along Union Avenue would include front yard areas (ranging in size from 371 to 401 s.f.). Of these four units, two (Units I and 4) would also have rear yards, while Units 3 and 4 would back onto an 800 s.f. Common Area. Similarly, Units 5 (BMP) and 8 would have both front and rear yards, while Units 6 and 7 would have rear yards and front onto the Common Area in the center of the project site. These rear yards would range from 605 to 1,115 s.f, in size. As part of the condominium development, the proposed project would include private driveways, parking, guest parking, and common space that would be owned and maintained by a Home Owners Association NovsnmeR2013 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE (HOA). A total of 22 parking spaces would be provided: 16 garage (covered) spaces for eight single - family units, and six driveway guest spaces on -site along the private driveways. Project plans also include the retention of existing landscaping on the site along with the installation of new landscaping throughout the site. Six of seven camphor, willow, and oak trees lining the eastern perimeter of the property would be preserved to ensure existing screening of the site from the rear yards of adjoining residential properties to the east along Howes and Hershner courts. One dead tree on this perimeter would be removed and replaced with three 24 -inch box camphor trees. An eight -foot high masonry wall on the eastern perimeter of the site provides privacy for the residential properties to the east. A wood fence and landscaping on the northern site boundary separates the project site from two residences to the north, while low hedge plantings and other landscaping bounds the site on the south as part of a commercial building site. The project plans would include planting of four street trees along Union Avenue and installation of three bioswales in the front yard areas of Units 1 - 4 for stormwater treatment and groundwater recharge. Additional landscaping, hardscape features, and fencing would be installed throughout the proposed development, as well as along the southern perimeter of the site. DETERMINATION: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures listed below have been added to the project, mitigating potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. STATEMENT OF REASONS TO SUPPORT FINDING: 1. Aesthetics Scenic Vistas. Existing views of the project site consist of a vacant urban lot covered with low grasses and various weeds. The demolition of previous commercial uses on the site (restaurant and bar) removed most structures and improvements related to the past development. Six trees and an eight -foot masonry wall remain on the eastern perimeter of the site. Presently, there are views to the Santa Cruz Mountains for pedestrians and motorists traveling southbound along Union Avenue. Public and private landscaping as well as residential and commercial development on Union Avenue moderate distant views of the Santa Cruz Mountains ridgelines for southbound travellers. For nearby residents, ridgeline and mountain views are available to the residents of 5236 and 5238 Union Avenue (San Jose) from side yard windows. Views from the rear yards of single - family residences to the east of the project site are obscured by mature landscape trees on the respective properties of Howes and Hershner courts. There are no scenic vista views across the project site from the commercial building (246 Union Avenue) to the south of the project site. With the proposed project, views of mountain ridgelines from Union Avenue to the south would remain as currently available. The development of the project's two -story single- family residences, specifically Units i and 5, would introduce residential buildings adjacent to the two residences immediately north of the site. The site's residences would be separated from these adjoining properties by the access drive for Units 1 and 5. Views of the site from existing homes located on Union Avenue are oriented toward the west and east and scenic vistas of the Santa Cruz Mountains (to the south) are not available in these directions. Limited side yard views of the Santa Cruz Mountains from two residences north of the project site would be replaced with views of new residences. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant effect on any scenic vistas of the mountains that are available from these homes. Scenic Resources Within a State Scenic Highway. There are no state- designated scenic highways in the project vicinity and therefore, the project would not affect scenic resources within a state scenic highway. NOVEMBER 2013 2' MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNION AVENUE Visual Character. The proposed project would modify the existing visual character of this section of Union Avenue. At present, the project site is a vacant lot that is surrounded primarily by residential development. The commercial building on the southern boundary of the project site includes design elements consistent with residential development. Residential development in San Jose to the north of the site is similar in design and site configuration to the proposed project. Adjacent residential buildings on Union Avenue as well as the shopping center immediately west of the site define the visual character of the project site's neighborhood. The vacant lot comprising the project site is inconsistent with the visual character of the project area and the development of residential uses on the site would contribute to the cohesiveness of the residential character in the project vicinity. The Town retained Cannon Design Group (CDG) to evaluate the project's architectural design and site plan for consistency with Design Standard objectives. CDG reviewed and provided comments on the site plan in April 2013. Copies of this CDG review are on file at the Community Development Department. CDG acknowledged that the project is very well designed, and identified a few concerns such as an awkward arrangement of guest parking spaces, privacy issues for facing windows on certain units, porch depths, facades at the ends of entry driveways, and the use of fiber cement shingles. The recommendations and comments include the following items: • Privacy issues related to facing second story windows could be addressed by selective use of translucent glass and/or higher windows in some locations to avoid large bedroom windows from directly facing each other. • Minor design recommendations regarding porch depths and use of wood shingles could be addressed. Less- than- optimal porch depths could be acceptable given the low - fenced yard areas facing onto Union Avenue, where distinct personalities for each house can be created. The Town has accepted the use of fiber cement shingles upon review of materials submitted by the applicant. The applicant has agreed to these recommendations and has revised the design details in consultation with Town staff. Light or Glare. There are no existing improvements on the site such as exterior lighting. Street lighting is proposed to be limited to the one existing streetlight on Union Avenue and no streetlights would be added as part of the proposed project. To reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the project will need to satisfy Town Code Section 29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlight onto any area outside the project boundary). 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources The 0.751 -acre project site is currently vacant. Development of the proposed project would replace the site's previous commercial use with new residential development. The site's agricultural timberland production potential is low due to surrounding urban development. State farmland mapping shows the project site as "Urban and Built -Up Land," indicating that this land has already been converted to non- agricultural use. There are no existing agricultural or forestry uses /operations at or adjacent to the site. 3. Air Quality Air Quality Planning. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as non - attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PM,o). To address these exceedances, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG, prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAGS) in September 2005 and Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule (PMIS) in November 2005. The PMIS discusses how the BAAQMD implements the California Air Resources Board's 103 particulate matter control measures. The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Basin is the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP), which updates the BAOS and was adopted by the BAAQMD in September 2010. This CAP outlines how the San Francisco Bay Area will attain air quality NovayrRER 2013 ¢ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The consistency of the proposed project with the most recently adopted regional air quality plan, the CAP, is determined by.comparing the project's consistency with pertinent land use and transportation control measures contained in the CAP. The project site is located adjacent to the VTA bus route 49 and the proposed commercial development would be consistent with CAP Policy TCM D -3, which promotes provision of employment development near transit to promote walking, bicycling, and transit use. The project's construction- related and operational emissions were determined to not exceed the BAAQMD's CEQA significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed project's emissions would be consistent with the BAAQMD's CAP (the most recently adopted regional air quality plan). Also, the CAP is based on the Town's General Plan in effect at the time the CAP was approved, and therefore, consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the CAP. Although the project site is designated for neighborhood commercial use in the Los Gatos General Plan, the proposed residential use would generate lower traffic levels than a commercial use and therefore, it's operational air pollutant emissions are expected to be lower than would occur under the designated use. In addition, project - related operational emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants (see discussion below). Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, a less - than - significant impact. Air Quality Standards. The BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and /or maintaining air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) within Federal and State air quality standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the Basin and to develop and implement strategies to attain the applicable Federal and State standards. In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which provides guidance for assessing air quality impacts under CEQA. However, on March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. On August 13, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the Alameda County Superior Court judgment that invalidated the BAAQMD's CEQA thresholds of significance. In a published ruling, the Court directed that the Superior Court vacate the writ of mandate issued in March 2012, ordering the BAAQMD to set aside its June 2010 resolution (Res. #2010 -06) "Adopting Thresholds for Use in Determining the Significance of Projects' Environmental Effects Under the California Environmental Quality Act." Therefore, the 2010/2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and significance thresholds will be back in effect as soon as the Superior Court complies with the appellate court ruling. Significance Thresholds. Exercising its own discretion as Lead Agency and similar to many other San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions, the Town has decided to rely on the thresholds within the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD, which serve as the basis for the 2010/2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and significance thresholds. The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report establishes the following thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2010/2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines: • NOx and ROG: 54 pounds /day • PMIo: 82 pounds /day • PM2.5: 54 pounds /day In addition to establishing the above significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions, the BAAQMD, in its Options and Justification Report and 2010/2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, also recommended the following quantitative thresholds to determine the significance of construction- related NOVEMBER 2013 4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION- 258 UNION AVENUE and operational emissions of toxic air contaminants from individual project and cumulative sources on cancer and non - cancer health risks: • Increased cancer risk of >I0.0 in a million for individual projects and >100 in a million (from all local sources) for cumulative sources; • Increased non - cancer risk of >1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) for individual projects and >10.0 Hazard Index (from all local sources) for cumulative sources; and • Ambient PM2.5increase: >0.3 µg /m'annual average for individual projects and >0.8 µg /m'annual average (from all local sources) for cumulative sources. Project Emissions. The project's construction- related and operational emissions are estimated and compared to the above significance thresholds in Table 1 of the Initial Study. As shown in this table, the project's construction- related and operational air pollutant emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, a less - than- significant impact. However, the BAAQMD recommends that all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures be implemented for all construction projects, whether or not construction - related emissions exceed these significance thresholds. Therefore, the project's construction - related and operational increases in criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. To address cumulative impacts on regional air quality, the Town utilizes the thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD for construction- related and operational criteria pollutants and precursor emissions (specified above). These thresholds represent the levels at which a project's individual emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB's existing air quality conditions. If daily average or annual emissions exceed these thresholds, the project would result in a cumulatively significant impact. Since the project's construction- related and operational criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds specified above, the project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less than significant Exposure of Sensitive Receptors. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates vehicle fuels with the intent to reduce emissions. Diesel exhaust is a serious concern throughout California. The CARB identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant and human carcinogen. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic. Many of these toxic compounds adhere to the diesel particles, which are very small and can penetrate deeply into the lungs. Diesel engine particulate matter has been identified as a human carcinogen. Mobile sources such as trucks, buses, and automobiles are some of the primary sources of diesel emissions. Studies show that diesel particulate matter concentrations are much higher near heavily traveled highways and intersections. The cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust is much higher than the risk associated with any other toxic air pollutant routinely measured in the region. Diesel exhaust contains both pulmonary irritants and hazardous compounds that can affect sensitive receptors such as young children, senior citizens, or those susceptible to chronic respiratory disease such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. In 2005, the CARB approved a regulatory measure to reduce emissions of toxic and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of new heavy -duty diesel vehicles, which altered five sections of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. The changes relevant to the proposed project are in Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel - Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, which limit idling of a vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes in any location (with some exceptions) or operation of a diesel - fueled auxiliary power system within 100 feet of residential areas. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with NOVEMBER 2013 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include residential uses adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries. The adjacent residence to the north (5238 Union Avenue) is considered to be the closest sensitive receptor to project construction and the maximally- exposed individual (MEI, see Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for location). The two closest schools, Union Middle School and Stratford School, are located approximately 800 feet to the west and 1,000 feet to the east, respectively. Operation of the proposed residences would not generate toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose a health risks to adjacent or nearby uses. However, during project construction, combustion emissions from operation of off -road construction equipment on the project -site would be generated and could expose adjacent and nearby receptors to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other toxic air contaminants (TACs) that are associated with various health risk factors. Due to the proximity of sensitive receptors to the project site, a screening -level construction- related health risk analysis was completed for the project at the MEI, which is the residence to the north at 5238 Union Avenue (see Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for location). DPM exhaust emissions for on -site project construction from off -road heavy equipment were calculated using the CalEEMod computer model (included in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study). The results of the health risk screening are summarized in Table 2 of the Initial Study. As indicated in this table, the project's construction- related DPM emissions would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for cancer and non -cancer health risks for infants (up to 2 years in age), which have the highest age sensitivity factor (ASF). Therefore, the project's construction- related DPM emissions would result in temporary health risks that would be less than significant to infants, children, and adults. In addition to the above construction- related risk and hazard impacts, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would be exposed to cumulative risk and hazard impacts from the project's construction- related emissions in combination with existing stationary and mobile sources within approximately 1,000 feet of the project area. Therefore, in addition to project construction, possible local stationary or vehicular source emissions must be added to this concentration to determine the cumulative total. Specifically, the BAAQMD requires that existing stationary and mobile emissions (i.e. freeways or roadways with more than 10,000 vehicles per day) sources within 1,000 feet of the project area also be considered. Any potential cumulative health risk would, therefore, derive from project activities plus any existing identified risk sources within the project vicinity. According to BAAQMD records, there are no permitted sources within 1,000 feet of the project site or the MEI. There are no freeways within 1,000 feet of the site or MEI, but there are two roadways with average daily traffic volumes exceeding 10,000. When emissions from these roadways are considered, cumulative health risks at the MEI would be as indicated in Table 3 of the Initial Study. Odors. Project construction would generate nuisance diesel odors associated with operation of diesel construction equipment on -site (primarily during initial grading phases), but this effect would be localized, sporadic, and short-term in nature. Therefore, temporary impacts from nuisance diesel odors on adjacent residential receptors, which are located as close as five feet from the project boundary, are considered to be less than significant. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The project would not include any uses identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors. No new or unusual sources of nuisance odors would be associated with the proposed commercial use. Therefore, the project's potential for nuisance odor problems would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures — Air Quality (AQ). Although the project's construction - related air pollutant emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD's applicable significance thresholds, the BAAQMD NOVEMBER 2013 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE recommends that the following measure be implemented on all construction projects to reduce the project - related construction emissions: AQ -1: Basic Construction Measures. To limit the project's construction- related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following BAAQMD - recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the project's grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications: a. 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. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track -out 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Monitoring. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Directors of Parks & Public Works and Community Development shall be responsible for ensuring that these measures are properly incorporated into project plans and implemented during project construction. 4. Biological Resources Special- Status Species, Sensitive Communities and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Movement, Corridors, Nursery Sites. The project site is vacant with only landscape trees remaining from previous commercial use of the property. Vegetation on the site consists of landscape trees along its eastern perimeter and sparse groundcover on the property. Trees along the eastern boundary of the site serve as an effective screening element for the nearby residential properties on Howes and Hershner courts. The habitat value of site vegetation is limited to urban- adapted species. There are no sensitive wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, nor are there any fish or wildlife migratory corridors or nursery sites on the site or in its vicinity. Tree and Biological Protection Ordinances. Policy O.P.3.3 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasizes preservation of public and private landscaping along Town streets. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3 -1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy — Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24 -inch box size NovBoER 2013 7 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE trees or two 36 -inch and/or 48 -inch box size trees, depending on the canopy size of the tree to be removed. A tree survey was prepared for the project by the Town's consulting arborist, Deborah Ellis, in April 2013. Copies of this study are on file with the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The Ellis assessment and revised project plans serve as the basis for the following evaluation of the project's potential effects on trees at the property. The Ellis survey identified a total of eight ordinance- protected trees of various species on the project site. These include: three camphor trees (Cinnamomum camphora); three evergreen ash (Fraxinus uhdei); one black walnut (Juglans californica); and one almond tree (Prunus dulcis). All of these trees are located along the site's eastern perimeter, adjoining the rear yards of residential properties on Howes and Hershner courts. The arborist has evaluated each tree and determined that all of these trees are in fair to poor condition, with a recommendation to remove at least three of the trees in the southeast corner of the site. The project proposes to remove only one dead tree in this part of the site. As a potential option for future landscaping, the arborist has indicated that the project could remove all of these trees and replant trees or shrubs that would have a mature height of 20 to 25 feet. This would eliminate the need for future utility clearance pruning of the existing trees. However, the removal of all trees along the eastern site boundary would result in visual, screening, and privacy issues for the rear yards of the five homes adjoining the site to the east. The arborist's evaluation also identifies two off -site trees immediately north and south of the project site that will require protection similar to the site's protected trees. A hybrid madrone tree (Arbutus marina) is located near the northwest comer of the site. While the tree's canopy hangs low over the northern site boundary and extends approximately eight to ten feet onto the subject property, the tree is considered generally to be in good condition and in need of professional pruning. Additionally, an American sweet gum tree (Liquidambar styraciflua) is situated on the adjoining commercial property near the southwest corner of the site. This tree was recently topped and pruned and now has a "poor" structure. Project implementation would result in removal of one dead almond tree ( #4 in arborist report or #5 in landscape plan). For screening purposes, the project proposes to plant three 24 -inch box camphor trees along the eastern property boundary. The Ellis report recommends the removal of a dead black walnut tree that was not included in the tree inventory of the Preliminary Landscape & Fencing Plan (Sheet LP- 1) and a third tree, an evergreen ash also in the southeast corner of the site ( #2 in arborist report, #7 in landscape plan). Ellis' recommendations are included as Attachment 3 of the Initial Study. As a condition of project approval, the applicant will be required to comply with requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance (including Ellis' recommendations). Therefore, with this project condition, the project would not conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting trees. The Preliminary Landscape & Fencing Plan proposes to install purple leaf plum and dwarf citrus trees throughout the site along with four street trees. Other landscaping elements would include flowering vines on trellises, accent lawn areas along the Union Avenue units ( #'s 1 and 4) and in the common area, and bio- swales in front yard areas of units along Union Avenue. Private rear yard landscaping would be the responsibility of the individual owners. Habitat Conservation Plans. The proposed project would not be in conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 5. Cultural Resources Historical Resources. The project site is vacant with no structures on the property. Therefore, no significant impacts on historic resources would result from the project implementation. NOVEMBER 2013 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNIONAVENUE Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. An archaeological literature review was undertaken by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University (file no. 12 -1659) to obtain information about recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites in and around the project area, and information about previous archaeological field studies of the project area and its surroundings. A copy of the Holman report is on file and available for public review at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The review of NWIC records indicates that there has been no previous archaeological field inspection of the project area, and that there are no recorded historic or prehistoric sites within y mile of the project site. The lack of recorded prehistoric archaeological sites may be due to the relatively early historic buildout of this area, which precluded the systematic search for archaeological resources. Holman & Associates conducted a visual inspection of the project site on July 2, 2013. No evidence of historical or archaeological resources was discovered during the field inspection. A former structural pad, raised slightly above the remainder of the field, was evident in the northeast corner of the property; this was the location of the site's former restaurant and bar. Holman concluded that the project site has a low to moderate potential for containing buried cultural resources, and therefore, mechanical subsurface presence /absence testing is not warranted, nor is it recommended that an archaeologist be present during construction- related earthmoving activities. However, the potential for discovery of obscured cultural resources during future development of the project site would still remain. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant impact. Paleontological Resources. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones), invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites, and marine coral), and fossils of microscopic plants and animals (microfossils). The age and abundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting, and particular geologic formation in which they are found. Fossil discoveries not only provide a historic record of past plant and animal life, but may assist geologists in dating rock formations. A review of records maintained by the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley indicates that the closest paleontological resources recorded in Santa Clara County occur approximately 15.5 miles west of Los Gatos. These resources were discovered in geologic strata dating from the Late Pliocene and Miocene epochs of the Tertiary Period (65 to 1.8 million years ago). Geologic mapping for the proposed project indicates the site is underlain by Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits. These deposits are more recent and differ in age from those containing the recorded paleontological resources. Consequently, the potential for encountering paleontological resources at the project site is considered to be low. Mitigation Measures — Cultural Resources (CUL). The following measures shall be implemented by the project applicant to reduce the project's potential impact on archaeological resources to aless -than- significant level: CUL -1: Observation by Construction Personnel. The project shall include the following conditions: a. Construction personnel involved with earthmoving shall be alerted to the potential for the discovery of prehistoric materials and in particular, concentrations of historic artifacts. Prehistoric archaeological resources could include but not be limited to the following: darker than surrounding soils of a friable nature, concentrations of stone, bone or fresh water shellfish, artifacts of these materials, and evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire altered earth or rock) and of course, burials, both human and animal. b. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 20 -foot radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, NOVEMBER 2013 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. c. In the event that it appears further earthmoving will affect a resource eligible for the California Register of Historic Resource (CRHR), a plan for evaluation of the resource through limited hand excavation should be submitted to the Town Planning Office for approval. If evaluative testing demonstrates that the project will affect a CRHR eligible resource, a plan for the mitigation of impacts to the resource should be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval before construction is allowed inside the zone designated as archaeologically sensitive. d. Mitigation can take the form of additional data retrieval through hand excavation combined with archaeological monitoring of all additional soil removal inside the zone of archaeological sensitivity to ensure that significant cultural resources are recorded and /or removed for further analysis before work is allowed to recommence. Mitigation Monitoring. During construction, the Director of Community Development shall be responsible for ensuring that these measures are properly implemented. 6. Geology and Soils A geotechnical investigation was conducted by Murray Engineers, Inc. in March 2013 to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the proposed project site and provide geotechnical recommendations for construction of site improvements and a supplement was prepared in June 2013 that provides supplemental foundation recommendations. The geotechnical report concluded that there are no substantial geotechnical hazards that would preclude the construction of the proposed improvements provided that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. This section presents the results of the geotechnical investigation along with published geologic information, which serve as the basis for the evaluation of geologic and seismic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. A copy of the geotechnical report and associated documents are included in Attachment 4 of the Initial Study. The proposed project site is located within the central region of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, which extends from the Oregon border south to the Transverse Ranges in Southern California. The topography is generally characterized by sub - parallel, northwest trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. The region has undergone a complex geologic history of volcanic activity, folding, faulting, uplift, erosion and sedimentation. The 0.75 -acre un -paved project site and immediate vicinity are relatively flat, though there is a 3 -foot high mound of fill materials in the northeast corner of the site. Based on published geologic mapping, the site is located in an area of upper Pleistocene -aged alluvial fan deposits (11,000 to 1.8 million years old). The geotechnical evaluation for the project included the installation of four soil borings to depths of approximately 12 to 16 feet below ground surface. The geologic materials encountered during this investigation were generally medium dense to very dense materials, and groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. Boring B -2, completed through the fill mound in the northeastern portion of the project site, encountered approximately 3 feet of fill materials comprised of medium dense clayey sand with gravel underlain by 21h feet of medium dense silty sand alluvium which is in turn underlain by dense to very dense silty sand with gravel. This was the only boring that encountered fill, and the materials encountered in each of the remaining borings consisted of alluvial materials comprised of stiff sandy to silty clay, and medium dense to very dense clayey sand with gravel, medium dense silty sand, or dense to very dense silty sand with gravel. With the exception of fine- grained materials encountered in the uppermost three feet of Boring B -1, all of the alluvial materials are coarse - grained. Drilling refusal was met at a depth of 14 feet in Boring B-4. NOVEMBER 2013 10 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNION AVENUE Seismic Hazards. The San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, and Greenville faults are major active strike -slip faults in the San Francisco Bay Region. The USGS estimates that there is a 63% probability of a strong earthquake (magnitude [Mw] 6.7 or higher) Occurring on one of these regional faults in the 30 -year period between 2003 and 2032. The active faults closest to the project site include the San Andreas Fault located approximately six miles to the southwest and the Hayward and Calaveras faults located approximately 11 and 14 miles northeast of the project site, respectively. In additionally, the potentially active Monte Vista - Shannon Fault zone is located approximately 0.7 miles to the southwest of the project site. Potential seismic hazards resulting from earthquake activity on one of these faults include ground rupture (also called surface faulting); ground shaking; liquefaction and the related effects of settlement and lateral spreading; and landsliding. These hazards are discussed below. Ground Runture. No known active faults cross the site, and the proposed project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or Santa Clara County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. Therefore the potential for fault rupture at the site is low and this impact is less than significant. Ground Shakine. Ground shaking is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. The degree of shaking that would be expected at a particular site is dependent on the distance from the earthquake source, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the type, thickness, and condition of the geologic materials (bedrock, sediment, soil, fill). Based on mapping prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project site could experience very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on the northern San Andreas Fault, the closest active fault to the project site. In accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), applicants for a building permit are required to determine the appropriate seismic design criteria for the proposed structures to resist seismic forces. The criteria are determined on the basis of soil type, the magnitude of the controlling seismic event, slip rate of the nearest fault, and distance to the nearest active fault. The structural design for the proposed homes would be based on Chapter 16 of the 2010 CBC, which provides criteria for the seismic design of buildings. The seismic design parameters, determined in accordance with the CBC, are listed in Table 5 of the Initial Study. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead and live loads. Therefore, structures designed in accordance with the CBC should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. While conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, it is reasonable to expect that a well - designed and well - constructed structure would not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake. As part of its review, the Town of Los Gatos Building Division would review the planned design to confirm compliance with the CBC. Because compliance with the CBC should ensure that the buildings constructed under the proposed project do not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake, impacts related to groundshaking would be less than significant. Liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary, but essentially total loss of shear strength because of pore pressure build -up under the stresses associated with earthquakes. The project site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction potential or identified Santa Clara County Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The geotechnical report for the project also concludes that potential for liquefaction is low because the groundwater level is below 16 feet and the underlying geologic materials are generally cohesive and well consolidated alluvial materials. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction are less than significant. NOVEMBER 2013 11 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE Seismic Landslidine. The proposed project site is relatively level, and is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake- induced landslide potential or Santa Clara County Landslide Hazard Zone. Therefore, the potential for seismically - induced landslides is low and this impact is less than significant. Soil Erosion and Loss of Topsoil. Without proper soil stabilization controls, construction activities such as excavation, backfilling, and grading can increase the potential for soil loss and erosion by wind and stormwater runoff through the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of areas of loose soil, even on relatively flat properties such as the proposed project site. During construction of the proposed project, soil disturbance would occur over much of the 0.75 -acre site for excavation, grading, and other earth moving activities and these construction- related activities would increase the potential for soil erosion. However, once the project is constructed, the site would be completely covered with buildings, pavement, landscaping, or stormwater controls that would promote groundwater infiltration. Further, the proposed project would not involve construction on an existing slope or result in newly created slopes that would substantially increase the potential for long -term erosion. Therefore, potential erosion - related impacts would be restricted to the construction period. During construction, the project applicant would be required to comply with the requirements of Chapter 12 of the Town Code (Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control) as a condition of project approval as discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Compliance with the Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control provisions of the Town Code includes obtaining a grading permit and implementing an approved erosion and sediment control plan that would specify the use of best management practices to restrict soil erosion during construction. With implementation of the legally required actions of the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control requirements of the Town Code as a condition of approval, geologic impacts related to erosion during construction would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site has been historically developed and the previous buildings have been demolished. Construction of the previous development would have removed any topsoil historically present. Therefore, there is not a well - developed topsoil horizon at the project site, and there would be no impact related to loss of topsoil. Instability. The project site is not located within a Santa Clara County Compressible Soil or Landslide Hazard Zone indicating that neither of these potential hazards would affect the project site. Further, the project would not include construction of basements or other subsurface structures that would involve substantial excavations that could become unstable. However, the geotechnical report for the project concludes that in the event of a major earthquake, the fill materials in the northeastern corner of the project site could experience differential settlement relative to the surrounding medium dense to very dense alluvial materials. Therefore, impacts related to location on a geologic unit or soil that could become unstable as a result of the project are considered significant. This impact would be reduced to a less- than- significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, which specifies implementation of the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation addressing removal of non- engineered soft geologic materials and replacement with engineered fill as well as appropriate design of the building foundations and building slabs to avoid damage from differential settlement. If the recommendations of the geotechnical report are implemented, differential settlement over 30 years should not exceed I inch across any 20 -foot span. Expansive Soils. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume changes with variations in moisture content and are known to shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. The geotechnical report for the project found that the surficial soils have a plasticity index of 5 percent and a liquid limit of 21 percent, corresponding to a low expansion potential. Therefore, impacts related to risks to life and property as a result of construction on expansive soils would be less than significant. NOVEMBER 2013 12 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNION AVENUE Mitigation Measures — Geology and Soils (GEO). The following measure shall be implemented by the applicant to reduce the project's seismic, geologic, and soil impacts to less- than- significant levels: GEO -1: Implement Geotechnical Investigation Recommendations. The recommendations of the Murray Engineers geotechnical investigation (March 27, 2013), Post - Tensioned Slab Recommendations (June 4, 2013), and any subsequent geotechnical investigations shall be incorporated in the final construction plans for the proposed project (Attachment 4 of the Initial Study). These recommendations address removal of non - engineered soft geologic materials and replacement with engineered fill or compacted materials as well as appropriate design of the building foundations and building slab to avoid damage from differential settlement. Mitigation Monitoring. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments shall be responsible for ensuring that the recommended measures from the design -level geotechnical investigation are incorporated into plans and properly implemented, and undocumented fill materials are properly characterized and reused /disposed of off -site during construction. 