Los Gatos City Council
May 27, 2025

ITEM NO. 1.

Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. SCCFD SD&S A-1. During building permit, unobstructed aerial access shall be demonstrated include any trees that are along the required access side of the building.
121. PARKING: (As Noted on Sheet C-6.0) When parking is permitted on streets, in both residential/commercial applications, it shall conform to the following:
• Parking is permitted both sides of the street with street widths of 36 feet or more • Parking is permitted on one side of the street with street widths of 28 – 35 feet • No parking is permitted when street widths are less than 28 feet NOTE: Fire lane and turnaround striping shall be provided and verified by site inspection. 122. KNOX KEY BOXES/LOCKS WHERE REQUIRED FOR ACCESS: (As Noted on Sheet A2.0) Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for lifesaving or firefighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The Knox Key Box shall be a of an approved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Locks. An approved Knox Lock shall be installed on gates or similar barriers when required by the fire code official. Key box maintenance. The operator of the building shall immediately notify the fire code official and provide the new key when a lock is changed or re-keyed. The key to such lock shall be secured in the key box. [CFC Sec. 506].
123. GROUND LADDER ACCESS: (As noted on sheet L6.0) Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. With the climbing angle of seventy five degrees maintained, an approximate walkway width along either side of the building shall be no less than seven feet clear. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access. CFC Sec. 503 and 1031.2 NFPA 1932 Sec.

5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2.
124. TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: (As Noted on Coversheet) Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 72 (2022 edition), the California Electrical Code (2022 edition), the California Fire Code (2022 edition), the California Building Code (2022 edition), and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed, policies, and standards. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72.
125. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE IN NEW BUILDINGS: (As Noted on Coversheet) All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. CFC Sec. 510.1.
126. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying

ITEM NO. 1.
the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2022 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 127. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: (As Noted on sheet A3.0) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1. 128. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
129. TURNING RADIUS: (As Noted on sheet C-6.0) The minimum outside turning radius is 50 feet. Use of cul-de-sacs is not acceptable where it is determined by the Fire Department that Ladder Truck access is required, unless greater turning radius is provided. Cul-De-Sac Diameters shall be no less than 72 feet. CFC Sec. 503.
130. STANDPIPES REQUIRED: (As Noted on Coversheet) Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32.

Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. CFC Sec. 905.
131. GENERAL: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]

ITEM NO. 1.

E MAIN ST

VILLA AV

CLELAND AV

CHURCH ST CHICAGO AV

HIGH SCHOOL CT

MILL ST PAGEANT WY
143-151 E Main Street
0 0.125 0.25
Miles
°

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 භ408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

CONCEPTUAL

DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY

COMMITTEE REPORT

MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 14, 2023
The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on June 14, 2023, at 4:00 p.m.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:00 PM

ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair Mary Badame, Mayor Maria Ristow, and Planning Commissioner Susan Burnett, and Planning Commissioner Melanie Hanssen.

Absent: None.

VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
- None.

CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)

1. Approval of Minutes – April 12, 2023
MOTION: Motion by Mayor Ristow to approve the consent calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Burnett.

VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Chair Barnett abstained since he did not attend that meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. 143-151 E. Main Street
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-23-002 Requesting Preliminary Review of a Proposal to Demolish an Existing Building and to Construct a Mixed-Use Development with Below Grade Parking, Ground Floor Commercial, and Three Stories of Residential on Property Zoned C-2. APNs 529-28-001 and 529-28-002.

PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: CSPN LLC
PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Armer
Project Planner presented the staff report.

y,//dϱ Page 104 Page 349
ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 3

MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2023
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2023\06-14-23 Minutes - CDAC.docx Opened Public Comment.

Applicant presented the proposed project.

Ken Rodriquez, Architect
- Their proposal would have a small retail use on the corner; residential units facing the church and school; and residential units facing E. Main Street. The lobby facing E. Main Street would feel open and be two to three stories high. Their project would take its cue from the William Weeks character and style of the High School. All the parking would be underground. The three-story project meets the 45 feet height limit.

Closed Public Comment.

Committee members discussed the matter and asked the applicant questions. The applicant provided additional comments:

Ken Rodriquez, Architect
- Most likely there will be a combination of stepped back elements and balconies on all the floors.
- The underground parking would be up to the property line. - This would probably not be a Senate Bill (SB) 330 type project. - Residential units will range from 950 to 1100 sf.
- The proposal exceeds density. They will look to staff to work out the options. - Parking for the units would be satisfied.
- There is not a break-even number of units, but the number allowed by the code would be difficult.
- The owner has not yet discussed if the residential units will be for sale or rent. - There would be some impairment of the hill views, but this is an urban project. - The setbacks would be zero, but want to provide relief with landscaping, step backs, planters, vines, etc.
- A one-story building with underground parking would not be cost effective. It would be difficult to meet all the requirements.

There are no comments from the public.

Committee members provided the following comments:
x The proposal, like the hotel across the way, should continue the character and feeling of downtown.
x Prefer that it be smaller.
x Mixed-use in the downtown area is good. The Town will need to be flexible.

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 3 OF 3

MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2023
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2023\06-14-23 Minutes - CDAC.docx x Having three stories, is a big change, but tucking the parking underneath with mixed-use and residential above is good.
x Project will be visible because it is on E. Main Street and near the High School. x Many favorite buildings like the Opera house couldn’t be built today. x Want beautiful architecture.
x Prefer smaller units.
x Like extending the downtown feel to replace the cinderblock buildings and parking lots. x Include some landscaping to soften the building.
x The nearby Club and High School currently have parking problems. x The retail there is walkable and would generally serve nearby customers. x Height is not an issue.
x Design and architecture should fit in style of the Town, hotel, and High School. x Like the architectural style, step backs, and mixed-use. The density is a bit overly ambitious. Prefer ownership vs. rental, due to upkeep and pride of ownership. Rental doesn’t mean it’s affordable.
x Having additional housing, particularly downtown, is a positive. x Having Below Market Price (BMP) units is a plus.
x Underground parking is beneficial.
x There will be difficulties in meeting the findings to support the variances. x Consider decreasing the number of units.
x Would like to see an elegant cleaner style that looks less massive. x Open space, balconies, and personal open space is important. Consider having a community room or rec room instead of a 3-story lobby.

OTHER BUSINESS
- None.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:44 p.m.

This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
June 14, 2023 meeting as approved by the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee.
/s/ Joel Paulson, Community Development Director

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.
151 EAST MAIN STREET
Updated 10/30/24
RESPONSE TO CDAC COMMENTS FROM THE JUNE 14, 2023 MEETING Committee members provided the following comments:
x The proposal, like the hotel across the way, should continue the character and feeling of downtown.

The design of this project takes its cue from Los Gatos High School, designed by William Weeks, Architect, and many of the unique brick buildings located in downtown Los Gatos. The building design utilizes excellent architectural materials and design. The combination of brick, exterior plaster, grid windows, iron balconies and details are consistent with other early 1900 buildings located in downtown. The fourth floor is stepped back to allow the building to read as a 3-story building. The use of exterior plaster and sloped clay tile roofs along with wood trellis features lightens the upper floor and ties in with may surrounding buildings.
x Prefer that it be smaller.

The project is proposed using a state density bonus and is consistent with those standards in the state bill.
x Mixed-use in the downtown area is good. The Town will need to be flexible.

A commercial space(s) located on the ground floor, at the corner of Main Street and High School Way, will help promote walkable retail along Main Street and needed residential to downtown.
x Having three stories, is a big change, but tucking the parking underneath with mixeduse and residential above is good.

Since the CDAC meeting in June of 2023 the General Plan update, which would have allowed the applicant additional density, was not adopted. The applicant has elected to use one of many of the state density bonus options which allow greater density and height. The current design while 4-story reads like a 3-story building with the upper floor stepped back.
x Project will be visible because it is on E. Main Street and near the High School.

Acknowledged
x Many favorite buildings like the Opera house couldn’t be built today.

Acknowledged. This project helps anchor Main Street with a new mixed-use building.

There are no surrounding residential uses which may conflict with scale. The High School is a 3-story design with excellent architecture.

y,//dϲ

ITEM NO. 1.
x Want beautiful architecture.

We have proposed a building with excellent architecture and detailing that exceeds even the timeless architecture work of William Weeks Los Gatos High School. The proposed building is designed with enriched details using the highest quality materials.

x Prefer smaller units.

Smaller units have been incorporated into the plan. The applicant is proposing a range of small and large units for sale. Sizes range from 743SF to 2,188SF. x Like extending the downtown feel to replace the cinderblock buildings and parking lots.

Acknowledged
x Include some landscaping to soften the building.

Landscaping has been proposed along all three street frontages. This landscaping includes raised brick planters with trees, shrubs and annual color for a pedestrian friendly transition between the public sidewalk and the building. x The nearby Club and High School currently have parking problems.

All of the project parking is proposed underground and will be adequate to support the residential and commercial uses proposed.
x The retail there is walkable and would generally serve nearby customers.

We have proposed 2,416SF of commercial uses at the ground floor along Main Street.

Acknowledged
x Height is not an issue.

Acknowledged
x Design and architecture should fit in style of the Town, hotel, and High School.

Acknowledged. See comment #1.
x Like the architectural style, step backs, and mixed-use. The density is a bit overly ambitious. Prefer ownership vs. rental, due to upkeep and pride of ownership. Rental doesn’t mean it’s affordable.

Acknowledged, see comment #1. The applicant is proposing for sale units not rentals. x Having additional housing, particularly downtown, is a positive.

Acknowledged
x Having Below Market Price (BMP) units is a plus.

Acknowledged. The applicant is proposing 6 BMR units of the 30 units proposed.

ITEM NO. 1.
x Underground parking is beneficial.

Acknowledged.
x There will be difficulties in meeting the findings to support the variances.

No variances are required for this project. The project will be utilizing state density bonus laws.
x Consider decreasing the number of units.

The project could not be proposed or built with less than the 30 units as proposed. The excellent architecture as proposed, underground parking and for sale units ranging in size from 743SF to 2,188SF could not be built at a lower unit count. x Would like to see an elegant cleaner style that looks less massive.

Acknowledged, we believe this style of architecture and high-quality building materials meet this goal.
x Open space, balconies, and personal open space is important. Consider having a community room or rec room instead of a 3-story lobby
The taller lobby has been eliminated and an amenity room has been added on levels 3 and 4 per this suggestion.

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos Mixed Use
Los Gatos, California
February 18, 2025 Updated
Project Description

1. PROJECT SITES
143 East Main Street APN #529-28-001
151 East Main Street APN #529-28-002

2. VISION AND PROJECT DETAILS
151 east main street is a 4-story mixed use building with underground parking located on

0.425-acre site at the corner of Main Street and High School Court in Los Gatos, California.

The ground level includes 2,416 square feet of pedestrian oriented commercial which could be leased to a retail or restaurant tenant. Residential (for sale) units are located on all four levels of the project. The proposed project includes 30 units, 24 market rate units and 6 affordable units ranging from 743 square feet to 2,188 square feet. The units are 1 bedroom up to 3 bedrooms with outdoor patios. There are two (2) options for the underground parking, option 1- a two-level parking garage with 47 individual parking stalls. Option 2 - a one level parking garage with 39 parking stalls that include 29 car stackers , 4 ADA stalls and 6 tandem parking stalls.

The proposed exterior elevations take its cue from the design of Los Gatos High School located next door and the many significant brick structures located on Main Street and North Santa Cruz Avenue in downtown Los Gatos. Building materials include brick walls, precast concrete facade detailing, iron balconies, metal grid windows and canvas awnings. These materials can be found in downtown Los Gatos on other key buildings.

The fourth floor is stepped back to reduce the overall mass of the proposed project, materials include exterior plaster walls, precast concrete detailing, and a sloped clay tile roof to further reduce the building massing. Outdoor patios with wood trellis features and landscaping provide owners views to the foothills and surrounding buildings.

3. SOLAR ENERGY MEASURES
The building will be piped to include future solar panels located on the flat roof section of the roof. There are no provisions to install PV panels at this time.

y,//dϳ Page 112 Page 357
ITEM NO. 1.

4. PARKING OPTIONS
The project applicant is proposing 2 parking options to provide flexibility when the project moves into the construction phase.

Option 1
This 2-level garage option includes 47 parking stalls on two levels. This option includes 8 standard stalls, which are shared retail/housing used by retail customers, between the hours of 8am and 6pm. The one ADA (VAN) stall will be open to all parking retail or housing. After 6pm and up to 8am the seven stalls will be used for housing.

This garage option will provide the most soil off-haul and is being studied in the environmental review document.

Option 2
This 1-level garage option includes 39 parking stalls. 29 of these parking stalls are car parking by “car stackers” and 10 are standard stalls as shown on Sheets A2.7 and A5.1.

The parking stacker is a “puzzle solution” that is being used throughout the bay area in many residential projects. Parking stalls are easily retrieved by an app on cell phones. Residents can share a stacker with another resident in a different unit because of this “puzzle solution.” Cars can be retrieved without the assistance of another resident.

5. COMMERCIAL RETAIL/RESTAURANT USE
A 2,416 SF commercial space(s) has been designed on the street level at the corner of Main Street and High School Way. This space could be a single tenant, or two tenant, commercial use. The tenant could be a retail or restaurant which may operate between the hours of 8am and 6pm. The number of employees would vary between 3-12 depending on the final user(s). At this time the space is not leased to a specific user(s) and specific details are not available. If the entire space (2,416 SF) is leased to a restaurant the projected seating could be 20-40 seats.

ITEM NO. 1.
020029.0001 4919-0339-3054.2
Miles Imwalle
D (415) 772-5786
[email protected]
February 24, 2025
Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
[email protected]
Re: Application for 143 and 151 East Main Street
Response to November 27, 2024 Consistency Letter
Dear Ryan:

I am writing on behalf of CSPN, LLC (“Applicant”) as part of our response to the Town’s November 27, 2024 Planning Staff Technical Review Letter (“Planning Letter”) and to provide an updated Letter of Justification in support of Applicant’s resubmitted Formal Application for the mixed-use project at 143 and 151 East Main Street that contains 30 units, 6 of which are affordable at the low-income level (“Project”).

Below, we discuss and reemphasize the Project’s Builder’s Remedy protections and General Plan/Zoning Ordinance inconsistency justifications, and address the Applicant’s proposed parking optionality request.

I. Justifications for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Inconsistencies Regarding Planning Letter Comment 3, and as discussed in past letters, the Town cannot deny a Builder’s Remedy project due to any inconsistency with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Project inconsistencies with the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element and the current Zoning Ordinance do not form a basis for denial under State law protections.

We reiterate this as some of the consistency information requested relates to justifying “exceptions” from General Plan and Zoning Ordinance regulations/standards, which we do not believe is appropriate for a Builder’s Remedy application.

Despite this, our goal remains to work with the Town and ensure that it has full information in preparation for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing. In that spirit, Table 1 below includes the Town’s list of relevant regulations/standards and Project inconsistencies with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which we have amended with the Applicant’s justifications.

Please note that the Applicant’s latest comments on the Objective Design Standards Checklist were provided within Attachment 6 to the February 18, 2025 submittal and where inconsistency remains, justifications were provided.

y,//dϴ
ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
February 24, 2025

020029.0001 4919-0339-3054.2
Table 1
143-151 E. Main St. – General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Justifications Reference Regulation/Standard Proposed/Exception Applicant’s Justification General Plan Land Use Element
CB District: 0.6 FAR with a 45-foot height
limit

2.57 FAR with 52’ tall The proposed 2.57 FAR
and height of 52’ are
essential to accommodate
the 30 residential units and
associated amenities
proposed, which contribute
to addressing the Town’s
housing shortage.

CB District: Maintains and expands
landscaped open spaces and
mature tree growth without
increasing setbacks.

Does not maintain or
expand landscaping.

The Project is a
redevelopment of the site,
which includes
redevelopment of the
existing landscaping.

However, the intent of the
landscaping is to enhance
and enliven the open
space. The Project’s
proposed landscaped open
spaces provide a tasteful
and design-forward addition
to the site and the
neighborhood, which is
consistent with the intent of
the General Plan.

GP Density Maximum allowed is 20
units/acre per 2020 GP
Max is 8.5 units Consistent with the
Builder’s Remedy law, the
goal of the Project is to
maximize residential
development, which it does
by providing 30 residential
units. While this is
inconsistent with the
existing General Plan
density controls, it carries
out the goal of the Town’s
Housing Element of
increasing housing at all
affordability levels.

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
February 24, 2025

020029.0001 4919-0339-3054.2
Table 1
143-151 E. Main St. – General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Justifications Town Zoning Ordinance

29.60.345 The floor area ratio for all new
buildings in a C-2 or central
business district commercial
zone, or expansion of gross
floor area of an existing
building, shall not exceed sixtyhundredths.

Max is 11,110 sf while
77,5091 sf is proposed
The Project’s proposed

2.57 FAR is essential to
accommodate the 30
residential units and
associated amenities
proposed, which contribute
to addressing the Town’s
housing shortage.

29.60.340 The maximum height of any
building in a C-2 or central
business district commercial
zone is forty-five (45) feet.
52’ proposed The minor deviation in
height is justified as it
allows the Project to
accommodate the 30
residential units and
associated amenities.

29.60.335 Front setback (Main St) – 10 ft
Side setback (west) – 0 ft
Street side setback (High
School Ct) – 15’
Rear/Front (Church St) – 15’
Front – 4’-2”
Side – COMPLIES
Street side – 2’-10”
Rear/Front – 3’-4”
The Project attempts to
maximize residential space
on the parcel while also
abiding by principles of
good urbanism. However,
to include the proposed 30
residential units, it was
necessary to encroach on
the setbacks.

Parking 86 spaces required (45 for
tenants, 30 for visitors, and 11
for retail/restaurant)
Both Parking Options
are nonconforming
It is not financially feasible
to provide the 86 spaces
required by the Zoning
Ordinance due to the high
cost of below grade parking
construction. We believe
that the parking provided
will be sufficient for the
uses proposed and better
reflect the Project’s prime
location in a downtown
area.
1 The Plan Set Cover Sheet indicates that the total building square footage is 78,576 square feet (30,996 square feet of total garage area and 47,580 square feet of total housing area). The Project’s underground garage area is not considered “gross floor area” pursuant to the Town Code (Sec. 29.10.020) and is therefore excluded from the FAR calculation.

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
February 24, 2025

020029.0001 4919-0339-3054.2
II. Parking
As described in the updated and separately enclosed project description (Attachment 5) and Plan Set, the Applicant is proposing two options for parking. Option 1 is a 2-level parking garage with 47 individual parking stalls. (Sheets A2.5, A2.6.) Option 2 is a 1-level parking garage with 39 parking stalls. (Sheet A2.7.)
The Applicant reiterates its preference that staff present both parking options to the Planning Commission for consideration and that the Planning Commission approve both options. Given the costs and complexities inherent in below-grade construction, this parking optionality is essential for maintaining the Project’s financial health, securing necessary construction financing, and ensuring adaptability to an uncertain market. This type of development flexibility is consistent with State law’s Builder’s Remedy framework, the purpose of which is to ensure the approval of feasible projects. We also are not aware of anything in the Town Code that prevents this type of flexibility and it is something we have seen done in other jurisdictions, as we previously shared.

III. Conclusion
The Applicant looks forward to supporting Town staff in preparing for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing. Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Very truly yours,
Miles Imwalle
Cc: Joel Paulson ([email protected])
Gabrielle Whelan ([email protected])
David Blatt ([email protected])
Ken Rodrigues ([email protected])
Craig Spencer ([email protected])

ITEM NO. 1.

020029.0001 4893-2793-8291.5
Miles Imwalle
D (415) 772-5786
[email protected]
October 30, 2024
Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
[email protected]
Re: Application for 143 and 151 East Main Street
Response to October 2 Incomplete Letters
Dear Ryan:

I am writing on behalf of CSPN, LLC (“Applicant”) as part of our response to the Town’s October 2, 2024 Planning Staff Technical Review Letter (“Planning Letter”) and Parks and Public Works Technical Review Letter (“Public Works Letter”) and to provide an updated Letter of Justification in support of Applicant’s resubmitted Formal Application for the mixed-use project at 143 and 151 East Main Street that contains 30 units, 6 of which are affordable at the low-income level (“Project”).

Below, we discuss and reemphasize the Project’s Builder’s Remedy protections, address State law related to application completeness and consistency, and respond to particular comments made in the Planning and Public Works Letters.

I. Builder’s Remedy
As discussed in our letter accompanying the Builder’s Remedy Preliminary and Formal Applications, the Town cannot deny a Builder’s Remedy project due to any inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or General Plan land use designation of a project site. Therefore, Project inconsistencies with the current zoning ordinance and the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element do not form a basis for denial under State law protections. We reiterate this as some of the information requested relates to consistency with zoning and/or the General Plan, which we do not believe is appropriate for a Builder’s Remedy application. Despite some of these issues, our goal remains to work with the Town and ensure that it has full information, the Applicant has provided the Town with all information requested, other than a few minor items, as noted.

II. Application Completeness and Consistency
In determining what constitutes a complete application, the Town is subject to the limitations imposed by the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) and Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). When the Town receives an application for a housing development project, it is required to process the application in compliance with the procedures and timelines stated in the PSA. In particular, the PSA specifies that the Town must provide a complete list of items that were not provided and

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
October 30, 2024

020029.0001 4893-2793-8291.5
“[i]n any subsequent review of the application determined to be incomplete, the local agency shall not request the applicant to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete” (Government Code, § 65943(a)). That is, a subsequent incomplete letter cannot expand on what was identified as missing in an earlier letter.

Additionally, the HAA provides that determinations of consistency are not done during the application completeness determination phase, but must instead occur after the application completeness determination (Government Code, § 65589.5(j)(2)(A), (h)(10)). We do appreciate that the Town has distinguished between completeness issues and consistency issues and that the consistency items are provided for informational purposes only and do not require a response for completeness purposes. Of course, the Project’s status as a Builder’s Remedy project means that consistency with zoning and the General Plan are not grounds for denial, so consistency in this context is less relevant to processing the application. While it is not necessary for us to respond to the consistency items at this time, the Applicant’s response is comprehensive as we seek to move this application forward expeditiously.

III. Planning Letter - Completeness Items
We provide this background on the limits in the PSA since the Town has asked for new information in the Planning Letter that it did not request previously. For example, Comment 6 in the original July 17, 2024 Planning Letter addressed the Objective Design Standards Checklist and vaguely asked for “specificity for staff to verify the project’s compliance,” but it did not specify what information was missing. Further, the original Comment 16B-3.a only requested “existing” building floor plan dimensions. In the new Planning Letter, however, Comment 6 was marked as resolved and Comment 16B-3.a was amended to identify many places where dimensioned floor plans were missing for not only existing buildings, as asked for previously, but also proposed buildings. Contrary to the PSA, Comment 16B-3.a asks for new information not previously requested. Nonetheless, the Applicant has updated the floor plans as requested in the Planning Letter and all information identified as missing has been provided. However, because this information was not requested previously, it was not proper to request in the latest Planning Letter, so if we happen to not provide some newly requested information, that is not a basis for finding incompleteness on this current resubmittal.

The Applicant also responds specifically to the following Town comments:
x Comment 16, Item I-7, subsection c, requires that where a traffic impact is determined by the Parks and Public Works Department, specific sections of the General Plan must be identified stating that the type of project will benefit the community. We do not believe that this requirement has been triggered as the Parks and Public Works Department has not, to our knowledge, determined that the Project would have a “traffic impact”. We also do not believe that this finding is relevant to a Builder’s Remedy project since consistency with the Town’s General Plan is not a relevant issue, so we do not believe it

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
October 30, 2024

020029.0001 4893-2793-8291.5
appropriate for the Town to request information regarding and assess whether the General Plan identifies that this type of project will be a benefit to the community.

Despite these objections, we note that a number of sections of the Town’s Housing Element confirm that this type of project will benefit the community. For example, Goal HE-1 “Facilitate All Types of Housing Production” encourages the production of diverse new housing options to ensure that an adequate supply is available. The 30-unit Project aligns with Goal HE-1 by facilitating housing production and contributes to the Town's efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet the needs of all residents, both current and future. Policy HE-1.2 “Multi-Family Housing Densities” encourages builders to develop projects on multi-family designated properties at the high end of the applicable density range. The Project’s density exceeds the applicable density, which it is allowed to do as a Builder’s Remedy project, and this policy confirms the benefits of higher density housing, which the Project carries out. Policy HE-1.5 encourages the production of housing “that meets the needs of all economic segments of the Town, including lower and moderate households, to maintain a balanced community,” which the Project does by including 6 low-income units. Similarly, Goal HE-2 “Provide New Affordable Housing” urges the production of more affordable housing. Policy HE-2.3 “Mixed-Use Development” encourages mixed-use development that provides affordable housing close to employment centers and/or transportation facilities. The Project is a mixed-use development with affordable housing that is close to the Town’s downtown area, which provides employment opportunities.
x Comment 16, Item I-7, subsection g, requires that applications for conditional use permits address required findings. However, the Town’s July 17, 2024 Planning Letter did not mention subsection g being incomplete and the Town is now barred from raising this issue in a subsequent incomplete letter. Further, these findings are not relevant to a Builder’s Remedy application particularly to the extent they focus on the Project’s consistency with the zoning and General Plan.

While we maintain these objections, we also note that the Project is consistent with the required conditional use permit findings (Town Code, § 29.20.190(a)) as it (1) addresses a critical need in the Town for additional housing units, particularly affordable units; (2) is designed to be tasteful and in harmony with the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood and zoning district; (3) is designed with public health, safety, and general welfare in mind; (4) aligns with the objectives of the General Plan’s Housing Element by facilitating mixed-use development and new affordable housing production, consistent with the Housing Element Policies and Goals identified in the prior response; and (5) is not a hazardous waste facility proposal.

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
October 30, 2024

020029.0001 4893-2793-8291.5
IV. Planning Letter - Consistency Items
The HAA limits the Town’s review of consistency items until after the application completeness determination, which has not been made. Even so, the Applicant has responded to all Town consistency comments, and responds here specifically to the following:
x Comment 94 largely repeats the information requested in Comment 16, Item I-7, and as a consistency item, is not required to be addressed as part of the Project’s completeness determination pursuant to the HAA. And while we do not believe these items need to be addressed, we provide the following response.

Subsection a recommends that any requested exceptions as part of the Builder’s Remedy application are identified and described, similar to a letter submitted for a prior project outlining waivers and concessions requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. In the Builder’s Remedy context, we do not believe density bonus waivers and concessions are necessary, although to the extent the Town finds that they are necessary, we reserve our right to use any such waivers and concessions. We therefore do not believe that it is necessary to review consistency with, or exceptions to, objective standards. We nonetheless have completed the Objective Design Standards Checklist demonstrating compliance and identifying any deviations. Currently, we are not planning on providing further information on consistency, other than the completed Objective Design Standards Checklist and otherwise responding to City comments.

Subsection b asks to confirm that the affordability level is consistent with Builder’s Remedy requirements. All 6 of the affordable units proposed (or 20% of the 30 total units) will be provided for low-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, meaning those whose income does not exceed 80% of the Area Median Income. By including 20 percent low-income units, the project qualifies for certain protections under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5). This information has also been added to Sheet A0.0 (Cover Sheet) of the Plan Set.

Regarding subsection c, (a) a project description is included on the Cover Sheet for the Project’s Plan Set; (b–d) to the extent that each asks how the community will benefit or otherwise what justifies the application, the Project will benefit the community (and is thus justified) by providing needed market-rate and affordable-housing units, as described above; (e) the Project meets the General Plan’s Housing Element needs, as described above; and (g) the Project meets the required findings, as described above.

The Housing Element notes that Town housing prices are extremely high – the largest proportion of for-sale homes were valued at more than $2 million – driven by a high demand which the Town’s housing supply has not matched. (Housing Element, pp. 10-2, 10-27, B-2.) In addition, the Town has a higher proportion of detached single-family

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
October 30, 2024

020029.0001 4893-2793-8291.5
homes than other jurisdictions in the region, which exacerbates the Town’s housing unaffordability as detached single-family homes are typically more expensive than multifamily units. (Housing Element, p. 10-27.) The Project directly addresses the shortcomings noted in the Housing Element by increasing the housing supply in a market characterized by extremely high home prices and a shortage of affordable housing options. By introducing 30 new housing units, including 6 designated as affordable for low-income households, the Project helps to alleviate the high demand for housing that has driven up prices. Additionally, the focus on multi-family units rather than detached single-family homes contributes to a more diverse and affordable housing stock.

V. Public Works Letter – Completeness Item
The Applicant has responded to all comments in the Public Works Letter and we respond specifically to the following comment:
x Comment 23 addresses the Project’s EV stackers and states that they are “not allowed,” and cites to a “code” provision regarding the removal of vehicles after charging is complete. Regarding EV stackers, as a Builder’s Remedy Project, the Town cannot deny it due to any inconsistency with zoning regulations or the General Plan. This includes any inconsistency with the Town’s parking space standards. Therefore, even if the Town interprets its zoning ordinance as prohibiting the use of parking stackers, the Project cannot be denied on that basis.

We are not aware of what code section requires EVs to be moved once charging is complete and are otherwise not aware of such a requirement, particularly for EV spaces designated for residential use, which presumably will be used overnight. It may be that the reference is to Vehicle Code Section 22511.1, which states that a person shall not park a vehicle in a stall or space “designated” pursuant to Section 22511 unless the vehicle is connected for electric charging purposes. To be “designated” pursuant to Section 22511, a specific sign must be posted in a private garage stating that unauthorized vehicles not connected for electric charging will be towed away. That is, Section 22511 creates a mechanism to enforce a requirement that EV spaces be used only by cars that are actively charging, but whether to require active charging is left up to the property owner. Nothing in Section 22511, however, requires EV stalls to be used for active charging. If the reference to the code is a local requirement, for the reasons explained above, it cannot be applied to a Builder’s Remedy project.

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
October 30, 2024

020029.0001 4893-2793-8291.5
VI. Conclusion
The Applicant continues to be excited to put forth this updated proposal to revitalize an underutilized Town site and to provide much needed housing. Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Very truly yours,
Miles Imwalle
Cc: Joel Paulson ([email protected])
David Blatt ([email protected])
Ken Rodrigues ([email protected])
Craig Spencer ([email protected])

ITEM NO. 1.

020029.0001 4895-9302-0894.3
Miles Imwalle
D (415) 772-5786
[email protected]
August 30, 2024
Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
[email protected]
Re: Application for 143 and 151 East Main Street
Response to July 17 Incomplete Letter
Dear Ryan:

I am writing on behalf of CSPN, LLC (“Applicant”) as part of our response to the Town’s July 17, 2024 Planning Staff Technical Review (“Town Letter”) and to provide a Letter of Justification in support of Applicant’s formal application for the mixed-use project at 143 and 151 East Main Street. As you know, we previously submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application on January 17, 2024 for a 26 unit, mixed-use project with 4 affordable units and subsequently followed up with formal applications for Architecture and Site Approval (S-24-007), Conditional Use Permit (U-24- 002), and Vesting Tentative Map Application (M-24-004) on February 15, 2024.

More recently, we submitted a new SB 330 Preliminary Application on May 3, 2024, which was “deemed submitted” as of May 6, 2024, for substantially the same project with the following changes: (1) the unit count was increased to 30 units, and (2) 20 percent of these 30 units, or 6 units, will be affordable at the low-income level (“Project”). The building size, location, circulation, architecture and other details were otherwise unchanged. Reference should be made to the subsequent SB 330 Preliminary Application (PRE24-00443).

Below, we discuss the Project’s Builder’s Remedy protections, consistency with the Town’s Objective Design Standards and other Town regulations and standards, CC&R submittal timeframes, and application timing considerations.

I. Builder’s Remedy
The Applicant submitted this latest Preliminary Application before the Town had a substantially compliant Housing Element for the 6th Regional Housing Needs Assessment Cycle. By including 20 percent low-income units, the Project qualifies for protections under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5), commonly referred to as the Builder’s Remedy. This letter is accompanied by the Applicant’s resubmission in response to the Town Letter.

As discussed in our letter accompanying the Builder’s Remedy Preliminary Application, the Town cannot deny a Builder’s Remedy project due to any inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or General Plan land use designation of a project site. Therefore, Project

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
August 30, 2024

020029.0001 4895-9302-0894.3
inconsistencies with the current zoning ordinance and the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element, including density1
, height2, and FAR3, among other standards, do not form a basis for denial under State law protections. While we do not believe density bonus waivers and concessions are necessary for a Builder’s Remedy project, to the extent the City finds that they are necessary, we reserve our right to use any such waivers and concessions.

Nonetheless, the Applicant has endeavored to respect the Town’s long-term vision for the site by considering the density and development program envisioned in the now rescinded 2040 General Plan Land Use Element. Where feasible, we have also incorporated feedback received during the June 14, 2023 CDAC meeting.

II. Objective Design Standards
The Applicant aims for Project consistency with the Town’s Objective Design Standards and the completed Objective Design Standards Checklist was included with our prior submission. While inconsistency with these standards is not a basis for denial of the Project, the Project is in significant compliance with them.

In response to Comment 6 of the Town Letter asking the Applicant to provide a greater “level of specificity,” we do not believe that additional information is necessary. First, because the Project is subject to the protections of the Builder’s Remedy, compliance with the Objective Design Standards is not necessary, so the Town does not need more information to process the application. Nonetheless, the Applicant has designed the Project with the goal of harmonizing it with the Town’s Objective Design Standards to the maximum extent possible. Further, the prior submittal included a completed Objective Design Standards Checklist, including the sheet numbers where compliance with the various design standards can be identified. Therefore, while not required, if the Town desires to review the Project against those Standards, it has the necessary information.

III. Project Consistency With Town Regulations and Guidelines In a similar vein, in response to Comment 71 of the Town Letter, the Applicant is not required to include a description of items proposed that “do not comply with Town regulations and guidelines along with an explanation for each exception request.” Nonetheless, throughout this formal application the Applicant has attempted to provide as much transparency and detail as 1 Current density limit: 20 dwelling units per acre (according to Comment 71 of the Town Letter). Project density: 71 dwelling units per acre.
2 Current height limit: 45 feet. Project height: 52 feet. 3 Current FAR limit: 0.60. Project FAR: 2.52.

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
August 30, 2024

020029.0001 4895-9302-0894.3
possible as to ways the Project differs from objective General Plan and zoning ordinance standards.4
IV. CC&R Submittal
In response to Comment 16, Item G, of the Town Letter regarding providing CC&Rs and other related documents such as association by-laws, the Applicant is not prepared to provide condominium CC&Rs at this premature stage, before the Project’s completeness determination and well before its first public hearing or approval. In fact, it would not be possible to provide CC&Rs for a project at this stage. The Applicant is prepared to provide CC&Rs at a more appropriate point in the development process that is prior to Project occupancy, which we anticipate will be reflected in a condition of approval.5

On a similar note, Comment 31 from Public Works requests a condominium plan under the Government Code. However, a condo plan is required for compliance with the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, and it is not part of the local process under the Subdivision Map Act. A condo plan will be processed with the Department of Real Estate at the appropriate time, but it is not a document that should be required as part of this application.

V. Timing Considerations
Finally, based on recent correspondence with the Town Attorney, we did want to confirm one point in response to Comment 1 of the Town Letter regarding the Applicant being afforded a single new “90-day period” for resubmittal. The Town Attorney clarified this point in an email on August 29, 2024 and stated that within 180 days of the Project’s May 6, 2024 Builder’s Remedy Preliminary Application, or November 2, 2024, the Applicant can submit revisions to the formal application, as needed, and that the 90-day period referred to in Comment 1 only limits the time to submit additional information after this initial 180-day period expires. This means that the Applicant is afforded one final 90-period after the City responds with any incomplete items in this formal application. Please let us know if we should discuss this timing framework.

VI. Conclusion
The Applicant continues to be excited to put forth this updated proposal to revitalize an underutilized Town site and to provide much needed housing. We very much hope that the 4 Applicant’s response here also applies to Comments 2, 22, and 26 of the July 17, 2024 Public Works Technical Review. Regarding Comment 28, the Applicant is prepared to provide a Trash Management Plan at a more appropriate point in the development process prior to Project occupancy, which can be reflected in a condition of approval.
5 Applicant’s response here also applies to Comment 29 of the July 17, 2024 Public Works Technical Review.

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
August 30, 2024

020029.0001 4895-9302-0894.3
Town will help achieve these important goals of facilitating new residential units, while also creating a new space in the Town that embraces a vision for good urbanism.

Very truly yours,
Miles Imwalle
Cc: Joel Paulson ([email protected])
David Blatt ([email protected])
Ken Rodrigues ([email protected])
Craig Spencer ([email protected])

ITEM NO. 1.

020029.0001 4868-5867-2839.4
Miles Imwalle
D (415) 772-5786
[email protected]
June 15, 2024
Jennifer Archer
Ryan Safty
Community Development Department
[email protected]
[email protected]

Re: Response to Town’s March 27, 2024 Staff Technical Assistance Letter – 143 and 151 East Main Street
Dear Jennifer and Ryan:

I am writing on behalf of CSPN, LLC (“Applicant”) as part of our response to the Town’s March 27, 2024 Staff Technical Assistance Letter (“Town Letter”). As you know, we previously submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application on January 17, 2024 for a 26 unit, mixed-use project with 4 affordable units and subsequently followed up with formal applications for Architecture and Site Approval (S-24-007), Conditional Use Permit (U-24-002), and Vesting Tentative Map Application (M-24-004) on February 15, 2024.

More recently, we submitted a new SB 330 Preliminary Application on May 3, 2024, which was “deemed submitted” as of May 6, 2024, for substantially the same project with the following changes: (1) the unit count is increased to 30 units, and (2) 20 percent of these 30 units, or 6 units, will be affordable at the low-income level (“Project”). The building size, location, circulation, architecture and other details were otherwise unchanged. Although this submittal is amending the formal applications referenced above, the submittal is based on this more recent SB 330 Preliminary Application and reference should be made to that application number PRE24-00443.

Below, we discuss the Project’s Builder’s Remedy protections, the Project’s consistency with the Town’s Objective Design Standards, relevant amendments to the original Letter of Justification, and Project application timing considerations.

I. Builder’s Remedy
The Applicant submitted this latest Preliminary Application before the Town has a substantially compliant Housing Element for the 6th Regional Housing Needs Assessment Cycle. By including 20 percent low-income units, the Project qualifies for protections under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5), commonly referred to as the Builder’s Remedy. This letter is accompanied by amendments to Applicant’s February 15, 2024 formal application in response to both the Town Letter and the May 6, 2024 Builder’s Remedy Preliminary Application.

ITEM NO. 1.

June 15, 2024

020029.0001 4868-5867-2839.4
As discussed in our letter accompanying Builder’s Remedy Preliminary Application, the Town cannot deny a Builder’s Remedy project due to any inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or General Plan land use designation of a project site. Therefore, Project inconsistencies with the current zoning ordinance and the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element, including density1 ,
height2
, and FAR3, among other standards, do not form a basis for denial under State law protections. While we do not believe density bonus waivers and concessions are necessary for a Builder’s Remedy project, to the extent the City finds that they are necessary, we reserve our right to use any such waivers and concessions.

Nonetheless, the Applicant has endeavored to respect the Town’s long-term vision for the site by considering the density and development program envisioned in the now rescinded 2040 General Plan Land Use Element. Where feasible, we have also incorporated feedback received during the June 14, 2023 CDAC meeting.

II. Objective Design Standards
The Applicant also aims for Project consistency with the Town’s Objective Design Standards and the completed Objective Design Standards Checklist is attached. While inconsistency with these objective design standards is not a basis for denial of the Project, the Project is in significant compliance with them.

III. Amendments to the Original Letter of Justification Town Letter Comment 16, Item I, on pages 7–8, requests specific updates to the previous “Letter of Justification” for the original Formal Application, which are provided below:
x Description of the proposed request: We understand this request to be asking for a traditional project description, which is included on the cover page of the updated Project plans and is copied below for ease of reference:
“151 East Main Street is a 4-story mixed use building with underground parking located on 0.425 acre site at the corner of Main Street and High School Court in Los Gatos, California. The ground level includes 2,416 square feet of pedestrian oriented commercial which could be leased to a retail or restaurant tenant. Residential (for sale) units are located on all four levels of the project. The proposed project includes 30 units, 24 market rate units and 6 affordable units ranging from 743 square feet to 2,188 square feet. The units are 1 bedroom up to 3 bedrooms with outdoor patios. There are two (2) options for the underground parking, Option 1 - a two level parking garage with 52 1 Current density limit: 20 dwelling units per acre (according to Comment 71 of the Town Letter). Project density: 71 dwelling units per acre.
2 Current height limit: 45 feet. Project height: 57 feet. 3 Current FAR limit: 0.60. Project FAR: 2.52.