7. Greenhouse Gases "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one - fourth of total emissions. GHGs are typically reported in the "carbon dioxide equivalent" measure (CO2e). Significance Thresholds and Criteria. Exercising its own discretion as lead agency and similar to other San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions, the Town of Los Gatos has decided to rely on the thresholds within the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the BAAQMD's 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The Town believes that these recommendations still represent the best available science on the subject of what constitutes significant GHG effects on climate change (particularly in light of the California Court of Appeal's reversal of the Alameda County Superior Court judgment that invalidated the BAAQMD's CEQA thresholds of significance), and they are as follows: Compliance with a Qualified Climate Action Plan (or similar adopted policies, ordinances, and programs) that includes enforceable measures to reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 goals or Executive Order S -03 -05 targets; OR • 1,100 MT COZe per year OR 6.7 MT CO2e per capita per year (residential) / 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year (mixed use) For purposes of this report, project compliance with the 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold is used as the primary basis to determine significance. The project's consistency with operative goals and policies of the Sustainability Plan that are designed to avoid environmental impacts also is analyzed as a secondary basis for assessing significance. To fully implement the Sustainability Plan, though, the Town Council must take a number of future steps, such as adopting a Green Building Ordinance and developing GreenPoint NOVEMBER 2013 13 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNION AVENUE Rated Building Guidelines. Consistency of any proposed project or program with the Sustainability Plan is one of the criteria used to determine the significance of a project's GHG emissions under CEQA. Because many of the Plan's most stringent aspects will only become fully operational when such future measures are in place, however, compliance with existing Sustainability Plan requirements, by itself, is not sufficient at this time to support a determination that a project's greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant by definition. Although the Plan contains a comprehensive long -range strategy to achieve sustainability in transportation, land use, energy conservation, water use, solid waste reduction and open space preservation, the Plan will not be fully implemented until the Town Council takes a number of future steps, such as adopting a Green Building Ordinance and developing GreenPoint Rated Building Guidelines. When these steps have been taken, the Town intends that compliance with the Plan and its implementing actions (e.g., the Green Building Ordinance) should be sufficient by itself to reduce projects' greenhouse gas emissions to less - than- significant levels. (See CEQA Section 15183.5 [compliance with the requirements of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be sufficient to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from individual projects to less - than - significant levels].) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Short-term GHG emissions would be generated by project - related construction activities. In addition, project implementation would also contribute to long -term increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from direct sources (traffic increases). The proposed project would also result in other indirect operational increases in GHG emissions as a result of electricity generation to meet project- related increases in energy demand. Electricity generation in California is mainly from natural gas -fired power plants. However, since California imports about 20 to 25 percent of its total electricity (mainly from the northwestern and southwestern states), GHG emissions associated with electricity generation could also occur outside of California. Space or water heating, water delivery, wastewater processing and solid waste disposal also generate GHG emissions. The CaIEEMod 2011.1.1 computer model was used to calculate GHG emissions that would be generated by the construction and operation of proposed residences, and results are presented in Table 6 of the Initial Study. As indicated in Table 6 of the Initial Study, project construction would generate up to approximately 63 metric tons of CO2- equivalents (MT CO2e) per year. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for construction- related GHG emissions, but the project's estimated construction- related GHG emissions are expected to have a less- than - significant impact on global climate change. For comparison purposes, this emissions rate is well below this report's operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year, which would be an indication that the project's construction- related GHG emissions would be less than significant. The proposed project would also be subject to the existing CARB regulation (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485), which limits idling of diesel - fueled commercial motor vehicles, and compliance with this regulation would further reduce GHG emissions associated with project construction vehicles (compliance with idling limits is required trader Mitigation Measure AQ -1 in Section 3, Air Quality). The BAAQMD also encourages implementation of construction- related GHG reduction strategies where feasible, such as: using alternative- fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles /equipment such that these vehicles /equipment comprise at least 15 percent of the fleet; using local building materials such that these materials comprise at least 10 percent of all construction materials; and recycling or reusing at least 50% of construction waste or demolition materials. None of these measures is specifically proposed as part of the project, but the project would be required to divert at least 50% of construction waste or demolition materials as required by the Town Building Code. Project operation is estimated to generate approximately 114 MT CO2e per year. Such an increase would not exceed this report's significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the project's operational GHG emissions would be less than significant. NOVEMBER 2013 14 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, Policies, and Regulations. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is in the process of developing CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions but thresholds have yet to be established. GHG statutes and executive orders (EO) include EO S -1 -07, EO S -3 -05, EO S- 13 -08, EO S- 14 -08, EO S- 20 -04, EO S- 21 -09, AB 32, AB 1493, AB 3018, SB 97, S13375, SB 1078/107, and SB 1368. AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to reduced statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Pursuant to this requirement, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies to achieve required reductions by 2020. As indicated above, the project's construction- related and operational GHG emissions would not exceed this report's significance threshold of 1,100 MT COZe. Thi; threshold is based on the BAAQMD's 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which in turn, relates to AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Therefore, the project's GHG emissions would not conflict with plans and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, a less- than- significant impact. In October 2012, the Town of Los Gatos adopted a Sustainability Plan, which outlines communitywide GHG emission reduction measures necessary to reduce GHG emissions in Los Gatos. By 2020, the Sustainability Plan documents that GHG emissions will be reduced by approximately 15% from the business -as-usual (BAU) assumption. The emissions reductions vary by sector. The Sustainability Plan contains GHG reduction measures and implements goals and policies of the Environment and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. In general, the proposed project would be consistent with currently applicable Sustainability Plan GHG reduction measures and associated General Plan policies. Project consistency with these policies is discussed in the project consistency analysis table included in the Initial Study. Consistency of the project with most of the above GHG reduction measures will be determined by the Town as part of A &S review and the Town will presumably require incorporation of design measures to ensure consistency with the Sustainability Plan. Based on this review and the project's less - than- significant GHG emissions, the proposed project would not hinder the state's GHG reduction goals established by AB 32, a less - than- significant impact. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Development of the new residences under the proposed project would result in an increase in the generation of household hazardous wastes that are typical of any residential area. Common household hazardous wastes such as paint, pesticides, used oil and antifreeze, could result in direct or indirect effects on human health and the environment if not appropriately handled and disposed of. In addition to water quality impacts from stormwater runoff, other potential impacts could result from improper handling or disposal of hazardous household chemicals. The household hazardous wastes may be disposed of at one of the Santa Clara County household hazardous waste facilities by making and appointment with the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program. Although Los Gatos residents can legally dispose of household hazardous wastes under the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, the project's impacts related to the generation and disposal of hazardous waste would be potentially significant because not all residents are knowledgeable in the identification of hazardous wastes and appropriate disposal requirements. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, which requires implementation of a Buyer Education Program to educate residents about the identification of household hazardous wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. Release of or Exposure to Hazardous Materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was prepared for the project site in 2013 to identify conditions that could affect soil or groundwater quality at the site. The Phase I ESA included a review of historical sources (historic aerial photographs between 1948 and 2005, local City Directories from as early as 1968, and local building department NOVEMBER 2013 15 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE records) to identify historic land uses that could have involved the use of hazardous materials; site observations; and a review of environmental databases to evaluate whether there are current or past hazardous materials uses at the site or in the vicinity that could affect soil and groundwater quality at the proposed project site. Site History. Historical sources reviewed for the Phase I ESA indicate that the site was used for orchards until sometime between 1956 and 1968. By 1968, the site consisted of a vacant grassy field, and there was a gasoline service station located nearby at the intersection of Union Avenue and Los Gatos Almaden Road, which is approximately 325 feet to the north. In 1973, the Country Oaks Woodpit Bar -B -Q was constructed in the northeast corner of the project site. Historic city directories indicate that this restaurant was on the property until about 1984. The 1998 aerial photograph indicates that the building had been demolished. However, historic city directories show that O'Shea's Bar and Grill was on the property between about 1993 and 1998, and the building department records reviewed include a 2001 permit to demolish O /Shea's Restaurant and bar at the site. The city directories do not list any businesses on the property between 1998 and 2008. The 2002 aerial photograph also indicates that the gasoline service station to the north was demolished. The project site is currently a vacant lot. The site reconnaissance identified a sewer cleanout and two pieces of sewer pipe in the area of the former building. As also noted in Section 6, Geology and Soils, there is a large pile of debris and fill material in the northeast comer of the project site. The project site is not listed in any of the environmental databases reviewed for the Phase I ESA. In addition, the adjoining land uses to the north, east, and south are residential while a Safeway store and strip mall area located across Union Avenue to the east. None of the surrounding sites identified in the environmental database review were considered to have the potential to affect soil or groundwater quality at the proposed project site. Impact Assessment. Because the site was used for orchards after 1944, organochlorine pesticides, including DDT, may have been used for pest control. Pesticides that contain arsenic may have also been used. However, because the site has historically been developed for restaurant purposes since use for orchards, and would have been graded for construction and removal of the buildings and associated parking lot, there is a low potential that the remaining site soils would contain pesticides at substantial levels. Therefore, impacts associated with exposure to hazardous materials in the soil would be less than significant. Hazardous Emissions or Use of Extremely hazardous Materials. Hazardous air emissions are toxic air contaminants identified by the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Extremely hazardous materials are defined by the State of California in Section 25532 (2)(g) of the Health and Safety Code. The proposed project is located approximately 800 feet east of Union Middle School and 1,000 feet west of Stratford School. However, only common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cements, adhesives, and petroleum products (such as asphalt, oil, and fuel) would be used during construction, none of which are considered extremely hazardous materials. Once constructed, the residents would not use extremely hazardous materials nor emit toxic air contaminants. The only toxic air contaminant that would be emitted during construction is diesel particulate matter (DPM) and impacts associated with these emissions are addressed in Section 3, Air Quality, Exposure of Sensitive Receptors. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or the use of extremely hazardous substances within 1/4-mile of a school would be less than significant Airports/Airstrips. The nearest airport to the proposed project is San Jose, located more than 7 miles to the north. Therefore, there is no impact associated with safety hazards due to location of the project within 2 miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Emergency Plans. The project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. The project will be required to comply with Fire Department NOVEMBER2013 16 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE Standard Details and Specifications to ensure adequate emergency access to project buildings by fire engines and ladder trucks (needed to access proposed high -rise structures). Therefore, the project's impact on emergency response would be less than significant. Wildland Fire Hazards. The proposed project site is not located in a fire hazard zone within a local responsibility area or state responsibility area, and is not located in a zone of "Very High Fire Hazard" identified in the 2020 Los Gatos General Plan. Therefore, there is no impact related to risks associated with wildland fires. Mitigation Measures — Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ). The following measures shall be implemented by the project applicant to reduce the project's hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less- than- significant levels: HAZ -1: Buyer Education Program. The project sponsor, working with the Town of Los Gatos and County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, shall implement a Buyer Education Program for Household Hazardous Waste. The program shall include developing materials to educate buyers about the identification of household hazardous wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. At a minimum, the materials shall provide a list of example household hazardous wastes, discuss the environmental impacts of improper disposal, explain how to make an appointment for disposal, and list safer and less toxic alternatives to hazardous products commonly used. The educational materials shall be provided to the buyer at the time of purchase. Mitigation Monitoring. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Directors of the Parks & Public Works and Community Development Departments shall be responsible for ensuring that this measure is incorporated into plans and contract specifications. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is located in the urbanized, storm - sewered Union Avenue area of Los Gatos, in the Guadalupe River watershed. Storm drains in the vicinity of the project site discharge into Ross Creek where it is contained in an engineered channel. This creek flows through San Jose, joining Guadalupe River approximately 3 miles downstream of the project site, and stream flows from the river ultimately discharge into San Francisco Bay via Alviso Slough. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCV WD) has implemented two recent flood control projects downstream of the proposed project site, including a bank repair program immediately upstream of the crossing with Harwood Road and a sediment removal project near the crossing with Meridian Avenue. Water Quality. The Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program regulates water quality degradation. This program was established by the Clean Water Act to control and reduce pollutants carried to water bodies from point and non -point discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program through nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from the Town of Los Gatos is a permit that is issued to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program ( SCVURPPP), referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The SCVURPPP is an association of thirteen cities /towns in the Santa Clara Valley (including Los Gatos), Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District that share a common NPDES permit to discharge stormwater to South San Francisco Bay. To reduce pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum" extent practicable, the SCVURPP incorporates regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed at improving the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of Santa Clara Valley. Construction. During construction an accidental discharge of stormwater or release of soil materials could cause erosion and downstream sedimentation. Consequently, the project's construction activities would have the potential to degrade local water quality in Ross Creek. However, the project applicant would be NOVEMBER 2013 17 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE required to obtain a grading permit from the Town of Los Gatos in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Town of Los Gatos municipal code which specifies that all grading must be conducted in a manner that the levels of dirt, rock, debris, and other materials are not discharged to a water body in excess of natural levels unless specifically provided for in a permit. Accordingly, the project applicant would need to prepare a site map and grading plan as well as an erosion and sediment control plan. An interim erosion and sediment control plan would be required if construction is started before October V, and the final erosion and sediment controls are not in place. Interim erosion control measures could include methods such as silt fences, fiber rolls, erosion control blankets, seeding, filter berms, check dams, and retention basins. Further, excavation, grading, and drainage activities must meet the design standards specified in Chapter 12. The Town would not issue a grading permit until the site map, grading plan, and interim and final erosion and sediment control plans are approved. Compliance with the Town grading permit would ensure that construction activities do not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise result in water quality degradation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant during construction. Projects which disturb one or more acres of soil, or projects which disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that disturbs one or more acres in total, are required to obtain coverage under the SWRCB General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. The project would not be required to obtain coverage under this permit because the total area of land disturbance would be 0.75 acre, which is less than the one -acre threshold. Post - Construction. In accordance with the MRP, projects that create or replace more than 10,000 square feet (sf) of impervious surfaces must incorporate a minimum of three types of stormwater controls: site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment measures. Low impact development (LID) treatment measures must be used to treat 100 percent of the design storm runoff from the project's drainage area. Potential LID measures include rainwater harvesting, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment (if the prior LID measures are determined to be infeasible). Projects that disturb more than one acre of land must also include hydromodification measures to manage stormwater flows in a manner that would not induce erosion. The project would construct eight new residences on an approximately 32,708 sf (0.75 acre) unpaved vacant lot that is entirely comprised of pervious surfaces. The proposed project would construct approximately 21,256 sf of new impervious surfaces, including parking areas, driveways, residences, and concreted areas. This would represent approximately 65 percent of the site area. Approximately 11,452 sf (35 percent) of the site would be landscaped, including three bioretention systems, and would remain pervious. Because the project would create more than 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces, it would be a Regulated Project under the MRP NPDES permit and would need to incorporate site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment measures for the management of post - construction stormwater runoff. The hydromodification requirement of the MRP would not apply to this project because it would create less than one acre of impervious surfaces. As part of the application submittal, the project applicant provided a C.3 Data Form that describes the conceptual stormwater treatment plan for the project, including how the project will comply with the C.3 stormwater management requirements of the MRP. To ensure compliance, the Town's contract engineering consultant, Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates (EOA), reviewed the conceptual plan presented in the C.3 Data Form and supporting information. EOA's review was conducted on August 27, 2013 (included as Attachment 5 of the Initial Study), and concluded that the plan is in compliance with the Town requirements provided that conditions specified in their review are addressed, as discussed below, and that the project applicant provides a maintenance plan and agreement for the installed stormwater control features. The Town of Los Gatos would include requirements for implementation of the proposed stormwater controls and any modifications identified by EOA in their conditions of approval for the proposed project NOVEMBER2013 18 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE The C.3 Data Form for the project identifies the following feasible site design measures: 1) minimizing impervious surfaces; 2) directing runoff to vegetated areas; 3) disconnecting downspouts, with roof runoff to vegetated areas; and 4) providing pervious pavement and permeable surfaces. The form also indicates the project would include three pollutant source control measures: 1) beneficial landscaping (i.e., drought tolerant and/or native plants to minimize over - irrigation and the use of pesticides on the landscaping); 2) maintenance (pavement sweeping, catch basin cleaning, good housekeeping); and 3) as recommended by the EOA review, storm drain labeling. The site is divided into three drainage areas and stormwater treatment measures specified on the C.3 Data Form include three bioretention systems (one for each drainage area) that would treat and infiltrate stormwater conveyed through storm drains installed in both impervious and pervious areas of the site. The applicant provided calculations as part of the application submittal that demonstrate that the site soils have a sufficient infiltration rate to allow the use of infiltration stormwater controls and that the bioretention systems are appropriately sized. The EOA review concurred with the calculations although additional details are needed to construct the systems and these details would need to be provided in the final stormwater control plan. However, the review also noted that the driveway entrances do not drain to the bioretention systems and recommended that the project could utilize an interceptor tree credit, provide pervious pavement to facilitate direct infiltration, or provide a slot drain to direct flow from the driveway entrances to bioretention features. The alternative selected will also need to be addressed in the final stormwater control plan. Stormwater from the residence roofs would be directed to the landscaped yards through downspouts. All wastewater from the project site would be discharged into the existing sanitary sewer system where it would be treated by the West Valley Sanitation District in accordance with state water treatment requirements. Implementation of the infiltration stormwater control features in accordance with the C.3 requirements of the MRP as described above would reduce the production of stormwater pollutants at the project site, and provide for removal of stormwater- related pollutants. Therefore, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. However, as discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the new residents at the project site would likely use common household hazardous wastes such as paint, pesticides, used oil and antifreeze. These materials could degrade water quality if discharged to the storm sewer or to the sanitary sewer system via indoor sink drains. Although Los Gatos residents can legally dispose of household hazardous wastes under the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste program, the project's water quality impacts related to the generation of hazardous waste would be potentially significant because not all residents are knowledgeable in the identification of hazardous wastes and appropriate disposal requirements. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, which requires implementation of a Buyer Education Program to educate residents about the identification of household hazardous wastes, appropriate disposal methods, and how to make an appointment for disposal. Groundwater Resources. The project would not involve any groundwater dewatering during construction nor use groundwater resources for any purpose once constructed. Potable water would be supplied to the residences from the local public water supply provided by the San Jose Water Company, which consists of both surface water and groundwater sources. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to groundwater depletion beyond any impacts associated with the provision of water by the San Jose Water Company and the agencies from which it directly or indirectly receives water, including the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Water Resources. NOVEMBER 2013 19 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNION AVENUE In addition, the project site is currently unpaved which allows for infiltration of stormwater to the underlying groundwater system. Although the project includes the construction of 21,256 s.f. of new impervious surfaces, it would not interfere with groundwater recharge because once constructed, all of the stormwater runoff would be infiltrated to the groundwater through landscaping or bioretention systems, with the exception of any minor overflows from the bioretention systems during particularly large storms. Therefore, impacts related to depletion of groundwater resources and interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant. Drainage. As described in 9a and 9f above, once the project is constructed, all of the stormwater drainage from the site would be infiltrated to the groundwater through landscaping or bioretention systems. Therefore, the project would not alter the drainage patterns of the site in a manner that would cause on- or off -site erosion, siltation, or flooding. Further, only minor amounts of stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the bioretention systems would be intermittently discharged to the storm sewer system and therefore, the capacity of the storm water collection system would not be exceeded. As described above, the stormwater control plan for the project includes source control measures that would reduce the production of stormwater pollutants. In addition, the landscaping and biorentention systems would provide stormwater treatment, which would reduce pollutant loads in the runoff. Therefore, impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns, exceeding the capacity of a storm sewer system, and providing an additional source of polluted runoff would be less than significant. Flood Hazards. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Santa Clara County, the project site is located outside of the 100 -year flood zone in an area mapped as Zone X. This zone consists of areas with 0.2% annual chance of flood, areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from one percent chance flood. The FEMA Flood Zones map of the 2020 General Plan Safety Element (Figure SAF-4) also indicates that the project site is located outside mapped 100 -year flood hazard zones. Therefore, impacts associated with placement of housing within a 100 -year flood zone and redirection or impedance of flood flows would be less than significant. The Dams and Dam Inundation Areas map of the 2020 General Plan Safety Element (Figure SAF -5) also indicates that the project site is not in an area designated as a dam failure inundation zone. Therefore, impacts related to flooding as a result of failure of a dam or levee would be less than significant. The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 265 feet msl, more than 12 miles south of the bay shoreline; therefore, there would be no risk associated with tsunamis which are large sea waves. Seiches are standing waves caused by large - scale, short- duration phenomena (e.g. wind or atmospheric variations or seismic activity) that result from the oscillation of confined bodies of water (such as reservoirs and lakes) that may damage low -lying adjacent areas as a result of changes in the surface water elevation. The project site would not be subject to a seiche because the nearest large water body is Vasona Reservoir located almost two miles to the west. The project is not dependent on access to the reservoir and is located away from the edge of the reservoir and would therefore not be adversely affected by a change in the surface water elevation. As such, even if a seiche were to occur, inundation of the project site by seiche is not anticipated, due to distance from the reservoir. Therefore, there are no impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving seiche or tsunami. Risks associated with landslide- induced mudflows are discussed in Section 6, Geology and Soils. 