ITEM NO. 1.

June 15, 2024

020029.0001 4868-5867-2839.4
individual parking stalls. Option 2 - a one level parking garage with 46 parking stalls that includes 17 car stackers that provide 2 parking stalls per stacker. The proposed exterior elevations takes its cue from Los Gatos High School located next door and the many significant brick structures located on Main Street and North Santa Cruz in downtown Los Gatos. Building materials include brick walls, precast concrete facade detailing, iron balconies, metal grid windows and canvas awnings. These materials can be found in downtown Los Gatos in other key buildings. The fourth floor is stepped back to reduce the overall height of the proposed project. Materials include exterior plaster walls, precast concrete detailing, and a sloped clay tile roof to further reduce the building massing. Outdoor patios with wood trellis features and landscaping provide owners views to the foothills and surrounding buildings.”
x Traffic impact considerations: The Project has not been the subject of a traffic analysis, and any requirement to justify Project benefits to the community in the event of a traffic impact is not a standard to which Builder’s Remedy projects can be held. Even so, the Project is a benefit to the community as described further below. We have also been working with the Town on a scope of work to engage various consultants, including a traffic consultant.
x Conditional Use Permit findings: The Project is not required to meet the Town’s four Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) findings because it is a Builder’s Remedy project. In addition, the Town’s CUP findings are not objective standards under the Housing Accountability Act. Nonetheless, we feel that the Project is consistent with CUP findings as described below:

First, the Project is “desirable to the public convenience or welfare” because it provides much-needed housing in a conveniently accessible downtown location, as well as desirable and street-activating retail/commercial uses.

Second, the Project “will not impair the integrity and character of the zone” because it is designed to complement nearby Los Gatos High School and enhance the walkability, quality of life, and urban design on Main Street and North Santa Cruz Avenue.

Third, the Project will not “be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare” because the Project has been designed to promote general welfare, a mixed-use project of this scale is appropriate for this location and this use is not expected to have any health or safety impacts. We would also expect that the Town’s standard conditions of approval will address any potential impacts.

Finally, the Project is “in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of this chapter” because it provides much-needed housing, coupled with commercial space, in a desirable area of the Town, helping to further enliven and activate the walkable downtown area.

ITEM NO. 1.

June 15, 2024

020029.0001 4868-5867-2839.4
IV. Timing Considerations
Finally, based on some recent conversations we have had with the Town, we did want to clarify one point regarding responding to the Town Letter. In particular, we understand that the Town’s interpretation is that within 180 days of the Project’s Builder’s Remedy Preliminary Application, or November 2, 2024, the Applicant can submit revisions to the formal application, as needed, and that the 90-day period referred to in Comment 1 only limits the time to submit additional information after this initial 180-day period expires. Please let us know if we should discuss this timing framework.

Very truly yours,
Miles Imwalle
Cc: Joel Paulson ([email protected])
David Blatt ([email protected])
Ken Rodrigues ([email protected])
Craig Spencer ([email protected])

ITEM NO. 1.
151 EAST MAIN STREET
Commercial Design Guidelines Review
June 15, 2024
The corner of East Main Street and High School Court has been designed to promote high quality neighborhood-oriented retail of approximately 2,416 SF.

The retail space has been designed consistent with the Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines in the following ways:

Sections 1.3/1.4/1.5/3.1/3.2/3.3
x Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos by relating small scale retail that is neighborhood serving by designing creative store façade, pedestrian scale glazing and architectural detailing while at the same time promoting outdoor seating that takes advantage of the beautiful views to the mountains beyond. x Establish a high level of design quality using rich-historic building materials such as brick, precast detailing, awnings and landscaping that are consistent with other pedestrian scale projects located in downtown Los Gatos.
x Provide visual continuity along the street frontage by creating corner commercial that ties architecturally to the pedestrian oriented residential entries along East Main Street. The raised planters and seating walls along the street will further promote pedestrian oriented design features that enhance excellent architectural detailing of the proposed building. x Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town’s residential structures by designing residential scale details and design features. The brick details are from period architecture found in the early 1900’s consistent with other buildings built in 1900-1940 located in downtown Los Gatos.
x Rich architectural fabric with interesting details by providing unique 1920’s historic detailing such as, iron balconies and light fixtures. Recessed entries at the ground floor with a strong base of precasted concrete. Architectural trim details of brick and precast concrete provide contrast in detailing and scale.

Additional guidelines that have been used in the design of this project:
x Reinforce the special qualities of the Town’s visual character. x Good design can enhance the viability of a business.
x Highest quality architectural, landscape and site development. x High quality materials and craftmanship.
x Avoidance of architecturally trendy buildings in favor of more timeless qualities. x Mixed use buildings are encouraged wherever appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood. x Provide a unified design around all sides of buildings. x Integrate the screening for all trash and service areas into the design of buildings. x Screen all roof equipment.
x Maintain a high degree of transparency at all window areas. x Utilize colors that are appropriate to the use and surrounding area. x Architecture character and detailing shall be sensitive to historic structures remaining in the CBD. x Diversity of design shall be encouraged with timeless character sought over trendy architectural styles.
x Reinforcement of retail lintages along retail–oriented side streets wherever possible. One good way of accomplishing this is with the use of corner entries and adjacent display windows on both street frontages.
x Primary access to any second floor uses shall be from the fronting commercial street. x Maintain transparent storefronts and public right-of-way walls. x Utilize high quality storefront materials.
x Install awnings when weather and sun exposure protection are desired.

y,//dϵ

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

July 11, 2024
Mr. Ryan Safty
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 143 + 151 East Main Street
Dear Ryan:

I reviewed the new drawings in the context of its immediate neighborhood. My comments and recommendations are as follows:

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located on East Main Street close to the Town Hall and Library. Other nearby uses are a mix of commercial, institutional and residential uses. Photographs of the site and surrounding context are shown on the following page.

y,//dϭϬ Page 134 Page 379
ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 2
Commercial Building immediately to the left THE SITE
Church immediately across Church Street High School immediately across High School Court

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 3
Hotel Los Gatos across East Main Street Landscaped High School lawn immediately across High School Court Nearby multifamily residential across East Main
Street Nearby commercial building on East Main Street
Nearby church across East Main Street Nearby commercial building on East Main Street

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 4

PROPOSED PROJECT

PROPOSED WEST SIDE ELEVATION

PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION

PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION

PROPOSED FRONT FACADE

PROPOSED EAST SIDE ELEVATION

PROPOSED REAR FACADE

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 5

ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The proposed building is much taller than the preponderance of structures in the site’s immediate context, but the presence of the adjacent high school main building provides some height transition for a taller strucWXUHKHUH2YHUDOOWKHGHVLJQLVZHOOGRQHEXWWKHUHDUHDIHZUHÀQHPHQWVWKDW,ZRXOGUHFRPPHQGWRHQKDQFH its compatibility with its neighbors.

The following are issues that staff may wish to discuss further with the applicant.

1. The design appears to draw on the traditional formality and details of the adjacent high school structure with its punched window openings in a solid wall facade and classic architectural details. However, the main facades of this proposed building are broken up into smaller segments with a strong vertical appearance which is at odds with the adjacent high school and other nearby buildings.  7KHVHSDUDWLRQRI WKHIDFDGHVLQWRHOHPHQWVWKDWDUHOHVVXQLÀHGWKDQLQWUDGLWLRQDODUFKLWHFWXUHDOVR tends to make the facade overly fragmented and more vertical in its appearance. This carries through with the two side elevations having a distinctly different appearance than the front and rear facades.

3. The verticality of the facades which draw attention to its substantial scale difference from its surrounding context is further emphasized by the four story light colored facade over the main building entry.

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 6

4. The central gable roof on the rear facade is a form not found elsewhere on the building and seems out of place in the overall unity of the design.

5. There is a small issue with the smaller residential unit entries facing the streets. The entries and stairs DUHVKRZQJUDSKLFDOO\GLIIHUHQWRQWKHÁRRUSODQDQGWKHHOHYDWLRQV7KHHOHYDWLRQVKRZVDUDWKHUORQJ stretch of concrete steps along the East Main Street sidewalk frontage. Given the reduced setback requested by the applicant along the frontage, it seems like an emphasis on more landscaping might be appropriate.

6. One issue of unit livability that might be an issue is the relatively deep units in some locations where some interior living spaces may be further away from a window than normally expected in high quality housing.

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 7

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Maximize the amount of landscaping along the East Main Street frontage. One example of a similar patio entry along the sidewalk is shown in the photo below.

2. Extend the stone cornice and decorative stone work consistently around all sides of the building.  $GGEULFNVSDQGUHOLQÀOORQWKHIRXUVWRU\WDOOZDOORYHUWKHSULPDU\(DVW0DLQ6WUHHWHQWU\WRUHGXFHLWV vertical emphasis.

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 8

4. Modify the gable roof form on the rear facade to blend in better with the overall building design.

Ryan, please let me know if you have any questions or if there are any issues that I did not address.

Sincerely,

CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon

ITEM NO. 1.
151 EAST MAIN STREET
August 30, 2024

COMMENTS FROM CANNON DESIGN GROUP
The design is inspired by the work of William Weeks, Architect and the surrounding hotel and 131 Main Street. The use of brick, precast concrete trim and details are consistent with this inspiration. See Sheet A0.1 for additional design imagery of work by William Weeks, Architect. The use of brick, exterior plaster and grid window glass are design features found in Los Gatos. The upper floor is stepped back to reduce its scale and mass. Materials include exterior plaster, clay tile roofing and wood trellis features all similar to The Los Gatos Hotel located across Main Street per comment #4.

Response to Cannon Design Comments
The current landscape drawings, Site Plan and First Floor Plan have been updated to add additional landscape to the residential entries on Main Street and Church Street as recommended in Item #1. We have extended the cornice treatment around all facades per recommendation comment #2. We have also eliminated the vertical design feature at the Main Street entry and substituted a lower gable roof form similar to the Church Street design element.

y,//dϭϭ Page 142 Page 387
ITEM NO. 1.

July 11, 2024
Mr. Ryan Safty
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 143 + 151 East Main Street
Dear Ryan:

I reviewed the new drawings in the context of its immediate neighborhood. My comments and recommendations are as follows:

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located on East Main Street close to the Town Hall and Library. Other nearby uses are a mix of commercial, institutional and residential uses. Photographs of the site and surrounding context are shown on the following page.
8/30/24
See response to comments in blue

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 2
Commercial Building immediately to the left THE SITE
Church immediately across Church Street High School immediately across High School Court

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 3
Hotel Los Gatos across East Main Street Landscaped High School lawn immediately across High School Court
Nearby multifamily residential across East Main
Street
Nearby commercial building on East Main
Street
Nearby church across East Main Street Nearby commercial building on East Main Street

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 4

PROPOSED PROJECT

PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION

PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION

PROPOSED WEST SIDE ELEVATION

PROPOSED FRONT FACADE

PROPOSED REAR FACADE

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 5

ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The proposed building is much taller than the preponderance of structures in the site’s immediate context, but the presence of the adjacent high school main building provides some height transition for a taller structure here. Overall the design is well done but there are a few refinements that I would recommend to enhance its compatibility with its neighbors.

The following are issues that staff may wish to discuss further with the applicant.

1. The design appears to draw on the traditional formality and details of the adjacent high school structure with its punched window openings in a solid wall facade and classic architectural details. However, the main facades of this proposed building are broken up into smaller segments with a strong vertical appearance which is at odds with the adjacent high school and other nearby buildings.

2. The separation of the facades into elements that are less unified than in traditional architecture also tends to make the facade overly fragmented and more vertical in its appearance. This carries through with the two side elevations having a distinctly different appearance than the front and rear facades.

3. The verticality of the facades which draw attention to its substantial scale difference from its surrounding context is further emphasized by the four story light colored facade over the main building entry.

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 6

4. The central gable roof on the rear facade is a form not found elsewhere on the building and seems out of place in the overall unity of the design.

There is a small issue with the smaller residential unit entries facing the streets. The entries and stairs are shown graphically different on the floor plan and the elevations. The elevation shows a rather long stretch of concrete steps along the East Main Street sidewalk frontage. Given the reduced setback requested by the applicant along the frontage, it seems like an emphasis on more landscaping might be appropriate.

5. One issue of unit livability that might be an issue is the relatively deep units in some locations where some interior living spaces may be further away from a window than normally expected in high quality housing.

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 7

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Maximize the amount of landscaping along the East Main Street frontage. One example of a similar patio entry along the sidewalk is shown in the photo below.

2. Extend the stone cornice and decorative stone work consistently around all sides of the building.

3. Add brick spandrel infill on the four story tall wall over the primary East Main Street entry to reduce its vertical emphasis.

Currently reviewing this comment.

Completed. See Sheets A3.0 and A3.1.

We will not be adding this proposed change to the design drawings.

ITEM NO. 1.
143 + 151 East Main Street
Design Review Comments
July 11, 2024 Page 8

4. Modify the gable roof form on the rear facade to blend in better with the overall building design.

Ryan, please let me know if you have any questions or if there are any issues that I did not address.

Sincerely,

CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
We have eliminated this feature. See Sheets A3.0 and A3.1.

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.
143 and 151 E. Main Street Arborist’s Review November 5, 2024 November 5, 2024
Jennifer Armer
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Summary and Assignment
I was asked to review the plans and the applicant’s arborist report and provide findings and recommendations. I Provided a review on July 16, 2024.

The arborist’s report was provided by Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting dated December 20, 2023, revised dated August 21, 2024, and October 24, 2024. The prior deficiencies are now resolved as indicated below:
• There are no specific tree protection measures regarding those proposed for retention - Sec.

29.10.1000. New property development. (c). Only the Street Trees could remain to be protected and would require a Type I or Type II protection scheme. Resolved • The table in the report does not indicate the disposition of each tree including “Protected” or “Large Protected”. - 29.10.1000. New property development (a)(3). Nor the report or table indicates which trees are Exempt Sec. 29.10.0970. Exceptions. (1) or (2), needs a column to be more specific as indicated in the ordinance. There is at least one Large Protected coast live oak and two Exempt privet. Resolved
• No appraised values were provided - 29.10.1000. New property development. (c)(3). The report provides a total value. Resolved
• No specific development plans were indicated as reviewed (remove or retain). However the arborist indicates all trees will be removed with the exception of the Street Trees and the plans confirm this. Resolved
• There are no references to the Town’s ordinance and requirements for protection. Boiler plate information was provided as per author’s standard procedures. The Town uses Type I, II, and III protection schemes. Resolved
• Correct report artifacts and inconsistencies. Resolved The plan set does not contain the required Tree Preservation Instructions (Sheet T-1) sheet Sec.

29.10.1000. New property development. (c) (1). Although sheet L3.0 Provides replacement tree information. Resolved
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 13

y,//dϭϮ

ITEM NO. 1.
143 and 151 E. Main Street Arborist’s Review November 5, 2024 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions
Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.

All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations.

Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.

The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.

This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.

Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference.

Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.

Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future.

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 23

ITEM NO. 1.
143 and 151 E. Main Street Arborist’s Review November 5, 2024 Certification of Performance
I Richard Gessner, Certify:

That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment;
That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report.

That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998.

Richard J. Gessner
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B
Copyright
© Copyright 2024, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author.

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 33

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.





Los Gatos Mixed Use 151 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 December 20, 2023; updated October 15, 2024 Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting 221 Main St. #83 Los Altos CA 94023 650.935.5822 Prepared for: The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115 San Francisco, CA 94111 Prepared by: Deanne Ecklund (Goff), ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #647 24, 2024

y,//dϭϯ

ITEM NO. 1.

Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822


Summary The inventory contains 10 trees comprised of 5 species. Five of these were street trees. The following plan was reviewed to evaluate impacts to trees:
• L1.0 Landscape Plan (The Guzzardo Partnership 1/14/24). • Civil plans (Sandis 8/16/24)
Two street trees #170 and #176 would be preserved. The remaining trees would be removed to accommodate development.

Introduction
Assignment
Provide an inventory and assessment of the trees located at 151 E. Main St. in Los Gatos, CA. The assessment shall include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health, structure, form), and suitability for preservation ratings. Prepare a report with tree preservation guidelines.Limits of the Assignment

1. Information in this report is limited to the condition of treesduring my tree assessment on December 8, 2023.

2. Tree risk assessments were not performed.3. Landscape plans were available for review.

Assessment Methods Trees were numbered #170-179. The assessment included all trees within and immediately adjacent to development area. Tree condition was based on three components: health, structure, and form. The assessment considered both the health and structure for a combined condition rating (Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Ed.

ISA 2019).
5 (81-100%) - Excellent = High vigor, nearly ideal and free of defects.
4 (61-80%) - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure. No significant insect or disease damage. Defects are minor and can be corrected. Function and aesthetics not compromised. 3 (41-60 %) - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. 2 (21-40%) - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple (The Civil Engineer's plans were also reviewed to evaluate tree impacts.)

ITEM NO. 1.




"











!
 





Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822


significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use. 1 (6-2 0 %) - V
ery P
o
or = Poor vigor, dying with little live foliage.

Tree in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. 0 (0-5
%) - D
e
a
d/U
nsta
ble = Dead or failure imminent.

A tree’s suitability for preservation considers its health, structure, age, species characteristics (e.g. disease resistance, drought tolerance), species tolerances to root disturbance and other construction impacts, species invasiveness, and its potential to continue to benefit the site. Trees were rated either “high” “moderate” or “low” suitability for preservation.

Hig
h = Trees with good vigor, structural stability, and potential to function well long after construction.

M
o
d
erate = Trees with fair vigor, and with health or structural defects that can be mitigated with treatment. These trees will require more management and monitoring before, during, and after construction, and may have shorter life spans after development.

L
o
w = Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site.

A
p
praisal of v
alu
e
The reproduction value of trees was determined by using the Trunk Formula Technique methodology described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, Tenth Edition.

ITEM NO. 1.




"











!
 





Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822


O
b
s
erv
a
tio
n
s
Ten (10) trees were measured and evaluated. Most trees were in poor and fair condition (Table 1), with varying degrees of crown dieback.

T
a
ble 1. Tre
e sp
e
cies c
o
n
ditio
n + q
u
a
ntity
S
p
e
cies
n
a
m
e S
cie
ntific n
a
m
e P
o
or
(1-2)
F
air
(3)
G
o
o
d
(4-5) T
otal
Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - - 1 1
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 1 1 - 2
Southern magnolia
Magnollia grandiflora 3 1 - 4
Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 1 1 - 2
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - - 1 1
T
otal 5 3 2 10
50% 30% 20%
A semi-mature coast live oak (#174) was in good condition. Soil level in its planter was approximately 2’ above sidewalk grade. Two evergreen pears were in fair and poor condition. Both had been previously topped and had many small branches (epicormic shoots) emerging from pruned ends. If left unmanaged, these shoots can become susceptible to failure.

Southern magnolia street trees were in poor to fair condition. All three trees had significant trunk wounds on their southwest sides caused by sunburn. Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance The Town of Los Gatos municipal code (Chapter 29, Sec. 29.10.0960) Protected Tree definition includes the following description. (4) All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required.

Based on trunk size, all 10 trees evaluated for this report were considered Protected, and a permit is required for the removal of any Protected tree.

ITEM NO. 1.




"











!
 





Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822


Dis
c
u
s
sio
n a
n
d R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
tio
n
s
I reviewed the Landscape Plan sheet L1.0 (The Guzzardo Partnership 1/14/24) and Civil Plan Set (Sandis 8/16/24) to evaluate tree impacts. The design requires that three on-site trees must be removed. Three street trees in poor condition will be removed and replaced. Street trees #170 and 176, which is outside development area, will be preserved and protected. Street tree #170 is expected to incur root impacts from sidewalk replacement. The tree is relatively young and the species tolerant of root impacts from construction. The following tree protection measures shall be employed to protect the tree in place. • Type III tree protection shall be used to protect the trunk of tree #170.
• Type I tree protection shall be used to protect trees #177 and 178.
• Existing sidewalk shall be removed in a manner that avoids damaging roots.
• Any roots requiring pruning for sidewalk forms shall be cut cleanly at the edge of excavation.

Adhering to these and the tree preservation guidelines in the next section will ensure root impacts are kept to a minimum.

A total of six trees will be removed for development, six of which require mitigation. Tree removal and mitigation The Table 2 indicates the recommended replacement values. The applicant will be required to replace 6 protected trees according to the ordinance. Alternatively, it may be possible to create an approved landscape plan or provide an in-lieu payment.

T
a
ble 2. T
o
w
n of L
os G
atos tre
e c
a
n
o
p
y re
pla
c
e
m
e
nt sta
n
d
ard

C
a
n
o
p
y Siz
e of
R
e
m
o
v
e
d Tre
e
R
e
pla
c
e
m
e
nt R
e
q
uire
m
e
nt
(2)(4)
10 feet or less Two 24-inch box trees More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24-inch box trees More than 25 feet to 40 feet Four 24-inch box trees; or Two 36-inch box trees
More than 40 feet to 55 feet
Six 24-inch box trees; or Three 36-inch box trees
Greater than 55 feet Ten 24-inch box trees; or Five 36-inch box trees The Landscape plan sheets and the Civil Engineer's plans werereviewed to evaluate tree impacts.

ITEM NO. 1.




"











!
 





Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822


(2) Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with a combination of both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and inlieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund. (4) Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures, overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native species shall be strongly encouraged.

Tre
e Pro
t
e
c
tio
n G
uid
elin
e
s
Design recommendations

1. Provide sufficient clearance between trees and proposed features to avoid damage to roots.

2. Enlarge tree wells to increase water access and reduce sidewalk damage potential.

3. Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the tree protection zone (TPZ). a. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special
construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury.

4. Utilize novel design and construction techniques to preserve roots where utilities or features must be within tree TPZs.

Pre-construction

1. The construction superintendent shall meet with the Project Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection.

2. Fence street trees with Type III fencing prior to demolition, grubbing, or grading. a. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only: orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches.

ITEM NO. 1.




"











!
 





Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822


b. Duration: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. c. Warning sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5x11 sign stating: "Warning—Tree Protection Zone—This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." i. Do not attach signs, wire, or rope to any protected tree.

3. Pruning trees to provide construction and access clearance may be required. a. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2019) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). b. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent possible, tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.

Construction

1. Tree protection fence layout must be approved by the Project Arborist. Fences must remain in this configuration throughout construction. a. No construction activities shall occur within tree protection fencing. Construction activities include, but are not limited to:
i. Vehicle or pedestrian traffic
ii. Materials storage
iii. Vehicle exhaust
iv. Concrete cleanout water dumping
b. If tree protection fencing dimensions need to be reduced to allow for site access, protect tree protection zones against compaction by laying full sheets of plywood attached together with tie plates over coarse bark mulch. c. After construction is complete, tree protection fencing may be moved as needed for hardscape and landscape installation. Contact Project Arborist prior to removal.

2. Demolition of paving, utilities, and features within tree protection zones shall be done carefully avoid damaging roots.

3. If live roots over one inch in diameter are encountered at any time, in any location, prune with a sharp saw or bypass pruners, as close as practical to the edge of the disturbed area.

4. Any major root pruning (roots 2” and greater in diameter) shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Project Arborist.

5. If excavated areas are to be left open for longer than 3-4 days, cover exposed or severed roots with burlap or jute fabric.

ITEM NO. 1.




"











!
 





Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822

a. Irrigate fabric daily to keep fabric moist until excavation work is completed.

6. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.

Violations

1. If a violation occurs prior to proposed development, then discretionary applications and/or building permit applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director.

2. Incomplete applications will not be processed further until the violation has been remedied. If an application has been deemed complete, it may be denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial at the Director's discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a condition of approval.

3. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works.

4. If a violation occurs during construction, the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s) or the applicant(s) or both, and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security in the discretion of the Director.

Maintenance of remaining trees Because of changes in the growing environment after construction, preserved trees may require additional maintenance. Tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases; therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my observations or recommendations. Sincerely, D
e
a
n
n
e E
c
klu
n
d (G
o
ff)
Registered Consulting Arborist #647 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor

ITEM NO. 1.


























Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822
Tag
# C
o
m
m
on nam
e
Trunk
Diam.
(in.)
Est.

Cano
p
y
Diam.
(ft.)
C
ondition
(1=poor
5=excel.)
Tre
e
Disp
osition
Suitability
for
Preservation
A
p
praise
d
Value
E
x
p
e
cte
d
Im
pact
Sav
e
d/
R
e
m
o
v
e
d
/Prune
d
H
eight
rang
e
(ft.)
C
o
m
m
ents
170 Crape myrtle
Lagerstroemia indica
7 19 5 Street tree High
$ 1,800.00
Moderate Save 15 Street tree; good form and
structure.
171 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
8 12 2 Street tree Low
$ 650.00
- Remove 12 Street tree; nice crown; large trunk
wound from base to 5'.
172 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
7 7 2 Street tree Low
$ 550.00
- Remove 10 Street tree; small crown; large
trunk wound from base to 5'.
173 Evergreen pear
Pyrus kawakamii
19 20 3 Protected Moderate
$ 5,050.00
- Remove 20 Previously topped at ~12'; good
form, fair structure.
174 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia

26.5 34 4 Large
protected
High
$ 33,250.00
- Remove 23 Good form and structure; minor
thinning in upper crown.
175 Evergreen pear
Pyrus kawakamii
12 12 2 Protected Low
$ 1,300.00
- Remove 15 Previously topped at ~12'; poor
form and structure.
176 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
6 18 3 Street tree Low
$ 650.00
n/a Save 13 Street tree; dense crown; large
trunk wound from base to 5'.
177 Glossy privet
Ligustrum lucidum

2.5,2.
5,2
10 2 Exempt
(species)
Low
$ 400.00
Moderate Save 11 Growing against building; leans
east; poor form and structure.
178 Glossy privet
Ligustrum lucidum
7,6.5 15 3 Exempt
(species)
Low
$ 550.00
Moderate Save 9 Growing against building; leans
east; fair form and structure.
179 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
5 8 2 Street tree Low
$ 500.00
- Remove 13 Street tree; large trunk wound; thin
crown.

Tre
e A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

Physical Conditions,Reason for Removal
Low suitability for preservation.

Conflict with site plan.

Conflict with site plan.

Low suitability for preservation.

Low suitability for preservation.

Conflict with site plan.

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos Mixed Use Tree Inventory Map
151 E. Main St. (#170-179)
Deanne Ecklund
Certi
fied Arborist WE9067-A
Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting
December 20, 2023
171
179
170
178177
176
175
174
173172

ITEM NO. 1.

y,//dϭϰ

YES NO N/A
X
A.1.1
L1.0, A2.0, A2.5,
A2.6, and A2.7
Standard met. See Sheet A2.0 and L1.0 for 5' wide ADA Accessible walkway and ramp leading from the public sidewalk to the main entry of the building. The main entry consists of two (2) 3' wide doors to form a 6' wide entry to the building. Once inside the building allinterior doors (all 3' wide), corridors, elevator openings, and stairwells are accessible. All unit entry doors, doors to bike rooms and amenity rooms are a minimum dimension of 3' wide. Basement parking area has a minimum 4' wide accessible path from all accessible ADA stalls to the elevator lobby core in parking Option 1 and Option 2.

X
A.1.2
A2.5, A2.6, and A2.7
Standard not met. Pathways are under six feet in width unless counting area of vehicular travel.

All accessible parking stalls have a 4' minimum path to the garage main lobby and elevator. This path is a raised 6" curb and sidewalk from vehicles for separation.

X A2.0, L1.0, L2.0, and L6.0
Standard met. Short term bike racks for visitor parking include (4) racks which hold 8 bikes and are located on Main Street and High School Way (2 racks per each street). See Sheets A2.0 and L1.0 for location and Sheet L2.0 for bike rack detail.

X A.2.1 A2.0, L1.0, and L6.0
Standard met. The 8 bike racks are located within 50' of the two building entries. 4 racks located on Main Street for the residential building and 4 racks on High School Way for the commercial space. The project requires 32 short term stalls and only 8 short term stalls have been provided. All other secure bike parking is in two(2) long term bike rooms. See description on standard A.3 for other bike parking.

X A.2.2 A2.0
Standard not met. 32 short-term spaces required, while eight are proposed.

Due to space constraints, 32 short-term bicycle parking spaces could not be provided. However, the Project is meeting the Town’s goal of promoting alternative modes of transportation by providing more long-term bicycle parking spaces than required.

X A.2.3 L6.0
Standard not met. The proposed dimensions are instead six feet by two feet.

The Project’s minor 1’ deviation in short-term bicycle parking space length is justified in order to maximize the number of stalls in a constrained space. This deviation doesn’t affect the overall useability or security of the spaces.

X A.2.4 no sheet provided
Does not apply. Only eight short-term spaces are proposed.

X A.3.1 A2.0, A2.6, A2.7, and A2.9
Standard not met. Some of the proposed long-term spaces would be below-grade.

The intent of the Project is to maximize residential space, which is helped by providing long-term bike parking adjacent to automobile parking, which the Project provides below grade. This minor deviation maximizes ground floor space for residential use and meets the intent of the standard by providing long-term bicycle parking on the lowest available floor of the Project.

X A.3.2 A2.6, A2.7
Standard met. Total of 72 long-term secure bike parking spaces for Option 1 (extra 42). Total of 41 long-term secure bike parking spaces for Option 2 (extra 11).

A.3.3
X A2.9 Does not apply. Bike lockers are not proposed.X A2.9 Does not apply. Bike lockers are not proposed.X A2.9 Does not apply. Bike lockers are not proposed.

A.3.4
X A2.9 Standard met. Ceiling height of all secure enclosed bike rooms will be 9'-0" clear. See written note Detail 2 on Sheet A2.9.

X A2.9
Standard not met. Two points of support are not proposed.

The Project’s one-point connection is justified as a minor deviation that doesn’t affect the overall integrity, strength, or security of the racks and therefore doesn’t make a significant difference to usability.

APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITY Applicants are responsible for accurately responding to each objective design standard listed below by indicating whether each standard has been met or does not apply. Applicants shall indicate the sheet(s) within the project plans that show compliance with each objective design standard.

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CHECKLIST
SHEETS
Objective Design Standard
b. Must withstand a load of 200 pounds per square foot.c. Opened door must withstand 500-pound vertical load.

Bicycle rooms with key access minimum requirements:a. Bicycle rooms shall have a minimum ceiling height of seven feet.b. Bicycle rooms shall contain racks that support the bicycle frame at two pointsand allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a U-lock.

STAFF RESPONSE
A.1. Pedestrian Access
A. SITE STANDARDS APPLICANT RESPONSE/JUSTIFICATION
Each short-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of seven feet in length and two feet in width.If more than 20-short term bicycle spaces are provided, at least 50 percent of the spaces shall be covered by a permanent solid-roofed weather protection structure.

Long-term bicycle parking facilities (Class I bicycle parking facility) consists of bicycle lockers or bicycle rooms with key access for use by residents.

A.2. Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Class II)A.3. Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Class I) Long-term bicycles parking facilities shall be located on the ground floor and shall not be located between the building and the street.Multi-family residential and residential mixed-use buildings shall provide one long-term bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. Developments such as townhomes that include individual garages for each unit shall not be required to provide long-term bicycle parking.Bicycle locker minimum requirements:a. Dimensions of 42 inches wide, 75 inches deep, and 54 inches high.All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and vehicular and bicycle parking areas shall be internally connected with a minimum four-foot-wide pedestrian pathway or pathway network that may include use of the public sidewalk. The pedestrian pathway network shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street.Pedestrian pathways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip, of at least six inches in height and at least six feet in width. A pedestrian pathway is exempt from this standard where it crosses a parking vehicular drive aisle.

Short-term bicycle parking (Class II bicycle parking facility) consists of racks that support the bicycle frame at two points and allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a U-lock.

Short-term bicycle parking space shall be located within 50 feet of the primary pedestrian building entrance.Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of one space per dwelling unit and one space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area.

y,//dϭϱ

ITEM NO. 1.

X A2.9
Standard not met. The bike room on the ground floor would have an aisle width of 5'-9". The basement bike room would comply.

This minor 3” deviation on the first floor (below-grade bike rooms are size-compliant) is justified because it does not impact the maneuverability, accessibility, or safety of the long-term bicycle parking spaces, ensuring that residents can still easily store and retrieve their bicycles. The slightly smaller size was necessary due to constraints in the Project.

X A2.9
Standard not met. Maneuverability space not provided on the ground floor.

This minor deviation is justified because it maximizes bike parking in a constrained space while allowing more residential space to be provided. Even with this minor deviation on the first floor (below-grade bike rooms are size-compliant), the available maneuverability space is sufficient for residents to store and retrieve their bicycles without significant inconvenience.

X A2.9
Standard not met. Length and width not met. Each vertical long-term bicycle parking space has 39" in length, 16" in width and 108" in height. This minor deviation is justified because the design enables the accommodation of a variety of bicycle types in a compact and secure manner, ensuring that residents have access to convenient and safe bicycle parking. The slightly smaller size was necessary due to space constraints in the Project.

X A.4.1 no sheet provided
Does not apply. No off-street parking proposed.

X A.5.1 no sheet provided Does not apply. No surface parking lots or carports proposed.X A.5.2 no sheet provided Does not apply. No uncovered parking rows proposed.

X A.6.1 A1.0 and A2.0
Standard met. A 20-foot setback is proposed.

X A.6.2 no sheet provided
Does not apply. Parking structure is below-grade.

X A.6.3 A2.0
Standard not met. No pedestrian gate proposed. This deviation is justified because the Project’s parking is provided below grade and residential access to the garage is provided from the ground floor lobby and not from the garage entrance, which enhances the security of the garage area and resident/visitor safety on the access/egress ramp.

X A.7.1 A1.0
Does not apply. No outdoor community recreation space proposed.

X A.7.2 A3.0, A3.1, and A3.3
Standard not met. Exterior lighting would not be fully shielded.

This minor deviation in lighting is justified by the Project's overall design aesthetic and because the lighting proposed meets the intent of the regulation as it will not spill over into adjacent properties.

X A.7.3 C3.0, L3.0, A2.0, A3.0, A3.1, and A5.0
Standard met. Trash enclosure is located on A2.0 with details on A5.0. All trash bins are concealed from public streets. Utility equipment is located on the corner of High School Way and Church. See Sheet L3.0 for plant material used for screening these devices. The trash wall is 8' high which screens all trash bins that are not taller than 5' high.

X A.7.4 A2.4
Standard met. See General Notes on A2.4.

X A.8.1 L1.0, L3.0 and A0.6
Standard not met. This minor deviation is justified by the small size of the front setback area (only 1,183 square feet) and the Project's landscape design, which enhances the aesthetic appeal and environmental quality of the development, contributing positively to the neighborhood.

X A.8.2 A2.0, L1.0 and L3.0
Does not apply. Property does not share a property line with residential use.

Street-level views of ground level utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from sight with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall, as allowed by the Town Code. The screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and screening that is not landscape material shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building.Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement.At least 50 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped. A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the full length of the shared property line between multi-family or Residential Mixed-Use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following:a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback where walls are not permitted; andb. Trees planted at a rate of at least one tree per 30 linear feet along the shared property line. Tree species shall be selected from the Town of Los Gatos Master Street Tree List and shall be a minimum 15-gallon size.A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any street-facing façade, and it shall be recessed a minimum of five feet from the streetfacing façade of the building.For projects with five or more residential units and that have a vehicle access gate to the parking structure, a pedestrian gate shall also be provided.Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided along all pedestrian paths in community recreation spaces. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 12 feet in height. Light fixtures shall be placed along the pedestrian path at a spacing of no more than 30 linear feet.Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly on lands of adjacent residential zoned properties. Uplighting is prohibited.

A.5. Parking Location and Design
c. Long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be served by an aisle with a minimum width of six feet.d. Maneuverability space of at least two feet shall be provided between the aisle and long-term bicycle parking spacese. Each horizontal long-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of seven feet in length, two feet in width, four-and one-half feet in height. Each vertical longterm bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of three-and one-half feet in length, two feet in width, and seven feet in height.Off-street parking lots shall have vehicular circulation using an internal vehicular network that precludes the use of a public street for aisle-to-aisle internal circulation.Surface parking lots and carports shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street.Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area.Any vehicular entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 18 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing.

A.7. UtilitiesA.8. Landscaping and ScreeningA.6. Parking Structure AccessA.4. Vehicular Access

ITEM NO. 1.

X A.8.3 no sheet provided
Does not apply. No surface parking lots proposed.

X A.9.1 A2.0
Standard not met. Trash screening fence is within required setback along Church Street.

This minor deviation is justified by the Project's commitment to maintaining a clean and organized environment for residents and visitors. The screening fence is strategically placed to ensure that trash and waste management areas are concealed from public view within this large rear setback, thereby enhancing the overall aesthetic and hygienic quality of the development.

X A.9.2 no sheet provided Standard met. This project is not proposing to use chain-link fencing anywhere in the project.

X A.9.3 A5.0
Standard not met. The vehicular gate would exceed this limitation.

This minor deviation in the height of the perimeter barrier gate is justified to enhance the safety and security of the development, ensuring that unauthorized access is reasonably prevented.

X A.9.4 A3.0 and A5.0
Standard met. Vehicular gate to parking garage complies with 50% open view as shown on Sheet A3.0 and A5.0.

X A.10.1
L1.0, L3.0 and L6.0
Standard met. There are no retaining walls above grade. The project proposes 18"-24" raised landscape planter walls at the entry on East Main Street and Church Street. See Sheets L1.0, L3.0 and L6.0 for planter wall details.

X A.10.2
L1.0, L3.0 and L6.0
Standard met. There are no retaining walls above grade. The project proposes 18"-24" raised landscape planter walls at the entry on East Main Street and Church Street. See Sheets L1.0, L3.0 and L6.0 for planter wall details.

A.11.1
X A0.6
Standard not met. Approximately 13% proposed. Despite the minor deviation in landscaped space provided, the Project has maximized ground floor space on the site for residential use and the remaining space is significantly landscaped. By replacing an underutilized restaurant and parking lot, the Project significantly improves the site, offering a more attractive, functional, and activated urban space. Reducing the landscaped space to 13% is also necessary to achieve the targeted residential density.

X A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, and A2.3
Standard met. Each unit has a minimum of 66SF of private open space on floors 1-3 and a maximum of 803SF per unit on the fourth floor of the project. See Sheets A2.0-A2.3 for calculations and dimensions of each private open space attached to each unit within the project. These open space areas have a minimum vertical clearance of 8'. See Sheet A3.0 general note.

X A2.0
Standard not met. Private space for ground floor units ranges from 66sf to 102 sf.

The Project has maximized ground-floor residential space while still providing some usable private recreation spaces. The design ensures that the private recreation spaces, although smaller than required, are sufficient to create a pleasant and functional living environment for residents and justifies the minor deviation in the size of private recreation spaces.

X A2.1, A2.2, and A2.3
Standard met. Floors 2-4 meet the minimum 60 square feet of private recreation space. See Sheets A2.1-A2.3.

X A0.6
Standard not met. No outside community recreation
space proposed.

The Project has maximized its space for residential uses. The absence of a designated community recreation space is justified by the Project's amenity spaces on the third and fourth floors and its strategic downtown location, which offers residents easy access to nearby public parks, schools, and recreational facilities. c. Community recreation space: The minimum dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. A minimum of 60 percent of the community recreation space shall be open to the sky and free of permanent solid-roofed weather protection structures. Community recreation space shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of the community recreation space by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature.Retaining walls shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without including the following:a. A break, offset, or landscape pocket in the wall plane of at least three feet in length and two feet in depth; andb. Landscaping at a minimum height of three feet at the time of installation along a minimum of 60 percent of the total length of the retaining wall.The landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces listed below are required for all qualifying projects. Community recreation spaces and private recreation spaces are calculated independent of each other. Landscaped areas within community recreation spaces can contribute to required minimums for both landscaped area and community recreation space.a. Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped.b. Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimension is six feet in any direction and a minimum area of 60 square feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. Landscaped sections of private recreation space shall not count towards required landscaping requirements.i. Each ground floor dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 120 square feet of usable private recreation space.ii. Each dwelling unit above the ground floor shall have a minimum of 60 square feet of usable private recreation space. Where multiple balconies are provided for a single unit, the 60-square-foot minimum can be an aggregate of all balconies, provide each balcony meets the requirements for minimum horizontal dimensions.Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot when not already screened by a primary building. When located in a street-facing setback, screening may not exceed a height of three feet.Fences, walls, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages are prohibited unless used to screen on-site parking spaces from view from the street.

A.9. FencingA.10. Retaining WallsA.11. Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces Chain link fencing is prohibited.Perimeter barrier gates for vehicles and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet.Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view.Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used. Terraced walls shall set back at least three feet from the lower segment.