10. Land Use and Planning Divide an Established Community. The project plans propose to develop the project site with eight detached residential condominiums. Land uses adjoining the project site include an office building at 246 Union Avenue to the south of the project site, single - family residences to the north and east, and various retail commercial uses in the Downing Center of Los Gatos to the west across Union Avenue. Given the mix of land uses in the project vicinity, the proposed project would not divide an established community. NOVEMBER 2013 20 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE The development of the proposed project would provide a transition from the single - family homes east of the site to the more intensive neighborhood commercial uses at the Downing Center immediately west of this property. Project Consistency with Land Use Plans and Policies. The site was previously developed with a restaurant and bar from approximately 1973 until 2001. The vacant commercial facilities were demolished in 2001 and the property has been vacant since then. The project application indicates that there have been no proposals for commercial development of the site since the removal of the previous commercial use. Site access and property size have hampered past proposals for residential development. Town staff has determined that shared driveways would be an acceptable method of access for site homes provided that one driveway serves no more than two units. The project site is currently designated as "Neighborhood Commercial" by the 2020 General Plan. The Neighborhood Commercial designation provides for "necessary day -to -day commercial goods and services required by residents of the adjacent neighborhoods. This designation encourages concentrated and coordinated commercial development at easily accessible locations." The General Plan indicates that most commercial parcels in Los Gatos are located along the Santa Cruz Avenue or Los Gatos Boulevard corridors. In support of the General Plan's land use designation for the subject property, the project site is zoned "C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial." The C -1 zone allows retailing, personal service businesses, businesses necessary for the conduct of households, office activities, and limited manufacturing uses. The proposed residential use is a conditional use in the C -1 zone. The project applicant cannot propose to add a Planned Development (PD) designation since the site is less than the minimum parcel size of 40,000 s.f. required by Town municipal code for the PD overlay zone. While the proposed project does not specify commercial use of the site, the proposed residential use would be permitted under a conditional use permit for the project. The project would not conflict with the land use designation for the site and is consistent with the provisions of the site's zoning. The project area includes a mix of land uses as specified by the General Plan. The 2020 General Plan designates the properties to the west (Downing Center) of the site as Neighborhood Commercial, while the parcel to the south is shown as Office Professional. The neighborhood to the east of the project site is designated and developed with Low Density Residential (0 — 5 dwelling units /acre). Based on the Los Gatos General Plan's pattern of commercial and residential land use designations in the project site vicinity, the site is on the boundary between residential uses to the east, south, and north, and commercial uses to the west. Therefore, development of solely residential use on the project site would not appear to conflict with the pattern of General Plan land uses in the project vicinity. Properties to the north of the site and generally north of Los Gatos Almaden Road are located in San Jose and subject to community planning and development by that jurisdiction. The San Jose General Plan land use designation and zoning for the properties immediately north of the site are "Residential Neighborhood" and Agricultural Zoning District with Planned Development overlay zoning, A(PD). The residential development to the north of the project site has a site configuration similar to the proposed project, i.e. three private driveways serving 15 single- family units, with each drive providing access to two units fronting on Union Avenue and three units to the rear of the 1.2 -acre property. The Town Zoning Map designates properties to the west as C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial). The parcel to the south of the project site is zoned O (Office); one other property northwest of the project site and the Downing Center is also zoned for office uses. Parcels to the south and east of the site are zoned Residential Duplex (RD) and Single Family Residential (R -1:8, 8,000 st minimum lot size). The proposed density of the project would be 9.33 units per acre (8 units on 0.751 -acre. Existing nearby residential duplex uses located to the south on Union Avenue and to the west on Pinehurst Avenue are developed at similar densities. Based on the Zoning Ordinance's pattern of commercial and residential NOVEMBER 2013 21 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE land use designations and allowable densities in the project vicinity, the proposed residential use and density would not appear to conflict with existing Zoning Ordinance designations in the site vicinity. The project's consistency with CEQA - relevant plans and policies is presented in the project consistency table in the Initial Study. The Los Gatos General Plan contains goals, policies, and implementation strategies that pertain to future development of the project site. However, Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the "economic and social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effect on the environment." Many of the goals, policies, and strategies of these plans and guidelines relate to the economic and fiscal well -being of the community as well as architectural design, and are not a subject for discussion in this CEQA document. Only those goals, policies, strategies, and guidelines that could result in a physical environmental change are listed and evaluated in project consistency table in the Initial Study. Other General Plan policies related to community design will be considered separately by Town staff, as part of the Town's project review and approval process. Conflict with Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans. The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that apply to the project site. 11. Mineral Resources The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally - important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity. 12. Noise A detailed noise assessment study was completed by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. in July 2013 and is included in Attachment 6 of the Initial Study. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long -term medical and mental care facilities, places of worship, and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. In addition to the proposed residential use, existing sensitive receptors located in the project vicinity include residential uses located immediately adjacent to the project site to the north and east. Noise Compatibility of Proposed Uses. The Noise Element of the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan establishes goals and policies for reducing noise levels in the Town. Policies aimed at reducing noise levels must address specific sources of unwanted noise, as well as noise - sensitive receptors. The Noise Element contains guidelines for use in land use planning to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities (Figure NOI -1 of the Noise Element). These guidelines define acceptability by land use and the following would pertain to proposed single - family residential uses: noise levels up to 60 CNL or CNEL are "normally acceptable" while noise levels between 55 and 70 DNL /CNEL are "conditionally acceptable." Noise levels between 70 and 75 DNL /CNEL are "normally unacceptable" and noise levels above 75 DNL /CNEL are `clearly unacceptable" for this use. The Noise Element also establishes outdoor noise limits (Table NOI -2 of the Noise Element), which represent long -range community goals for different land use designations within the Town. For residential uses, the goal is 55 DNL. Policy NOI -2.2 requires that all noise - sensitive developments adjacent to or within an area where noise levels exceed community aspirations include a noise study and recommendations for reducing noise impacts to an acceptable level. This requirement is met by the noise study included in Attachment 6 of the Initial Study. Existing and Future Noise Levels. The primary source of noise at the project site is traffic on Union Avenue. Noise from the Downing Center shopping center is not distinctly noticeable at the site and any noise from the center is included in the noise measurement data. The loading dock for the Safeway store NOVEMBER2013 22 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNION AVENUE is on the west side of the shopping center and is accessed from Los Gatos - Almaden Road. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located immediately north and east of the site. To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made a location 70 feet from the centerline of Union Avenue. This location corresponds to the proposed minimum setback of project homes from Union Avenue (see Figure 2 of Attachment 6 of the Initial Study for measurement locations). The measurements were made on June 26 -27, 2013 for a continuous period of 24 hours and included representative hours during the daytime and nighttime periods of the DNL index. The results of the field survey indicate that the DNL is 64 at the measurement location (70 feet from the centerline of Union Avenue), while Leq's ranged from 58.0 to 64.5 dBA during the daytime and from 43.4 to 59.7 dBA at night (measurement results are presented in more detail in Appendix C of Attachment 6 of the Initial Study). The DNL noise level is calculated to be 64 DNL. Traffic noise dissipates at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the source (centerline of the roadway) to the receiver. Therefore, other locations on the site farther from Union Avenue are subject to lower noise levels. It should be noted that project buildings would provide noise shielding, which would help to reduce noise levels at certain locations. Future traffic volumes for Union Avenue are expected to remain at 12,000 ADT (average daily traffic), and therefore, no increases in the existing traffic noise levels listed are expected. Based on measured noise levels, estimated future noise exposure at the most impacted area of each rear yard of proposed residences are presented in Table 7 of the Initial Study. As shown in Table 7 of the Initial Study, the noise exposures in the rear yards of Lots 2 and 3 would exceed the Town's 55 -dB (DNL) threshold (as defined in the Town's 2020 General Plan Noise Element), by up to 9 dB. Although the Town's 55 -dB (DNL) residential noise goal may not be met in rear yards of these proposed residences, the Town's Noise Element (Policy N0I -1.3) states that these noise limits represent the "long range community aspirations" and acknowledges that such goals may not be attainable at this time. Such goals may be more appropriate for residential neighborhoods that are located away from major noise sources (such as freeways or arterial roadways). In areas where the Town's noise goal cannot be met, the Town also uses the land use compatibility noise guidelines included in the Town's Noise Element as a criterion for defining significance of a noise impact under CEQA. These noise guidelines define noise limits for single - family residential uses as follows: normally acceptable up to 60 dB (DNL) in exterior living areas; conditionally acceptable between 55 and 70 dB (DNL); normally unacceptable between 70 and 75 dB (DNL); and clearly unacceptable above 75 dB (DNL). The rear yards of Lots 1 through 4 would be subject to noise levels that are considered "conditionally acceptable," a significant noise impact. With implementation of noise reduction measures specified in Mitigation Measure N0I -1, provision of a noise barrier between Lots 1 and 2, noise levels in rear yards of all proposed residences would be reduced to "normally acceptable" levels and this noise impact would reduced to less - than- significant levels. Interior noise exposures in the living spaces of project residences were evaluated. A 25 -dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposure to represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under a closed window condition. The closed window condition assumes that standard dual-pane thermal insulating windows are installed. In addition, the Mechanical Code will require full -time ventilation to allow residents to keep the windows closed at all times for noise control at their option and maintain adequate ventilation. The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Union Avenue are estimated to be 39 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions. Thus, interior noise exposures at all project residences would be within the Town's 45 -dB DNL interior noise limit specified in the Los Gatos General Plan Noise Element. Groundborne Noise and Vibration. Since construction of project facilities would not involve construction of subsurface facilities (i.e. tunnels or basements), generation of construction- related NOVEMBER 2013 23 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE groundbome noise levels that could result in noise disturbance at the closest residential receptors would be less than significant. In addition, since project construction would not involve use of impact equipment (i.e. pile drivers), generation of construction- related groundbome vibration that could result in cosmetic damage to adjacent structures would be less than significant. In general, cosmetic or threshold damage to adjacent buildings could occur if vibrations exceeded 0.5 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV). Vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment (used for projects similar to the proposed project) range from 0.012 to 0.352 in /sec PPV at 10 feet from the source of activity. Since only minimal grading would occur and heavy equipment operated on the site are expected to be located more than 10 feet from adjacent structures most of the time, the effects of construction- related vibration would be less than significant. Long -term Noise Increases. For purposes of determining the significance of project - related traffic noise increases, the significance thresholds contained in the 2020 General Plan EIR are appropriate to apply to the project site since noise measurements indicate existing noise levels of 64 dBA (DNL) at 70 feet from the centerline of Union Avenue, and they are as follows: • Ambient Noise Levels Below 60 DNL (or CNEL): 5 dBA or more noise increase would be significant. • Ambient Noise Levels Between 60 and 65 DNL (or CNEL): 3 dBA or more increase would be significant. • Ambient Noise Levels Above 65 DNL (CNEL): 1.5 dBA or more increase would be significant. Project implementation would result in traffic- related noise increases on Union Avenue when compared to existing conditions (vacant site), but less traffic noise overall than occurred during operation of the former restaurant/bar use, which generated noise from truck deliveries and higher traffic volumes. Based on the estimated distribution of project traffic and the locations of project driveways, it is estimated that the project would generate up to approximately 80 trips per day on Union Avenue. Assuming all project - related traffic traveled on the same segment of Union Avenue (maximum impact), project - related traffic volumes would generate noise levels of approximately 47 DNL at 50 feet along Union Avenue. As indicated above, existing ambient noise levels were measured to be 64 DNL at 70 feet from the centerline Of Union Avenue. When project- related traffic noise levels of 47 DNL are added to existing ambient noise levels, project - related traffic increases would increase noise levels by less than 1 dBA. Such a noise increase would be less than significant when compared to significance thresholds presented above. When compared to the former restaurant/bar use, the project would result in a decrease in traffic noise along Union Avenue because the proposed residential use would generate less traffic. Short -Term Noise Increases. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 76 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment with slightly higher levels of about 88 to 91 dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced by 1 to 16 dBA, depending on the type of equipment. The potential for construction - related noise increases to adversely affect nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities to these receptors. The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Construction equipment would operate for a brief time along the project boundaries (as close as approximately 10 feet from adjacent residences to the north and 30 feet from adjacent residences to the east) during installation of utilities, landscaping, and driveways. However, most of the time, construction equipment is expected to operate at least 25 feet from adjacent residences most of the time. At 25 feet, the ordinance noise limit would result in maximum noise levels of 81 to 85 dBA at the closest residences. Existing masonry and wood fencing along project NOVEMBER 2013 24 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNION A VENUE boundaries would be maintained and would help slightly reduce construction- related noise levels. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA. To maintain such interior noise levels, exterior noise levels at the closest residences (with windows closed) should not exceed 85 dBA and this exterior noise level is used as a significance threshold or criterion for this project based on the existing noise environment. Since construction noise levels could be maintained at or below 85 dBA at property boundaries most of the time, enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance would be adequate to maintain construction- related noise at less- than- significant levels. Airport- Related Issues. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. There is no public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip located within the Town's boundaries or within two miles of the project site. For air travel, the closest international airports are San Jose International Airport (SJC), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and Oakland International Airport. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive airport- related noise levels. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures — Noise and Vibration (NOI). To reduce the significant noise impacts identified above for project residences, the following noise attenuation measures will be incorporated into the project design to ensure that acceptable interior noise levels are achieved, reducing identified impacts to a less- than- significant level: NOI -1: Provide Noise Barrier. The recommendations of the Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. noise assessment study (dated July 16, 2013, Attachment 6 of the Initial Study) shall be added to project plans. These recommendations specify construction of an eight -foot high acoustically - effective barrier at the rear of Lot 3 to connect the house on Lot 2 with the house on Lot 3 (see Figure 1 of Attachment 6 of the Initial Study). The barrier height is in reference to the nearest rear yard ground elevation. This barrier would also provide acceptable noise shielding for the side yard of Lot 2. With an eight -foot high barrier at the specified location, both the Town's long -term noise goal of 55 dBA (DNL) and/or Town noise guideline of 60 dBA (DNL) would be met. However, if a lower barrier height is desired for aesthetic reasons, the following alternative barrier heights would result in the following noise exposures (all would meet the 60- dB Town noise guideline, but only an eight -foot high barrier would meet the Town's 55 -dB noise goal): Barrier Heieht Reduced Noise Level 8 feet 54 dB (DNL) 7 feet 56 dB (DNL) 6 feet 57 dB (DNL) Mitigation Monitoring. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments shall be responsible for ensuring that this noise barrier is incorporated into project plans and properly implemented during construction. 13. Population and Housing Growth- Inducement Impacts. A detailed evaluation of the population and housing conditions in the San Francisco Bay area, including the Town of Los Gatos, has been prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as part of its Projections 2009 assessment of population, housing, and employment for the region. This ABAG report serves as a basis for the formulation of the Town's 2007 — 2014 Housing Element. ABAG's Projections 2001 provided the background data used for the Town's 2002 — 2007 Housing Element. The 2007 — 2014 Housing Element and its supporting technical analyses are incorporated herein by reference. NOVEMBER 2013 25 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE The proposed project would develop the 0.751 -acre site with eight detached residential condominiums and would increase the Town's population. The new homes would generate approximately 19 additional residents in Los Gatos. The project's addition of 19 persons would represent a 0.06% increase over the Town's currently estimated population of 30,497. Therefore, project - related increases in population would not represent a significant increase in local or regional population. The project would not otherwise be considered growth- inducing since it would involve development of a project that does not extend roads or infrastructure to any adjacent properties. Since the project site was previously developed with a restaurant and bar, the proposed residential uses would constitute a redevelopment of the site and would be considered an in -fill development. Displacement of Housing or Residents. The project site is presently vacant and provides no residential uses. No housing or residents would be displaced from the project site. Rather, the project would provide new residential uses on the project site to serve the community's future housing needs. 14. Public Services Services are currently provided to the project site as well as to adjacent commercial and residential uses. No significant increase in demand on public safety services is expected to be required for the proposed project since services were previously provided to the former restaurant use on the site and continue to be provided for the property. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the project plans for site access and water supply, and the project will be required to meet Department requirements for minimum fire flow 11,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 psi], automatic fire sprinklers, hydrant spacing /location, building access requirements, etc. The project will be required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system, appropriate fire lane marking, and fire department emergency access key lock box. Adequate fire apparatus (engine) access will need to be provided on any access roads, which includes 20 -foot pavement width, a minimum turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15 percent. The Fire Department also requires potable water supplies to be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. The proposed plan will be subject to formal plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department to determine compliance with adopted model codes. As with fire protection services, the Los Gatos /Monte Sereno Police Department currently patrols the project area and would be able to provide its high level of police protection service for the new residential development. The Department has also indicated that its response times would generally remain unaffected by the need to serve the proposed residential development from the substation on Los Gatos Boulevard. The project would increase Town population by 0.06 %, which would incrementally increase demand for recreational facilities.'rhe project's potential impact on the demand for recreational facilities is discussed in Section 15, Recreation, below. Based upon population growth estimates in Projections 2009 from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project would add two new students to the Union Elementary School District and two students to the Campbell Union High School District. Project students would attend Alta Vista or Carlton Elementary School, Union Middle School, and Leigh High School. The Districts have indicated that the respective district school facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new students generated by the proposed project. To offset potential additional service costs for enrolling new students from the proposed project, the Union Elementary School District and Campbell Union High School District will charge the project applicant impact fees based on the size of new homes (per square foot basis) and by supplemental parcel taxes on the new residential parcels. Payment of impact fees and supplemental taxes would mitigate the NOVEMBER 2013 26 i MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE project's impacts on school services to a less - than- significant level, and therefore, its incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on these schools and the school districts overall would not be cumulatively considerable. 15. Recreation Demand for Recreational Facilities. The proposed net addition of eight single - family residences would increase local population, and thereby incrementally increase demand for recreational facilities. Private open space associated with the eight single - family residences would be provided as front and rear yards for six of the units, and rear yards for two units. The project plans also specify an open space common area in the center of the site. Nearby recreational facilities include Alta Vista Elementary School (0.5 mile to the west), Union Middle School (800 feet to the west), Heintz Open Space Preserve (0.5 mile to the south), and Belgatos Park (approximately one mile to the southeast. The project's incremental increase in demand for recreational facilities is considered to be less than significant given the project's proximity to existing recreational facilities, and proposed provision of private open space on the project site. Impacts Related to Construction of Recreational Facilities. No specific recreational facilities are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no impacts related to the construction any recreational facilities would occur as part of project construction. 16. Transportation/Traffic The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991 -174) requires preparation of a detailed traffic study for any project with the potential to generate 20 or more additional AM or PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would generate 80 trips per day with 6 trips during the AM peak hour and 8 trips during the PM peak hour. Although CEQA requires that a project's impact be compared to existing conditions (currently a vacant lot generating no traffic), the Town's Traffic Impact Policy requires that the former use on a site be considered. The former 85 -seat, high turnover restaurant and bar generated more traffic than would be generated by the proposed 8 residential units. Therefore, when compared to the former restaurant use, the project would result in a decrease in traffic generated on the site. Based on the Town's Traffic Impact Policy, a detailed traffic impact study was not required and traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant changes to existing traffic conditions, a less -than- significant traffic impact. Air Traffic Patterns. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is there a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip located in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, would not directly increase air traffic levels, nor would there be any change in location resulting in substantial safety risks. Traffic Safety Hazards. Project residences would be accessed by four shared driveways, and each driveway would provide access to two project residences (one residence that fronts onto Union Avenue and one located behind (east of) the front residence). Although the project would add four driveways on Union Avenue, each driveway would be designed so that vehicles and fire trucks can turnaround and no vehicles would back onto Union Avenue. This configuration combined good visibility in both directions and a two -way left -turn lane along Union Avenue would reduce the potential for conflicts with traffic on Union Avenue. It should be noted that most residences front onto Union Avenue so that they back onto Union Avenue from their driveways. Each of the four proposed driveways is designed to provide access to two units and permit on -site turnaround and parking, thereby avoiding Union Avenue access problems that may affect nearby residences. Therefore, no significant traffic safety problems would be posed by the proposed site access configuration. NOVEMBER 2013 27 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE Emergency Access. The project site has frontage on Union Avenue, a public street, and direct emergency access to project residences would be available from this street. Therefore, public safety impacts associated with emergency access would be less than significant. Conflicts with Alternative Transportation (Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access). At present, there are sidewalks along both sides of Union Avenue and all nearby streets in the project vicinity. The project site is expected to generate some pedestrian traffic on Union Avenue and Los Gatos Almaden Road, as project residents access the Downing Center across the street as well as nearby schools. The Union Avenue /Los Gatos Almaden Road intersection has pedestrian signals and crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection, providing adequate controlled pedestrian access to the project site, Currently, there are no existing or planned bikeways along Union Avenue or Los Gatos Almaden Road in the project vicinity. The closest planned bikeway is a proposed Class II bikeway along Blossom Hill Road, approximately one -half mile south of the site. Given the small size of the project combined with the fact that there are no existing or planned bikeways in the site vicinity, the project is not expected to significantly increase demand on Town bikeways. The VTA's Bus Line 27 runs along Union Avenue (north of Los Gatos Almaden Road) and Los Gatos Almaden Road (east of Union Avenue). The nearest bus stop for Line 27 is located 500 feet north of the project site. There are no bus stops along the site frontage on Union Avenue. Line 27 extends from Good Samaritan Hospital at Los Gatos Boulevard /Highway 85 (about 1.3 miles to the northwest of the site) to Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center on Santa Teresa Boulevard (about seven miles to the east). This bus line also extends near a number of middle and high schools as well shopping centers. This bus route traverses the Ohlone /Chynoweth- Almaden Light Rail line, and stops near the Almaden Light Rail station (access to station via connecting Bus Line 64). Given its small size, the proposed project would not significantly increase demand for transit facilities. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Facilities and Service. The West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) provides wastewater collection and disposal services for the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, much of Saratoga and some unincorporated areas of the county within the district boundary. WVSD serves approximately 112,000 persons, including the entire population of the Town of Los Gatos. The WVSD's system within the Town of Los Gatos consists of gravity mains ranging from 6 inches to 27 inches in diameter. The collection system flows north, exiting the Town limits through multiple trunk sewers. These systems continue to the north through the City of San Jose trunk sewers and ultimately to the San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant in Alviso. The San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant treats the wastewater of approximately 1,500,000 people that live and work in the 300 -square -mile area encompassing the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno. The plant has the capacity to treat 167 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd) utilizing an advanced, tertiary wastewater system. Most of the final treated water from the Plant is discharged as fresh water through Artesian Slough and into South San Francisco Bay. About 10 percent is recycled through South Bay Water Recycling pipelines for landscaping, agricultural irrigation, and industrial needs around the South Bay. The WVSD has a contract with the City of San Jose for a percentage of the capacity of their sewage treatment facilities. In return, the contract requires the WVSD to pay its share of debt service, operation, maintenance and improvement costs. There are approximately 8,419 connections for single - family residential uses, 3,188 connections for multi- family uses, 756 connections for commercial /industrial uses for a total of 12,363 connections in the Town of Los Gatos. The WVSD has a fixed allocation of the San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, which was 13.052 mgd in fiscal year (FY) 2004 -2005. In FY 2004 -2005, the WVSD NOVEMBER 2013 28 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE collected and conveyed 10.675 mgd of wastewater to the treatment plant, which was far less than its allocated capacity. Because of the excess capacity, the WVSD sold 1.0 mgd of treatment plant capacity to the City of Milpitas in 2006 and now has the capacity for 12.052 mgd. In FY 2009 -2010, the WVSD collected and conveyed 10.417 mgd, a decrease from the 2004 -2005 wastewater flow levels, and below the contracted capacity of 12.052 mgd. The project unit's sanitary sewer laterals would connect to an 8 -inch sewer main extending along Union Avenue. Using the 2020 General Plan's estimated wastewater generation rate of 121 gallons per unit per day for residential uses, the project's eight new single - family residences would generate an additional 968 gallons per day. Based upon wastewater treatment plant allocations for the WVSD as described above, the District has adequate collection facilities and treatment capacity to accommodate wastewater flows from the proposed residential development. Therefore, the project's impact on wastewater service would be less than significant. Water Facilities and Service. Water service to the project area is provided by the San Jose Water Company (SJWC). The SJWC supplies domestic water to Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, San Jose, Campbell, Saratoga, and Cupertino. Water supply sources include ground water, mountain surface water, imported surface water, and the Cupertino Water System. Groundwater is pumped from over 100 wells that draw water from the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin. During 2000, groundwater pumped from deep wells was approximately 39 percent of SJWC's supply. Surface water imported from the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and purchased from the SCV WD comprises 51 percent of SJWC's supply. A smaller portion is impounded in local reservoirs in Santa Clara County. Local surface water from the watershed in the Santa Cruz Mountains is 10 percent of SJWC's supply. The SJWC currently provides water service to residential and commercial uses surrounding the site. A 12 -inch water distribution line is located in Union Avenue adjoining the site, and project homes would connect to these facilities. The existing 12 -inch water line presently provides a fire flow that meets the minimum fire flow of 1,000 gpm required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department to serve residential and commercial uses along Union Avenue. Stormwater Drainage Facilities. There are existing storm drain facilities on and adjacent to the site, but the-concept for the proposed storm drain system would be to reduce impervious surfaces and increase infiltration, thereby reducing stormwater runoff volumes. Proposed storm drainage facilities are discussed above in more detail under Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Solid Waste. The West Valley Collection & Recycling, LLC (WVCR) is the exclusive recycling, green waste, and garbage hauler for the Town of Los Gatos, the cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga and unincorporated Santa Clara County. All recycling, green waste, and garbage are picked up by WVCR and transported directly to the Guadalupe Landfill, located in the City of San Jose. The Guadalupe Landfill is a Class III solid waste landfill. The total permitted capacity of the landfill is 16.5 million cubic yards. As of the end of 2008, the landfill has used approximately 4.8 million cubic yards or 29 percent of its capacity. The projected capacity remaining as of the end of 2008 is 11.7 million cubic yards. Currently, the landfill is expected to reach its capacity in 2031. WVCR provides single stream recycling to single - family and multi- family residents as well as commercial customers. Single stream recycling means all recyclables are placed in a single bin and do not need to be sorted based on the material type (i.e. paper, plastic, metal, etc.). All recyclable materials are sorted at WVCR's Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the City of San Jose. WVCR also collects green waste, or yard trimmings, from residential customers. The green waste is taken to the Guadalupe Landfill. The 2020 General Plan EIR provides estimates of solid waste generation for new development within Los Gatos over the next 10 years. Using the General Plan's estimated generation rate of 12.23 pounds per unit per day for residential land uses, the proposed eight new single - family residential units would generate NOVEMBER2013 29 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -258 UNION AVENUE approximately 98 pounds of solid waste per day. The implementation of the General Plan policies for solid waste handling would promote waste reduction and compliance with recycling regulations. Consequently, the project's impact on solid waste services would be less than significant. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance Significant Impacts on the Natural and Man -Made Environments. This Initial Study indicates the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and adversely affect human beings in the following manner: • Air Quality: Although the project's construction- related and operational air pollutant emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD recommends that all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures be implemented for all construction projects, whether or not construction- related emissions exceed these significance thresholds. • Cultural Resources: Potential to encountered unknown buried archaeological resources. • Geology and Soils: Seismic - related ground shaking hazards and geotechnical concerns with undocumented fill. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Public health risks from hazardous materials potentially occurring on -site. • Hydrology and Water Quality: Project residents would likely use common household hazardous wastes such as paint, pesticides, used oil and antifreeze, and these materials could degrade water quality if discharged to the storm sewer or to the sanitary sewer system via indoor sink drains. • Noise and Vibration: Exposure of future residents to high ambient noise levels. Mitigation measures outlined in this Initial Study would reduce these impacts to less - than - significant levels. Cumulative Impacts. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a lead agency may describe the cumulative environment by either: (1) a listing of pending, proposed, or reasonably anticipated projects, or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or a related planning document that describes area -wide or regional cumulative conditions. The geographic scope and method of the cumulative analysis varies by resource area because the influence of cumulative impacts varies by resource. The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality analysis is regional (San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin), while the geographic scope of the cumulative energy resources analysis is state wide and cumulative greenhouse gas analysis is state wide and global. For analysis with large geographic scopes, the Plan Method is used. The cumulative impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, geology /soils, hydrology /water quality, traffic, noise and vibration, hazards /hazardous materials, and cultural resources, are typically site - specific in nature and depend on conditions within the site vicinity. For these topics, the List Method offers the appropriate analysis method, but only those projects located in the project's immediate vicinity are included. For the evaluation of cumulative impacts on public services, utilities, and recreation, the geographic scopes vary with each service agency's service boundary, which is the Town of Los Gatos boundary in some cases, and the Plan Method was used. There are no other approved, proposed, or planned projects in the project site vicinity, and therefore, the project would not contribute to the following localized cumulative impacts: • any cumulative land use changes in the project vicinity related to physically dividing an established community or conflicting with applicable plans, policies, and regulations (including the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan). • any cumulative aesthetic impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, or light/glare. NOVEMBER 2013 30 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 258 UNION AVENUE • any cumulative impacts related to seismic hazards, soil erosion, or soil instability and expansivity. • any cumulative degradation of water quality in Ross Creek since it would treat stormwater runoff on -site, before storm water is released to Ross Creek. any cumulative traffic impacts on local roadways or traffic - related cumulative air quality, greenhouse gas, or noise impacts in the site vicinity. any local or regional cumulative effects related to the exposure to hazardous materials during construction or operation of the proposed project. any cumulative impacts related to historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. With respect to the project's contribution to community -wide or regional impacts, the project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable, as described below: The construction- related and operational thresholds of significance presented in Section 3 are based on the level above which a project's individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB's existing air quality conditions. As indicated in Section 3, the proposed project's construction- related and operational emissions as well as health risks would not exceed any applicable significance thresholds and therefore, the project's construction- related and operational air quality emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable (less than significant). Similarly, the GHG significance threshold presented in Section 7 indicate whether the project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the region's or state's GHG emissions. As demonstrated in Section 7, the project's GHG emissions would not exceed the applicable GHG significance threshold, indicating the project's contribution to significant GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. The project's contribution to cumulative increases in peak flows in Ross Creek would be less than significant because each cumulative project (including the proposed project) would be required to control runoff from its site. The project's estimated population growth would be consistent with the planned growth rate in the 2020 General Plan. Therefore, increased demand for public services, utilities, recreational facilities, and energy resources would not be cumulatively considerable (less than significant). Copies of the Initial Study used to make the above recommendation are on file and available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California. D to Sandy Baily, AICP, Director of NOVEMBER 2013 31 Development