ITEM NO. 1.

X A0.6
Standard not met. 3,048 sf required, while 1,010sf of indoor, amenity space is proposed.

Despite this deviation, the Project maximizes its space for residential uses while also providing private amenity spaces for residents, which justifies the lack of an on-site community recreation space. The Project utilizes space for residential uses and its strategic location offers residents convenient access to existing public recreational facilities, thereby justifying the lack of an on-site community recreation space.

X A0.6 Does not apply. The project is a mixed-use development (see standard above). X no sheet provided Does not apply. More than four residential units proposed. Therefore, the community recreation requirement is applicable.

X A0.6
Does not apply. No outdoor, landscaped community recreation spacec proposed.

X A.12.1 A1.0 and A2.0
Standard met.

X A.12.2 A0.6
Standard not met. See subsections "a-d" below. The required 15% is not proposed.

By replacing an underutilized restaurant and parking lot, the Project significantly improves the site, offering a more attractive and functional urban space. The Project design, despite the minor deviation in site amenities, still ensures that the provided site amenities are sufficient to create a pleasant and inviting environment, supporting the Town's goals of promoting sustainable and visually appealing urban development while addressing housing needs.

L1.0, L3.0 and L6.0 Standard not met. L1.0, L3.0 and L6.0 Standard not met. L1.0, L3.0 and L3.0 Standard not met.

L1.0 Standard not met.

YES NO N/A
X B.1.1 A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. Two solutions are proposed, but not three. See below.

Despite the minor deviation, the Project design ensures that the building façade still achieves a high standard of aesthetic quality and urban integration, supporting the Town's goals of promoting sustainable and visually appealing urban development.

X
A2.3, A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. The second and third floors do not step back a minimum of 5 feet. The fourth floor does step back a minimum of 5 feet to reduce building mass.

X
A2.0, A2.1, A2.2,
A2.3, A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. There are changes in the façade plane of at least two feet, not to exceed 30 feet in length on levels 2 and 3. See Sheet A2.1 and A2.2 for dimensions of these projections. The fourth floor would have a change of plane with the trellis feature on all four units shown on the plans.

X
A2.0, A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. Both the East Main Street and Church Street elevations have recessed entries that exceed 24 square foot minimum. See floor plan Sheet A2.0 for square footage calculations.

X A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. No arcade is proposed.X A2.0 and A3.0 Standard not met. Despite the minor deviation, the Project still achieves a high standard of aesthetic quality and urban integration, supporting the Town's goals of promoting sustainable and visually appealing urban development. The maximized residential space on this smaller parcel made consistency with this standard infeasible.

X
A2.0, A2.1, A2.2,
A2.3, A3.0 and A3.1
Standard met. Vertical elements that project minimum of 1 foot are located along all street frontages on floors 1-3. See floor plan sheets for dimensions.

X B.1.2
A2.2, A2.3, A3.0, and
A3.1
Standard not met. The third floor is not stepped back 5 feet. The fourth floor is stepped back a minimum of 5 feet. See Sheet A2.3. This minor deviation is justified by the Project's overall design, which aims to balance the need for efficient space utilization with the provision of a visually appealing building form and therefore meets the intent of the standard.

Objective Design Standard

SHEETS STAFF RESPONSE APPLICANT RESPONSE/JUSTIFICATION
i. Community recreation space shall be provided in Residential Mixed-Use developments at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the non-residential square footage.ii. Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit.iii. A project with four or less residential units is exempt from community recreation space requirements.iv. Landscaped roof space can satisfy both required landscaping requirements and community recreation space requirements. Landscaped roof space may not be used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the required landscaping for the site.To ensure buildings provide a continuous frontage along sidewalks, development in commercial zones shall place at least 75 percent of any ground floor street-facing façade on or within five feet of the setback line designated in the Town Code.Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the ground-floor façade.

B.1. Massing and Scale
B. BUILDING DESIGN
a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet; b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet;c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. Where an awning or entry covering is provided, it can extend beyond the wall plane;d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet. For a façade 50 feet or greater, the e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; orf. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater.A Residential Mixed-Use project with a ground-floor non-residential use shall provide site amenities on a minimum of 15 percent of the ground plane between the building and the front or street-side property line. The site amenities shall be comprised of any of the following elements:a. Landscape materials or raised planters; b. Walls designed to accommodate pedestrian seating, no higher than 36 inches; c. Site furnishings, including fountains, sculptures, and other public art; or d. Tables and chairs associated with the ground floor use.

Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the combined façade area of all primary buildings facing the street:

A.12. Building Placement

ITEM NO. 1.

X B.2.1 no sheet provided Does not apply. The parking is below-grade.

X B.2.2 no sheet provided
Does not apply. The parking is below-grade.

X B.2.3 no sheet provided
Does not apply. The parking is below-grade.

X no sheet provided Does not apply. The parking is below-grade. X no sheet provided Does not apply. The parking is below-grade.

X B.3.1 A3.0 and A3.1
Standard met. See below.

X A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. Only one of items "a" through "e" are required. There is only one(1) gable proposed on the East Main Street and Church Street elevations.

X A2.1, A2.2 and A2.3
Standard met. Therefore, B.3.1 is complied with as only one of items "a" through "e" are required.

Building balcony projections occur on levels 2 and 3. See floor plans for projection dimensions.

X A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. Only one of items "a" through "e" are required. There is no change in roof height.X A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. Only one of items "a" through "e" are required. There is no change in roof pitch.X A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. Only one of items "a" through "e" are required. There are no dormers or varying cornices proposed.

X B.3.2 no sheet provided Does not apply. No skylights are proposed. X B.3.3 no sheet provided Does not apply. No dormers are proposed.

X B.3.4 no sheet provided Does not apply. No carports are proposed.

X B.4.1 A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. This minor deviation is justified by the Project's overall design, which employs alternative architectural strategies to create a visually distinct and cohesive building form. The design meets the intent of the standard and incorporates elements such as varied materials, colors, and window patterns to achieve a similar effect, enhancing the architectural character and visual interest of the building.

X A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. The façade has not been recessed a minimum of two feet in all locations.

X A2.0 Standard not met. Ground floor entry balconies do not project two feet.X A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. The awnings proposed do not meet 20 percent length on all street facing facades.

X A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. At least four materials (stucco, brick, precast concrete and glass) make up the exterior facades. They do not provide a minimum of 20 percent on all street frontages.

X A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met.

X B.4.2 A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. Building materials used on street facing façade are used on all other elevations as well. See Sheets A3.0 and A3.1.

X B.4.3 A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. 11 points achieved when 16 required.

The Project’s design ensures that the building façade still achieves a high standard of aesthetic quality and urban integration, supporting the Town's goals of promoting sustainable and visually appealing urban development. Therefore, while the full 16 points is not achieved, the design is consistent with the intent of the standard.

X o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points A2.0 Standard not met. There is no gallery or arcade proposed on the ground floor.X o Awnings or canopies on all ground floor windows of commercial space; 6 points A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. Not all commercial ground floor windows have awnings.

X o Building cornice; 5 points A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. A continuous precast cast concrete cornice is proposed. See Sheets A3.0 and A3.1.

X
o Façade sconce lighting at a minimum of one light
fixture per 15 linear feet. 3 points A2.0, A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. Façade sconce lighting is not located at every 15 linear feet. c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the streetfacing façade;d. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, ore. The upper floor shall implement a façade height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the façade height of the floor immediately below. The greater façade height shall be made evident by taller windows or arrangement of combined windows.All façade materials, such as siding, window types, and architectural details, used on the street-facing façade shall be used on all other building façades.Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points: Architectural features, such as:

Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed.The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the total roof length at the street-facing façade. The dormer width shall be measured at dormer roof fascia, or widest part of the dormer.Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building.Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions:
a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the streetfacing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet;b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; B.4. Façade Design and Articulation
At intervals of no more than 40 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies:
a. Gables;b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet; c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of two feet; d. Change in roof pitch or form; or
e. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices.

The ground-floor façade of a parking structure facing a street or pedestrian walkway shall be fenestrated on a minimum of 40 percent of the façade.Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened at a minimum 10 percent and up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure.Parking structures facing a street and greater than 40 feet in length shall include landscaping between the building façade and the street, or façade articulation of at least 25 percent of the façade length. The façade articulation shall be implemented by one of the following solutions:
a. An offset of the façade plane with a depth of at least 18 inches for a minimum of eight feet in horizontal length; orb. A different building material covering the entire façade articulation.

B.2. Parking Structure DesignB.3. Roof Design

ITEM NO. 1.

X
ƒ Bay or box windows projecting a minimum of 18 inches from the façade plane and comprising a minimum of 20 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 6 points A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. There are no bay windows proposed.

X
ƒ Balconies or Juliet balconies provided on a minimum of 40 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 5 points A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. Balconies do not occur on 40 percent of the building façade.

X
ƒ Landscaped trellises or lattices extending across a minimum of 65 percent of any level of the facade; 5 points A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. The proposed trellis feature on the fourth floor does not make up 65 percent of the wall façade.

X ƒ Materials and color changes; 3 points A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. Material and color changes occur. See Sheets A3.0 and A3.1.

X
ƒ Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; 3 points A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. The eaves at the upper floor project two feet, but the main entry feature on East Main and Church Street do not project a minimum of two feet.

X
ƒ Window boxes or plant shelves under a minimum of 60 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; or 3 points A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. There are no window boxes proposed.

X ƒ Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels 3 points A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. Decorative elements (moldings) are proposed on all elevations. See Sheets A3.0 and A3.1.

X TOTAL 16 points 11 points
Standard not met. 11 points achieved when 16 required.

The Project’s design ensures that the building façade still achieves a high standard of aesthetic quality and urban integration, supporting the Town's goals of promoting sustainable and visually appealing urban development. Therefore, while the full 16 points is not achieved, the design is consistent with the intent of the standard.

X B.4.4 A2.0
Does not apply. No garage doors are proposed.

X B.4.5 A2.0
Standard not met. The building materials do not change at inside corners. The Project design employs a consistent material palette to create a cohesive and visually appealing building form. The design incorporates other architectural elements, such as varied textures and colors, to achieve a similar effect, enhancing the visual interest and character of the building.

X B.4.6 A3.0 and A3.1
Standard not met. Part "a" is met, but not part "b". See below.

Providing another primary building entrance along Church Street would reduce the amount of first floor residential space and create a dysfunctional ground-floor building layout considering the small size of the parcel.

X A2.0, A3.0, and A3.1 Standard met. See below. Subsection "i" is complied with.X A2.0, A3.0, and A3.1 Standard met. All residential entries on the ground floor are recessed a minimum of 6'-9" and a maximum of 8'- 10". See Sheet A2.0 for dimensions.

X A2.0, A3.0, and A3.1
Standard not met. The covered entries to residential units are 6'9" or 8'-10" deep. These entries do not project a minimum of three feet. The entrance to the commercial space is a covered area approximately 13' deep with the second and third floors above.

X A2.0, A3.0, A3.1, and A4.2
Standard not met. Per the figure on A4.2, only one of the street facing facades would hit 60 percent, while the other two would be 41 and 44 percent.

See drawings A4.2 which show the dimensions to calculate the required percentages.

X B.4.7 A2.0, A3.0, and A3.3
Standard met. See "a" through "c" below.

X A2.0 and A3.0 Standard met. Entries to residential units on the ground floor are 11'6" wide.X A2.0 and A3.0 Standard met. Main entry to the building is 14' wide. See Sheet A2.0.X A2.0 Standard met. Storefront entry to commercial building is 6' wide doors which provide the only entrance to the commercial space. See Note #16 on Sheet A2.0.

X B.4.8 A3.3 Standard met. No mirrored glass is proposed.

B.4.9
X A3.0 and A3.1
Standard met. Awnings at the commercial space are a minimum vertical clearance of 8' from the pedestrian path. See Note #6 on Sheet A3.0.

X A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. See Sheets A3.0 and A3.1.X A3.3 Standard met. Awnings are a solid color black or yellow. See Sheet A3.3.

X B.4.10 no sheet provided
Does not apply. Building does not abut an existing single-family zone or use.

X B.4.11 A2.1 and A2.2
Standard not met. Balconies project beyond the footprint. The projecting balconies are thoughtfully designed to minimally project beyond the building footprint to offer residents usable private outdoor areas.

Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements:a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway;b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and c. Shall not be patterned or striped.

For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district or existing single-family use, no part of a rooftop or upper floor terrace or deck shall be closer than five feet from the facade plane of the lower floor, to prevent views into adjacent residential uses.

Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing nonresidential uses on abutting parcels. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint.b. For ground-floor commercial uses, façades facing a street shall include windows, doors, or openings for at least 60 percent of the building façade that is between two and 10 feet above the level of the sidewalk.Pedestrian entries to buildings shall meet minimum dimensions to ensure adequate access based on use and development intensity. Building entries inclusive of the doorway and the facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width b. Single entry to multiple residential unit building, including Residential Mixed-Use buildings: eight feet in widthc. Storefront entry: six feet in width Mirrored windows are prohibited.Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the façade plane and along the street-facing façade shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the building façade.Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners.A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or community recreation space. Additionally, all development shall meet the following requirements:a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor non-residential uses shall meet at least one of the following standards:i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plane at least three feet in depth; or ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet.

ITEM NO. 1.

X B.4.12 A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. See below.

X A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.0 and A3.1 Standard not met. Only one of items "a" through "c" are required. Façade plane is not offset a minimum of five feet.

X A2.1, A2.2, A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. All pilasters are 2' wide and their dimension is shown on Sheets A2.1 and A2.2.

X A2.0 and A3.0
Standard not met. Only one of items "a" through "c"
are required.

An outdoor seating plaza at the corner of Main Street and High School Way is shown on Sheets A2.0 and L1.0. The seating area is approximately 200SF. The projected setback along Church Street includes landscaping, walkways and raised planters. It does not include open space or a seating area because the street is not a major pedestrian corridor. The open space is located on the corner of High School Court and East Main Street which is a major pedestrian connection.

This standard is met.

X B.4.13 A3.0 and A3.1 Standard met. There are no blank facades on any of the proposed elevations.

Residential Mixed-Use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along street-facing façades where the façade exceeds 50 feet in length:a. A minimum five-foot offset from the façade plane for a length of at least 10 feet; b. Multiple pilasters or columns, each with a minimum width of two feet; or c. Common open space, such as a plaza, outdoor dining area, or other spaces.

Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street.

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

y,//dϭϲ

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Cheryl Huddleston < >
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2024 2:27 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Projects at 143 and 151 E. Main and 101 S. Santa Cruz [EXTERNAL SENDER]
/ŚĂǀĞůŽŽŬĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŶĚĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĚƉůĂŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƉŽƐƟŶŐƐŽŵƵĐŚ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͘
ϭϰϯĂŶĚϭϱϭ
͘DĂŝŶ͗/ǁŝƐŚƚŚŝƐĐŽƵůĚďĞŬĞƉƚƚŽƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐϯƐƚŽƌLJůŝŵŝƚĂŶĚƉƵƫŶŐĂůůŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝŶ ϮůĞǀĞůƐďĞůŽǁŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘dŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂŶĂƩĞŵƉƚƚŽďůĞŶĚƚŚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞǁŝƚŚĞdžŝƐƟŶŐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ in the area. He is to be commended with tŚĞďƌŝĐŬ͕ĂŶĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬŽĨƚŚĞϰƚŚŇŽŽƌ͘ Thank you, Cheryl Huddleston

y,//dϭϳ Page 180 Page 425
ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: feedback on 143 and 151 E Main Street proposal Date: Saturday, March 1, 2025 9:33:14 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
i'm writing to ask that the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission reject this proposal along with the other proposals in flight (eg, post office plans) that threaten the character of our small, charming downtown area. the proposed building at 143 and 151 East Main Street in particular is a monstrosity that looks completely incongruous with its surroundings, when considering its proposed girth, height and architecture. consider a design more in-line with the Beckwith Block (Southern Kitchen) or Soda Works Plaza (Purple Onion) to be infinitely more palatable!
as written this proposal is not a good fit for our community and as a constituent i would ask that you reject it.
regards,
david knol
los gatos

ITEM NO. 1.
dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 3, 2025
Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 143 & 151 E. MAIN STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2025, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2025021056
Dear Ryan Safty,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project (Project). The Project proposes to demolish the existing on-site uses and then construct a four-story mixed-use building with underground parking. The ground level of the proposed building will include 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial with a total of 30 residential units located in the building. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommends that if the property use changes to residential or if the property is redeveloped and no longer utilizes a raised foundation, then soil vapor testing on the site should be conducted.

DTSC recommends the Town of Los Gatos enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination at brownfields and other types of properties or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
March 3, 2025

that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact your Regional Brownfield Coordinator.

2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
March 3, 2025

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Kenneth Rodrigues
Architect and Applicant
Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc
[email protected]
Shoshana Lutz
Senior Planner (EMC)
EMC Planning Group
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Cathleen Bannon < >
Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 9:10 AM
Subject: 143 & 151 E. Main St
To: <[email protected]>
Hello- I am writing in concern to the proposed project on E Main Street next to the high school.

First the visual rendering is misleading to the public as it shows an open space across from it which inaccurately looks like there is open space around the building. In fact the large building would crowd the narrow two lane street.

Second, the large mix used building next the high school would create madness in an already super congested area trying to Ʋow over 2,000 studentsϯfamilies through the area twice a day. This building would unnecessarily cause chaos. Again, too big in the most congested area of town.

Third, if it were to be built the two years of construction would be madness. Clearly the construction vehicles would need to take up all the parking in the area, closed streets, etc would make getting to the school or downtown impossible.

Please, please…yes the building does look like the town, but the size & placement is too much Cathleen Bannon
Parent of two students at LGHS

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project - Public Comment Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:37:13 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Ryan,
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed mixed-use development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street. This project is exactly the kind of thoughtful, well-designed growth that Los Gatos needs.

The proposal strikes an ideal balance—adding much-needed downtown housing while maintaining retail space and preserving the town’s architectural character. Its inclusion of underground parking is a smart solution that mitigates congestion concerns. This is precisely the kind of responsible development that enhances our community without compromising its charm.

I urge the Planning Commission to stand firm against the obstructionist, anti-growth sentiment that too often stifles progress in Los Gatos. Our town must evolve to remain vibrant, welcoming, and accessible. Approving this project is a step in the right direction.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Michelle Badger
17136 Wild Way

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Building Development Project Feedback
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:41:10 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Ryan,
Don't build this. It's a disgrace to the town of Los Gatos and a waste of money.

Preserve our town. Preserve our history. Preserve our culture.

Best regards.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:54:08 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To Ryan Safty
I am writing to you to give my comments as to why I am strongly against the development proposed at 143 and 151 E Main Street.

I grew up in Los Gatos, went to Van Meter, Fisher and LG High. I lived in San Francisco for 15 years so I understand the difference between a city and a town. I have three children in the local schools. One at Van Meter, one at Fisher and one at the HS. I have been on the board at Van Meter for over 8 years and volunteer weekly at LG High. I live on Euclid Avenue off of College right in the heart of this town that I love .

I understand the need for more housing, I understand that the town has to adhere to laws regarding housing that come from the state. I understand that for many of these developments our hands are tied. I try to be sane and open minded when it comes to development because I know that in many instances we do not have a choice. But I also know that during the summer weekends many days we cannot leave our house due to the traffic downtown. We literally drive down college and turn around and go home because there are bumper to bumper cars. I worry that if there is ever a fire or an emergency my neighbors and my family will not be able to get out because there are not enough exit routes or an emergency vehicle will not be able to get in. I love my neighborhood but I am starting to worry about living here.

The corridor where this building is proposed to go in is an absolute traffic nightmare. I know this because I have to drive it at least 4 times a day to drop off and pick up kids from school and after school activities. Why on earth would it be a good idea to put 30 residential units in an area where there is a small two lane road that for many times during the day is literally bumper to bumper. I cannot even fathom how construction would go. I guess I would need to leave my house at 730 to go 1 mile down the road to get my kid to elementary school. This proposal is not about housing numbers, this is about greed and shoving too many units in small spaces to turn the biggest profit.

I hope the Town of Los Gatos does everything in their power to stop this one or at least get them to change the scope to be realistic.

Thank you for your time
Jamie Fumia

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 E Main
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 11:42:45 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
This proposal is so poorly thought out. The traffic in town is already unbearable during school start and end times, not to mention weekend beach traffic.

Why has our town sold out to the highest bidder? There has to be a compromise that works for all of us that live in the town. 30 units???
The schools in the area are already over crowded has that been factored in? I’ve lived in Los Gatos for 53 years and am so sad to see what’s happening to our town. I am firmly against this development.

Gail Manganello
Sent from my iPhone

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Opposition to the 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:20:48 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Ryan,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development that seeks to demolish the existing on-site uses and construct a four-story mixed-use building with underground parking near Los Gatos Highschool. While I understand the need for growth, this project raises several concerns that will have a lasting negative impact on our community.

First and foremost, traffic congestion in the area is already a significant issue, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. The high school generates substantial pedestrian and vehicle activity, and adding 30 residential units along with commercial space will only exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, when there are disruptions on Highway 17, local streets become highly congested, making it difficult for residents to navigate their own neighborhoods. Beach traffic during warmer months further compounds the situation, and this new development will only aggravate these existing problems.

Additionally, pedestrian safety is a major concern. With a large number of students walking to and from school - before, during lunch and after, as well as seniors and families frequenting the nearby senior center, library, and churches, the increased traffic could put pedestrians at greater risk. I have personally witnessed near-accidents involving pedestrians in this area due to inattentive drivers, and adding more vehicles to an already problematic location could lead to dangerous consequences.

Beyond traffic and safety issues, the proposed building does not align with the town’s charm and character. A four-story structure in this location will be an eyesore and detract from the unique aesthetic of Los Gatos. Our town is known for its historic and small-town appeal, and this type of high-density development is inconsistent with that identity.

While I recognize the importance of providing housing options, this project does not adequately balance the needs of the community with responsible urban planning. I urge you to reconsider the approval of this development or, at the very least, require significant modifications to ensure it does not negatively impact traffic, pedestrian safety, and the character of our town.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will take the concerns of local residents seriously.

Jenny

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Fwd: Town of Los Gatos seeking public input on the proposed development at 143 & 151 East Main Street Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 1:20:22 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Goodmorning,
I am in favor of building upwards for more real estate for the Los Gatos community, however, I really enjoy having a coffee shop on that corner of the street and would love to not see it go away.

The other major concern I have is the flow of traffic. Our drop off flow during 8:07-8:34 am is so stagnant and difficult to navigate through, as well as 2:19-2:55 every day. It would be so challenging to propose several new small businesses in that specific location because there is truly not enough parking for our own students and staff on campus. For parents attending meetings, school events, it is a challenge to find parking spots. I would recommend that this plan only be supplemented by a parking lot/structure in place of another standing building now.

Please plan for parking, is the moral of my concern!
Sarah Pereira
School Counselor for (Q-S)
Los Gatos High School
---
Feb '25 Guidance Newsletter
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dave Poetzinger via Aeries Communications
Date: Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 10:26 AM
Subject: Town of Los Gatos seeking public input on the proposed development at 143 & 151 East Main Street
Los Gatos High School

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 & 151 East Main Street
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 2:46:42 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
> Hello-
> I am writing in concern to the proposed project on E Main Street next to the high school. >
> First the visual rendering is misleading to the public as it shows an open space across from it which inaccurately looks like there is open space around the building. In fact the large building would crowd the narrow two lane street.
>
> Second, the large mix used building next the high school would create madness in an already super congested area trying to flow over 2,000 students/families through the area twice a day. This building would unnecessarily cause chaos. Again, too big in the most congested area of town. >
> Third, if it were to be built the two years of construction would be madness. Clearly the construction vehicles would need to take up all the parking in the area, closed streets, etc would make getting to the school or downtown impossible.
>
> Please, please…yes the building does look like the town, but the size & placement is too much >
> Carrie Dean
> 128 Teresita Way

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Fwd: 143 & 151 E. Main Street comment
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 6:37:52 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
The new proposed structure for 143 & 151 E. Main Street looks gorgeous! I read the transportation assessment that seemed quite thorough and would appreciate if the town would push for a 3rd subterranean level of parking that would not only allow the town's requirements to be met for resident, commercial, visitor, and bike parking, but also to provide spaces for high schoolers that drive to school as the street parking constantly is filled with their cars getting ticketed after 90 minutes.

Thanks,
...Andrew Coven, LG Resident

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Re: Public comment: Mixed - use development 143 and 151 E. Main Street Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 12:20:44 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good afternoon,
I am writing about the proposed mixed-use development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street. I understand that the town is required to meet certain high-density requirements, as the state dictates.

My concern with the current proposal at this property is related to the traffic and parking issues that it will create. The area around the high school is currently heavy with traffic during the morning and afternoon school hours. The four-way stop at the intersection (Pleasant St. at Main St.) backs up past the library, and up the hill in the other direction. Will a traffic light be installed there? The intersection next to the development at High School Court at Main St. is already challenging to exit due to visibility of cars parked along Main Street.

I read the parking proposals and it looks like neither one meets the minimum town standards. How will this be fixed before re-developing the site? Somehow the gym one block down the street (The Club LG) was able to not meet reasonable parking requirements, as members fill up most of the street parking spots during the day because their parking lot is so small.

Thank you,
Elke Billingsley
Los Gatos resident

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 and 151 E. Main Street comments
Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 12:48:10 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi, the headmaster of Los Gatos High asked parents to share any concerns regards the proposed development of the address above to this email address.

Whilst I think that its a good idea, as know that Los Gatos is under an affordable housing mandate and its a pretty ugly existing building and would be an improvement, I am worried about kids safety and parking during the building stage.

Most of us parents have to drop off our kids along Church in the morning, as the traffic is impossible out front of the school and also pick up at 2.30 or 4 on the same street so unless the work is done outside of those hours its going to cause havoc safely dropping off our kids with material supply / construction trucks, workers vehicles also using the road.

I am pretty sure that the entire area will also be cordoned off securely, as some of these kids are space monkeys outside of classes and never look where they are going, often glued to their phones with heads down so I think the safety is going to be a huge concern unless you can get a huge chunk of the build done during the summer holidays.

Hopefully the parking underneath the garage will be enough for the residents to not also have to use the parking along church street as its already difficult to pick up/drop off with cafe users, church goers and the pre-school but I guess that is a while away and my son will hopefully have graduated by then lol.

Rgs Chris

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 & 151 Construction Project
Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 2:54:27 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Ryan,
I received notification re: the 143 & 151 construction project. This project is going to significantly impact the drop-off and pick-up of Los Gatos High School students.

Traffic during morning and pick-up is already congested and will be made far worse. What is being proposed to alleviate the impact that this project will have during these times? Additionally, the noise level will be very disruptive during school hours. What is going to be done about that?
Thank you,
Isabel Guerra

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Matthew Hudes; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; [email protected] Cc: Ryan Safty
Subject: Proposed 141 and 153 East Main St. project
Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 9:14:02 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear council members,
The height of this project will obscure hillside views. The size and mass is way out of proportion with other buildings located in downtown Los Gatos. This project is much too large for our town.

Is there any chance it could kindly be scaled back to a single story structure instead? Best regards,
Mike Kennedy
26 Bayview Ave.

Sent from my iPhone

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Cc:

Subject: Comment for 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 2:58:58 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello,
I am a parent with a sophomore at LGHS and an incoming freshman next year. The current traffic around the school at all times (not just drop-off and pickup) does NOT allow for a multi-story mixed use project. We cannot seriously be considering that for that area. A new project that correlates with the high school area would be great but not a multi-story that will congest traffic even more. Please do not approve this project. It will impact the high school students, teachers, parents, and community in a negative way.

Thank you,
Jennifer Lambert

ITEM NO. 1.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 3:36 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15665 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Majid
Last Name Alasvandian
Email Address (Required)
Phone Number
Tell Us About Your Inquiry
(Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About (Required)
143 and 151 E Main
Message (Required) I have lived in 103 Cleland Ave since Feb., 1999. I and many of residents in Los Gatos Main area consider this project way out of proportion for the lot size and the location. My concerns are:
1) This building is too big. The height is twice the size of every thing around. It ruins the small town character of Los Gatos.
2) 30 units plus commercial spaces and parking lots in
14000 sq feet is too dense and it does impact traƯic
around. Many parents drop their kids right around this
location and it is already too crowded.
3) Approval of this project will set a precedence for the owners of other commercial buildings nearby to convert
their small lots into 4 or higher story buildings. What is is that going to stop them once this project gets approved? 4) Fire hazards- All homes behind the library are considered

ITEM NO. 1.
to be in fire hazard zone and as you all know all homes behind Library have two evacuation routes in case of Fire (Jackson and College) and both streets merged into the
Main street. Main is already narrow for the existing traƯic, adding high density homes near downtown will endanger
the lives of existing residents in case of any wild fires in the hills.

People want to come to Los Gatos for the small town
character feel of the town and the downtown setting with the hills visible to pedestrians. Let's not ruin the beauty of this town by setting precedence in issuing permits to
people who are in this just to make money and go to the next project.

Add An Attachment if
applicable
Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 and 151 E. Main
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 11:10:32 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I volunteer at the Friends of Los Gatos book store, so I can attest to the amount of traffic on East Main Street during the
week, on weekends, and especially during school dismissal times. Adding beach traffic during the summer months to normal traffic and now a 30 unit family complex will make the traffic situation gridlock. Parking during the week and on weekends is almost impossible.

How can library patrons, LG Rec patrons, school employees and students find parking with the additional cars that will come
with a multi-story apartment building?
Please consider the impact of neighboring public and businesses that require access to parking and a flow of traffic that makes our downtown accessible. I travel from Shannon Road to the library and I experience bumper to bumper traffic
on the weekends now and very few parking spaces in the Main Street area.

Thank you for your consideration
Karen Chase
107 Ann Arbor Dr
Los Gatos

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Saft
Subject: 143 E Main Street Proposal
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 2:42:34 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
This project makes no sense - replacing one story small businesses with a 4 story building right next to the high school is a horrible plan. That area of town already is already only accessible two ways and becomes backed up with traffic due to the high school. Adding more traffic and ridiculous, barely usable underground parking, is a joke. Visually, the project doesn't fit in with the surrounding area.

I strongly urge the Town Council to reject this proposal.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

March 10, 2025
Lauren Roseman
17429 Pleasant View Ave
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed development of 143 and 151 East Main Street. While I welcome some development of the above-mentioned property, I am concerned about the negative impact a project of this size will have. Given the location next to the high school, the already limited parking available in the area and traffic and safety issues that currently exist, adding an additional 30 residential units and ground-floor business space will further exacerbate traffic, parking and safety issues for students, faculty, families and the greater community.

Please consider modifying the plans to limit the negative impact this will have on the town of Los Gatos.

Kind regards,
Lauren Roseman

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Cc: Joel Paulson
Subject: Public Comment: 143 and 151 E. Main Street
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 6:50:23 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Ryan,
Thank you for your thorough review of the project on behalf of the Town. The developer has created an architecturally attractive design with commendable style and detail. While I have concerns about the building's overall size and height, I understand the Town's limited ability to deny or redirect the project due to State laws.

Ideally, I would prefer to see the building reduced to 3 stories total and set back further from the street, though I recognize these requests may be overridden by the State Builder's Remedy Law.

Regarding parking options, I strongly support Option 1 as it maximizes available parking. I'm concerned that Option 2, with its reduced number of spaces, would create significant parking challenges for both residents and the surrounding area.

I'd also like to inquire about the planned ownership structure of the building. Will it be under single ownership with all residential units and commercial spaces being leased, or will the residential units be sold as condominiums? I have concerns about the condominium model, as I anticipate potential shared parking conflicts in the future. If the project moves forward, shared parking stipulations should be clearly incorporated into the leases for both residential and commercial spaces.

Jim Lyon
Johnson Avenue

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Fwd: New building next to the high school
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 11:00:28 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Thank You!
Hello, this link was forwarded to me and I am very interested to understand what the town is going to do about all these projects as far as infrastructure improvement.

These major projects without infrastructure improvement really are detrimental to the town, and I don’t understand why these issues are not being addressed as predominant negotiations as part of the plants. These developers are making a lot of money they can afford to do some additional infrastructure upgrades as a part of the total projects.

Who is in charge of this mess? I would really like to know, and I don’t mean to imply that people aren’t trying, but they’re really seems to be a lack of leadership and response from the town in these areas.

Another issue is that Los Gatos Saratoga Road at downtown Los Gatos connecting between Saratoga and Los Gatos Blvd. is a huge bottleneck and some of these building projects going in are not required to do anything for the infrastructure: no additional outlets; no lane expansion; no road improvements.

I would welcome your share on all of this and what you’re understanding is.

I also have a concern is with parking and added vehicles to this already-congested area next to the high school. If you read Appendix H in the plans proposed, you'll see that neither option for the underground parking meets the town's requirements. I'm curious if this will just be approved without meeting the minimum requirements
https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2356
Caron Rakich

ITEM NO. 1.

Community Development Contact Form
First Name Carol
Last Name Anglin
Email Address (Required)
Phone Number
Tell Us About Your Inquiry
(Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About (Required)
143-151 E. Main Street
Message (Required) I live at 95 Church Street and the traƯic congestion is often unbearable. If an emergency happened, it would be
impossible for us to be safe. The project is too close to the congested high school area and the number of units is
outrageous given its limited space and our townДs
resources. The rendering is totally incorrect as it looks if there is green space in front of the complex. I encourage you to «iTE Ni on this development. I feel we have little say in our community.

Add An Attachment if
applicable
Field not completed.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.
143 and 151 EAST MAIN STREET - PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS/EMAILS Date Received Resident/Citizen Concern(s) Response CEQA Finding/Applicant Response 2/27/2025 Andrea Traffic
Height
Sent an email on 2/27 directing her to review the MND,
which will be available on 3/3/25 which addresses her
concerns about traffic and height.
3/3/2025 Cathleen Bannon Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

Construction Management of
Noise, Dirt, etc.

Construction management of traffic noise, air quality,
construction impacts are addressed on pages 21-29 and
59-62
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies. "Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated". See Page 59 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/6/2025 Jamie Fumia Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

Construction Management Construction management of traffic noise, air quality, construction impacts are addressed on pages 21-29 and
59-62
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies. "Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated". See Page 59 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/6/2025 Michelle Badger Letter of Support
3/10/2025 Elke Billingsley Traffic/Parking Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

March 20, 2025

y,//dϭϴ

ITEM NO. 1.
3/10/2025 Isabel Guerra Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

Construction Management of
Noise, Dirt, etc.

Construction management of traffic noise, air quality,
construction impacts are addressed on pages 21-29 and
59-62
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies. "Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated". See Page 59 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/10/2025 Chris Construction Impacts Construction management of traffic noise, air quality, construction impacts are addressed on pages 21-29 and
59-62
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies. "Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated". See Page 59 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/10/2025 Mike Kennedy Height/Vistas and Views/Land
Use/Planning
Height and view of the hills is addressed in the MND
report. See pages 17-18 and page 57.
"The proposed project would add a small obstruction to the existing westbound traveler's views on Church Street, however, the majority of the existing view directly west of Church Street would remain unobstructed. The project would completely obstruct, albeit small, views for a very limited number of eastbound travels on Church Street.

Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant." See page 17, item 9, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
"The project site is located within an urbanized area and is zoned C-2 Central Business District. This zoning district allows a maximum height of 45 feet; however, the proposed building would be 52 feet high, allowed when using SB330, Builder's Remedy. Due to the project's affordable housing component, this Builder's Remedy project qualifies for unlimited exception to the Town Code and General Plan." "Although the proposed structure is seven feet higher than the maximum permitted height in the C-2 Zoning District, the project is eligible for this increase based on Builder's Remedy law. The project's location in downtown, in addition to being a Builder's Remedy project, result in less-than-significant visual impacts." See page 18, item C, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025. 3/10/2025 Gloria & Eric R Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/10/2025 Jennifer Lambert Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

ITEM NO. 1.
3/11/2025 Majid Alasvandian Height Height and view of the hills is addressed in the MND report. See pages 17-18 and page 57.
"The proposed project would add a small obstruction to the existing westbound traveler's views on Church Street, however, the majority of the existing view directly west of Church Street would remain unobstructed. The project would completely obstruct, albeit small, views for a very limited number of eastbound travels on Church Street.

Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant." See page 17, item 9, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
"The project site is located within an urbanized area and is zoned C-2 Central Business District. This zoning district allows a maximum height of 45 feet; however, the proposed building would be 52 feet high, allowed when using SB330, Builder's Remedy. Due to the project's affordable housing component, this Builder's Remedy project qualifies for unlimited exception to the Town Code and General Plan." "Although the proposed structure is seven feet higher than the maximum permitted height in the C-2 Zoning District, the project is eligible for this increase based on Builder's Remedy law. The project's location in downtown, in addition to being a Builder's Remedy project, result in less-than-significant visual impacts." See page 18, item C, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/11/2025 Michael Kennedy Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/11/2025 Karen Chase Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

ITEM NO. 1.
3/11/2025 Lauren Roseman Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/11/2025 David Knol Height/Aesthetics Height and view of the hills is addressed in the MND report. See pages 17-18 and page 57.
"The proposed project would add a small obstruction to the existing westbound traveler's views on Church Street, however, the majority of the existing view directly west of Church Street would remain unobstructed. The project would completely obstruct, albeit small, views for a very limited number of eastbound travels on Church Street.

Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant." See page 17, item 9, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
"The project site is located within an urbanized area and is zoned C-2 Central Business District. This zoning district allows a maximum height of 45 feet; however, the proposed building would be 52 feet high, allowed when using SB330, Builder's Remedy. Due to the project's affordable housing component, this Builder's Remedy project qualifies for unlimited exception to the Town Code and General Plan." "Although the proposed structure is seven feet higher than the maximum permitted height in the C-2 Zoning District, the project is eligible for this increase based on Builder's Remedy law. The project's location in downtown, in addition to being a Builder's Remedy project, result in less-than-significant visual impacts." See page 18, item C, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025. 3/14/2025 Jim Lyon Height Height and view of the hills is addressed in the MND report. See pages 17-18 and page 57.
"The proposed project would add a small obstruction to the existing westbound traveler's views on Church Street, however, the majority of the existing view directly west of Church Street would remain unobstructed. The project would completely obstruct, albeit small, views for a very limited number of eastbound travels on Church Street.

Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant." See page 17, item 9, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
"The project site is located within an urbanized area and is zoned C-2 Central Business District. This zoning district allows a maximum height of 45 feet; however, the proposed building would be 52 feet high, allowed when using SB330, Builder's Remedy. Due to the project's affordable housing component, this Builder's Remedy project qualifies for unlimited exception to the Town Code and General Plan." "Although the proposed structure is seven feet higher than the maximum permitted height in the C-2 Zoning District, the project is eligible for this increase based on Builder's Remedy law. The project's location in downtown, in addition to being a Builder's Remedy project, result in less-than-significant visual impacts." See page 18, item C, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

Underground Parking The "applicant is proposing two (2) parking options; onetwo level below grade. By proposing two options the future project can build either option based on market
conditions and construction costs.

Ownership vs Rental or Both At this time the applicant is asking for approval of either units for-sale or rental. Page 213 Page 458
ITEM NO. 1.
3/18/2025 Carol Anglin Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
3/18/2025 Kristi Grasty Height/Aesthetics Height and view of the hills is addressed in the MND report. See pages 17-18 and page 57.
"The proposed project would add a small obstruction to the existing westbound traveler's views on Church Street, however, the majority of the existing view directly west of Church Street would remain unobstructed. The project would completely obstruct, albeit small, views for a very limited number of eastbound travels on Church Street.

Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant." See page 17, item 9, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.
"The project site is located within an urbanized area and is zoned C-2 Central Business District. This zoning district allows a maximum height of 45 feet; however, the proposed building would be 52 feet high, allowed when using SB330, Builder's Remedy. Due to the project's affordable housing component, this Builder's Remedy project qualifies for unlimited exception to the Town Code and General Plan." "Although the proposed structure is seven feet higher than the maximum permitted height in the C-2 Zoning District, the project is eligible for this increase based on Builder's Remedy law. The project's location in downtown, in addition to being a Builder's Remedy project, result in less-than-significant visual impacts." See page 18, item C, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

Traffic Traffic is addressed in the MND report. See pages 21- 29, 45-49 and 59-62
"The existing office/retail building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips and the proposed project is estimated to generate 136 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 net daily trips with a reduction of trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2024, Table 1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways system and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required. The project would not conflict with a program, plan ordinance, or policy addressing the Town's roadway system." See page 68 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report dated February 14, 2025.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
143 & 151 E. Main Street
Mixed-Use Project
March 21, 2025
Prepared by
EMC Planning Group

y,//dϭϵ

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

Table of Contents
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................................................... 1

1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures .................................................................. 1

1.4 Monitoring and Reporting Checklist ...................................................................................... 2

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

1.1 Introduction
CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.

The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions of project approval are implemented.

1.2 Monitoring and Reporting Program
The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the project mitigated negative declaration. These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures become conditions of project approval, which the project proponent is required to complete during and after implementation of the proposed project.

The attached checklist is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures.

This monitoring checklist contains all appropriate mitigation measures in the mitigated negative declaration.

1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures
The Town of Los Gatos shall use the attached monitoring checklist for the proposed project. The monitoring program should be implemented as follows:

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025

1. The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department should be responsible for coordination of the monitoring program, including the monitoring checklist. The Community Development Department should be responsible for completing the monitoring checklist and distributing the checklist to the responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation measures.

2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for determining whether the mitigation measures contained in the monitoring checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a copy of the monitoring checklist to the Community Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring checklist should not be returned to the Community Development Department.

3. The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department will review the checklist to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures and additional conditions of project approval included in the monitoring checklist have been complied with at the appropriate time, e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Compliance with mitigation measures is required for project approvals.

4. If a responsible individual or agency determines that a non-compliance has occurred, a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within 10 days, with a copy to the Community Development Department, describing the non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. If non-compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the Town of Los Gatos.

1.4 Monitoring and Reporting Checklist
Step 1 - Prior to Issuance of Ground-Disturbing Activities Including Demolition or Tree Removal Permits
AQ-1 The applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, including tree removal. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following measures to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions during construction:
a. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles will have 2010 or newer model year engines, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s Truck and Bus Regulation; b. Idling of construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks will be avoided where feasible, and if idling is necessary, it will not exceed three minutes;

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
c. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and
d. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity, or biodiesel.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ BIO-1 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. a. One survey for active bird nests shall occur within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and no further mitigation is required.
b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ BIO-2 Per Town Code Section 26.20.010 and Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of protected trees on private or Town property. The project developer shall abide by any tree replacement ratios and/or in-lieu payments, tree protection measures, and best management practices required by the tree removal permit and/or within the arborist report dated October 24, 2024 (Appendix D).

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ CUL-1 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, grading, and construction, “In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, contractor shall temporarily halt or divert excavations within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated. All potentially significant archaeological deposits shall be evaluated to demonstrate whether the resource is eligible

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources, even if discovered during construction. If archaeological deposits are encountered, they will be evaluated and mitigated simultaneously in the timeliest manner practicable, allowing for recovery of materials and data by standard archaeological procedures. For indigenous archaeological sites, this data recovery involves the hand-excavated recovery and non-destructive analysis of a small sample of the deposit. Historic resources shall also be sampled through hand excavation, though architectural features may require careful mechanical exposure and hand excavation.

Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance by a qualified Archaeologist. Significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.” Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ CUL-2 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, demolition, grading, and construction, “In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. All grading or earthmoving activities shall immediately stop within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find. The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b).

Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the project proponent shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code [PRC] § 5097). The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD will determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and associated grave artifacts, and shall oversee the disposition of the remains. In the event the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being granted access to the site, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity within the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify the MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being allowed access to the site; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.”
Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ GEO-2 The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit:
“If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction activities in the area shall be suspended. The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to examine the site and identify protective measures to be implemented to protect the paleontological resource. The measures shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.” Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
______________________________________________________________ N-1 The project developer shall ensure that no individual piece of construction equipment produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. ƒ The project developer shall also ensure that best management practices are incorporated during construction activities. The following shall be placed on all ground-disturbing project plans:
ƒ All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.
ƒ Noise-producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.
ƒ All noise-producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise-sensitive land uses. ƒ Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise-sensitive land uses.
ƒ Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Step 2 - Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
GEO-1 The applicant shall prepare a soils report addressing, but not limited to: foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, and impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. The soils report shall be submitted to the Town Building Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. All

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
recommendations outlined in the soils report shall be incorporated into the project design.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Division Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ HAZ-1 The project developer shall conduct soil vapor testing on the project site prior to issuance of a grading permit. The results of the soil vapor testing shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and only with approval by the Town Engineer can any grading and earth-moving construction activities take place.

If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels that exceed safety thresholds for residential uses, the Town Engineer shall determine if Environmental Solutions should provide recommendations for construction of the project. If soil vapor testing comes back with concentration levels below safety thresholds, no further action is necessary.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Engineer Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Step 3 - Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
AQ-2 The project applicant shall ensure that MERV 13 air filtration systems, or an equivalent system, are included in the design and operations of the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and specifications demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. These plans shall identify the locations and

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
specifications of the air filtration systems and confirm they meet the performance standards for particulate and airborne pollutant removal.

The air filtration systems must be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Verification of proper installation and functionality shall be conducted by a licensed professional and documented in a final compliance report, which must be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for approval. The property owner or operator shall also establish a maintenance plan for the air filtration system to ensure ongoing performance in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Division Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ GHG-1 The project developer shall incorporate the following GHG emissions reduction performance standard into the final project design:
ƒ No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted as part of the project plans; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric.

Final plans for the development shall be reviewed by the Town Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure this performance standard is incorporated into the project design. Verification of development consistent with this performance standard shall be assured prior to approval of occupancy permits.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
Step 4 - Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
AQ-2 The project applicant shall ensure that MERV 13 air filtration systems, or an equivalent system, are included in the design and operations of the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and specifications demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. These plans shall identify the locations and specifications of the air filtration systems and confirm they meet the performance standards for particulate and airborne pollutant removal.

The air filtration systems must be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Verification of proper installation and functionality shall be conducted by a licensed professional and documented in a final compliance report, which must be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for approval. The property owner or operator shall also establish a maintenance plan for the air filtration system to ensure ongoing performance in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ GHG-1 The project developer shall incorporate the following GHG emissions reduction performance standard into the final project design:
ƒ No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted as part of the project plans; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric.

Final plans for the development shall be reviewed by the Town Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure this performance standard is incorporated into the project design. Verification of development consistent with this performance standard shall be assured prior to approval of occupancy permits.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department

ITEM NO. 1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ N-2 The project developer shall install mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all residential units so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and approval by the Town Building Department, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Building Department Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ TRANS-1 Project improvements plans shall include the following, subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit:
a. Stripe a loading space along the project frontage on E. Main Street; b. Apply 10 feet of No Parking (Red Zone) on both sides of the project driveway on Church Street; and
c. Provide adequate landing space at the top and bottom of the garage ramps.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Developer
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Town of Los Gatos Engineer Monitoring Notes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

March 21, 2025
Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments
Dear Ryan,
EMC Planning Group has reviewed the public comments that were received during the 21-day public review period (February 28, 2025 to March 20, 2025) for the above-referenced mitigated negative declaration (MND). The lead agency (Town of Los Gatos, hereinafter “Town”) is not required to respond to public comments on the proposed MND, but the Town’s decision-making body is required to consider all comments prior to considering adoption of the MND and approval of the project. We are only providing responses to environmental issues, as well as comments on the environmental review (CEQA) process.

The following public comments were received, and are incorporated into this document.

Each letter is presented, followed by the response.

1. Rob Stump, dated February 28, 2025;

2. Department of Toxic Substances Control, dated March 3, 2025;

3. Majid Alasvandian, dated March 10, 2025;

4. Jenny, dated March 6, 2025;

5. Jim Lyon, dated March 11, 2025;

6. Michael Kennedy, dated March 10, 2025;

y,//dϮϬ

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 2

7. Andrew Coven, dated March 6, 2025;

8. Carrie Dean, dated March 6, 2025;

9. Cathleen Bannon, dated March 3, 3035;

10. Jamie Fumia, dated March 6, 2025;

11. Mike Kennedy, dated March 7, 2025;

12. Caron Rakich, dated March 12, 2025;

13. David Knol, dated March 1, 2025;

14. Rgs Chris, dated March 7, 2025;

15. Gail Manganello, dated March 6, 2025;

16. Isabel Guerra, dated March 7, 2025;

17. Elke Billingsley, dated March 7, 2025;

18. Gloria and Eric R., dated March 7, 2025;

19. Jennifer Lambert, dated March 9, 2025;

20. Karen Chase, dated March 10, 2025;

21. Lauren Roseman, dated March 10, 2025;

22. Sarah Pereira, dated March 6, 2025;

23. Unknown, dated March 10, 2025;

24. Unknown, dated March 6, 2025;

25. Michelle Badger, dated March 6, 2025;

26. Carol Anglin, dated March 18, 2025;

27. Kristi Grasti, dated March 18, 2025; and

28. Miles Imwalle, dated March 19, 2025.

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out at [email protected].

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 3
Sincerely,
Shoshana Lutz
Senior Planner

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Rob Stump <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 11:28 AM
To: Ryan Safty <[email protected]>
Cc: Joel Paulson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project
ŜņřŕņœŏłōġŔņŏŅņœŞ
Ryan,
Wow...totally disappointed on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and probably others upcoming. Here are my concerns.
ŽŵŵĞŶƚ>ĞƚƚĞƌηϭ
BBBB

ITEM NO. 1.

IJį Wildfire: I guess the NOI can bypass LRAs (Local Responsibility Areas). Guess what is right across the street from the project? The LRA VHFHSZ (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone). Yes, red is bad (attached two maps for your reference). Wow, if the Mitigated Negative Declaration is able to workaround the LRA and refer only to the SRA...BAD. This is akin to just saying, "Nothing to see here!" I realize the SRA may be the only requirement for the NOI, but once again WOW! Why can't the LRA be recognized in the Wildfire section of the NOI. I am getting a really bad feeling that NOI's are just a check the box exercise. I hope I am wrong!
ijį Transportation: not a single word about Emergency Evacuation. At what point is one more vehicle, one vehicle too many? If we have a wildfire above the Town Hall, there may be hundreds to thousands of cars evacuating through Main Street. What's a few more cars, right? Wrong. Ignoring emergency evacuation as part of the Transportation study is just wrong.

Ryan...please understand that my concerns/criticism are not being directed toward you. It's the process. My main concern...in the push for development, cirtical items can/will be overlooked. No one wants to believe our decisions could result in harm to the public. But plain and simple (and in my opinion), development does has consequences. Just trying to keep an eye on public safety.

I plan to address this in the near future.

Thank you,
Rob Stump
408-568-8541

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB


BBBBBBBBB


BBBBBBBBB


ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 6
Response to Letter 1 Rob Stump (February 28, 2025)

1. The commenter raises concerns related to wildfire local responsibility areas and states that a local responsibility area very high fire hazard severity zone is present across the project site, on the other side of E. Main Street. The commenter requests that local responsibility areas be recognized in the Wildfire Section of the initial study.

The checklist questions provided in the CEQA Guidelines are sample questions to assist lead agencies in addressing a variety of different environmental topics. The Town has the ability to edit, remove, or add to the checklist questions as they see appropriate in order to evaluate and address environmental issues that are more specific to Los Gatos or of value to its residents.

The commenter’s attached map shows very high fire hazard severity zones across the street from the project site. This map is Figure 9-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, located within the Town’s Safety Element of the 2040 General Plan and is included at the end of this response as Figure 1. However, this map has wildfire information from 2009. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection updated Santa Clara County’s local responsibility maps February 24, 2025. The state’s updated local responsibility area map for Los Gatos is shown on Figure 2.

Although the project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (the site is located 0.33 miles east of the nearest very high fire hazard severity zone, as shown on Figure 2), the following analysis has been prepared to address wildfire hazards in response to the commenter’s concerns. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

Wildfire checklist question “a:” Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As discussed in Section 9.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, checklist question “f” of the initial study, the current hazard mitigation plan (Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan) does not identify evacuation routes within Los Gatos; however, it can be assumed that the primary evacuation routes are the highways (e.g., State Route 17, State Route 9, etc.). The project does not involve any work within the adjacent roadways (i.e., Church Street, High School Court, or East Main Street).

Additionally, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, of the initial study, the proposed project would result in an addition of only 17 daily vehicle trips above the vehicle trips associated with the existing commercial uses.

Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 7
response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor would it substantially change existing emergency evacuation processes.

Wildfire checklist question “b:” Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire? The project site is relatively flat and located within downtown Los Gatos surrounded by urban development and therefore, would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Although the project would introduce occupants and visitors to the site that could increase the likelihood of ignitions from (e.g., careless disposal of lit cigarettes, etc.), the site already serves visitors as a café and a furniture store. The project has undergone development review with the Santa Clara County Fire Department, which has specified that the development comply with the following: California Fire and Building Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Gatos Town Code; California Code of Regulations; and Health and Safety Code. Compliance with the conditions and regulations required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department would ensure less than significant impacts associated with the project’s potential to exacerbate fire risks and thereby expose project occupants and visitors to fire pollutants or the uncontrolled spread of a fire.

Wildfire checklist question “c:” Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The proposed project does not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or power line.) However, as identified in Section 19.0, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project involves the installation of new stormwater drainage facilities. This type of utility infrastructure installation would not exacerbate fire risk at the site, but the construction of the stormwater drainage facilities could result in significant, adverse physical environmental impacts. Section 19.0, Utilities and Service Systems, checklist question “a,” explains that the potentially significant construction impacts associated with the implementation of the project’s stormwater drainage facilities are identified in the air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise sections of the initial study. All such impacts are either less than significant or mitigated to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the project would not require the

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 8
installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Wildfire checklist question “d:” Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The project site is relatively flat and located in downtown Los Gatos. As discussed in Section 7.0, Geology and Soils, the project site is not located within a landslide hazard zone. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire instability, or drainage changes.

2. The commenter recommends a discussion about emergency evacuation.

As mentioned previously, Section 9.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the initial study evaluated whether the project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Refer to the discussion above under comment #1 associated with wildfire checklist question “a.”
No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

3. This comment does not raise environmental issues and, therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

Project
Location
Source: Town of Los Gatos 2022 (CalFire 2009)
Figure 1
143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Response to Comments 2040 General Plan Fire Hazard Severity Zones

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 10
This side intentionally left blank.

ITEM NO. 1.

Project Site
Moderate FHSZ
High FHSZ
Very High FHSZ
143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Response to Comments CALFIRE’s Local Responsibility Area
Figure 2
Source: CalFire FHSZ Map 2025 0 525 feet

0.33 Miles

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 12
This side intentionally left blank.

ITEM NO. 1.
dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 3, 2025
Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 143 & 151 E. MAIN STREET MIXED-USE PROJECT DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2025, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2025021056
Dear Ryan Safty,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project (Project). The Project proposes to demolish the existing on-site uses and then construct a four-story mixed-use building with underground parking. The ground level of the proposed building will include 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial with a total of 30 residential units located in the building. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommends that if the property use changes to residential or if the property is redeveloped and no longer utilizes a raised foundation, then soil vapor testing on the site should be conducted.

DTSC recommends the Town of Los Gatos enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination at brownfields and other types of properties or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note &RPPHQW/HWWHU

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
March 3, 2025

that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact your Regional Brownfield Coordinator.

2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
March 3, 2025

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Kenneth Rodrigues
Architect and Applicant
Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc
[email protected]
Shoshana Lutz
Senior Planner (EMC)
EMC Planning Group
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 16
Response to Letter 2 Department of Toxic Substances Control (March 3, 2025)

1. The commenter repeats information provided within the phase I environmental site assessment prepared for the proposed project (Environmental Solutions 2020, p. 31), that there is a recommendation in the assessment that if the property use changes to residential or if the property is redeveloped and no longer utilizes a raised foundation, then soil vapor testing on the site should be conducted. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the project developer to conduct a soil vapor test and if concentration levels exceed safety thresholds, appropriate mitigation would be applied, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The commenter then recommends that the Town enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination at brownfields and other types of properties or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, Department of Toxic Substances and Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board. This recommendation is at the Town’s discretion.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in the Department of Toxic Substances and Control Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. The commenter also advises referencing the Department of Toxic Substances and Control Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. Additional guidance is provided to minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material. These recommendations and guidance from the Department of Toxic Substances and Control can be required by the Town as a condition of approval.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 3:36 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15665 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Majid
Last Name Alasvandian
Email Address (Required)
Phone Number
Tell Us About Your Inquiry
(Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About (Required)
143 and 151 E Main
Message (Required) I have lived in 103 Cleland Ave since Feb., 1999. I and many of residents in Los Gatos Main area consider this project way out of proportion for the lot size and the location. My concerns are:
1) This building is too big. The height is twice the size of every thing around. It ruins the small town character of Los Gatos.
2) 30 units plus commercial spaces and parking lots in
14000 sq feet is too dense and it does impact traƯic
around. Many parents drop their kids right around this
location and it is already too crowded.
3) Approval of this project will set a precedence for the owners of other commercial buildings nearby to convert
their small lots into 4 or higher story buildings. What is is that going to stop them once this project gets approved? 4) Fire hazards- All homes behind the library are considered $PNNFOU
-FUUFS

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@ @@@





ITEM NO. 1.
to be in fire hazard zone and as you all know all homes behind Library have two evacuation routes in case of Fire (Jackson and College) and both streets merged into the
Main street. Main is already narrow for the existing traƯic, adding high density homes near downtown will endanger
the lives of existing residents in case of any wild fires in the hills.

People want to come to Los Gatos for the small town
character feel of the town and the downtown setting with the hills visible to pedestrians. Let's not ruin the beauty of this town by setting precedence in issuing permits to
people who are in this just to make money and go to the next project.

Add An Attachment if
applicable
Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@
@

DPOUhE


ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 19
Response to Letter 3 Majid Alasvandian (March 10, 2025)

1. The commenter expresses concern related to the proposed building’s size and height.

The visual impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 1.0, Aesthetics, of the initial study. The conclusion in the initial study is that although the proposed project is larger than other buildings in the vicinity, the adverse visual impact would not be significant.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states that the proposed uses within the site are too dense and would impact the traffic around the site.

As discussed in Section 17.0, Transportation, checklist question “a” of the initial study, the proposed project would result in an increase of 17 daily trips compared to the existing office building. However, the proposed project would result in a reduction of trips during the AM peak hour (when students are being dropped off at school), as well as the PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the surrounding roadways systems and an off-site traffic operations analysis was not required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

3. The commenter states that approval of this project would set a precedence for the owners of nearby commercial buildings to convert their small lots into taller buildings.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

4. The commenter expresses concern for the fire hazards around the Town Library in relation to evacuation routes. The commenter states that the project’s high density could endanger the lives of existing residents evacuating on Main Street in case of a fire.

Refer to the response under the first comment for comment letter #1. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

5. The commenter states that people want to come to Los Gatos for the small-town character feel and the downtown setting with the hills visible to pedestrians.

Section 1.0, Aesthetics, provides a discussion about the project’s impact associated with scenic vistas, such as the hillsides and distant mountain ranges. There are limited views of forested hillsides for east- and westbound travelers on Church Street; current views are limited due to views being partially obstructed by existing trees. The proposed

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 20
project would add a small obstruction to the existing westbound traveler’s views on Church Street; however, the majority of the existing view directly west of Church Street would remain unobstructed. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Opposition to the 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:20:48 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Ryan,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development that seeks to demolish the existing on-site uses and construct a four-story mixed-use building with underground parking near Los Gatos Highschool. While I understand the need for growth, this project raises several concerns that will have a lasting negative impact on our community.

First and foremost, traffic congestion in the area is already a significant issue, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. The high school generates substantial pedestrian and vehicle activity, and adding 30 residential units along with commercial space will only exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, when there are disruptions on Highway 17, local streets become highly congested, making it difficult for residents to navigate their own neighborhoods. Beach traffic during warmer months further compounds the situation, and this new development will only aggravate these existing problems.

Additionally, pedestrian safety is a major concern. With a large number of students walking to and from school - before, during lunch and after, as well as seniors and families frequenting the nearby senior center, library, and churches, the increased traffic could put pedestrians at greater risk. I have personally witnessed near-accidents involving pedestrians in this area due to inattentive drivers, and adding more vehicles to an already problematic location could lead to dangerous consequences.

Beyond traffic and safety issues, the proposed building does not align with the town’s charm and character. A four-story structure in this location will be an eyesore and detract from the unique aesthetic of Los Gatos. Our town is known for its historic and small-town appeal, and this type of high-density development is inconsistent with that identity.

While I recognize the importance of providing housing options, this project does not adequately balance the needs of the community with responsible urban planning. I urge you to reconsider the approval of this development or, at the very least, require significant modifications to ensure it does not negatively impact traffic, pedestrian safety, and the character of our town.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will take the concerns of local residents seriously.

Jenny
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB 





ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 22
Response to Letter 4 Jenny (March 6, 2025)

1. The commenter expresses their opposition to the proposed project. No environmental issues are raised; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states that the traffic congestion in the area is a current, significant issue especially during school drop-off and pick-up times. The commenter adds that the problem is exacerbated when there are disruptions on Highway 17 and during warmer months when there is beach traffic.

See Letter 3, response to comment #2. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

3. The commenter expresses concern associated with pedestrian safety indicating that the increased traffic could put pedestrians at a greater risk.

The proposed project would result in an increase of only 17 vehicle trips per day. See also Letter 3, response to comment #2.

Pedestrian facilities and the project’s potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian facilities is discussed in the initial study under Section 17.0, Transportation, checklist question “a.” As concluded in the initial study, there are no policies regarding pedestrian facilities that are applicable to the project and, therefore, no conflict with a policy would occur as a result of the project.

The transportation study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix H of the initial study) discusses pedestrian access and circulation within and surrounding the project site, indicating that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Town of Los Gatos - 2020 lists several proposed pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity including a high visibility crosswalk at the intersections of Church Street and E. Main Street, Villa Avenue and E. Main Street, and High School Court and E. Main Street.

The Town could consider requiring additional pedestrian safety elements as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Town of Los Gatos - 2020 as a condition of approval.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

4. The commenter states that the proposed building does not align with the Town’s charm and character citing the building’s height and stating that it would detract from the unique aesthetic of Los Gatos.

See responses to Letter 3, comment #1 and #5. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 23

5. The commenter states that the project does not adequately balance the needs of the community with responsible urban planning and urges the Town to reconsider the approval of this development or to require significant modifications to ensure that it does not negatively impact traffic, pedestrian safety, and the character of the Town.

See response under comment #3 above for a discussion about pedestrian safety. See response to Letter 3, responses to comment #2 and #5 for comment for a discussion about traffic and consistency with the Town’s character. See response to Letter 3, response to comment #3 for a discussion about pedestrian safety.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Cc: Joel Paulson
Subject: Public Comment: 143 and 151 E. Main Street
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 6:50:23 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Ryan,
Thank you for your thorough review of the project on behalf of the Town. The developer has created an architecturally attractive design with commendable style and detail. While I have concerns about the building's overall size and height, I understand the Town's limited ability to deny or redirect the project due to State laws.

Ideally, I would prefer to see the building reduced to 3 stories total and set back further from the street, though I recognize these requests may be overridden by the State Builder's Remedy Law.

Regarding parking options, I strongly support Option 1 as it maximizes available parking. I'm concerned that Option 2, with its reduced number of spaces, would create significant parking challenges for both residents and the surrounding area.

I'd also like to inquire about the planned ownership structure of the building. Will it be under single ownership with all residential units and commercial spaces being leased, or will the residential units be sold as condominiums? I have concerns about the condominium model, as I anticipate potential shared parking conflicts in the future. If the project moves forward, shared parking stipulations should be clearly incorporated into the leases for both residential and commercial spaces.

Jim Lyon
Johnson Avenue
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBB BBBBBB

BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB





ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 25
Response to Letter 5 Jim Lyon (March 11, 2025)

1. The commenter thanks the Town for the thorough review of the project and expresses their understanding that although there are concerns about the building’s overall size and height, the Town has limited ability to deny or redirect the project due to state laws.

See response to Letter 3, comment #1 regarding the proposed building’s size and height. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states that they would prefer the building be reduced to three stories total and set back further from the street, but understands that may be overridden by the Builder’s Remedy law.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

3. The commenter states that they strongly support Parking Option 1 as it maximizes available parking and is concerned that Parking Option 2, with its reduced number of spaces, would create significant parking challenges for both residents and the surrounding area.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

4. The commenter inquires about the planned ownership structure of the building. The commenter would like to know whether it will be under single ownership with all residential units and commercial spaces being leased or if the residential units will be sold as condominiums. The commenter expresses concerns about the condominium component of the project and its relation to shared parking. The commenter also recommends shared parking stipulations be incorporated into the leases for both residential and commercial spaces.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.
$PNNFOU
-FUUFS

@@@@@@


ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 27
Response to Letter 6 Michael Kennedy (March 10, 2025)

1. The commenter expresses concern about the increase in traffic as a result of the project and how it will impact pedestrian and bicycle safety.

See response to Letter 4, comment #3 regarding pedestrian safety. Regarding bicycle safety, the transportation study prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix G) states that there are existing class II bicycle lanes present along E. Main Street.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Fwd: 143 & 151 E. Main Street comment
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 6:37:52 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
The new proposed structure for 143 & 151 E. Main Street looks gorgeous! I read the transportation assessment that seemed quite thorough and would appreciate if the town would push for a 3rd subterranean level of parking that would not only allow the town's requirements to be met for resident, commercial, visitor, and bike parking, but also to provide spaces for high schoolers that drive to school as the street parking constantly is filled with their cars getting ticketed after 90 minutes.

Thanks,
...Andrew Coven, LG Resident
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBB


ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 29
Response to Letter 7 Andrew Coven (March 6, 2025)

1. The commenter requests that the Town push for a third subterranean level of parking that would not only allow the Town’s requirements to be met for residents, commercial, visitor, and bicycle parking, but also to provide spaces for high schoolers that drive to school.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 & 151 East Main Street
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 2:46:42 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
> Hello-
> I am writing in concern to the proposed project on E Main Street next to the high school. >
> First the visual rendering is misleading to the public as it shows an open space across from it which inaccurately looks like there is open space around the building. In fact the large building would crowd the narrow two lane street.
>
> Second, the large mix used building next the high school would create madness in an already super congested area trying to flow over 2,000 students/families through the area twice a day. This building would unnecessarily cause chaos. Again, too big in the most congested area of town. >
> Third, if it were to be built the two years of construction would be madness. Clearly the construction vehicles would need to take up all the parking in the area, closed streets, etc would make getting to the school or downtown impossible.
>
> Please, please…yes the building does look like the town, but the size & placement is too much >
> Carrie Dean
> 128 Teresita Way
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBB

BBBBBBB


BBB


ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 31
Response to Letter 8 Carrie Dean (March 6, 2025)

1. The commenter states that the visual rendering of the proposed project is misleading as it shows an open space across from it, which make it appear as though there is open space around the building. The commenter states that the proposed building would instead crowd the narrow two-lane street.

The visual impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 1.0, Aesthetics, of the initial study. The conclusion in the initial study is that although the proposed project is larger than other buildings in the vicinity, the adverse visual impact would not be significant. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states that the proposed mixed-use building next to the high school would create madness in an already congested area. The commenter adds that the proposed building would unnecessarily cause chaos. The commenter is concerned with the size of the project.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

3. The commenter expresses concerns related to construction of the project and its impact on the nearby roadways, parking in the area, and the closing of streets.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

4. The commenter states that the size and placement of the proposed project is too much.

See the response to Letter 3, comment #1 regarding the visual impacts associated with the size and height of the building.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Cathleen Bannon < >
Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 9:10 AM
Subject: 143 & 151 E. Main St
To: <[email protected]>
Hello- I am writing in concern to the proposed project on E Main Street next to the high school.

First the visual rendering is misleading to the public as it shows an open space across from it which inaccurately looks like there is open space around the building. In fact the large building would crowd the narrow two lane street.

Second, the large mix used building next the high school would create madness in an already super congested area trying to Ʋow over 2,000 students/families through the area twice a day. This building would unnecessarily cause chaos. Again, too big in the most congested area of town.

Third, if it were to be built the two years of construction would be madness. Clearly the construction vehicles would need to take up all the parking in the area, closed streets, etc would make getting to the school or downtown impossible.

Please, please…yes the building does look like the town, but the size & placement is too much Cathleen Bannon
Parent of two students at LGHS
$PNNFOU
-FUUFS

@@@@@@ @@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@




ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 33
Response to Letter 9 Cathleen Bannon (March 3, 2025)
The commenter expresses the same concerns as expressed in Letter 8. See responses above under Letter 8.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:54:08 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To Ryan Safty
I am writing to you to give my comments as to why I am strongly against the development proposed at 143 and 151 E Main Street.

I grew up in Los Gatos, went to Van Meter, Fisher and LG High. I lived in San Francisco for 15 years so I understand the difference between a city and a town. I have three children in the local schools. One at Van Meter, one at Fisher and one at the HS. I have been on the board at Van Meter for over 8 years and volunteer weekly at LG High. I live on Euclid Avenue off of College right in the heart of this town that I love .

I understand the need for more housing, I understand that the town has to adhere to laws regarding housing that come from the state. I understand that for many of these developments our hands are tied. I try to be sane and open minded when it comes to development because I know that in many instances we do not have a choice. But I also know that during the summer weekends many days we cannot leave our house due to the traffic downtown. We literally drive down college and turn around and go home because there are bumper to bumper cars. I worry that if there is ever a fire or an emergency my neighbors and my family will not be able to get out because there are not enough exit routes or an emergency vehicle will not be able to get in. I love my neighborhood but I am starting to worry about living here.

The corridor where this building is proposed to go in is an absolute traffic nightmare. I know this because I have to drive it at least 4 times a day to drop off and pick up kids from school and after school activities. Why on earth would it be a good idea to put 30 residential units in an area where there is a small two lane road that for many times during the day is literally bumper to bumper. I cannot even fathom how construction would go. I guess I would need to leave my house at 730 to go 1 mile down the road to get my kid to elementary school. This proposal is not about housing numbers, this is about greed and shoving too many units in small spaces to turn the biggest profit.

I hope the Town of Los Gatos does everything in their power to stop this one or at least get them to change the scope to be realistic.

Thank you for your time
Jamie Fumia
&RPPHQW

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 35
Response to Letter 10 Jamie Fumia (March 6, 2025)

1. The commenter states that they are strongly against the proposed development and explains their experience and feelings toward traffic issues within Los Gatos. The commenter mentions concerns about evacuation during an emergency situation.

See response to Letter 1 for a discussion about emergency evacuation. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states that the corridor where the building is proposed has existing traffic issues.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Matthew Hudes; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; [email protected] Cc: Ryan Safty
Subject: Proposed 141 and 153 East Main St. project
Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 9:14:02 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear council members,
The height of this project will obscure hillside views. The size and mass is way out of proportion with other buildings located in downtown Los Gatos. This project is much too large for our town.

Is there any chance it could kindly be scaled back to a single story structure instead? Best regards,
Mike Kennedy
26 Bayview Ave.

Sent from my iPhone
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBB


ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 37
Response to Letter 11 Mike Kennedy (March 7, 2025)

1. The commenter states concern related to the height of the proposed building and its potential to obscure hillside views. The commenter also states that the size and mass of the proposed building is out of proportion with other buildings located in downtown Los Gatos. The commenter requests that the project be scaled back to a single-story structure.

See response to Letter 3, comments #1 and #5 for a discussion about the size and height of the proposed structure as well as hillside visibility. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Fwd: New building next to the high school
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 11:00:28 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Thank You!
Hello, this link was forwarded to me and I am very interested to understand what the town is going to do about all these projects as far as infrastructure improvement.

These major projects without infrastructure improvement really are detrimental to the town, and I don’t understand why these issues are not being addressed as predominant negotiations as part of the plants. These developers are making a lot of money they can afford to do some additional infrastructure upgrades as a part of the total projects.

Who is in charge of this mess? I would really like to know, and I don’t mean to imply that people aren’t trying, but they’re really seems to be a lack of leadership and response from the town in these areas.

Another issue is that Los Gatos Saratoga Road at downtown Los Gatos connecting between Saratoga and Los Gatos Blvd. is a huge bottleneck and some of these building projects going in are not required to do anything for the infrastructure: no additional outlets; no lane expansion; no road improvements.

I would welcome your share on all of this and what you’re understanding is.

I also have a concern is with parking and added vehicles to this already-congested area next to the high school. If you read Appendix H in the plans proposed, you'll see that neither option for the underground parking meets the town's requirements. I'm curious if this will just be approved without meeting the minimum requirements
https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2356
Caron Rakich
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB


BBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB




ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 39
Response to Letter 12 Caron Rakich (March 12, 2025)

1. The commenter raises a broader concern over projects in Los Gatos stating that major projects without infrastructure improvement are detrimental to the Town.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required

2. The commenter expresses concerns regarding the proposed project.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

3. The commenter states that the connection between Saratoga Road and Los Gatos Boulevard is a bottleneck and expresses concern that the projects in Los Gatos are not required to do anything for infrastructure (no outlets, no lane expansion, no road improvements).

The Town contains development impact fees associated with traffic (Town Code Chapter 15, Article VII); its purpose is to assure that each new development or expansion of use pays for its fair share of the transportation improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative traffic impacts.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

4. The commenter states concern with parking and added vehicles to the existing congestion in the area. The commenter indicates that the parking options proposed by the project do not meet the Town’s requirements.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From: David Knol <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2025 9:33 AM
To: Ryan Safty <[email protected]>
Subject: feedback on 143 and 151 E Main Street proposal [EXTERNAL SENDER]
i'm writing to ask that the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission reject this proposal along with the other proposals in flight (eg, post office plans) that threaten the character of our small, charming downtown area. the proposed building at 143 and 151 East Main Street in particular is a monstrosity that looks completely incongruous with its surroundings, when considering its proposed girth, height and architecture. consider a design more in-line with the Beckwith Block (Southern Kitchen) or Soda Works Plaza (Purple Onion) to be infinitely more palatable!
as written this proposal is not a good fit for our community and as a constituent i would ask ŽŵŵĞŶƚ>ĞƚƚĞƌηϭϯ
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


ITEM NO. 1.
that you reject it.
regards,
david knol
41 peralta ave
los gatos
@@

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 42
Response to Letter 13 David Knol (March 1, 2025)

1. The commenter requests that the Town reject the proposed project along with the other proposal in flight (e.g., post office plans) that the commenter believes threatens the character of the downtown area.

See response to Letter 3, comment #5 regarding visual impacts. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 and 151 E. Main Street comments
Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 12:48:10 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi, the headmaster of Los Gatos High asked parents to share any concerns regards the proposed development of the address above to this email address.

Whilst I think that its a good idea, as know that Los Gatos is under an affordable housing mandate and its a pretty ugly existing building and would be an improvement, I am worried about kids safety and parking during the building stage.

Most of us parents have to drop off our kids along Church in the morning, as the traffic is impossible out front of the school and also pick up at 2.30 or 4 on the same street so unless the work is done outside of those hours its going to cause havoc safely dropping off our kids with material supply / construction trucks, workers vehicles also using the road.

I am pretty sure that the entire area will also be cordoned off securely, as some of these kids are space monkeys outside of classes and never look where they are going, often glued to their phones with heads down so I think the safety is going to be a huge concern unless you can get a huge chunk of the build done during the summer holidays.

Hopefully the parking underneath the garage will be enough for the residents to not also have to use the parking along church street as its already difficult to pick up/drop off with cafe users, church goers and the pre-school but I guess that is a while away and my son will hopefully have graduated by then lol.

Rgs Chris
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB BBBBBB





ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 44
Response to Letter 14 Rgs Chris (March 7, 2025)

1. The comment states support for the idea of affordable housing and removing the existing building. The commenter raises concern for kids’ safety and parking during the building stage.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states that parents have to drop their children off along Church Street in the morning due to traffic issues. The commenter states that unless the construction work is done outside of the morning and afternoon pick-up/drop-off for school, it would cause havoc safely dropping off the kids with material supply/construction trucks and workers also using the road.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

3. The commenter states concern for children safety during construction of the project.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

4. The commenter expresses hope that the parking proposed will be enough for the residents to not also have to use parking along Church Street.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 E Main
Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 11:42:45 AM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
This proposal is so poorly thought out. The traffic in town is already unbearable during school start and end times, not to mention weekend beach traffic.

Why has our town sold out to the highest bidder? There has to be a compromise that works for all of us that live in the town. 30 units???
The schools in the area are already over crowded has that been factored in? I’ve lived in Los Gatos for 53 years and am so sad to see what’s happening to our town. I am firmly against this development.

Gail Manganello
Sent from my iPhone
&RPPHQW/HWWHU
BBBB BBBB BBBB 



ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 46
Response to Letter 15 Gail Manganello (March 6, 2025)

1. The commenter expresses concern about traffic.

See response to Letter 3, comments #2 for a discussion about traffic impacts associated with the proposed project on the surrounding roadways.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter expresses concern for the number of units proposed for the project.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no response is necessary.

3. The commenter expresses concern related to the schools and over-crowding.

Section 15.0, Public Services, checklist question “c” of the initial study addresses the impacts to schools in Los Gatos. The initial study concludes that the payment of statutory fees pursuant to Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts to school facilities. New facilities, if and when required by the Los Gatos Union School District and Los GatosSaratoga Union High School District would be developed and analyzed independent of this project review.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: 143 & 151 Construction Project
Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 2:54:27 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Ryan,
I received notification re: the 143 & 151 construction project. This project is going to significantly impact the drop-off and pick-up of Los Gatos High School students.

Traffic during morning and pick-up is already congested and will be made far worse. What is being proposed to alleviate the impact that this project will have during these times? Additionally, the noise level will be very disruptive during school hours. What is going to be done about that?
Thank you,
Isabel Guerra
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBBB


ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 48
Response to Letter 16 Isabel Guerra (March 7, 2025)

1. The commenter expresses concern related to student drop-off/pick-up at the adjacent school. The commenter adds that traffic is already congested in this area and can be made worse with implementation of the proposed project. The commenter questions what is being proposed to alleviate the impact that the project will have during these times. The commenter also mentions noise levels being disruptive during school hours and questions what is going to be done about that.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the impacts of the project on the surrounding roadways.

Section 13.0, Noise, of the initial study contains Mitigation Measure N-1, which requires that the project developer ensure that no individual piece of construction equipment produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet and that best management practices are incorporated during construction activities to further reduce noise levels.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Re: Public comment: Mixed - use development 143 and 151 E. Main Street Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 12:20:44 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good afternoon,
I am writing about the proposed mixed-use development at 143 and 151 E. Main Street. I understand that the town is required to meet certain high-density requirements, as the state dictates.

My concern with the current proposal at this property is related to the traffic and parking issues that it will create. The area around the high school is currently heavy with traffic during the morning and afternoon school hours. The four-way stop at the intersection (Pleasant St. at Main St.) backs up past the library, and up the hill in the other direction. Will a traffic light be installed there? The intersection next to the development at High School Court at Main St. is already challenging to exit due to visibility of cars parked along Main Street.

I read the parking proposals and it looks like neither one meets the minimum town standards. How will this be fixed before re-developing the site? Somehow the gym one block down the street (The Club LG) was able to not meet reasonable parking requirements, as members fill up most of the street parking spots during the day because their parking lot is so small.

Thank you,
Elke Billingsley
Los Gatos resident
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBB



ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 50
Response to Letter 17 Elke Billingsley (March 7, 2025)

1. The commenter expresses concerns related to the traffic and parking issues that could arise as a result of the proposed project. The commenter questions whether a traffic light will be installed at the four-way stop at the intersection of Pleasant Street at Main Street due to current traffic congestion issues. The commenter adds visibility concerns when exiting the intersection next to the project site at High School Court and Main Street.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic. No traffic signals are proposed or required by the project.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states that the parking options provided by the project do not meet the Town’s minimum standards and questions what will be done about this before redevelopment of the site.

This comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.
$PNNFOU
-FUUFS

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@



ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 52
Response to Letter 18 Gloria and Eric R. (March 7, 2025)

1. The commenter states their concern about the safety and increased traffic problems implementation of the proposed project could cause.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the project’s impact on surrounding roadways. See Letter 4, comments #3 for a discussion about pedestrian safety.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states that the proposed project is large and the additional traffic and activity it would generate could crease a stressful environment for the students. The commenter adds that a small-scale project is preferred.

See response above under comment #1. See also the response to Letter 3, comment #1 for a discussion of the visual impacts associated with the size and height of the proposed project.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Cc:

Subject: Comment for 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 2:58:58 PM
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello,
I am a parent with a sophomore at LGHS and an incoming freshman next year. The current traffic around the school at all times (not just drop-off and pickup) does NOT allow for a multi-story mixed use project. We cannot seriously be considering that for that area. A new project that correlates with the high school area would be great but not a multi-story that will congest traffic even more. Please do not approve this project. It will impact the high school students, teachers, parents, and community in a negative way.

Thank you,
Jennifer Lambert
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBB