Agenda packet — Los Gatos City Council, May 27, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 54
Response to Letter 19 Jennfier Lambert (March 9, 2025)

1. The commenter states that traffic around the school at all times, not just during dropoff/pick-up) does not allow for a multi-story mixed-use project.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the project’s impact on surrounding roadways. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

Page 285 ends

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
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Page 286 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 56
Response to Letter 20 Karen Chase (March 10, 2025)

1. The commenter states their concern about traffic and parking issues in the area surrounding the project site.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the project’s impact on surrounding roadways. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required. .

The commenter does not raise any other environmental issues. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

Page 287 ends

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
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Page 288 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 58
Response to Letter 21 Lauren Roseman (March 10, 2025)

1. The commenter states their concern about traffic, parking, and safety issues that could occur with implementation of the proposed project.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic and the project’s impact to surrounding roadways. See response to Letter 4, comment #3 regarding pedestrian safety.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

Page 289 ends

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
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Page 290 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 60
Response to Letter 22 Sarah Pereira (March 6, 2025)

1. The commenter states that they enjoy the current building and would not like to see it redeveloped.

The comment does not raise an environmental concern and, therefore, no response is necessary. No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter states their concern related to the existing flow of traffic and the lack of parking in the area.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 regarding traffic. The commenter does not raise any other environmental issues; therefore, no further response is required.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

Page 291 ends

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. &RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBBBB

Page 292 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 62
Response to Letter 23 Unknown (March 10, 2025)

1. The commenter states disagreement with the type of project being proposed at the site due to existing traffic concerns and indicates a concern for the amount of parking being proposed. The commenter adds that the proposed project does not visually fit with the surrounding area.

See response to Letter 3.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

Page 293 ends

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.
&RPPHQW/HWWHU
BBBBBB

Page 294 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 64
Response to Letter 24 Unknown (March 6, 2025)

1. The commenter disagrees with the proposed project and asks that the project not be built.

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

Page 295 ends

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
&RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Page 296 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 66
Response to Letter 25 Michelle Badger (March 6, 2025)

1. The commenter expresses their agreement with the type of project proposed at the site and states that this kind of responsible development enhances the community without compromising charm. The commenter requests that the Town stand firm against the obstructionist, anti-growth sentiment that too often stifles progress in Los Gatos.

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

Page 297 ends

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.
$PNNFOU-FUUFS
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Page 298 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 68
Response to Letter 26 Carol Anglin (March 18, 2025)

1. The commenter expresses concern about traffic congestion and emergency evacuation.

The commenter adds that the project is too close to the congested high school area.

See Letter 3, response to comment #2 for a discussion about traffic increases. Also see Letter 1, response to comment #1 for a discussion about emergency evacuations.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

Page 299 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
$PNNFOU-FUUFS
@@@@@@@@@@@@@

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

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

@@@@@@@@

Page 300 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 70
Response to Letter 27 Kristi Grasty (March 18, 2025)

1. The commenter states their concern with the scale of the proposed project and removal of trees. The commenter adds that the size of the proposed structure is disproportionate to the capacity of the surrounding streets to safely accommodate it.

Section 4.0, Biological Resources, checklist question “e” of the initial study discusses tree removal. Six total trees (three on-site and three off-site) are proposed for removal; all of which are protected by the Town. Therefore, the initial study requires implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which requires tree replacement consistent with the Town Code.

See response to Letter 1, comment #3 for a discussion about the size of the proposed structure. See also response to Letter 3, comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

2. The commenter discusses congestion at the intersections of Main Street, High School Court, and Church Street. The commenter also states that the nearby church operates a daycare with parents frequently crossing these streets with young children, as well as other students, high school staff members, church staff, business people, and café patrons.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. See also response to Letter 4, comment #3 for a discussion about pedestrian safety.

3. The commenter states concern about current traffic congestion in the area. The commenter states that adding a larger building at the site, one that occupies significantly more square footage, is multiple stories high, and potential blocks sightlines, could exacerbate these issues. The commenter states that the project could lead to more blind spots, increased traffic congestion, and heightened safety risks for pedestrians.

See response to Letter 3, comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. See also response to Letter 4, comment #3 for a discussion about pedestrian safety. See response to Letter 3, comment #1 for a discussion about the size and height of the proposed structure.

According to Hexagon Transportation Consultants, sight lines would be improved with the project compared to existing conditions. The existing building comes right up to the back of the sidewalk on Church Street, High School Court, and E. Main Street. The proposed new building would be set back at least ten feet from Church Street and E.

Main Street, and about five feet from High School Court. In addition, the corners of the building would be chamfered for greater visibility.

Page 301 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 71
No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

4. The commenter states if should the project proceeds, the following adjustments are recommended: reduce the size of the development and implement traffic lighting and other measures to mitigate congestion and ensure safety at nearby intersections. The commenter expresses concern that without these changes, the risk of accidents and further traffic issues will increase.

See response to Letter 3, comment #1 for a discussion about the size of the proposed project and comment #2 for a discussion about the increase in traffic. See also response to Letter 17, comment #1 for a discussion about traffic signals.

No changes to the mitigated negative declaration are required.

Page 302 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
143 & 151 E. Main Street | Proposed Changes to MM BIO-1 March 18, 2025
BIO-1: To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction or project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys.
a. One survey for active bird nests shall occur within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance.

Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and no further mitigation is required.
b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos. &RPPHQW/HWWHU

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Page 303 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
March 21, 2025, Page 73
Response to Letter 28 Miles Imwalle (March 19, 2025)

1. The commenter (the applicant’s counsel) has requested a change to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to be consistent with similar measures adopted by the Town for other projects.

This change to the language of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would not alter the intent or purpose of the mitigation to protect nesting birds. This change has been made in a revised mitigated negative declaration.

Page 304 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 305 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025

REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In Compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Project Name 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project Lead Agency Town of Los Gatos
Project Proponent CSPN LLC
Project Location 143 & 151 E Main Street, Los Gatos
Project Description The project proposes to demolish the existing on-site uses and construct a four-story mixed-use building with
underground parking. The ground level of the proposed
building will include 2,416 square feet of pedestrian-oriented commercial with a total of 30 residential units (24 market rate and 6 affordable) located on all stories of the building.

There are two options for the underground parking:

Option 1 is a two-level parking garage with 47 individual parking stalls and Option 2 is a one-level parking garage with 39 parking stalls that include 16 car stackers. The project involves the removal of three existing on-site trees and planting 21 new on-site trees.

Public Review Period February 28, 2025 – March 20, 2025 Written Comments To Ryan Safty, Associate Planner
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Proposed Findings The Town of Los Gatos is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.

The initial study indicates that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. However, the mitigation measures identified in the initial study would reduce the impacts to a less than
significant level. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency Town of Los Gatos that the project, with mitigation measures incorporated, may have a significant effect on the environment. See the
following project-specific mitigation measures:

y,//dϮϭ

Page 306 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
AQ-1 The applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, including tree removal. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following measures to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions during construction:
a. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles will have 2010 or newer model year engines, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s Truck and Bus Regulation; b. Idling of construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks will be avoided where feasible, and if idling is necessary, it will not exceed three minutes; c. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and
d. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity, or biodiesel.

AQ-2 The project applicant shall ensure that MERV 13 air filtration systems, or an equivalent system, are included in the design and operations of the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and specifications demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. These plans shall identify the locations and specifications of the air filtration systems and confirm they meet the performance standards for particulate and airborne pollutant removal.

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

Biological Resources
BIO-1 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction or project-related work is

Page 307 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. a. One survey for active bird nests shall occur within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and no further mitigation is required. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos.

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

Cultural Resources
CUL-1 The following language shall be incorporated into any plans associated with tree removal, grading, and construction, “In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, contractor shall temporarily halt or divert excavations within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated. All potentially significant archaeological deposits shall be evaluated to demonstrate whether the resource is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources, even if discovered during construction. If archaeological deposits are encountered, they will be evaluated and

Page 308 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
mitigated simultaneously in the timeliest manner practicable, allowing for recovery of materials and data by standard archaeological procedures. For indigenous archaeological sites, this data recovery involves the hand-excavated recovery and non-destructive analysis of a small sample of the deposit. Historic resources shall also be sampled through hand excavation, though architectural features may require careful mechanical exposure and hand excavation.

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

Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the project proponent shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code [PRC] § 5097). The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD will determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and associated grave artifacts, and shall oversee the disposition of the remains. In the event the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being granted access to the site, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity within the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify the MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being allowed access to the site; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.”

Page 309 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 The applicant shall prepare a soils report addressing, but not limited to: foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, and impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. The soils report shall be submitted to the Town Building Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. All recommendations outlined in the soils report shall be incorporated into the project design.

GEO-2 The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit:
“If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction activities in the area shall be suspended. The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to examine the site and identify protective measures to be implemented to protect the paleontological resource. The measures shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.”
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1 The project developer shall incorporate the following GHG emissions reduction performance standard into the final project design:
No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted as part of the project plans; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric.

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

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 The project developer shall conduct soil vapor testing on the project site prior to issuance of a grading permit. The results of the soil vapor testing shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and only with approval by the Town Engineer can any grading and earthmoving 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.

Page 310 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 EMC Planning Group 143 & 151 E. Main Street Mixed Use Project March 2025
Noise
N-1 The project developer shall ensure that no individual piece of construction equipment produce a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement to the Town of Los Gatos Building Department for review and verification. The project developer shall also ensure that best management practices are incorporated during construction activities. The following shall be placed on all ground-disturbing project plans:
All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.
Noise-producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.
All noise-producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise-sensitive land uses. Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise-sensitive land uses.
Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator.

N-2 The project developer shall install mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all residential units so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and approval by the Town Building Department, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.

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

Page 311 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PROJECT SITE

LOS GATOS MIXED USE
A0.0 COVER SHEETA0.1 DESIGN IMAGERYA0.2 AERIAL MAPA0.3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING SITEA0.4 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXTA0.5 CIRCULATION PLANA0.6 OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONSA0.7 RENDERINGA0.8 RENDERINGA0.9 SHADOW STUDYA0.10 EXISTING BUILDING SITE PLANA0.11 EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.0 SITE PLANA2.0 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1A2.1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2A2.2 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3A2.3 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 4A2.4 BUILDING ROOF PLAN KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.
445 N. WHISMAN ROAD, SUITE 200
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043
Phone: 650.965.0700(13)
Contact: Ken Rodrigues
Email: [email protected]

CSPN LLC
8 THE GREEN, SUITE A
DOVER, DE 19901
Phone: 212.228.1601
Contact: David Blatt
Email: [email protected]

THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP, INC
181 GREENWICH STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
Phone: 415.433.4674
Contact: Gary Laymon
Email: [email protected]
SANDIS
1700 S WINCHESTER BLVD, SUITE 200
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
Phone: 408.963.9469
Contact: Tim Kim
Email: [email protected]

PROPERTY ADDRESS
APN

EXISTING ZONINGPROPOSED USES

OCCUPANCY

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
2 LEVELS BELOW GRADE PARKING 4 LEVELS ABOVE GRADE HOUSING

TOTAL GARAGE AREA

TOTAL HOUSING AREA
151 EAST MAIN STREET IS A 4-STORY MIXED USE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING LOCATED ON 0.425 ACRE SITE AT THE CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND HIGH SCHOOL COURT IN LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. THE GROUND LEVEL INCLUDES 2,416 SQUARE FEET OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMERCIAL WHICH COULD BE LEASED TO A RETAIL OR RESTAURANT TENANT. RESIDENTIAL (FOR SALE ) UNITS ARE LOCATED ON ALL FOUR LEVELS OF THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES 30 UNITS, 24 MARKET RATE UNITS AND 6 AFFORDABLE UNITS RANGING FROM 743 SQUARE FEET TO 2,188 SQUARE FEET. ALL 6 OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS PROPOSED (OR 20% OF THE 30 TOTAL UNITS) WILL BE SOLD TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 50079.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. MEANING, THOSE WHOSE INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED 80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME. PROPOSED PROJECT UNITS ARE 1 BEDROOM UP TO 3 BEDROOMS WITH OUTDOOR PATIOS. THERE ARE TWO(2) OPTIONS FOR THE UNDERGROUND PARKING, OPTION 1- A TWO LEVEL PARKING GARAGE WITH 47 INDIVIDUAL PARKING STALLS. OPTION 2 - A ONE LEVEL PARKING GARAGE WITH 39 PARKING STALLS THAT INCLUDE 16 CAR STACKERS.

THE PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS TAKES ITS CUE FROM LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED NEXT DOOR AND THE MANY SIGNIFICANT BRICK STRUCTURES LOCATED ON MAIN STREET AND NORTH SANTA CRUZ IN DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS. BUILDING MATERIALS INCLUDE BRICK WALLS, PRECAST CONCRETE FACADE DETAILING, IRON BALCONIES, METAL GRID WINDOWS AND CANVAS AWNINGS. THESE MATERIALS CAN BE FOUND IN DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS IN OTHER KEY BUILDINGS.

THE FOURTH FLOOR IS STEPPED BACK TO REDUCE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF MASS AND HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, MATERIALS ON THE FOURTH FLOOR INCLUDE EXTERIOR PLASTER WALLS, PRECAST CONCRETE DETAILING, AND A SLOPED CLAY TILE ROOF TO FURTHER REDUCE THE BUILDING MASSING.

OUTDOOR PATIOS WITH WOOD TRELLIS FEATURES AND LANDSCAPING PROVIDE OWNERS VIEWS TO THE FOOTHILLS AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. 352-(&7,1)250$7,21
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
Phone: 650.965.0700(20)
Contact: Yichao Li
Email: [email protected]

ARCHITECTURAL
143 E MAIN STREET
151 E MAIN STREET
529-28-001
529-28-002
C-2

COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE

MERCANTILE AND RESIDENTIAL

TYPE I-B

TYPE IV-B
30,996 SF
47,580 SF

SITE SUMMARY

SITE AREA

AREA CALCULATION

BUILDING GROSS AREA

CIRCULATION AREA USABLE FLOOR AREA RESIDENTIAL AREA AMENITY SPACE COMMERCIAL/RETAIL / RESTAURANT

UNITSRESIDENTIAL DENSITYPROPOSED SITE COVERAGE
(GROUND FLOOR BUILDING FOOTPRINT 13,375 SF)

FAREXISTING SITE COVERAGEEXISTING BUILDING SIZE
6+((7 ,1'(;
3 5 2 - ( & 7 7 ( $ 0 9,&,1,7<0$3
L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLANL2.0 LANDSCAPE IMAGERYL3.0 SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLANL3.1 4TH FLOOR ROOF DECK

LANDSCAPE PLAN
L4.0 HYDROZONE PLANL6.0 DETAILS
T1.0 TREE DISPOSITION PLANT1.1 ARBORIST REPORTT1.2 ARBORIST REPORT

LANDSCAPE
Phone: 415.433.4672(17)
Contact: Colin Bly
Email:[email protected]
18,516 SF (0.425 AC)
47,580 SF
11,427 SF 36,153 SF 32,727 SF
1,010 SF
2,416 SF
30 71 UNITS / AC
72%

2.57 45%
8,258 SF
A2.5 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 1)A2.6 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 2 (OPTION 1)A2.7 ALTERNATE BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 2)
A2.8 TYPICAL UNIT PLANSA2.9 TYPICAL UNIT PLANSA3.0 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA3.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA3.2 STREETSCAPE ELEVATIONA3.3 BUILDING MATERIALS AND FINISHESA4.0 BUILDING SECTIONSA4.1 BASEMENT DRIVEWAY SECTIONA4.2 WALL SECTIONS AND ENLARGED ELEVATIONSA4.3 WALL SECTIONS AND ENLARGED ELEVATIONSA4.4 SITE CROSS SECTIONA5.0 TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS AND ELEVATIONSA5.1 CAR STACKER SPECIFICATION

PARKING CALCULATION

TOTAL PARKING STALLS
RETAIL/HOUSING SHARED HOUSING ACCESSIBLE STANDARD STALLS(HC) ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS(HCV) LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS EV(STANDARD) EV(ACCESSIBLE) EV(VAN ACCESSIBLE)

TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING

LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING

MOTORCYCLES

VISITOR PARKING
OPT1
47 8
39 1 1
26 24
1 1
80 72
8 2
0 OPT2
39 0
39 1 1
25 23
1 1
49 41
8 1
0 NOTES:

1. A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PV SYSTEM THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE PERFORMANCE OR PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS. THESEPARATE PV SYSTEM PERMIT MUST BE FINALED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

2. THIS MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE WILL COMPLY WITH THE TOWN'S ALL ELECTRIC APPLIANCE, ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS INACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE.

3. BUILDING IS FULLY SPRINKLERED. A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED.

4. FIRE ALARM WILL BE PROVIDED. A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED.

5. FIRE HYDRANTS WILL BE PROVIDED. SEE CIVIL PLANS.

6. TWO WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL.7. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO SYSTEM IS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL.

8. STANDPIPES DRAWINGS ARE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL.

MARKET RATE UNITS

AFFORDABLE UNITS

TOTAL UNITS
24 6
30 0' 150' 300'
Phone: 408.813.3275
Contact: Samir Patel
Email:[email protected]
C-1.0 COVER SHEETC-1.1 CONSTRUCTION NOTESC-1.2 CONSTRUCTION NOTESC-2.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYC-2.1 PROPOSED PARCELIZATION PLANC-3.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC-4.0 UTILITY PLANC-5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANC-5.1 SILVA CELL DETAILC-6.0 FIRE ACCESS PLANC-6.1 FIRE STAGING AREAC-7.0 CONSTRUCTION DETAILSC-7.1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILSC-7.2 BMP NOTES CIVIL
EXHIBIT 22

Page 557 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
'(6,*1,0$*(5<
$
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 558 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
$(5,$/0$3

$
$(5,$/0$3

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 559 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
3+27262)7+(
(;,67,1*6,7(

$
3+27262)7+((;,67,1*6,7( 176
1 2
6 4
5 3
&217(;76,7(3/$1
$
,0$*(62)6,7(
%

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 9,(:)5200$,1675((7
9,(:)5200$,1675((7 9,(:)520&+85&+675((7
9,(:/22.,1*($67)520&+85&+675((7 9,(:/22.,1*6287+)520&+85&+675((7 9,(:)5200$,1675((7
%8,/',1*+(,*+7

*(1(5$/127(6

(;,67,1*%8,/',1*+(,*+7

(;,67,1*%8,/',1*$1'3$5.,1*/2772%('(02/,6+('

Page 560 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 1(,*+%25+22'
&217(;7
$
1(,*+%25+22'&217(;7 176
352-(&76,7(
1 3 2
&217(;76,7(3/$1
$
,0$*(62)$'-$&(17%8,/',1*6
%

(/*$723(17+286( (BUILDING HEIGHT: ±54') ),567&+85&+2)&+5,676&,(17,67(BUILDING HEIGHT: ±29') +27(//26*$726(BUILDING HEIGHT: ±30') /*65(&5($7,21 $'8/75(&5($7,21&(17(5
(BUILDING HEIGHT: ±18')
/26*$726/,%5$5<(BUILDING HEIGHT: ±30') 3853/(21,21&$)((BUILDING HEIGHT: ±25') 4 5

(0$,167/26*$726&$
(0$,167/26*$726&$

(0$,167/26*$726&$
(0$,167/26*$726&$

9,//$$9(/26*$726&$

6 (0$,167/26*$726&$

Page 561 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL &,5&8/$7,213/$1
$
&+85&+675((7 675((7
+,*+6&+22/ 9,//$$9(18(

&2857
($67

/(*(1'
0$,1

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 562 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

OPEN SPACE AREA

CALCULATIONS

A0.6
OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS 1"=20'-0" 1
)/2253/$1/(9(/
)/2253/$1/(9(/
)/2253/$1/(9(/
)/2253/$1/(9(/

$5($&$/&8/$7,216

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
5(6,'(17
$0(1,7<
35,9$7(
5(&5($7,21
&20081,7<
5(&5($7,21
201 SF 16 SF 16 SF
102 SF 102 SF
32 SF 61 SF
413 SF 192 SF
713 SF
128 SF
435 SF
38 SF 34 SF 70 SF 341 SF
52 SF 48 SF
98 SF
452 SF 98 SF
72 SF
440 SF
246 SF
363 SF
66 SF 78 SF 78 SF 78 SF 78 SF
13,375 SF
117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF
117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF
117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF
117 SF 117 SF 234 SF
803 SF 803 SF
803 SF 803 SF
$5($&$/&8/$7,216

AMENITY
505 SF

AMENITY
505 SF
3(5&(17$*(2))52176(7%$&.$5($,6/$1'6&$3('
-
5 201 SF 16 SF 16 SF 32 SF 61 SF 413 SF 192 SF
1 67 SF 185 SF
5(48,5('
)5217<$5'%8,/',1*6(7%$&./,1(
5(48,5('
5($5<$5'%8,/',1*6(7%$&./,1(
5(48,5('
6,'(<$5'%8,/',1*6(7%$&./,1(
5(48,5('
6,'(<$5'%8,/',1*6(7%$&./,1(

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 563 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 564 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 565 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL A0.9

SHADOW STUDY
SUMMER SOLSTICE 9AM 1 1"=60'-0" SUMMER SOLSTICE NOON 2 1"=60'-0" SUMMER SOLSTICE 3PM 3 1"=60'-0" WINTER SOLSTICE 9AM 4 1"=60'-0" WINTER SOLSTICE NOON 5 1"=60'-0" WINTER SOLSTICE 3PM 6 1"=60'-0" 0' 60' 120'
SHADOW STUDY 1"=60'-0" 1
151 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
4-STORIES
151 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
4-STORIES
111 CHURCH ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
131 MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
151 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
4-STORIES
200 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
238 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030 208 EAST MAIN ST, LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
JUNE 21 JUNE 21 JUNE 21
DECEMBER 21 DECEMBER 21 DECEMBER 21

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,
20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
3-STORY

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,
20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
3-STORY

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,
20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
3-STORY

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,
20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
3-STORY

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,
20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
3-STORY

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL,
20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
3-STORY

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
LOT SIZE 0.24ACFLOOR AREA 7,074 SF
1-STORY
FAR 0.68
LOT SIZE 0.62ACFLOOR AREA 10,619 SF
2-STORY
FAR 0.39
LOT SIZE 1.88ACFLOOR AREA 58,207 SF
2-STORY
FAR 0.71
LOT SIZE 0.7ACFLOOR AREA 11,890 SF
2-STORY
FAR 0.39
LOT SIZE 2.24ACFLOOR AREA 31,065 SF
1-STORY
FAR 0.32
111 CHURCH ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
131 MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
200 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
238 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030 208 EAST MAIN ST, LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
LOT SIZE 0.24ACFLOOR AREA 7,074 SF
1-STORY
FAR 0.68
LOT SIZE 0.62ACFLOOR AREA 10,619 SF
2-STORY
FAR 0.39
LOT SIZE 1.88ACFLOOR AREA 58,207 SF
2-STORY
FAR 0.71
LOT SIZE 0.7ACFLOOR AREA 11,890 SF
2-STORY
FAR 0.39
LOT SIZE 2.24ACFLOOR AREA 31,065 SF
1-STORY
FAR 0.32
111 CHURCH ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
131 MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
200 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
238 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
131 MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
200 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
238 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
131 MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
200 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
238 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
131 MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
200 EAST MAIN ST,

LOS GATOS,
CA 95030
238 EAST MAIN ST,

Page 566 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL A0.10

EXISTING BUILDING

SITE PLAN
0' 10' 20'
EXISTING BUILDING SITE PLAN 1"=10'-0" 1
131 EAST MAIN ST,

BRICK & CONCRETE ROOF
PEAK ELEVATION = 407.7± FEET

C H U R C H S T R E E T

E A S T M A I N S T R E E T
H I G H S C H O O L C O U R T

DEMO BUILDING
151 EAST MAIN ST,

ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING
ROOF PEAK ELEVATION = 400.6 ±FEET
143 EAST MAIN ST

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
ENTRY

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

ENTRY
ENTRY
ENTRY

EXISTING OFF-SITE STREET

TREE TYPICAL
2 A0.11
3 A0.11
A0.11
1 4
A0.11

08.30.2024
NOTES

SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING TREES. REFER TO STREET T-1.0 FOR

ON-SITE TREES TO BE REMOVED AND

REPLACEMENT TABLES & NEW PROPOSED TREES

EXISTING PARKING
22 STALLS
727$/)/225$5($
6)
EXISTING ON-SITE TREES (3) TO BE REMOVED.

SEE SHEET T-1.0,T-1.1 & T-1.2 FOR ON-SITETREES TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACEMENTTABLES OF NEW PROPOSED TREES

EXISTING

LANDSCAPE AND

CONCRETE WALKS

Page 567 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL A0.11

EXISTING BUILDING

ELEVATIONS
0' 10' 20'
WEST ELEVATION 1"=10'-0" 4

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
SOUTH ELEVATION 1"=10'-0" 1
EAST ELEVATION 1"=10'-0" 2
NORTH ELEVATION 1"=10'-0" 3

0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
T.O.ROOF
18'-0"
T.O.ROOF
20'-0"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
T.O.ROOF
18'-0"
T.O.ROOF
20'-0"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
T.O.ROOF
18'-0"
T.O.ROOF
20'-0"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
T.O.ROOF
18'-0"
T.O.ROOF
20'-0"

08.30.2024

EXISTING PLANTER AND EXTERIOR COLUMNS

EXISTING RECESSED

OUTDOOR SEATING AREA

EXISTING SLOPED

ROOF (TYPICAL)

EXISTING MASONRY ANDPLASTER WALLS (TYPICAL)

EXISTING WINDOW (TYPICAL)

EXISTING DOORS (TYPICAL)

Page 568 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

SITE PLAN
A1.0

C H U R C H S T R E E T

M A I N S T R E E T

H I G H S C H O O L

V I L L A A V E N U E

BUILDING FOOTPRINTPROPERTY LINEEXISTING ZONING SETBACKS

TRASH ROOM
STAIRS

UTILITY ROOM

RAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING

LINE OF BUILDING ABOVEELEVATORS

RESIDENTS MAIL BOXES AND PARCEL DROP

BIKE ROOMPRIMARY ENTRY AT GROUND LEVELDRIVEWAY APRON

KEYNOTES

ROLL UP MESH GATE

LANDSCAPELOBBY

19

EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECKEXTERIOR TRASH ENCLOSURE
GUEST BIKE PARKING (2 STALLS ON HIGH
SCHOOL COURT AND 2 STALLS ON MAINSTREET)
20 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES. SEE CIVIL AND
LANDSCAPE PLANS
6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL

C O U R T

E A S T
1 DOWN TO GRARGE
12 2
3 10
10 14
11 2 1

LOS GATOS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
111 CHURCH ST,
LOS GATOS, CA 95030

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL
20 HIGH SCHOOL CT,
LOS GATOS, CA 95030

HOTEL LOS GATOS
210 EAST MAIN ST,
LOS GATOS, CA 95030

LOS GATOS

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
208 EAST MAIN STREET,
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
16 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4
UNIT 6 UNIT 7 COMMERCIAL RETAIL/RESTAURANT
7 5
7 SITE PLAN 1"=20'-0" 1
15 4'
5'-11"

RETAIL/RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL

LOBBY & CIRCULATION
LEGEND

PRIMARY ENTRY AT GROUND LEVEL

AUTO ENTRY TO UNDERGROUND PARKING

AMENITY SPACE

COMMERCIAL/

REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK
6'
5'-8"
7'-5"
9'-4"
11,427 SF 36,153 SF 32,727 SF
1,010 SF
2,416 SF
30 71 UNITS / AC
72%

2.57 45%
8,258 SF

AREA CALCULATION

BUILDING GROSS AREA

CIRCULATION AREA USABLE FLOOR AREA RESIDENTIAL AREA AMENITY SPACE COMMERCIAL/RETAIL / RESTAURANT 6 9
20' 40'
5'-5"
10'
4'-3"
2'-9"

SETBACK
UNIT 5
18 17
23'

ENTRANCE TO GARAGE
3 A 4.1
6" 6"
5'-6"
4'-7"
19 12'

SETBACK

TO EXISTING BUILDING
19 5
13 4
4 4

MASONIC HALL
131 E.MAIN STREET
20 REQUIRED 10' FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE
REQUIRED 15' REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE
REQUIRED 15' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE
5 21
2'-8" SETBACK
2'-2" SETBACK

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
REQUIRED 0' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE
8'-10"

SETBACK
3'-7"
4'-2"
4'-11"

SETBACK
3 A4.4
1 A4.4
2 A4.4
2 A4.4
4'-8"

SETBACK

TO EXISTING BUILDING
5'-8"

SETBACK

TO EXISTING BUILDING

UNITSRESIDENTIAL DENSITYPROPOSED SITE COVERAGE
(GROUND FLOOR BUILDING FOOTPRINT 13,

FAREXISTING SITE COVERAGEEXISTING BUILDING SIZE
18,516 SF (0.425 AC)

SITE SUMMARY

SITE AREA
22 VISION TRIANGLE
3 A4.4
1 A4.4
OPT1
47 8
39 1 1
26 24
1 1
80 72 8
2 0
OPT2
39 0
39 1 1
25 23
1 1
49 41
8 1
0 PARKING CALCULATION

TOTAL PARKING STALLS
RETAIL/HOUSING SHARED HOUSING ACCESSIBLE STANDARD STALLS(HC) ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS(HCV) LEVEL 2 EVCS STALLS EV(STANDARD) EV(ACCESSIBLE) EV(VAN ACCESSIBLE)

TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING

LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING

MOTORCYCLES

VISITOR PARKING

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 569 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

FLOOR PLAN
LEVEL 1
A2.0

C H U R C H S T R E E T

E A S T M A I N S T R E E T
13 C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

DOWN TO GRARGE
LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 1'=1/8" 1
10'-0"
7'-5"
6'
4'-3"
8 1711
23 15 17 1
3 11
15 16 12 16
UNIT 1
743 SF
1A

COMMERCIAL

RETAIL/RESTAURANT
2,416 SF
INDOOR
TRASH
ROOM
233 SF

LONG TERM
BIKE
ROOM
210 SF
6 10
8' 16'
UP
DN
UP
DN

AREA TABULATION
LEVEL 1 GROSS AREA 13,375 SF

CIRCULATION AREA

USABLE FLOOR AREA

COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL
4,350 SF (32%)
9,025 SF (68%)
2,416 SF
6,609 SF
1 EXTERIOR STUD WALLPROPERTY LINE

TRASH ROOM AND TRASH CHUTESTAIRS

UTILITY ROOMRAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING
LINE OF BUILDING ABOVELOBBYEXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVEDLONG TERM BIKE ROOMPRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRY 6' WIDE AT

GROUND LEVEL

INTERIOR STUD WALL

KEYNOTES
INTERIOR DOOR (3' WIDE)

EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK
19 HARDSCAPE SEE LANDSCAPE PLANLINE OF BUILDING BELOW
20 ROLL UP MESH GATE, BRONZE COLOR
SEE DETAIL #5 ON SHEET A5.0

ELEVATORS
23456789
101112131415161718

WOOD TRELLIS

IRON RAILING
21 BRICK CLADDING22 MIDLINE BAND23 FIRE HYDRANT24 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION25 STANDPIPE26 KNOX KEY BOX/LOCKS27 RESIDENTS MAILBOXES AND PARCEL DROP28 SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING (2 STALLS ON
HIGH SCHOOL COURT AND 2 STALLS ON

MAIN STREET)
29 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 30 ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES. SEE LANDSCAPE
PLAN SHEET L3.0/PLANT PALETTE FORPROPOSED PLANTING TO SCREEN UTILITIES 31 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL32 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTED AT 9' TYPICAL 18 5'-9"
4'
UNIT 2
743 SF
1B
UNIT 3
743 SF
1C
UNIT 4
743 SF
1D
UNIT 5
1,007 SF
1E
UNIT 6
1,396 SF
1F
UNIT 7
1,233 SF
1G
66 SF 78 SF 78 SF
102 SF
15 4
4 OPEN
TO
ABOVE
1 A4.0
1 A4.0
14 0' 2
A4.0
2 A4.0
25 23 26
163'-6"

24'-6" 14' 23' 23' 23' 23' 19'
11'

5'-11"
5'-5"
2'-9"

SETBACK
163'-6"
5'-8"

6(7%$&.
27' 11'-6" 11'-6" 21' 6'-8" 13'-8" 6'-8" 20' 25' 13'-2" TRASH

ENCLOSURE

W/TRELLIS
ABOVE
85'
35' 9' 41'
85'
22' 7' 28'-10"

H I G H S C H O O L C O U R T

3 A 2.9
23'
27 6" 6"
20'

GATE SETBACK

6'

24

FINISH FLOOR
382.70

3 A4.1
3 A4.1
2 A 2.8
1 A 2.8
4 4
4 4
4 2828
14 BIKES
5 5
TOP OF RAMP 3'-4"

SETBACK
102 SF
5 29
14'-6"
14'-6"
28

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.
1 A 5.0

ELEVATOR

ELEVATOR
REQUIRED 15' REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE
REQUIRED 15' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE
REQUIRED 10' FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE
REQUIRED 0' SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK LINE 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL

6(7%$&.

30 3
A4.4
3 A4.4
1 BEDROOM
100%
1 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
15 43% 13
50%
2 BEDROOM
7% 2
1A
1B 743 SF
1C
1D
2 1E
1F 2 BEDROOM
1G 2 BEDROOM
1,396 SF
7 1,233 SF
1 BEDROOM 743 SF1 BEDROOM 743 SF
1 BEDROOM 743 SF1 BEDROOM
1(1)
345
6 1,007 SF
7 LEVEL 1 TOTAL UNITS
66 SF78 SF78 SF78 SF78 SF
102 SF102 SF
582 SF 32
7'-4"

POSSIBLE OUTDOOR
SEATING 200 SF

16'
8' 8'

5' 5' 5' 9' 9' 3'

14' 13'-2"
14'
32

VISION TRIANGLE
323131

7<3

7<3

773

7<3

78 SF 78 SF
6'

7<3

FINISH FLOOR
379.60
379.60
382.70
379.60
382.70

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 570 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

FLOOR PLAN
LEVEL 2
A2.1
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 1'=1/8" 1
13 17 11
15 11
3 15 1
3 15 12
2 UNIT 8
897 SF
2A
UNIT 14
1,396 SF
2G
OPEN
TO
BELOW
8' 16'
UP
DN
UP
DN
LEVEL 2 GROSS AREA 12,607 SF

RESIDENTIAL UNIT TABULATION

CIRCULATION AREA

USABLE FLOOR AREA

RESIDENTIAL
2,555 SF (20%)
10,052 SF (80%)
10,052 SF
1 BEDROOM

2A 897 SF
2B
2C
9(1)
2D
2 BEDROOM
2E
2 BEDROOM2 BEDROOM
2G
2H
8 10
11 1213
14(1)
15 1,108 SF
16 2J 2 BEDROOM
17 2K 2 BEDROOM
1 BEDROOM 743 SF1 BEDROOM 743 SF1 BEDROOM 743 SF1 BEDROOM 743 SF 2F
1,396 SF1,233 SF1,298 SF
1,074 SF
100%
1 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
15 43% 13
50%
2 BEDROOM
7% 2
LEVEL 2 TOTAL UNITS
117 SF117 SF
1170 SF
117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF
1 EXTERIOR STUD WALLPROPERTY LINE

TRASH ROOM AND TRASH CHUTESTAIRS

UTILITY ROOMRAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING
LINE OF BUILDING ABOVELOBBYEXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVEDLONG TERM BIKE ROOMPRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRY 6' WIDE AT

GROUND LEVEL

INTERIOR STUD WALL
INTERIOR DOOR (3' WIDE)

EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK
19 HARDSCAPE SEE LANDSCAPE PLANLINE OF BUILDING BELOW
20 ROLL UP MESH GATE, BRONZE COLOR
SEE DETAIL #5 ON SHEET A5.0

ELEVATORS
23456789
101112131415161718

WOOD TRELLIS

MAIN STREET)
29 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 30 ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES. SEE LANDSCAPE
PLAN SHEET L3.0/PLANT PALETTE FORPROPOSED PLANTING TO SCREEN UTILITIES 31 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL32 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTED AT 9' TYPICAL UNIT 9
743 SF
2B
UNIT 13
1,108 SF
2F
UNIT 15
1,233 SF
2H
UNIT 16
1,298 SF
2J
UNIT 17
1,074 SF
2K
20 20
20 17
15 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 1 A4.0
1 A4.0
14 0'
6 7
2 A4.0
2 A4.0

UTILITYROOM
TRASH
ROOM

UNIT 10
743 SF
2C
UNIT 11
743 SF
2D
UNIT 12
743 SF
2E

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.
3 A4.1
3 A4.1
2 A 2.8
1 A 2.8

%0581,7

FINISH FLOOR
393.70

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

ELEVATOR

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
5'-5"

3 A4.4
3 A4.4
31

773

7<3

7<3

7<3

7<3
%0581,7 %0581,7

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 571 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

FLOOR PLAN
LEVEL 3
A2.2
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 1'=1/8" 1
13 17 11
15 15
11 23
15 1
3 15 12 15
UNIT 18
897 SF
3A
UNIT 19
743 SF
3B
UNIT 24
1,396 SF
3G

AMENITY
SPACE
505 SF
8' 16'
UP DN

AREA TABULATION

RESIDENTIAL UNIT TABULATION
LEVEL 3 GROSS AREA 13,085 SF

CIRCULATION AREA

USABLE FLOOR AREA

AMENITY SPACE

RESIDENTIAL
2,722 SF (20%)
10,363 SF (80%)
505 SF
9,858 SF
1 BEDROOM

3A 897 SF
3B
3C
3D
19(1) 743 SF
3E
3F 2 BEDROOM
3G
1,108 SF
24(1) 1,396 SF
18 20
21 2223
25 3H 1,233 SF
26 3J 2,188 SF
743 SF
743 SF743 SF
2 BEDROOM
2 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
1 BEDROOM
1 BEDROOM1 BEDROOM1 BEDROOM
LEVEL 3 TOTAL UNITS
100%
1 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
15 43% 13
50%
2 BEDROOM
7% 2
1,170 SF
117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF117 SF
234 SF
1 EXTERIOR STUD WALLPROPERTY LINE

TRASH ROOM AND TRASH CHUTESTAIRS

UTILITY ROOMRAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING
LINE OF BUILDING ABOVELOBBYEXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVEDLONG TERM BIKE ROOMPRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRY 6' WIDE AT

GROUND LEVEL

INTERIOR STUD WALL
INTERIOR DOOR (3' WIDE)

EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK
19 HARDSCAPE SEE LANDSCAPE PLANLINE OF BUILDING BELOW
20 ROLL UP MESH GATE, BRONZE COLOR
SEE DETAIL #5 ON SHEET A5.0

ELEVATORS
23456789
101112131415161718

WOOD TRELLIS

MAIN STREET)
29 CONTINUOUS TRENCH DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM 30 ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES. SEE LANDSCAPE
PLAN SHEET L3.0/PLANT PALETTE FORPROPOSED PLANTING TO SCREEN UTILITIES 31 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL32 DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTED AT 9' TYPICAL UNIT 23
1,108 SF
3F
UNIT 25
1,233 SF
3H
UNIT 26
2,188 SF
3J
117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF 117 SF117 SF 117 SF 234 SF 20 1520
20 1
A4.0
1 A4.0
14 0'
6 7

2 A4.0
2 A4.0

UTILITY
ROOM
TRASH
ROOM

UNIT 20
743 SF
3C
UNIT 22
743 SF
3E
UNIT 21
743 SF
3D

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.)25'(&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.
3 A4.1
3 A4.1
2 A 2.8
1 A 2.8

2 17
%0581,7

FINISH FLOOR
404.70

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

ELEVATOR

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
5'-5"

3 A4.4
3 A4.4

773

7<3

7<3

7<3

7<3

%0581,7 %0581,7

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

GYM & WORKOUT ROOM

Page 572 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

FLOOR PLAN
LEVEL 4
A2.3
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN 1'=1/8" 1
13 17
11 15
15 11
1 3
2 12 19
5 5
15 UNIT 27
1,381 SF
4A
UNIT 29
1,344 SF
4C
8' 16'
DN
UNIT 30
1,344 SF
4D
803 SF 803 SF
19 19
15 19
1919
5 19
1120119
803 SF
20 20 20

RESIDENTIAL UNIT TABULATION
LEVEL 4 GROSS AREA 8,513 SF

CIRCULATION AREA

USABLE FLOOR AREA

AMENITY SPACE

RESIDENTIAL
1,800 SF (21%)6,713 SF (79%)
505 SF
6,208 SF
4A 2 BEDROOM
4B 3 BEDROOM
4C 2 BEDROOM
4D 2 BEDROOM
1,759 SF
1,344 SF
1,344 SF
1,381 SF
100%
1 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
15 43% 13
50%
2 BEDROOM
7% 2
28 27(1)
29 30
4 LEVEL 4 TOTAL UNITS
803 SF803 SF803 SF803 SF
3,212 SF
1 EXTERIOR STUD WALLPROPERTY LINE

TRASH ROOM AND TRASH CHUTESTAIRS

UTILITY ROOMRAMP TO BASEMENT PARKING
LINE OF BUILDING ABOVELOBBYEXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVEDLONG TERM BIKE ROOMPRIMARY COMMERCIAL ENTRY 6' WIDE AT

GROUND LEVEL

INTERIOR STUD WALL

KEYNOTES
INTERIOR DOOR (3' WIDE)

EXTERIOR PATIO OR PRIVATE DECK
19 HARDSCAPE SEE LANDSCAPE PLANLINE OF BUILDING BELOW
20 ROLL UP MESH GATE, BRONZE COLOR
SEE DETAIL #5 ON SHEET A5.0

ELEVATORS
23456789
101112131415161718

WOOD TRELLIS

2 A4.0
2 A4.0

TRASH
AND

UTILITY ROOM

EXTERIOR DECK EXTERIOR DECK
EXTERIOR DECK 803 SF EXTERIOR DECK

3 A4.1
3 A4.1
1 A 2.9

17 17

FINISH FLOOR
415.70

ELEVATOR

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL

BUILT UP

FLAT ROOF

BUILT UP
FLAT ROOF 3
A4.4
3 A4.4

7<3

7<3

7<3

7<3

32 32
17

7<3

4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

AMENITY
SPACE
505 SF

MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY
& CARD ROOM

02.18.2025

Page 573 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

ROOF PLAN
A2.4
ROOF PLAN 1'=1/8" 1
+40'-0"
T.O.P.
+45'-0"
T.O.TRELLIS
+52'-0"
T.O.P.

SLOPE
7" PER FT
SLOPE
7" PER FT
SLOPE
7" PER FT
SLOPE
7" PER FT
SLOPE
7" PER FT
SLOPE
7" PER FT
SLOPE
7" PER FT
SLOPE
7" PER FT
+45'-0"
T.O.TRELLIS
+45'-0"
T.O.TRELLIS T.O.TRELLIS
+45'-0" +52'-0"
T.O.P.
+47'-0"
T.O.D
SLOPE
SLOPE
1/4" / FT. MIN.

SLOPE
1/4" / FT. MIN. +47'-6" T.O.RIDGE

SLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE
RWL
OD
RWL
OD
RWL
OD
RWL
OD
RWL
OD
RWL
OD

SHEET KEYNOTES
134
BUILT UP RIGID INSULATION CRICKET - MIN.

SLOPE 1/2" PER FOOT
RWL
OD
RAIN WATER LEADER TO EXTEND 5'BEYOND BLDG. SLAB EDGE,
CONNECT TO STORM SEWER. SEECIVIL DRAWINGSOVERFLOW DRAIN. 5 ROOF DRAIN AND PIPING, SEE PLUMBINGDWGS.
6789
10 +0'-0"
T.O.P. TOP OF PARAPET
T.O.D. TOP OF DECK

DENOTES ELEVATION POINT

DENOTES ROOF SLOPE DIRECTIONDENOTES EXTENT OF BUILT UP ROOF CRICKET - MIN. SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT

GENERAL NOTES

1. NOT ALL NOTES APPLY TO THIS SHEET

GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE

SLOPE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROOFING
MATERIAL. ALL AREAS SHALL HAVE AMINIMUM POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF 1/4" PER FOOT.

2. ALL ROOFING SHALL BE "CLASS A" FIRE

RESISTANT

3. ALL FUTURE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

LOCATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE

ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

PRIOR TO INSTALLATION

4. ROOF MOUNTED HVAC EQUIPMENT SHALL BE

SCREENED FROM VIEW BY LOCATING THE

UNITS SO THAT THE TOP OF THE UNIT IS BELOW

THE TOP OF THE PARAPET WALL OR BY THE

ADDITION OF ROOF SCREENS

5. ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS (ELECTRICAL,
MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) SHALLOCCUR PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF

ROOFING

6. ELEVATIONS ARE GIVEN FROM THE BUILDINGDATUM (0.00' REFERENCE ELEV. ON PLANS)

7. GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

CONSTRUCTION AND VERIFICATION OF ALL

POSITIVE ROOF SLOPES TO MEET ANDPERFORM AS SHOWN ON ALL

ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, LANDSCAPE,
MECHANICAL, AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.

8. T.O.C. TOP OF CANOPY ELEVATION

SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER METAL

DECK PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS

RUN SINGLE PLY ROOF AT BACK OF PARAPET

WALLS, TURN UP AND TERMINATE UNDER

METAL FLASHING CAP

INSULATION NOTES

PROPERTY LINELINE OF MONUMENT FEATURE ABOVE
24 GA. METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
2 CLAY TILE ROOFING

WOODEN TRELLIS

IRON RAILING BELOW
11 WALL OF BUILDING BELOW12 ELEVATOR OVERRIDE TO BE SCREENED BY ROOF PARAPET13 HVAC EQUIPMENT LOCATION14 FUTURE PV PANEL LOCATIONS. BUILDINGPLUMBING TO BE PIPED TO THESELOCATIONS FOR FUTURE PANEL INSTALLATION.
15 6' HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL
1 3
6 2
4 5
8 7 7 6
9 10
1 A4.0
1 A4.0
0' 8' 16'

2 A4.0
2 A4.0

11 12 11
3 A4.1
3 A4.1

13 13
13 13

14 14

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL

BUILT UP

FLAT ROOF

BUILT UP

FLAT ROOF
+52'-0"
T.O.P.
3 A4.4
3 A4.4
TOP OF
ROOF
51'-6"
15

Page 574 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
(9 (9 (9 (9 (9
(9
(9 (9
9$1
(9
+& +&
9$1
(9
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL %$6(0(173$5.,1*
/(9(/

237,21

$
BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 1) 1'=1/8" 1

&21&5(7(3(5,0(7(5:$//
&21&5(7('5,9($&&(665$03

87,/,7<5220
/21*7(50%,&<&/(3$5.,1*
(;,767$,56
685)$&(02817('/('/,*+76

/21*

/2%%<
3523(57</,1(
/,1(2)'5,9(:$<$%29(
,17(5,25678':$//
67$1'$5'3$5.,1*67$//

;
$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*67$// :,'(3$,17('3$5.,1*675,3(:+,7( 6,*1$*($7$&&(66,%/(63$&(6 .(<127(6
(9&+$5*(5 3$5.,1*6,*16(('(7$,/$ 7$1'(03$5.,1*67$// 67$&.(53$5.,1*67$// 5$,6('&21&5(7(&85% 02725&<&/(3$5.,1*67$// ;

&217,1828675(1&+'5$,1&211(&77267250'5$,1$*(6<67(0

67((/68332576)2567$&.(5
3$5.,1*29(5+$1*
DN
3$5.,1*6800$5<
%$6(0(17%%$6(0(17%
727$/%$6(0(173$5.,1*
67$//667$//6
727$/3$5.,1*67$//6
5(7$,/+286,1*6+$5('+286,1*
67$//6

$&&(66,%/(9$167$//6
+&9

/(9(/(9&667$//6
(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
$&&(66,%/(

(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
9$1$&&(66,%/(

/21*7(50%,&<&/(3$5.,1*02725&<&/(3$5.,1*

$&&(66,%/(67$1'$5'67$//6
+&

6)
6)

6)
(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
67$1'$5'

727$//(9(/(9&667$//6

/(9(/%/(9(/% %5(*8/$567$1'$5'67$//6 /(9(/%

72 10
LOBBY

UTILITY ROOM
6 3 13
51472
UP

1 A4.0
1 A4.0
14

2 A4.0
2 A4.0
3 A4.1
3 A4.1

RETAIL/
HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING2

HOUSING

3 3
10 RETAIL/ HOUSING

HOUSING
9 TOP OF RAMP BOTTOM OF RAMP9 9

SHARED RETAIL/HOUSING

HOUSING PARKING

TOTAL PARKING THIS LEVEL
7 STALLS
14 STALLS
22 STALLS

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

TYPICAL
9 12

1 23 4
1 6
7 HOUSING
8 HOUSING
9 HOUSING
8 11
12 13

HOUSING
14 UP
DN
DN
UP
NOTE: RETAIL HOURS OF OPERATION

SHALL BE POSTED ABOVE EACH PARKING
STALL 8AM TO 6PM. NO RESIDENTIAL
PARKING ALLOWED DURING THESE TIMES.

TYPICAL SIGN
7(;785('&21&5(7()/225
(/(9$725
(/(9$725
),1,6+(')/225

17 TYPICAL 17 TYPICAL
17 1717
17 08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL

RETAIL/

HOUSING

RETAIL/

HOUSING

RETAIL/

HOUSING

HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING

ALL LEVELS OF GARAGE PARKING TO PROVIDE A LIGHT LEVEL
TO MEET THE CBC. CURRENT DASHED LED LIGHTS ARE
PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE CBC. CODE

REQUIREMENTS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL
DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.

LIGHTING NOTE
19

HOUSING

HOUSING
2 HOUSING
3

5 7
10 23
23 23
15 5$,6('&21&5(7($&&(663$7+),1,6+0$7(5,$/
&2/25$1'7(;785(72%(68%0,77(':,7+
%8,/',1*3(50,7'5$:,1*6

ADA SHARED RETAIL/HOUSING 1 STALLS

6,*1 176 5 PARKING STALL DETAIL 1"=10' 4 EV STALL REQUIREMENT 1"=10' 3 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALL REQUIREMENTS 1"=10' 2 5 -
16 3$5.,1*

-
4A

2'

OVERHANG
6" CURB
4" WIDE

PAINTED

STRIPES
DOUBLE STRIPE DETAIL 4A
1"=2'

EV CHARGER

PARKING SIGN
4" WIDE
PAINTED STRIPES

-
4A
-
4A

IDENTIFICATION SIGN
8' ACCESSIBLE AISLE

SIGNAGE AT

ACCESSIBLE SPACES
/(9(/(9&6
5(48,5(')2567$//6
67$//65(48,5('3(5&$/*5((1%8,/',1*&2'(

5

5

4 5 6

RETAIL/

HOUSING

RETAIL/

HOUSING

RETAIL/

HOUSING
16 3('(675,$13$7+2)75$9(/

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 575 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
+& +&
9$1
(9 (9 (9 (9 (9
(9(9(9
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL $
BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 2 (OPTION 1) 1'=1/8" 1
%$6(0(173$5.,1*
/(9(/

237,21

&21&5(7(3(5,0(7(5:$//
&21&5(7('5,9($&&(665$03

87,/,7<5220
/21*7(50%,&<&/(3$5.,1*
(;,767$,56
685)$&(02817('/('/,*+76

/21*

/2%%<
3523(57</,1(
/,1(2)'5,9(:$<$%29(
,17(5,25678':$//
67$1'$5'3$5.,1*67$//

67((/68332576)2567$&.(5
3$5.,1*29(5+$1*
72 10
LOBBY

BIKE ROOM
8 1472
11
UP

1 A4.0
1 A4.0
3 14
3

2 A4.0
2 A4.0
3 A4.1
3 A4.1

2 HOUSING HOUSING

HOUSING HOUSING

HOUSING HOUSING
HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING 3 BOTTOM OF RAMP

4

HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING 9 9
HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING 3
3 HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING TYP

HOUSING PARKING

TOTAL PARKING THIS LEVEL
25 STALLS
25 STALLS

58 BIKES
SEE SHEET A2.9 DETAIL 3 FOR RACK

SPECIFICATIONS AND DIMENSIONS
3 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
9 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24
27 28 29
31 32
33 35 36
37 38
UP
UP

LONG TERM
7(;785('&21&5(7()/225
(/(9$725
(/(9$725
),1,6+(')/225

3$'+(,*+7

18 17 13 TYPICAL 17 TYPICAL
17 17
5 17

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL

ALL LEVELS OF GARAGE PARKING TO PROVIDE A LIGHT LEVEL
TO MEET THE CBC. CURRENT DASHED LED LIGHTS ARE
PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE CBC. CODE

REQUIREMENTS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL
DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.

LIGHTING NOTE
19

30 34
39 15
26 25

23 15 23
23 LEVEL 2 BASEMENT PARKING IS RESERVED
FOR PRIVATE UNIT OWNERS. NO VISITOR
OR RETAIL PARKING ALLOWED.

3$5.,1*6800$5<
727$/3$5.,1*67$//6

$&&(66,%/(67$1'$5'67$//6
+&
$&&(66,%/(9$167$//6
+&9

02725&<&/(3$5.,1*

/(9(/(9&667$//6
(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
$&&(66,%/(
(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
9$1$&&(66,%/(

/21*7(50%,&<&/(3$5.,1*
(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
67$1'$5'

5(7$,/+286,1*6+$5('+286,1*

/(9(/%
%$6(0(17%%$6(0(17%
727$/%$6(0(173$5.,1*
67$//667$//6
67$//6

6)
6)

6)
/(9(/% %

5(*8/$567$1'$5'67$//6
/(9(/%
727$//(9(/(9&667$//6

67$7('(16,7<%2186/$:5(6,'(17,$/3$5.,1*
5(48,5(0(17
180%(52)81,763$5.,1*67$//65(48,5('3$5.,1*67$//63529,'(' 9$1
(9
9$1
(9
/(*(1'
+$1',&$33$5.,1*+$1',&$39$13$5.,1*(/(&75,&$/9(+,&/( $&&(66,%/(
(/(&75,&$/9(+,&/(
9$1
(/(&75,&$/9(+,&/(
67$1'$5'
(9&+$5*(5
5$,6('&21&5(7($&&(663$7+),1,6+0$7(
&2/25$1'7(;785(72%(68%0,77(':,7+
/(9(/(9&6
5(48,5(')2567$//6
67$//65(48,5('3(5&$/*5((1%8,/',1*&2'(

15 15

5

3('(675,$13$7+2)75$9(/
NOTE: PROVIDE KEY ACCESS FOR

RESIDENTS AT LONG TERM BIKE ROOMS

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 576 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
+&
9$1
9$1
(9
(9 (9
(9 +&
(9 (9 (9
(9(9
(9
(9
+& +&
9$1
(9

ALTERNATE

BASEMENT PARKING
LEVEL 1 (OPTION 2)
A2.7
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
N

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL ALTERNATE BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 (OPTION 2) 1'=1/8" 1
&21&5(7(3(5,0(7(5:$//
&21&5(7('5,9($&&(665$03

87,/,7<5220
/21*7(50%,&<&/(3$5.,1*
(;,767$,56
685)$&(02817('/('/,*+76

/21*

/2%%<
3523(57</,1(
/,1(2)'5,9(:$<$%29(
,17(5,25678':$//
67$1'$5'3$5.,1*67$//

67((/68332576)2567$&.(5
3$5.,1*29(5+$1*
3$5.,1*6800$5<
727$/%$6(0(173$5.,1*
6)727$/3$5.,1*67$//6

$&&(66,%/(67$1'$5'67$//6
+&
$&&(66,%/(9$167$//6
+&9

02725&<&/(3$5.,1*

67$//6
/(9(/(9&667$//6
(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
$&&(66,%/(
(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
9$1$&&(66,%/(

/21*7(50%,&<&/(3$5.,1*
(/(&75,&9(+,&/(
67$&.(5

5(7$,/+286,1*6+$5('+286,1*

/(9(/%
%$6(0(17%
6)
67$//6/(9(/%
7$1'(03$5.,1*67$//6
67$&.(567$1'$5'3$5.,1*67$//6

/(9(/%
727$//(9(/(9&667$//6

7

2 10
LOBBY

UTILITY ROOM
21 12
6 3
51 20
72 UP

1 A4.0
1 A4.0
15 14

8 2
A4.0
2 A4.0

HOUSING PARKING

TOTAL PARKING THIS LEVEL
39 STALLS
39 STALLS
9 9 TYP

HOUSING

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

BOTTOM OF RAMP

HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING
19 HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING 6 HOUSING

HOUSING

BIKE ROOM
27 BIKES
5 HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING3
9 1 3 57 9 11 13 15 17 19

LONG TERM
21 22 24 26 27 29
32 31 30
33 UP DN
DN UP
34 35 36
39 38 37
SEE 3/A4.4 AND A5.1FOR

CARLIFT SPECIFICATIONS
STACKER STALLS 29STANDARD STALLS 10

7(;785('&21&5(7()/225
(/(9$725
(/(9$725
),1,6+(')/225

3$'+(,*+7

2@1ST LEVEL RES.

FREE SPACE
@ 2ND LEVEL
1 5
3@1ST LEVEL RES.
5 @ 2ND LEVEL
3@1ST LEVEL RES.
5 @ 2ND LEVEL
1 1@1ST LEVEL RES.

FREE SPACE
@ 2ND LEVEL
2@1ST LEVEL RES.
11 @ 2ND LEVEL
3@1ST LEVEL RES.
12 @ 2ND LEVEL
4@1ST LEVEL RES.
13 @ 2ND LEVEL
5@1ST LEVEL RES.
14 @ 2ND LEVEL
6@1ST LEVEL RES.
15 @ 2ND LEVEL
7@1ST LEVEL RES.
16 @ 2ND LEVEL
8@1ST LEVEL RES.
17 @ 2ND LEVEL
9@1ST LEVEL RES.
18 @ 2ND LEVEL
10@1ST LEVEL RES.
19 @ 2ND LEVEL

17 18
1717

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL

ALL LEVELS OF GARAGE PARKING TO PROVIDE A LIGHT LEVEL
TO MEET THE CBC. CURRENT DASHED LED LIGHTS ARE
PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE CBC. CODE

REQUIREMENTS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL
DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.

LIGHTING NOTE
SEE SHEET A5.1 FOR CAR STACKER SPECIFICATIONS
AND NOTES.

CAR STACKER NOTE
3 A4.4
3 A4.4
19

22 15
22

PARKING STALL DETAIL 1"=10' 4 EV STALL REQUIREMENT 1"=10' 3 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALL REQUIREMENTS 1"=10' 2 -
4A

2'

OVERHANG
6" CURB
4" WIDE

PAINTED

STRIPES
DOUBLE STRIPE DETAIL 4A
1"=2'

-
4A

IDENTIFICATION SIGN
8' ACCESSIBLE AISLE

SIGNAGE AT

ACCESSIBLE SPACES

EV CHARGER

PARKING SIGN
4" WIDE

PAINTED STRIPES
-
4A
9$1
(9
9$1
(9
/(*(1'
+$1',&$33$5.,1*+$1',&$39$13$5.,1*(/(&75,&$/9(+,&/( $&&(66,%/(
(/(&75,&$/9(+,&/(
9$1
(/(&75,&$/9(+,&/(
67$1'$5'
(9&+$5*(5
5$,6('&21&5(7($&&(663$7+),1,6+0$7(
&2/25$1'7(;785(72%(68%0,77(':,7+
%8,/',1*3(50,7'5$:,1*6
127(
67$//6$1'$5()5((63$&(6$7($&+21(2)
7+(6(/2&$7,216725(75,(9(5(6,'(176&$56
/(9(/(9&6
5(48,5(')25
67$//6
67$//65(48,5('3(5&$/*5((1%8,/',1*&2'(

1@1ST LEVEL RES.
4@ 2ND LEVEL
2@1ST LEVEL RES.

FREE SPACE
@ 2ND LEVEL
1@1ST LEVEL RES.
4@ 2ND LEVEL
67$7('(16,7<%2186/$:5(6,'(17,$/3$5.,1*
5(48,5(0(17
180%(52)81,763$5.,1*67$//65(48,5('3$5.,1*67$//63529,'('

5

NOTE:PROVIDE KEY

ACCESS FOR

RESIDENTS AT LONG

TERM BIKE ROOMS
3('(675,$13$7+2)75$9(/

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 577 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

KEY NOTES
12'-0" 11'-0"
10'-0"
7'-2" 15'-10"
6 4
1 3

KITCHEN/DINING
11'-2" X 15'-0"
LIVING
12'-2" X 11'-2"
CL
7'-0" X 2'-11"

EXTERIOR BALCONY
11'-3" X 9'-0"
100 SF
27'-6"
4'-0"

PRIMARY

BEDROOM
10'-6" X 13'-0"

PRIMARY BATH
9'-10" X 6'-8"
CL
2'-0" X 4'-0"
2 6'-5" 6'-2" 20'-5"
8'-2"
42'-0"
12'-0" 21'-0"
4 5
1 KITCHEN
15'-0" X 10'-0"
LIVING
11'-4" X 16'-6"

BEDROOM
10'-0" X 13'-0"
W.I.C
6'-8" X 4'-6"
BATH
10'-0" X 8'-0"
W/D
3'-6" X 3'-5"
CL
2'-2" X 4'-0"

EXTERIOR BALCONY
11'-3" X 9'-0"
100 SF

PRIMARY

BEDROOM
10'-0" X 13'-0"

PRIMARY BATH
10'-0" X 10'-0"
2 W/D
3'-6" X 3'-3"
0' 4' 8'
7<3,&$/81,73/$1
$

EXTERIOR STUD WALL
EXTERIOR WINDOW SYSTEM

INTERIOR STUD WALL

INTERIOR DOOR

UNIT ENTRY DOOREXTERIOR BALCONY/DECK
36'-0"
2'-6"
25'-4" 10'-0"
4'-0"
6 3
CL
3'-2" X 2'-11"
DINING
14'-6" X 11'-4"
CL
6'-2" X 2'-6"
2'-6"
21(%('522081,7
6) 7:2%('522081,7
6)
5

Page 578 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL KEY NOTES 5'-6" 9'-8"
11'-0"
15'-0" 46'-6"
6 KITCHEN
11'-0" X 10'-10"
LIVING
18'-4" X 13'-0"

EXTERIOR DECK
30'-6" X 61'-0"
803 SF
30'-6"
42'-0"

PRIMARY

BEDROOM
14'-0" X 14'-0"

PRIMARY BATH
10'-0" X 8'-8"
2 W.I.C
6'-2" X 5'-8"
W/D
3'-6" X 5'-0"
0' 4' 8'
7<3,&$/81,73/$1
$

EXTERIOR STUD WALL
EXTERIOR WINDOW SYSTEM

INTERIOR STUD WALL

INTERIOR DOOR

UNIT ENTRY DOOREXTERIOR BALCONY/DECK
4 %,.(5$&.63(&,),&$7,216 176
VERTICAL BIKE STORAGE BY 'CYCLE SAFE' WALL RACK SYSTEM # 17502 16" 20" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 20" 5'-9" %,.(52203/$1
237

7:2%('522081,7
6)
15'-0" 19'-11" 11'-5"
DINING
14'-6" X 9'-2"
CL
8'-4" X 2'-6"
CL
8'-4" X 2'-6"
BATH
9'-10" X 5'-8"

BEDROOM
16'-2" X 12'-6"
3 5
1 LONG TERM

BIKE ROOM
14 BIKES
14 27

LONG TERM

BIKE ROOM
27 BIKES
58 LONG TERM

BIKE ROOM
58 BIKES
/21*7(50%,.(52203/$1
237
%,.(52203/$1
237

64" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 32"
57" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 57"
64" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16"
58" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 20" 57" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 57"
58" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16"

ATTACHMENT POINTS
9' HEIGHT CLG.

PROVIDE 2 POINTS OF

ATTACHMENT TO WALL
9' HEIGHT CLG.
9' HEIGHT CLG.
9'-10"
16"
9'-10"
16"
16" 16"
NOTE: PROVIDE KEY

ACCESS FOR RESIDENTS

AT LONG TERM BIKE
NOTE: PROVIDE KEY ROOMS

ACCESS FOR RESIDENTS

AT LONG TERM BIKE
ROOMS
NOTE: PROVIDE KEY

ACCESS FOR RESIDENTS

AT LONG TERM BIKE
ROOMS

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 579 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 580 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 581 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 582 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 583 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

BUILDING

SECTIONS
A4.0
BUILDING SECTION 1"=10'-0" 2
1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 382.60')
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
3RD FLOOR
22'-0"
4TH FLOOR
33'-0"
T.O. ROOF
49'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
44'-0"
11' 11' 11' 11' 5'
49'
LEVEL B1
LEVEL B2
11' 11'
PL PL
OPTION 1

PARKING

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL

CIRCULATION

AMENITY

AMENTIY
1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 379.60')
2ND FLOOR
14'-0"
3RD FLOOR
25'-0"
4TH FLOOR
36'-0"
T.O. ROOF
52'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
47'-0"
14' 11' 11' 11' 5'
52'
LEVEL B1
-11'-0"
LEVEL B2
-22'-0"
11' 11'

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING SECTION 1"=10'-0" 1

KEY NOTES
13456789

SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER

METAL DECK PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
24 GA. METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT

TO BACK SPLASH
2 CLAY TILE ROOF

WOOD TRELLIS

IRON RAILING

EXTERIOR STUD WALL

INTERIOR STUD WALL

BRICK VENEER AND CEMENT PLASTER

SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR FACES

CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR
FACES
101112

ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
WITH CENTER SET CLEAR INSULATED GLAZING.

STRUCTURAL BEAM, SEE STRUCTURAL

ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

BATT INSULATION AT WALLS

CONCRETE SLAB / FOUNDATION,
SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS. 13
1415

BELOW GRADE CONCRETE WALL WITH

WATERPROOFING

PERIMETER DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL
PL PL 3 2
1 1 5 11
12 13
1415
87 10
6 1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 382.60')
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
3RD FLOOR22'-0"
4TH FLOOR
33'-0"
T.O. ROOF
49'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
44'-0"
11' 11' 11' 11' 5'
49'
LEVEL B1
-11'-0"
LEVEL B2
-22'-0"
11' 11'
1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 379.60')
2ND FLOOR
14'-0"
3RD FLOOR
25'-0"4TH FLOOR
36'-0"
T.O. ROOF
52'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
47'-0"
14' 11' 11' 11' 5'
52'
LEVEL B1LEVEL B2
11' 11'
22'
22'
22'
22'
4'-10"

SETBACK
3'-8"

SETBACK
10'-8"

SETBACK
3'
3'
18 19 18
19 18 18
10'-4"
MIN.CLEAR
10-4"
MIN.CLEAR
10'-4"
MIN.CLEAR
10'-4"
MIN.CLEAR

HIGH SCHOOL COURT

EAST MAIN STREET CHURCH STREET
0' 10' 0' 20'

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
OPTION 1

PARKING
3'
3'
OPTION 1

PARKING
OPTION 1

PARKING
12 EXISTING BUILDING

AND SITE GRADE

EXISTING BUILDING

AND SITE GRADE

Page 584 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
(9
(9
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

BASEMENT

DRIVEWAY

SECTIONS & PLANS
A4.1
LEVEL B1
LEVEL B2
11'
SLOPE 16.2%

LONG TERM

BIKE ROOM
11'
LEVEL B1LEVEL B2
11' 11' SLOPE 4.5%
BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 1 1'=1/8" 1 BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL 2 1'=1/8" 2 1 PROPERTY LINE

KEYNOTES
2 EXIT STAIRS3 CONCRETE PERIMETER WALL
4 CONCRETE DRIVE ACCESS RAMP
5 LINE OF DRIVEWAY ABOVE
6 UTILITY ROOM
7 BIKE ROOM

CHURCH STREET EAST MAIN STREET
8'-2"
CLEAR
SLOPE 11.6%
BASEMENT DRIVEWAY SECTION 1'=1/8" 3
5 1 4 2 3 3 7 5 1 8 2

CHURCH STREET

TOP OF RAMP

BOTTOM OF RAMP

UTILITY ROOM
16'
2 6
8 0' 8' 16'
24'
4 SURFACE MOUNTED LED LIGHTS
(10' LONG) LIGHT LEVELS TO

MEET CBC REQUIREMENTS
8 PL PL
1 2
UP DN
R35'
R35' R35'

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
N
FIRST FLOOR 382.60'
8'-2"
CLEAR
N
13'-3"
3'-6"
9'-6" 6'-7" 3'-6" 24' 24' 1'-2" 6" 4' 4' 3' 6'-6" 3'-8" 2'-6" 24'

STORAGE

RETAIL/

HOUSING

RETAIL/

HOUSING

BIKE ROOM
UP
9'-6" 1'-2" 9'-6" 8'-6" 3' 2'-6" 24'
7'-8"
16' 2' HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING
3 BOTTOM OF RAMP

HOUSING HOUSING
58 BIKES
SEE SHEET A2.9 DETAIL 3 FOR RACK

SPECIFICATIONS AND DIMENSIONS
16 38 37
UP

LONG TERM
3' 3'
12'-8"

STORAGE
39 15
9'-6" 3' 3' 6'-6" UP DN
2'
6" 2' 16'
3'
3'-8"
3 A4.1
3 A4.1

EXISTING BUILDING

AND SITE GRADE

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 585 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

WALL SECTIONS &

ENLARGED ELEVATIONS
A4.2
+0'-0'' FIRST FLOOR
1 ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0"
+14'-0'' SECOND FLOOR
+25'-0'' THIRD FLOOR
+36'-0'' FOURTH FLOOR
+47'-0'' T.O. ROOF+52'-0'' T.O. ROOF
+0'-0'' FIRST FLOOR
+14'-0'' SECOND FLOOR
+25'-0'' THIRD FLOOR
+36'-0'' FOURTH FLOOR
+47'-0'' T.O. ROOF

KEY NOTES
13456789

SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER

METAL DECK PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
24 GA. METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT

TO BACK SPLASH
2 CLAY TILE ROOF

WOOD TRELLIS

IRON RAILING

EXTERIOR STUD WALL

INTERIOR STUD WALL

BRICK VENEER AND CEMENT PLASTER

SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR FACES

CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR
FACES
101112

ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
WITH CENTER SET CLEAR INSULATED GLAZING.

STRUCTURAL BEAM, SEE STRUCTURAL

ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

BATT INSULATION AT WALLS

CONCRETE SLAB / FOUNDATION,
SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS. 13
1415

BELOW GRADE CONCRETE WALL WITH

WATERPROOFING

PERIMETER DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER

GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
16 AWNINGS TO BE A MIN. VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 8' FROM PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY17 PRECAST CORNICE18 HVAC EQUIPMENT LOCATION19 ELEVATOR OVERRIDE SCREENED BEHIND PARAPET WALL +11'-0'' SECOND FLOOR
+22'-0'' THIRD FLOOR
+33'-0'' FOURTH FLOOR
+44'-0'' T.O. ROOF+49'-0'' T.O. ROOF
+11'-0'' SECOND FLOOR
+22'-0'' THIRD FLOOR
+33'-0'' FOURTH FLOOR
+44'-0'' T.O. ROOF
3 ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0"
4 2
A4.2
2 WALL SECTION 1/8"=1'-0" 4 WALL SECTION 1/8"=1'-0"
4 A4.2
8 +52'-0'' T.O. ROOF
235
10 9
101016
8 11 1
1314
+49'-0'' T.O. ROOF
2 9
101010
11 131417
OPTION 1PARKING

RETAIL /

RESTAURANT
LOBBY
(F.F.E 379.60') (F.F.E 379.60')
(F.F.E 382.60') (F.F.382.60')
+37'-0'' T.O. CANOPY
3'-6"
(431.60') (431.60') (431.60') (431.60')

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
FINISH FLOOR 379.60'

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
FINISH FLOOR 382.60'

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
OPTION 1PARKING
6 11'-0" 11'-0" OPTION 1 PARKING OPTION 1 PARKING
11'-0" 11'-0"
6 3'-0"
+0'-0'' FIRST FLOOR +0'-0'' FIRST FLOOR
15 15

EXISTING BUILDING

AND SITE GRADE

EXISTING BUILDING

AND SITE GRADE

71.25 SF 71.25 SF

54.375 SF

54.375 SF

46.25 SF

63 SF 46.25 SF

30 SF

GLASS AREA FOR SOUTH BUILDING FACADE IS 300 SF = 41% BUILDING FACADEGLASS AREA FOR SOUTHEAST BUILDING FACADE IS 155.5 SF = 60% BUILDING FACADEGLASS AREA FOR EAST BUILDING FACADE IS 108.75 SF = 44% BUILDING FACADE

42.5 SF

42.5 SF
5 ENLARGED SOUTH COMMERCIAL ELEVATION (MAIN ST.) 1/4"=1'-0" 7 ENLARGED EAST COMMERCIAL ELEVATION (HIGH SCHOOL CT.) 1/4"=1'-0" 6 ENLARGED SOUTHEAST COMMERCIAL ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0"

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL
GLASS AREA CALCULATIONS 1'=1/4" 5

Page 586 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 587 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

SITE CROSS

SECTIONS
A4.4

18 18 19

0,1&/($5
1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 382.60')
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
3RD FLOOR
22'-0"
4TH FLOOR
33'-0"
T.O. ROOF
49'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
44'-0"

LEVEL B1
LEVEL B2

PL
OPTION 1

PARKING

CIRCULATION

RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING SECTION 1"=20'-0" 1

KEY NOTES
13456789

SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER

METAL DECK PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
24 GA. METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT

TO BACK SPLASH
2 CLAY TILE ROOF

WOOD TRELLIS

IRON RAILING

EXTERIOR STUD WALL

INTERIOR STUD WALL

BRICK VENEER AND CEMENT PLASTER

SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR FACES

CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER EXTERIOR
FACES
101112

ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
WITH CENTER SET CLEAR INSULATED GLAZING.

STRUCTURAL BEAM, SEE STRUCTURAL

ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

BATT INSULATION AT WALLS

CONCRETE SLAB / FOUNDATION,
SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS. 13
4 3 2 5 11
131415
2 1
11 1
12 1315
20' 40'

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL
1415

BELOW GRADE CONCRETE WALL WITH

WATERPROOFING

PERIMETER DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER

GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
16 AWNINGS TO BE A MIN. VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 8' FROM PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY17 PRECAST CORNICE18 HVAC EQUIPMENT LOCATION19 ELEVATOR OVERRIDE SCREENED BEHIND PARAPET WALL

CIRCULATION

CIRCULATION
0'

LOS GATOS UNITED

METHODIST CHURCH

THE MASONIC HALL

6(7%$&.
68 CIRCULATION
LOBBY

AMENITY
478
17 08.30.2024

BUILDING SECTION 1"=20'-0" 3BUILDING SECTION 1"=20'-0" 2

0,1&/($5

1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 382.60')
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
3RD FLOOR22'-0"
4TH FLOOR
33'-0"
T.O. ROOF49'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
44'-0"

LEVEL B1LEVEL B2

6(7%$&.

LGS RECREATION

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL

LGS RECREATION ADULT CHURCH STREET RECREATION CENTER

0,1&/($5

0,1&/($5
PL

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
OPTION 1PARKING

EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER

18 HIGH SCHOOL COURT
1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 382.60')
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
3RD FLOOR
22'-0"
4TH FLOOR
33'-0"
T.O. ROOF
49'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
44'-0"

LEVEL B1

PL
OPTION 2

PARKING

CIRCULATION
4 3 2 5 11
1314
1 THE MASONIC HALL

6(7%$&.
68

0,1&/($5

1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 382.60')
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
3RD FLOOR22'-0"
4TH FLOOR
33'-0"
T.O. ROOF49'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
44'-0"

PL

6(7%$&.

LGS RECREATION

LOS GATOS HIGH SCHOOL
LEVEL B1

0,1&/($5

CIRCULATIONCIRCULATIONCIRCULATION
3'
3'
3'
15 3'

OPTION 1PARKING
OPTION 1

PARKING
3'
3'

1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 382.60')
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
3RD FLOOR
22'-0"
4TH FLOOR
33'-0"
T.O. ROOF
49'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
44'-0"

LEVEL B1
LEVEL B2

3'
3'

1ST FLOOR
(F.F. 382.60')
2ND FLOOR
11'-0"
3RD FLOOR22'-0"4TH FLOOR33'-0"
T.O. ROOF
49'-0"(431.60')
B.O. ROOF
44'-0"

LEVEL B1LEVEL B2

14 19
19 HIGH SCHOOL COURT

Page 588 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

TRASH ENCLOSURE

PLANS & ELEVATIONS
A5.0

*$5%$*(%,1

*$5%$*(%,1

*$5%$*(%,1

*$5%$*(%,1

(1/$5*('75$6+(1&/2685(3/$1

75$6+(1&/2685(522)3/$1
75$6+(1&/2685(1257+(/(9$7,21 75$6+(1&/2685(($67(/(9$7,21 75$6+(1&/2685(:(67(/(9$7,21

METAL ROOFING OVER STEEL

FRAME WITH INTEGRATEDDRAINAGE AND LIGHTING

WOOD CLADDING

TUBE STEEL POST

METAL ROOFING

WOOD CLADDING OVER STEEL FRAME TUBE STEEL POST

METAL ROOFING

OVER STEEL FRAME TUBE STEEL POST WOOD CLADDING

METAL ROOFING

OVER STEEL FRAME

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL

C H U R C H S T R E E T

6 CY BIN
72"X58"X71"

METAL ROOF ABOVE

TRASH ROOM
6" CONCRETE PAD

08.30.2024
3$5.,1*0(6+*$7(
DRAIN SEE CIVILPLANS SHEET C-4.0FOR DRAIN NOTE

HOT & COLD WATER

Page 589 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
&$567$&.(5
63(&,),&$7,216
$
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL

08.30.2024

08.30.2024 2ND REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 590 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

ROECT ESCRITION
E MA
-3
LEGEN EISTING
*
:
(3
3,9
ROOSE
••
AREIATIONS
3,9
-3
&29(56+((7
&
CIIL SHEET INE
& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/

EAST MAIN STREET
HIGH SCHOOL COURT EAST MAIN STREET EAST MAIN STREET LOS GATOS MIE USE
ESTING TENTATIE MA OR
CONOMINIUM UROSES

EAST MAIN ST

LOS GATOS
CALIORNIA
ICINIT MA
SITE
O NER

Page 591 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
&216758&7,21
127(6
&
& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ ISCREANCIESUTILITOTHOLE NOTECONSTRUCTION NOTES LOOONEENCROACHMENT NOTE UNERGROUN OR CAUTION
ALICALE IRE COE NOTES
IRE ESIGN NOTEEMOLITION NOTES

IMENSIONS
AEMENT SECTIONS
CONSTRUCTION ENCE
RECOR RA ING NOTE
HAAROUS MATERIALS NOTE
GENERAL UTILIT NOTES

Page 592 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ &216758&7,21
127(6
&
ROECT SITE MAINTENANCE TREE ROTECTIONUST CONTROL NOTESGENERAL SITE NOTES

Page 593 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

CHURCH STREET

HIGH SCHOOL COURT

7232*5$3+,&
6859(<
&
& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 0'
1 INCH =
2' 5' 10' 20'
10 FT

Page 594 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

CHURCH STREET

HIGH SCHOOL COURT L

352326('
3$5&(/,=$7,21
3/$1
&
& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$6 6+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26 *$726&$/,)251,$
/26 *$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 0'
1 INCH =
2' 5' 10' 20'
10 FT

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 595 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

CHURCH STREET

HIGH SCHOOL COURT

*5$',1*$1'
'5$,1$*(3/$1
&
0'
1 INCH =
2' 5' 10' 20'
10 FT
LEGEN
& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ EARTH OR CALCULATIONS
GRAING NOTES

Page 596 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

EAST MAIN STREET

CHURCH STREET

HIGH SCHOOL COURT

& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/;;;; 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ /(*(1'
67250'5$,1127(66$1,7$5<6(:(5127(6:$7(56<67(0127(6 0'
1 INCH =
2' 5' 10' 20'
10 FT
87,/,7<3/$1
&
(;&$9$7,21127(6

02.18.2025

Page 597 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

EAST MAIN STREET

CHURCH STREET

HIGH SCHOOL COURT

'0$
'0$ '0$
'0$
'0$
'0$
& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ +<'5202',),&$7,21127(
6,7(75($70(17$5($127(
67250:$7(50$1$*(0(17127(6

67250:$7(5
0$1$*(0(173/$1/(*(1'
0'
1 INCH =
2' 5' 10' 20'
10 FT
67250:$7(5
0$1$*(0(173/$1
&

Page 598 ends

Page 599 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ /(*(1'
($670$,1675((7
&+85&+675((7
+,*+6&+22/&2857
0'
1 INCH =
4' 10' 20' 40'
20 FT
),5($&&(663/$1
&
127(6
),5()/2:5(48,5(0(176352-(&7'(6&5,37,21

Page 600 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

& .(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1&
352-(&712'5$:1%< 6&$/(
'$7(
.(11(7+52'5,*8(6 3$571(56,1& 0RXQWDLQ9LHZ&$

&+(&.('%<
$66+2:1
($670$,1675((7
/26*$726&$/,)251,$
/26*$726
0,;('86(

$31
$31

5(9,6,21&2168/7$176
675(9,6('68%0,77$/ 3/$11,1*
3/$1&+(&.
5(63216(6
5'5(9,6('68%0,77$/ 7+5(9,6('68%0,77$/ ),5(67$*,1*$5($
&
($670$,1675((7
&+85&+675((7
+,*+6&+22/&2857
0'
1 INCH =
8' 20' 40' 80'
40 FT
/(*(1'
&+85&+675((7 +,*+6&+22/&2857 ($670$,1675((7
0'
1 INCH =
2' 5' 10' 20'
10 FT
0'
1 INCH =
2' 5' 10' 20'
10 FT
0'
1 INCH =
2' 5' 10' 20'
10 FT

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 601 ends

Page 602 ends

Page 603 ends

Page 604 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

02.18.2025 4TH REVISED SUBMITTAL

Page 605 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

10.30.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 7+(
,1&
*X]]DUGR
3DUWQHUVKLS
/$1'6&$3(
,0$*(5<
/
3$9,1*
%,.(5$&.6
&21&5(7(3/$17(5:$//6:35(&$67&$3
75((*5$7(
675((7/,*+7 675((7)851,785(
+$1'5$,/
)DQ8UEDQ$FFHVVRULHV
+H[DJRQDO$FFHQW3DYHUV
6WHSVWRQH,QF
522)3/$17(5
5(&(66('3/$17(5/,*+7

Page 606 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
;,1*
%6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6
%6 %6
%6 %6
%6 %6
%6 %6 %6
%6
%6%6
%6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6
%6
%6%6 %6%6 %6 %6 %6 %6%6 %6%6 %6 %6 %6 %6
%6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6 %6
// // // // // // // // // //// // // $: $: $: $: 5, 5, $: $: $: // $: 5, $: // $: 5, $: // // // 30 $: 3030 $: $: 3030 $: 3030
&3 &3 &3 &3 &3 &3 &3
(;,67,1*2))6,7(75((725(0$,1 $118$/&2/255()(5726+((77 %6%6
5+$0$-
%R[
32'*5$
%R[
/$*,1'
%R[
&(5&$1
%R[
5+$0$-
%R[
/$*,1'
%R[
$&(58%
%R[
%6%6
30 30
30 $W3ODQWLQJ

K[
Z
$W0DWXULW\

K[
Z
$W3ODQWLQJ

K[
Z$W0DWXULW\

K[
Z
$W3ODQWLQJ

K[
ZFROXPQDU$W0DWXULW\

K[
Z
$W3ODQWLQJ

K[
Z$W0DWXULW\

K[
Z
$W3ODQWLQJ

K[
Z$W0DWXULW\

K[
Z
$W3ODQWLQJ

K[
Z$W0DWXULW\

K[
Z
$W3ODQWLQJ

K[
ZFROXPQDU$W0DWXULW\

K[
Z

$8

&<

$%
JF
/0

/3

&-
JF
$3

/3

JF &-
$3
JF
$3
JF
$3
JF
$3
JF
/0

&<
JF
/0

$%
JF
/0

&-
JF
$3

/3

0+

/3

$%

&$

/7

$0

%67

$0

/7

$0

&$

&$

$%

$:
$:

$:

5,

//
//

/3

30
5,

//
JF
7<
JF
7<
JF
7<
JF
7<
JF
7<
JF
7<
JF
7<

(*
30
0&
30 30
32'*5$
%R[
30 30
30 30
30 30
30 30

30 (;,67,1*2))6,7(75((6
$1'725(0$,15()(572
6+((77
(;,67,1*2))6,7(75((725(0$,15()(5726+((77 8WLOLWLHVWREHKLJK
PD[6&'6FUHHQSODQWLQJ
VKDOOEHPD[DWPDWXULW\

$W3ODQWLQJ

K[
Z$W0DWXULW\

K[
Z
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

10.30.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 7+(
,1&
*X]]DUGR3DUWQHUVKLS
6&+(0$7,&
3/$17,1*3/$1
/

6&$/(

(0$,1675((7
&+85&+675((7
+,*+6&+22/&7
*$5$*(
5$03
3523(57</,1(
.(< 6,=( %27$1,&1$0( &200211$0(
75((6
6+58%6
3/$17,1*3$/(77(
9,1(6
5- 5RVD
-RVHSK
V&RDW
JDO &OLPELQJ5RVH
:8&2/6
/
&(5&$1 &HUFLVFDQDGHQVLV 5HGEXG //$*,1' /DJHUVWURHPLDLQGLFD0DWFK([LVWLQJ &UDSH0\UWOH / .(< 6,=( %27$1,&1$0( &200211$0( :8&2/6
47<
727$/
5+$0$- 5KDSKLROHSLV
0DMHVWLF%HDXW\
6WDQGDUG 0DMHVWLF%HDXW\,QGLDQ+DZWKRUQ /

&$ JDO &DOLEULFKRDK\EULGUHG 5HG0LOOLRQ%HOOV /
/3 JDO /RPDQGUD
3ODWLQXP%HDXW\
3ODWLQXP%HDXW\0DWW5XVK /
$= JDO $QL]RJDQWKRV
%XVK*ROG
.DQJDURR3DZ /
32'*5$ 3RGRFDUSXVJUDFLOLRU
,FHH%OXH
)HUQ3LQH 0
&- JDO &DOOLVWHPRQ
/LWWOH-RKQ
%RWWOHEUXVK /
%6 JDO %X[XVV
*UHHQ%HDXW\
%R[ZRRG 0// JDO /RPDQGUDORQJLIROLD
/LPH7XII
/RPDQGUD /
/2 JDO /RURSHWDOXP
%XUJXQG\
5D]]OHEHUU\ 00+ 0DKRQLDDTXLIROLXP JDO 2UHJRQ*UDSH /30 JDO 3RO\VWLFKXPPXQLWXP 6ZRUGIHUQ /5, JDO 5RVD ,FHEHUJ
6WDQGDUG 5RVH52 JDO 5RVPDULQXVR
3URVWUDWXV
5RVHPDU\ /
0 $: JDO $QHPRQH[K\EULGD
:KLUOZLQG
:KLUOZLQG-DSDQHVH$QHPRQH 0/7 JDO /DYDGXOD[LQWHUPHGLD 3URYHQFH
3URYHQFH/DYHQGHU /
&< JDO &\FDVUHYROXWD 6DJR3DOP 0
$% JDO $JDYHDWWHQXDWD
%OXH*ORZ
)R[7DLO$JDYH /
/0 JDO /LULRSHPXVFDUL
5R\DO3XUSOH
5R\DO3XUSOH/LO\7XUI 0
$0 JDO $VSDUDJXVGHQVLIORUXV
0\HUVLL
0\HUV$VSDUDJXV)HUQ
$8 JDO $UEXWXVXQHGR
&RPSDFWD
&RPSDFW6WUDZEHUU\7UHH /
0 %67 6SHFLPHQ %X[XVV
*UHHQ%HDXW\
7RSLDU\&RQH 7RSLDU\%R[ZRRG 0
/27 /RURSHWDOXP
%XUJXQG\
7RSLDU\&RQH 7RSLDU\5D]]OHEHUU\ 0
$3 JDO $UFWRVWDSK\ORV
(PHUDOG&DUSHW
(PHUDOG&DUSHW0DQ]DQLWD /
6SHFLPHQ
%R[%R[%R[%R[
$&(58% %R[ $FHU5XEUXP
$UPVWURQJ
&ROXPQDU5HG0DSOH 0
47<

*5281'&29(5
7< JDO 7K\PXVSUDHFR[ 0RWKHURI7K\PH /
(* JDO (ULJHURQJODXFXV
%RXQWLIXO
6HDVLGH'DLV\
/
&. JDO &DODPDJURVWLVDFXULIROLD
.DUO)RUHVWHU
)HDWKHU5HHG*UDVV 0

&3 JDO &ROHRQHPDSXOFKUXP
6XQVHW*ROG
*ROGHQ%UHDWKRI+HDYHQ 0
0& 0XKOHQEHUJLDFDSLOODULV JDO 3LQN0XKO\*UDVV /

Page 607 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
3HU(DFK3RW
3HU(DFK3RW 3HU(DFK3RW
3HU(DFK3RW3HU(DFK3RW 3HU(DFK3RW
3HU(DFK3RW
3HU(DFK3RW
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

10.30.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 7+(
,1&
*X]]DUGR3DUWQHUVKLS
WK)/225
522)'(&.
/$1'6&$3(3/$1
/

6&$/(

(0$,1675((7
&+85&+675((7
+,*+6&+22/&7
5(7$,/
3ODQWHU3RWVZLWK9LQH3ODQWLQJDW5RRI7UHOOLVHV
$FFHQW3DYLQJDW5RRI7HUUDFHV
5RRI7UHOOLVHVE\$UFKLWHFW
5RRI7HUUDFH*XDUGUDLOVDQG3DUDSHWE\$UFKLWHFW

Page 608 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
;,1*
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

10.30.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 7+(
,1&
*X]]DUGR3DUWQHUVKLS
+<'52=21(3/$1
/

6&$/(

(0$,1675((7
&+85&+675((7
+,*+6&+22/&7
5(7$,/
/2%%<
*$5$*(
5$03
3523(57</,1(
+<'52=21(/(*(1'
/RZ:DWHU8VH0RGHUDWH:DWHU8VH
.(< :8&2/69$/8(

Page 609 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

10.30.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 7+(
,1&
*X]]DUGR
3DUWQHUVKLS
'(7$,/6
/
)DFHRI%XLOGLQJ )LQLVK*UDGH)DFHRI%XLOGLQJ
QGIORRUUGIORRU
6HFWLRQ$W(JUHVV:LQGRZ
/DGGHU3DG'LDJUDP
6FDOH

UGIORRURSHUDEOHHJUHVV
ZLQGRZVLOO
/DGGHUDWGHJUHHVWRUG
IORRUZLQGRZVLOO
QGIORRURSHUDEOHHJUHVV
ZLQGRZVLOO
/DGGHUDWGHJUHHVWR
QGIORRUZLQGRZVLOO

3ODQ

(4 (4
/DGGHUSDG3ODVWLF
5HLQIRUFHG&HOO3DYHUV
/DGGHUSDGFRPSDFWHG
VRLORUSDYLQJSHUSODQ
/DGGHU

&/RIRSHUDEOH
HJUHVVZLQGRZ
RUSDWLR
6LOORIHJUHVV
ZLQGRZ
6LOORIHJUHVV
ZLQGRZ

)DFHRI%XLOGLQJ )LQLVK*UDGH
QGIORRU
UGIORRU
6HFWLRQ$W3ULYDWH%DOFRQ\
UGIORRUEDOFRQ\JXDUGUDLO
/DGGHUDWGHJUHHVWRUG
IORRUEDOFRQ\JXDUGUDLO
QGIORRUEDOFRQ\JXDUGUDLO
/DGGHUDWGHJUHHVWR
QGIORRUEDOFRQ\JXDUGUDLO

/DGGHUSDG3ODVWLF
5HLQIRUFHG&HOO3DYHUV

$VVXPHG

$VVXPHG
$VVXPHG

$VVXPHG

0LQ

0LQ

0LQ

2&

0LQ
3ODQ
2Q*UDGHZ&RQFUHWH&RQGLWLRQ

%LNH5DFN6FDOH

0LQ
%LNH5DFN
,QVWDOOSHU0DQXIDFWXUHU
V6SHFLILFDWLRQV
(GJHRI%XLOGLQJRU3DYLQJ
6HH/D\RXW3ODQVIRU&RQGLWLRQV
3HGHVWULDQ&RQFUHWH3DYLQJ
3HGHVWULDQ&RQFUHWH3DYLQJ

(PEHGGLQJ7KUHDGHG
5RGV6HH0DQXIDFWXUHU
V
6SHFLILFDWLRQV

Page 610 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
;,1*
6" Magnolia (Offsite)
Glossy Privet (Offsite)
Glossy Privet (Offsite)
12" Evergreen Pear Tree

26.5" Oak Tree
19" Evergreen Pear Tree
Tree Protection
Fencing, Type III.
#170 #171 #179 #172 #176
#178
#177
#173
#174
#175
Tree Protection
Fencing, Type III
Tree Protection
Fencing, Type I
383.54
383.97
380.46 379.82
379.28
381.46
Tree Protection
Fencing, Type I
7" Crape Myrtle (Offsite) 8" Magnolia (Offsite) 7 Magnolia (Offsite) 5" Magnolia (Offsite) C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

10.30.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 7+(
,1&
*X]]DUGR3DUWQHUVKLS
75((',6326,7,21
3/$1
7

6&$/(

(0$,1675((7
&+85&+675((7
+,*+6&+22/&7
5(7$,/ /2%%<
*$5$*(
5$03
3523(57</,1(
&$123<6,=(2)5(029('75(( 5(3/$&(0(175(48,5(0(17
10 feet or lessMore than 10 feet to 25 feetMore than 25 feet to 40 feetMore than 40 feet to 55 feetGreater than 55 feet (2) 24" box trees (10) 24" box trees or (5) 36" box trees (6) 24" box trees or (3) 36" box trees (4) 24" box trees or (2) 36" box trees (3) 24" box trees 5HSODFHPHQW6WDQGDUG7DEOH7UHH&DQRS\
*NOTE: Single-family residential option not applicable replacement option for this project.
75((',6326,7,21/(*(1'
([LVWLQJ7UHHWREH5HPRYHG
([LVWLQJ7UHHWR5HPDLQ
75((',6326,7,216800$5<
EXISTING ON SITE TREES TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING ON SITE TREES TO REMAINTOTAL EXISTING TREES ON SITE (4" DBH & GREATER) EXISTING TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED
QTY
PROPOSED NEW ON- SITE TREES - 24" BOX OR GREATER Refer to Planting Plan, sheet L-3 Note: Refer to Arborist Report prepared by Calyx on October 24, 2024 for Tree Removal and Protection recommendations.
36" BOX MIN. 24" BOX MIN.
5(3/$&(0(1775((65(48,5('3(57$%/(

TOTAL REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED TOTAL EXISTING TREES OFF SITE EXISTING OFF SITE TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING OFF SITE TREES TO BE REMOVED 7UHH3URWHFWLRQ)HQFLQJ
6HF
3URWHFWLRQRIWUHHVGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQD 3URWHFWLYHWUHHIHQFLQJVKDOOVSHFLI\WKHIROORZLQJ

6L]HDQGPDWHULDOV6L[

IRRWKLJKFKDLQOLQNIHQFLQJPRXQWHGRQWZRLQFK
GLDPHWHUJDOYDQL]HGLURQSRVWVVKDOOEHGULYHQLQWRWKHJURXQGWRDGHSWKRIDW OHDVWWZR

IHHWDWQRPRUHWKDQWHQIRRWVSDFLQJ)RUSDYLQJDUHDWKDWZLOOQRWEHGHPROLVKHGDQGZKHQVWLSXODWHGLQDWUHHSUHVHUYDWLRQSODQSRVWVPD\EHVXSSRUWHGE\DFRQFUHWHEDVH
$UHDW\SHWREHIHQFHG7\SH,
(QFORVXUHZLWKFKDLQOLQNIHQFLQJRIHLWKHUWKH
HQWLUHGULSOLQHDUHDRUDWWKHWUHHSURWHFWLRQ]RQH
73=
ZKHQVSHFLILHGE\DFHUWLILHGRUFRQVXOWLQJDUERULVW7\SH,, (QFORVXUHIRUVWUHHWWUHHVORFDWHGLQD
SODQWHUVWULS
FKDLQOLQNIHQFHDURXQGWKHHQWLUHSODQWHUVWULSWRWKHRXWHUEUDQFKHV7\SH,,, 3URWHFWLRQIRUDWUHHORFDWHGLQDVPDOOSODQWHUFXWRXWRQO\

VXFKDVGRZQWRZQ

RUDQJHSODVWLFIHQFLQJVKDOOEHZUDSSHGDURXQGWKHWUXQN IURPWKHJURXQGWRWKHILUVWEUDQFKZLWKWZRLQFKZRRGHQERDUGVERXQG VHFXUHO\RQWKHRXWVLGH&DXWLRQVKDOOEHXVHGWRDYRLGGDPDJLQJDQ\EDUNRU EUDQFKHV

'XUDWLRQRI7\SH,,,,,,IHQFLQJ)HQFLQJVKDOOEHHUHFWHGEHIRUHGHPROLWLRQ JUDGLQJRUFRQVWUXFWLRQSHUPLWVDUHLVVXHGDQGUHPDLQLQSODFHXQWLOWKHZRUN LVFRPSOHWHG&RQWUDFWRUVKDOOILUVWREWDLQWKHDSSURYDORIWKHSURMHFWDUERULVW RQUHFRUGSULRUWRUHPRYLQJDWUHHSURWHFWLRQIHQFH

:DUQLQJVLJQ(DFKWUHHIHQFHVKDOOKDYHSURPLQHQWO\GLVSOD\HGDQHLJKWDQG RQHKDOILQFKE\HOHYHQLQFKVLJQVWDWLQJ
:DUQLQJ7UHH3URWHFWLRQ
=RQH7KLVIHQFHVKDOOQRWEHUHPRYHGDQGLVVXEMHFWWRSHQDOW\DFFRUGLQJWR7RZQ&RGH

Page 611 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

10.30.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 7+(
,1&
*X]]DUGR3DUWQHUVKLS
$5%25,675(3257
7

6&$/(

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 trees during my tree assessment on December 8, 2023.

2. Tree risk assessments were not performed.

3. Landscape plans were available for review.

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

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

Los Gatos Mixed Use 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 孵孷孯季孵孳孵孷
/RV*DWRV0L[HG8VH $UERULVW5HSRUW 'HFHPEHU XSGDWHG2FWREHU 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 (6-20%) - Very Poor = Poor vigor, dying with little live foliage.

Tree in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. 0 (0-5%) - Dead/Unstable = Dead or failure imminent.

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

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

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

Low = Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site. Appraisal of value The reproduction value of trees was determined by using the Trunk Formula Technique methodology described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, Tenth Edition. /RV*DWRV0L[HG8VH $UERULVW5HSRUW 'HFHPEHU XSGDWHG2FWREHU Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC [email protected] 650.935.5822
Observations Ten (10) trees were measured and evaluated. Most trees were in poor and fair condition (Table 1), with varying degrees of crown dieback.

Table 1. Tree species condition + quantity Species name Scientific name Poor (1-2) Fair (3) Good (4-5) Total Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - - 1 1 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 1 1 - 2 Southern magnolia Magnollia grandiflora 3 1 - 4
Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 1 1 - 2 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - - 1 1 Total 5 3 2 10 50% 30% 20% A semi-mature coast live oak (#174) was in good condition. Soil level in its planter was approximately 2’ above sidewalk grade.

Two evergreen pears were in fair and poor condition. Both had been previously topped and had many small branches (epicormic shoots) emerging from pruned ends. If left unmanaged, these shoots can become susceptible to failure.

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

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

/RV*DWRV0L[HG8VH $UERULVW5HSRUW 'HFHPEHU XSGDWHG2FWREHU Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC [email protected] 650.935.5822
Discussion and Recommendations I reviewed the Landscape Plan sheet L1.0 (The Guzzardo Partnership 1/14/24) and Civil Plan Set (Sandis 8/16/24) to evaluate tree impacts. The design requires that three on-site trees must be removed. Three street trees in poor condition will be removed and replaced. Street trees #170 and 176, which is outside development area, will be preserved and protected.

Street tree #170 is expected to incur root impacts from sidewalk replacement. The tree is relatively young and the species tolerant of root impacts from construction. The following tree protection measures shall be employed to protect the tree in place. • Type III tree protection shall be used to protect the trunk of tree #170.
• Type I tree protection shall be used to protect trees #177 and 178.
• Existing sidewalk shall be removed in a manner that avoids damaging roots.
• Any roots requiring pruning for sidewalk forms shall be cut cleanly at the edge of excavation.

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

A total of six trees will be removed for development, six of which require mitigation.

Tree removal and mitigation
The Table 2 indicates the recommended replacement values. The applicant will be required to replace 6 protected trees according to the ordinance. Alternatively, it may be possible to create an approved landscape plan or provide an in-lieu payment. Table 2. Town of Los Gatos tree canopy replacement standard Canopy Size of Removed Tree Replacement Requirement (2)(4) 10 feet or less Two 24-inch box trees More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24-inch box trees More than 25 feet to 40 feet Four 24-inch box trees; or Two 36-inch box trees
More than 40 feet to 55 feet
Six 24-inch box trees; or Three 36-inch box trees
Greater than 55 feet Ten 24-inch box trees; or Five 36-inch box trees The Landscape plan sheets and the Civil Engineer's plans werereviewed to evaluate tree impacts.

Page 612 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0

38.675

CHECKED BY

AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

LOS GATOS

MIXED-USE

10.30.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002

REVISIONCONSULTANTS

06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 7+(
,1&
*X]]DUGR3DUWQHUVKLS
$5%25,675(3257
7

6&$/(

Los Gatos Mixed Use Tree Inventory Map
151 E. Main St. (#170-179)
Deanne Ecklund
Certi/ed Arborist WE9067-A
Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting
December 20, 2023
171
179
170
178177
176
175
174
173172
/RV*DWRV0L[HG8VH $UERULVW5HSRUW 'HFHPEHU XSGDWHG2FWREHU 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.

Tree Protection Guidelines
Design recommendations

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

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

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

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

Pre-construction

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

2. Fence street trees with Type III fencing prior to demolition, grubbing, or grading. a. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only: orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches.
/RV*DWRV0L[HG8VH $UERULVW5HSRUW 'HFHPEHU XSGDWHG2FWREHU 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. /RV*DWRV0L[HG8VH $UERULVW5HSRUW 'HFHPEHU XSGDWHG2FWREHU 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 treesBecause of changes in the growing environment after construction, preserved trees may require additional maintenance. Tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases; therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my observations or recommendations.

Sincerely,
Deanne Ecklund (Goff)
Registered Consulting Arborist #647 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor /RV*DWRV0L[HG8VH $UERULVW5HSRUW 'HFHPEHU XSGDWHG2FWREHU
Calyx Tree + Landscape Consulting, LLC
[email protected] 650.935.5822
Tag # Common name Trunk Diam. (in.) Est. Canopy Diam. (ft.) Condition (1=poor 5=excel.) Tree Disposition Suitability for Preservation Appraised Value Expected Impact Saved/ Removed /Pruned Height range (ft.) Comments 170 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica
7 19 5 Street tree High
$ 1,800.00
Moderate Save 15 Street tree; good form and
structure.
171 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
8 12 2 Street tree Low
$ 650.00
- Remove 12 Street tree; nice crown; large trunk
wound from base to 5'.
172 Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
7 7 2 Street tree Low
$ 550.00
- Remove 10 Street tree; small crown; large
trunk wound from base to 5'.
173 Evergreen pear
Pyrus kawakamii
19 20 3 Protected Moderate
$ 5,050.00
- Remove 20 Previously topped at ~12'; good
form, fair structure.
174 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia

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

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

Tree Assessment 宓宫宼家宬宦室宯季宆宲宱宧宬宷宬宲宱家孯宕宨室家宲宱季宩宲宵季宕宨宰宲容室宯宏宲宺季家宸宬宷室宥宬宯宬宷宼季宩宲宵季害宵宨家宨宵容室宷宬宲宱孱宆宲宱宩宯宬宦宷季宺宬宷宫季家宬宷宨季害宯室宱孱宆宲宱宩宯宬宦宷季宺宬宷宫季家宬宷宨季害宯室宱孱宏宲宺季家宸宬宷室宥宬宯宬宷宼季宩宲宵季害宵宨家宨宵容室宷宬宲宱孱宏宲宺季家宸宬宷室宥宬宯宬宷宼季宩宲宵季害宵宨家宨宵容室宷宬宲宱孱宆宲宱宩宯宬宦宷季宺宬宷宫季家宬宷宨季害宯室宱孱

Page 613 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 614 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 03/26/2025
ITEM NO: 4

ADDENDUM
DATE: March 25, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish Existing Commercial Structures, Construct a Mixed-Use Development (30 Multi-Family Residential Units) with Commercial Space on the Ground Floor, a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, and Remove Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned C-2. Located at 143 and 151 E. Main Street. APNs 529-28-001 and -002. Architecture and Site Application S-24-007, Conditional Use Permit Application U-24-002, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-004, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-24-003. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner: David Blatt, CSPN LLC. Applicant:

Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc. Project Planner: Ryan Safty.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 23 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 am, Friday, March 21, 2025, and 11:00 am, Tuesday, March 25, 2025.

EXHIBITS:

Exhibits previously received with the March 26, 2025, Staff Report:

1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through H (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/143EMainStCEQA)

2. Required Findings and Considerations

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval

4. Location Map

5. June 14, 2023, Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

6. Applicant’s Response to Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Comments

7. Project Description Letter

8. Letter of Justification
ATTACHEMNT 4

Page 370 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 143 and 151 E. Main Street/ S-24-007, U-24-002, M-24-004, and ND-24-003 DATE: March 25, 2025

9. Commercial Design Guidelines Compliance

10. Consulting Architect’s Report

11. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report

12. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review

13. Final Arborist’s Report

14. Visual Renderings

15. Objective Design Standards Checklist

16. Summary of Neighborhood Outreach

17. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 21, 2025

18. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments

19. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

20. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration

21. Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration in Response to Public Review Comments

22. Development Plans
Exhibit received with this Addendum Report:

23. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, March 21, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 25, 2025

Page 371 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 372 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 373 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 03/26/2025
ITEM NO: 4

DESK ITEM
DATE: March 26, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish Existing Commercial Structures, Construct a Mixed-Use Development (30 Multi-Family Residential Units) with Commercial Space on the Ground Floor, a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, and Remove Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned C-2. Located at 143 and 151 E. Main Street. APNs 529-28-001 and -002. Architecture and Site Application S-24-007, Conditional Use Permit Application U-24-002, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-004, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-24-003. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner: David Blatt, CSPN LLC. Applicant:

Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc. Project Planner: Ryan Safty.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 24 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 am, Tuesday, March 25, 2025, and 11:00 am, Wednesday, March 26, 2025.

ATTACHMENT 5

Page 374 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 143 and 151 E. Main Street/ S-24-007, U-24-002, M-24-004, and ND-24-003 DATE: March 26, 2025
EXHIBITS:

Exhibits previously received with the March 26, 2025, Staff Report:

1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through H (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/143EMainStCEQA)

2. Required Findings and Considerations

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval

4. Location Map

5. June 14, 2023, Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

6. Applicant’s Response to Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Comments

7. Project Description Letter

8. Letter of Justification

9. Commercial Design Guidelines Compliance

10. Consulting Architect’s Report

11. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report

12. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review

13. Final Arborist’s Report

14. Visual Renderings

15. Objective Design Standards Checklist

16. Summary of Neighborhood Outreach

17. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 21, 2025

18. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments

19. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

20. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration

21. Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration in Response to Public Review Comments

22. Development Plans
Exhibit previously received with the March 26, 2025, Addendum Report:

23. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, March 21, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Exhibit provided with this Desk Item report:

24. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, March 25, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 26, 2025

Page 375 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: James Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 5:02 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Wendy Wood <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment re item 4 for the 3/26/25 Planning Commission meeting [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment, and referenced court case, regarding item 4 for the 3/26/25 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 30-unit “Builder’s Remedy” project at 143 and 151 E. Main Street, which includes 6 low-income units.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/

Page 376 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 377 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Mar 25, 2025
City of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 143 and 151 E. Main Street To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the Commission of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 30-unit “Builder’s Remedy” project at 143 and 151 E. Main Street, which includes 6 low-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and SB 330.

Under the HAA,1 a city may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1).2) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.) The City’s Housing Element was not in substantial compliance with state law when the preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted.

The City must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed. 2 These code section numbers correspond to the HAA as it existed when the preliminary application for the project at issue was submitted (i.e. before AB 1893 went into effect). 1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the HAA.

However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder’s Remedy applications to proceed under the previous version of the law. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(7)(A).) 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org

Page 378 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will grow the City’s tax base; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the Commission to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
2 of 2

Page 379 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 380 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 381 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 382 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 383 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 384 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 385 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 386 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 387 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 388 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 389 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 390 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 391 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 392 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 393 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 394 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 395 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 396 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 397 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 398 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 399 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 400 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 401 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 402 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 403 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 404 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 405 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 406 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 407 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 408 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 409 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 410 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 411 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 412 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 413 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 414 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 415 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 416 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 417 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 418 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 10:57 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15740 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Michelle
Last Name Kusanovich
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number
Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
101 Church Street,
Message (Required) 143-151 E. Main Street
Add An Attachment if
applicable
Notes for planning commission 143-151 E. Main.pdf
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 419 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
3/26/25
This is a challenging project and kudos to the architect for taking it on. I know this is a major effort to develop designs and plans and take all the community considerations into account while meeting the needs of their client. It is not an easy task.

I would like to add my thoughts to the considerations.

As a business owner on Church Street, my concerns are traffic congestion, parking, and safety.

These three items are already strained by the high school traffic to and from school every day.

Street parking is already difficult for the clients/customers of businesses in this area.

As a parent taking their child to school, my current concerns are also traffic, congestion, and safety. Adding a 4 story building with the amount of residents and employees associated, mixing with the high school kids further impacts the strain of drivers in general, but also the high school to monitor it’s students. More curb cuts creates more danger zones for a very busy street in the morning and afternoon that are flooded with teens.

As an architect and a human, my concern is why in 2025, is Los Gatos not building a sustainable building, and even more so, a truely Passive Building? A building that powers itself, and minimizes energy use should be what we are after, without compromising style and aesthetics. I am making assumptions that this is not the focus, based on the amounts of south-facing, unshaded, highly gridded windows on the Main street facade, as well as the lack of verbiage on intentions for solar energy production, or the use of heat pumps, heat recovery, etc. for the building. Gridded windows for example, leak energy out of every linear foot of the mullion/dividers as well as the frame, where an ungridded window is merely the frame, if the glass is high-efficiency. The small awnings shown in the renderings will not adequately shade the windows, especially on the East and West sides of the building.

The 55+ unshaded south facing windows are an area of massive solar heat gain in the summer.

So, how much mechanical system noise will this project produce to keep the interior cool/temperate in the summer? How much primary energy must we waste to keep the interior comfortable, when proper detailing, insulation values, and high efficiency, quiet mechanicals can minimize even the size of a solar energy producing array.

There is also a considerable amount of windows on the North facing facade, which will most often be in shade, and losing heat energy in the seasons when it is most needed. How much mechanical noise will be produced and how much heating energy will be wasted to heat this building?
The brick and concrete can create many thermal bridges to the exterior, leaking the energy from inside the building, out to the environment, depending on the detailing. Again, I’m only guessing here as I have not seen any detailing, and am merely bringing these points up out of concern

Page 420 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
and hope that we can build better, less carbon intensive, and lower primary energy-using buildings. This would be a huge benefit to the building owner, the building’s residents, as well as the environment to not have the overhead financial costs of utilities through the life of the building.

I appreciate the general look along Main Street, but visually, I feel this building may tower over Church Street and the high school, creating a dark, looming experience. It will not be sunny on this elevation as the renderings show.

I do appreciate the improvements made from the previous renderings, but also think the neoclassical detailing might be a little heavy handed. The entablature (top part above columns) on many neoclassical-styled buildings is simple, such as on the high school which is said to be one of the inspirations. It does not have any of the pediment details shown here at the top of each column/pilaster, nor a keystone which seems a little more Greek revival, but I defer to a historian on this.

Thank you for your time, effort, and diligence to create a successful and enduring building as a new addition to the fabric of Los Gatos’ Main Street.

Michelle Kusanovich
101 Church Street,
Los Gatos

Page 421 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S:

Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:

Emily Thomas, Chair
Kendra Burch, Vice Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Susan Burnett
Steve Raspe
Rob Stump
Town Manager: Chris Constantin
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 422 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25

P R O C E E D I N G S:

CHAIR THOMAS: We’ll now be moving on to Item 4 on
our agenda, which is to consider a request for approval to demolish existing commercial structures, construct a mixeduse development (30 multi-family residential units), with commercial space on the ground floor, a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, and remove large, protected trees under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on property zoned C-2. Located at 143 and 151 E. Main Street.

APNs 925-28-001 and -002. Architecture and Site
Application S-24-007, Conditional Use Permit Application U24-002, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-004, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-24-003. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. Property owner is David Blatt, CSPN LLC;
Applicant is Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc.; and the project planner is Mr. Safty.

Before Mr. Safty gives us the Staff Report, can I
have a show of hands from the Commissioners who visited the property? Would be kind of hard not to, since we’re right across the street. Are there any disclosures about this? Yes, Commissioner Burnett.

Page 423 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I just have to say that I
do know Ken Rodrigues, the architect. We’re in a social car club together and a neighbor, but we have not discussed this project.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Any other
disclosures from anyone? Mr. Safty, will you be presenting the Staff Report for us this evening?
RYAN SAFTY: Yes, thank you, Chair, and good
evening. I’d like to actually have the Town Attorney start by providing some background on the regulatory framework that’s applicable for this project.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Thank you. I prepared a
PowerPoint for tonight’s meeting that goes over the
generalities of the Builder's Remedy and Senate Bill 330.

Senate Bill 330 became law several years ago, and
it authorizes applicants to submit what’s called a
“preliminary application.” Once an applicant has submitted a complete preliminary application that includes the
requirements that are set forth in the Government Code, that applicant vests to the Town’s development standards that were in place at the time of submittal.

This applicant vested at a time prior to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development’s

Page 424 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
certification of the Town’s Housing Element. As a result, this applicant has asked to use the Builder's Remedy.

The Builder's Remedy is also found in the
Government Code, and that applies to residential
development projects that include affordable housing, and the Government Code limits the Town’s disapproval or
imposing of conditions that would render a project
infeasible.

The law does set forth several grounds under
which a project could be denied or conditioned, so I’ll go through those permissible grounds.

The first is that the agency has adopted a
Housing Element that substantially complies with State law and has met or exceeded its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation for each of the income categories that are
proposed by the project.

For those who are not familiar with it, the
Housing Element is one of the elements of the Town’s
General Plan, and the Housing Element needs to accommodate the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation is assigned to various
jurisdictions in the State by the Association of Bay Area Governments.

Page 425 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The Town does have a certified Housing Element
that satisfies its Regional Housing Needs Allocation;
however, the Town’s Housing Element was not certified at the time that this preliminary application was deemed
submitted.

The second grounds for denying or conditioning a
project would be that the proposed project will have a
specific adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable.

The statute defines a specific adverse impact to
be significant, quantifiable, direct, unavoidable, and
based on objective identified written public health or
safety standards, policies, or conditions. Examples of that would be requirements that can be found in the Fire Code or in the State Building Code.

The third grounds for denial or imposition of a
condition are that it is required to comply with a State or federal law.

The fourth reason would be that the proposal is
on agricultural land, which is not the case here.

The final reason would be that the project is
inconsistent with the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and General

Page 426 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Plan land-use designation, and on the date the preliminary application was deemed complete the agency had adopted a Housing Element that was in substantial compliance with State law.

So, there are the grounds under which a project
could be denied or conditioned.

I wanted to also tell the Commission about some
other elements of Senate Bill 330.

When there is a Senate Bill 330 project before
the Commission, the Town is limited to holding five
hearings on the application, and that includes any
continued hearings. Each continued hearing counts as a
separate hearing. It also includes any appeals hearing on the decision.

Then, finally, the California Environmental
Quality Act still does apply to Senate Bill 330 and
Builder's Remedy projects.

I’ll turn it back to the project planner, but I’m
available for questions. Thank you.

RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. The Applicant is
requesting approval to demolish the existing onsite
structures at 143 and 151 E. Main Street and construct a mixed-use building with 24 market rate units and six below

Page 427 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
market price units, as well as some ground floor commercial space.

The application is being processed, as noted,
under SB 330 and the Applicant has invoked their right to use the Builder's Remedy.

The under half-acre site would be developed with
a 52-foot tall, four-story, mixed-use building occupying a majority of the site, roughly 70%.

The building design is inspired by the Los Gatos
High School next door and the many significant brick
structures within the downtown. The 30 residential units will be distributed along all four floors of the building and would include a range of one-, two-, and three-bedrooms ranging in size from 743 to 2,188 square feet, and each of these units would have their own private patio or balcony, depending on the level of floor they are on.

As noted, commercial space is proposed on the
ground floor along the southeastern corner of the property.

Parking for the property is proposed below grade
with vehicle access off Church Street at the rear. The
primary pedestrian entrance is proposed along E. Main
Street.

As noted in the application materials, there are
two different below-grade parking garage options provided

Page 428 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
in the submittal, and the Applicant is requesting approval of both options.

Option #1 would be a two-level parking garage
with 47 standard spaces, and Option #2 would be a singlelevel parking garage with 39 spaces and includes the use of stackers and tandem spaces, which are not standard to the Town.

A number of exceptions pursuant to the Builder's
Remedy are requested, including things like building
height, floor area ratio, density, setbacks, and parking, and these are detailed in the Staff Report as well as
Exhibits 8 and 15.

The Initial Study was prepared for this project
pursuant to CEQA guidelines, which included a number of project-level technical studies. The Initial Study
concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment with the adoption of the
recommended mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Each of the 13 mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study are included as Conditions of Approval within Exhibit 3 of the Staff Report.

There have been several public comments received
for this project, which are included in Exhibit 20 of the

Page 429 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Staff Report as well as in yesterdays’ addendum and today’s Desk Item.

This concludes Staff’s presentation, and we are
happy to answer any questions. Also noting, we do have
Parks and Public Works Staff, including the traffic
engineer, and the environmental consultant is on Zoom as well.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Is it appropriate to ask a
CEQA question at this point concerning the report?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll defer to the Chairperson,
but if it is an easy question, you can ask it now, and if it’s more complex, you might want to wait until after
public comment.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Let me ask the question.

Then we’ll come back, for example, to talk about the
transportation portion of the additional study that was done. That would be after we would take public comment.

CHAIR THOMAS: I was going to ask a question
about that, so maybe we’ll see if your question is answered with my question, and then we can follow-up. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER STUMP: I actually have a series of
questions related to the transportation piece.

Page 430 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: I have a question for Staff to
explain how all that data was collected and how the study was done, so maybe some of your questions will be answered within that, is what I’m saying.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, okay. I may add one
question.

CHAIR THOMAS: Perfect, yes, as follow-up. Before
I ask my question, does anyone else have a question? Yes, Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I would appreciate the
Town Attorney commenting on the Applicant’s requests that both parking options be considered as part of the hearing tonight.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: That is a novel request, to ask
to have two options considered. I did research the issue, because it was a new one for me, and I did not see any
legal grounds not to consider their request.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions? My one
question for Staff was if we could very briefly review how the traffic study was done, and what VMT means and some of the overviews of the additional trips, etc. Just how the traffic study was done for this project and what vehicle

Page 431 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
miles traveled means, and how the additional trips were calculated.

MIKE VROMAN: Thank you for your question. Mike
Vroman, Senior Traffic Engineer in Parks and Public Works.

The transportation analysis looks at both the
level-of-service analysis for potential intersection
impacts as well as the VMT analysis, so those are two
distinct things.

I'll address the level-of-service first; that’s
the easiest and quickest. Because this project was not
going to generate more than 20 new trips in the AM or the PM peak hour, there was no level-of-service calculations or level-of-service analysis required, as would ordinarily be the case.

For the VMT analysis, that was conducted, and
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, in this case they were working for the environmental consultant as a subcontractor to the Town; they ran the latest VTA model, the Valley
Transportation Authority model, for the 2020 base year.

I believe one of the questions was what is the
baseline VMT for Los Gatos, and that is 29.4 vehicle miles traveled per service population. The service population is calculated based on the number of employees that come to the Town of Los Gatos, plus the number of residents that

Page 432 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
live in the Town. Then that is taken from the County, the VTA model, they look at the total mileage for the Town, the total vehicle miles traveled, and divide it by that, so that’s where the 29.4 vehicle miles per service population comes from. So, that’s our baseline.

Then to determine the project impact, the Town
decided that if the VMT per service population for the
project exceeds a level of 11.3% below the total VMT per service population—so that’s if you take the 29.4
multiplied by the 88.7 multiplied by the baseline rates gets a significance threshold of 26.1 vehicle miles
traveled per service population—that’s the determining
factor for if the project is going to generate significant project impact for VMT.

The consultant created a separate transportation
analysis zone to represent this project, and then they put in the number of units. The assumption was that that would result in a population of 78 residents, which would
generate 1,577 daily vehicle miles traveled. When you
calculate that, it results in a 20.1 vehicle mile traveled per service population, which is less than the threshold of

26.1, so therefore there is no significant project impact.

They look at the project effect compared to the
total additional boundary trips for the Countywide vehicle

Page 433 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
mile traveled model. And that one, the threshold is 6.5% of the total County boundary trips or boundary vehicle miles traveled.

The additional 1,577 additional vehicle miles
traveled from the additional 78 residents would be an
increase of .0042%, which is significantly less than the threshold of 6.5%, therefore there was no VMT cumulative project impact, or effect.

With all that said, if there are any questions,
please let me know, and if I’ve made any errors, I’ll let our environmental consultant correct me. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. I just have one followup question, and that is about that it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 17 new daily trips with no new trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Could you just explain how that data was determined?
MIKE VROMAN: Yes, thank you for your question.

That data is determined by using the existing land use and the proposed land use. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers produces a trip generation manual. They’re on the 11th edition now; it comes out probably every three or four years. They get traffic studies from public agencies, from consultants, from associations, from student groups;
whenever somebody does a traffic study they submit them

Page 434 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
voluntarily, they don’t get paid for them. So, they monitor and they come up with trip generation manuals every few years, so that’s used to determine the existing trips as well as the proposed trips.

Based on the existing trips of the small office
building that was there, it’s approximately 8,500 square feet, plus or minus, that when you look at the trips of the existing use generated, and then based on the new proposed use for the 30 residential units, it resulted in fewer
trips during the AM peak and fewer trips during the PM
peak.

If you look at the total daily trips, the
proposed use will generate an additional 17 trips over the course of the day, but during the morning peak hour trips there would be four fewer trips going into the site and one more trip exiting the site, so that would be a net
difference of -3 in the morning peak. In the evening peak there would be two fewer trips coming into the site, and four fewer trips leaving the site for a net reduction of 6 trips.

Once again, those are based upon the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generate Manual, which is something that we’re mandated to use; every agency uses those. If there are exceptions of different land uses, some

Page 435 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
agencies, and the Town here, can use the San Diego…they have their own trip generation rates.

So, that’s the answer to that question. If you
have any further, please let me know.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Just to clarify,
because with a previous project, like at the Lodge, there were actual trip counts done.

MIKE VROMAN: Yes.

CHAIR THOMAS: But my understanding through my
questions of Staff was that that wasn’t appropriate for this project.

MIKE VROMAN: The history behind the reason we
did the trip generation, the Town did actual counts and the consultant did counts, because there was a difference of opinion. The Applicant was proposing a hotel use, which generates quite a significant number more, which would have resulted in a significant deduction for the trips, and the Town’s argument was that it was a motel use, and so we
agreed to do actual counts, and the Town contracted and did actual counts well before the Applicant and their
consultant did, and they came up with counts, and that was the best way to go, and it seemed most equitable for all parties involved, so that’s why we deviated a little bit in that case.

Page 436 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Just one final
question. When we’re talking about AM and PM peak hours, could you remind us of what time that actually is?
MIKE VROMAN: Yes, we look at the AM peak hours
as being from 7:00am until 9:00am, and the PM peak hours as being from 4:00pm to 6:00pm. In this area you could make arguments that would probably extend those hours, but that has historically been what we use, and those are still
probably the highest traffic hours.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you very much. I’m
going to go to Commissioner Burnett first, and then we’ll get over to Commissioner Stump. Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. When they did
this study, do they do it as an average over the year?
Because during school time there are so many more trips. I know we have the credit from the office building, and then you actually come up with net project trips of 17. You have all these different ways of calculating, but somehow it never seems to make sense. When they do these studies,
during school time there are so many more trips. How was it done? Was it an average for AM and PM?
MIKE VROMAN: No. Because the school trips are
underlying trips, so those are there regardless of this project or regardless of what land use is in play at this

Page 437 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
address. Once again, because the increase in the AM and the PM trips did not… Our threshold in the Town of Los Gatos is 20 new trips, so unless you hit a threshold of 20 new trips you don’t need to do a traffic study.

One question I think came from Commissioner Stump
was about if we take congestion seriously in the Town of Los Gatos. I’ve worked for a number of different agencies within Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, and the Town of Los Gatos takes congestion and level-of-service very
seriously. Our threshold in the Town of Los Gatos is 20 new trips in the AM or PM hour. If an Applicant exceeds those numbers, they have to do a full transportation analysis.

The Valley Transportation Authority as well as most other agencies within Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties have a threshold of 100 AM or PM new trips, so we take traffic very seriously. We understand the residents do and the
Commissioners do, and I just want to reassure everyone.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, it’s our residents
that are having so much problem with the issue of traffic, and I’m concerned about the cumulative effect of other
projects that are going to be occurring in our town as
well, and I would think those numbers would have to come into play somewhere in here.

Page 438 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MIKE VROMAN: You’re correct, and thank you for
that point that if there had been a transportation analysis required over and above the VMT analysis, then we would have looked at all those things. We would have looked at the existing conditions and level-of-service at various intersections. We’d have looked at the impact the project would have on those different levels of service. We’d have looked at the other projects that have been approved and haven’t undergone construction or are in process, the
cumulative, and then then we’ve looked at long-term.

But because they didn’t meet the threshold of 20
new trips in either peak hour, AM or PM, that
transportation analysis was not required of this project, because they didn’t hit our threshold, so those issues
weren’t addressed. In our opinion, especially since there were fewer peak hour trips, this should result in a minor reduction in level-of-service.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you for that.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Just two quick follow-ups on
traffic. If I understood you correctly, school trips are captured in our VMT.

MIKE VROMAN: As far as I know, yes, they would
be, because the vehicle miles traveled are based upon the

Page 439 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
overall population, it’s everyone, and the working
population, people who work in town, so both those are
taken into account. I’m no modeling expert, but that’s my understanding, yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Shifting you to a parking
question. The traffic report that we received, Appendix H identifies 86 parking spaces required. The Staff Report identifies 84 parking spaces required, and I’m assuming, Mr. Safty, the Staff Report is correct with 84.

RYAN SAFTY: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Then, if I can, one last
question. This is just a general CEQA study question. The work completed for this project addresses obviously
possible environmental effects that may be individually limited to this project but can be cumulatively considered, meaning this project has been viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. My question is have cumulative impacts, especially of the other projects that we have in town, been considered in this CEQA study?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you for the question. We
will have our environmental consultant. EMC, you’re unmuted and you can go ahead and speak.

Page 440 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
SHOSHANA LUTZ: Hi, Chair and Commissioners. This
is Shoshana Lutz; I’m a senior planner with EMC Planning Group. I prepared the Initial Study and CEQA documentation.

I’m also joined by Teri Wissler Adam, who is a senior
principal with the EMC Planning Group. She can add on to what I am saying.

But just in short, thank you for that question,
but the cumulative for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the analysis used the build-out addressed in the 2040
General Plan EIR, so that included the 3,738 dwelling units by the year 2040, and this methodology is acceptable for CEQA, so this build-out was used in a cumulative analysis, but the MND did not analyze specific projects elsewhere in Los Gatos. Each of those projects do require their own
environmental documentation; they’re not included in this Initial Study. Did that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, it would be cumulative
based on our 2040 General Plan EIR and perhaps the followon environmental impact analysis for the Housing Element, with the identified sites, etc.?
SHOSHANA LUTZ: Correct.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: We will now open the public
portion of the public hearing on Item 4 and give the

Page 441 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Applicant an opportunity to address the Commission for up to five minutes. Applicant team, you can decide how to
distribute those five minutes, so whoever will be speaking first, please come up and make sure that you speak into the microphone. Thank you.

KEN RODRIGUES: Thank you, Chair Thomas, Members
of the Commission, my name is Kenneth Rodrigues and I am the architect designing this project. My firm with me
tonight is my partner, Chris (inaudible) from KRP
Architects, and Miles M. Wally, and Craig Spencer from our legal team. The Applicant is also joining virtually, David Blatt, the property owner.

With that, I’d like to present my presentation. I
think you all know this the site. I just always love to have a vicinity map just in case we need to reference
anything.

As you know, the existing building is a
combination of retail office building and parking at the rear, with access off Church Street.

This is the proposed site plan. The blue on the
site shows the commercial component that we would like to have in the project, which sits right on the same corner as the current Café Dio, and then the residential component

Page 442 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
wraps around that, in grey, that fronts out on Church
Street with a main entrance off Main Street.

Typical floor plan, and I won’t go through a lot
of these; I know you’ve seen them in your packet, but they are a combination of residential units for sale, as Mr.

Safty said in his Staff Report, somewhere between a little over 700 up to 2,000 square feet on the four units that are up on the fourth floor. Commercial unit, again, shown in blue, and site access is off the back-end corner on Church Street where the two blue arrows are.

The upper floors are very similar with balconies,
as Mr. Safty mentioned, and then a center circulation
corridor that leads to each one of the units, a combination of ten on one floor, 11 on another, and then four on a
stepback setback fourth floor.

Let’s go to the elevations, if we could. These
are our renderings that we did, but there are some great 3- D modeling renderings that are in your packet that the Town hired a consultant to do, and we can refer to either one.

It’s a combination of brick, lots of glass, and recessed balconies along with the stepback fourth floor that would have outdoor trellis elements on that, and we did that to reduce the overall massing and visual height of the
building.

Page 443 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
This is a view back from High School Court along
Church Street. You can see the hotel to the left on Main Street.

Our materials, I’ve already talked about. The
Staff Report does a really good job of addressing those.

Just some key data. Size of the site is .425
acres. The commercial that we’re proposing is 2,416 square feet. Thirty residential units, of which six are
affordable, bringing something to the Town that is much needed, as well as the 24 are market rate units.

We do have the two parking options, and I can
talk about that if you have any questions of why two?
Height. The current C-2 zoning allows 45 feet; we
are proposing 49 feet for most of the site, with the
exception of the corner where we are proposing the
commercial; it would be 52 feet high, so we’re exceeding the current zoning by, in this case, just a few feet for most of the building, and then approximately seven feet at the corner piece.

I’ve already talked about the materials, and with
that, that concludes my presentation.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the Applicant at this time? Commissioner Raspe.

Page 444 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. First of
all, I wanted to say thank you. I know you presented this project to CDAC in the first instance.

KEN RODRIGUES: I did, yes.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: And you received their
comments and it looks like you’ve incorporated many of
those comments into your design, so thank you. And thank you for counting six below market spaces into your overall plan. I think that’s going to be beneficial to our town overall.

KEN RODRIGUES: Me too. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I had a couple of design
questions as part of our discussion just to make sure that you had considered these.

For instance, I noticed at the fourth floor,
you’ve used it as a stepback to break up the massing. Have you considered doing that with any of the other levels, second or third floors?
KEN RODRIGUES: What we did was on those
renderings that I presented, we have recessed balconies as well as projection balconies so that that gives a lot of animation to the elevations.

As you probably have read in your packet, I’ve
had the pleasure of following this famous architect,

Page 445 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
William Weeks, around Santa Clara County and have worked on five of his projects, so I’m very familiar with Los Gatos High School, which he designed, and one other beautiful residence here in town that I had the pleasure of
remodeling too, and I think we’re trying to pick up many of those components of his original heritage and history of architecture that he’s provided for the Valley, and that’s what drove the current design.

As you may or may not know, I’ve lived in the
area for 42 years. I feel very comfortable; the Café Dio is my café where I like to go, and I really think that that type of architecture will be a real positive addition to the Town.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for that response.

Chair, a couple more questions to follow-up, if I may?
CHAIR THOMAS: Of course.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Ceiling heights. Can you
tell me what your ceiling heights are?
KEN RODRIGUES: Yes, they’re going to be 10’.

Floor-to-floor is 11’, so it’s about a foot of structure.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Very good. Then the
commercial space, I understand you don’t have a tenant yet, correct?
KEN RODRIGUES: Our client does not.

Page 446 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: But I noticed in our packet
there were proposed operating hours from 8am to 6pm. Can you tell us why that was?
KEN RODRIGUES: I did a little research with some
commercial brokers on what a typical tenant would want and need, and that’s what came back to us.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: One final question. I
believe it’s the west side of your building, that which faces that high school, in both the front and back
elevations you’ve used a lighter color offset to kind of break up the façade, but I don’t think you did that as much on the west side. I don’t know if you’ve got a slide
showing the west.

KEN RODRIGUES: Mr. Mullin, could you possibly
call up the elevations maybe? They might help a little bit versus the perspective. The building colors are the same.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes. I’m looking now, for
instance, on the right side, which I believe faces…
KEN RODRIGUES: That’s the east side. Yes, the
high school.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Facing the high school, the
east side.

KEN RODRIGUES: Yes.

Page 447 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: And it appears, just from my
eye, at least between the second and third floors, for
instance, it’s an uninterrupted kind of band of brick as opposed to breaking up that. I wondered if you had
considered using an offset to kind of break up that large massing. There are some windows, yes, but I think even from this vantage point you’ll lose a little bit of it, and it appears to be more brick.

KEN RODRIGUES: Again, I think we’re just
animating the elevations a little differently. We’ve got heavy pedestrian along Main Street, we have some pedestrian along Church Street, and this is a very short court, as you know, and so I think it’s consistent with the high school across the way in terms of its massing as well. It doesn’t step back; it is a vertical component.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I appreciate the response.

Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. I’m happy
that you did follow some of our Town Architect’s
suggestions.

In the main project, looking at the front gable
there, is that the current design? It’s a little lower
than…

Page 448 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
KEN RODRIGUES: The current design of that gable
was revised per Architect Cannon, who I’ve worked with a lot here and I do respect him, so we looked at a different option and what you see is a revision.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: That’s very nice.

KEN RODRIGUES: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: The second question is he
recommended the brick additions in the middle of the front to sort of cut down on the vertical appearance, and you decided not to do that.

KEN RODRIGUES: That’s right, yes.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Is there a reason why?
KEN RODRIGUES: Yes. As you can probably tell,
I’ve done a lot of research on Mr. Weeks, this other
architect who practiced between the 1920s and the 1950s, and I think what we are suggesting is much more consistent with that, and I think it’s just a difference of opinion between two architects.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I see. Then, looking at
some of the designs of Mr. Weeks and who you follow, and the high school of course, your building has a little bit more of the back and forth than some of his other designs.

KEN RODRIGUES: It’s a great question. The high
school, I would say, is a much more vertical building and

Page 449 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
doesn’t have a lot of stepping. On the other hand, if you look at some of his other work, Campbell High School;
Fremont High School in Sunnyvale; the Hotel De Anza, which I remodeled in the early 1990s; and San Jose Water
building, which is downtown San Jose, there is more
animation to those elevations, so I think it’s a nice
balance between the Los Gatos High School building, which I love and I love the way it sits up on a plinth with the lawn coming up and it’s kind of stepping up to it; it’s just slightly different.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you for that, and
may I ask one other question?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: When you went to the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee and we were
talking about parking, that was a question that came up, and your answer would have been that all the project
parking is proposed underground and will be adequate to support the residential and commercial uses.

KEN RODRIGUES: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And now that you have
Option 1 and Option 2, I notice that the numbers are
definitely lower than what we were thinking we would have from the building.

Page 450 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
KEN RODRIGUES: The Town of Los Gatos has a very
high parking ratio. If any of you have heard me say that before at a hearing, I have. I think the Town requires a lot of parking, which is not consistent with the way things are actually moving today.

From our standpoint, the current parking that
we’re proposing meets the market rate where our client and our studies have thought it would be, and both options, I think, go to what the Town Attorney showed early on about an SB 330 Builder's Remedy project, that we’re trying to make these projects feasible to build, and so we’re trying to give options to the property owner to be able to do both of these.

One is a one-level underground approach that’s
significantly less money to build; and the other is a twolevel underground approach, which is more expensive, but we would like to look at both options. The two-level
underground approach yields slightly more cars than the one-level approach with stackers, which, again, are being used a lot in residential work that we’ve been doing and others have been doing.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: With the stackers, do you
foresee the cars being two cars at once?

Page 451 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
KEN RODRIGUES: That’s a good question. It’s
called a puzzle stacker; it actually rotates and there is one space that is out of service at all times, so that’s literally how you get to these simple little puzzles that rotate. It’s a fascinating system, and we’ve done and
looked at some that are being built today in the Bay Area, and they are just incredibly efficient. You don’t
necessarily have to communicate with any other resident there. You can literally off your phone dial up your number and it rotates down to the space down on grade as you’re there, and you’re gone.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you for that.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I just wanted to do a quick
check on the minutes that were done for CDAC back in June of 2023, and this is from the minutes. Obviously, they
didn’t ask you for your approval, but the minutes read, “Ken Rodriques, architect for the applicant, stating, ‘The three-story project meets the 45-foot height limit.’” I only bring this up because of the accuracy of the minutes.

What got presented to CDAC in 2023, was it a three-story building or a four-story building?
KEN RODRIGUES: It was three-story. You’re
correct.

Page 452 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Three-story.

KEN RODRIGUES: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, thank you. That’s all.

KEN RODRIGUES: I think what happened there was,
just so you know the history, is we talked about stepping back up a third or fourth floor. I did also say at the
meeting that we’re still exploring. This is a real early conceptual stage. We hadn’t even had an elevation, we had done some massing studies is all, and so I like to present something that it’s early in the stage. Then we decided to do a 20% affordable housing project versus a 15% that I was presenting back at the CDAC meeting, and so with that we’ve added more affordable housing, and again, more units. I think we had 24-26 at that meeting, and now we’re proposing

30. COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you for that
clarification.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: If I’m reading the Parking
Plan correctly, you have slightly over half of the parking spaces with EV chargers, but a lot that don’t, and given the high usage of EV and hybrid vehicles in this town, I was wondering what your thought process was and whether you’d consider adding additional charging stations?

Page 453 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
KEN RODRIGUES: What’s shown meets the California
Building Code, the CBC, and that’s where we started,
because it is a combination market rate/affordable project.

The Applicant has said, we are designing to at some point have the power there enough to add more chargers, and as the market happens, that’s really what will happen. In
fact, we do show on the plans the quantity of each, EV
versus the normal stall.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, I did see that. If I
may, I have a rather trivial question. The plans show
canvas awnings, and in my experience representing hundreds of homeowners associations, those become a maintenance
problem. I’ve seen that there are acrylic painted awnings that have much longer life span and don’t fade. I was
wondering if you might give some consideration to that.

KEN RODRIGUES: I think we certainly would do
that between now and the time we submit plans to the
Building Department; it’s a good suggestion.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: I have one question regarding
building codes in Los Gatos. There will be no natural gas in the building, correct?
KEN RODRIGUES: We are not proposing that.

Page 454 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Can you describe some of the ways
that will be used for heat, for water; just explain some of those decisions? Thank you.

KEN RODRIGUES: The building will be plumbed for
future solar; I think that that’s an important piece. We would like the option, and are asking for the option, of being able to use either gas or electric appliances; I
think that’s important for projects for sale. Then also, we’ve taken other measures in terms of design with energy efficient windows, walls, roof systems, those kinds of
thing.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Commissioner
Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. Another
issue related to traffic I think is also bicycles, and I notice you’re proposing bicycle parking. Can you describe the number and location of your bicycle parking plan?
KEN RODRIGUES: Quite a bit. If Staff wouldn’t
mind just pulling up that one plan. I don't know the
numbers off the top of my head, but it’s excessive, because this is a biking community.

We have three different types. We have outdoor
storage racks that we’re proposing right at the corner
where the café would be or the retail space, for visitors.

Page 455 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
We then have secure bike parking on the first floor, as well as in the parking garage. So, we’ve got a really nice mixture of bike parking. Mr. Safty, I don’t have the number off the top of my head, but maybe you could help with that.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: If I’m reading the Staff
Report, it appears that you have eight short-term parking spaces and 42 long-term parking spaces. Does that sound about right?
KEN RODRIGUES: Yes. Thank you so much.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Seeing that we don’t have any more
questions at this time, thank you very much. Thank you for answering all our questions. We will now take public
comment from any members of the public. I do have a number of speaker cards, and this is for Item 4, so if any
additional people in the audience would like to speak,
please turn in a speaker card, and if you are on Zoom,
please raise your hand now. The first card that I have is for Dave Poetzinger. Please just speak into the microphone and you will have three minutes. Thank you.

DAVE POETZINGER: My name is Dave Poetzinger, I’m
the principal of Los Gatos High School, and I’m here
representing the admin team at Los Gatos High School.

Page 456 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
We have two missions every day, and our two
missions are to bring kids to our campus safely, and to make sure that we are educating their minds and their
character every day. The first one is the one that we are concerned about with this particular one.

We bring 2,000 or more students and staff every
day to the campus. We have students arriving with family drop-offs, we have students arriving on bikes, we have
students arriving on ebikes, and we have students arriving by foot. A large majority of our foot traffic, our bike traffic, our drop-offs, our ebike traffic, come right
through Church Street and High School Court.

The concern from our admin team is adding a 30-
unit residential, and however many cars that brings, into that particular site. We’re out on supervision on a daily basis. I stand often at Church Street and High School
Court, and see near misses every day. That’s really my
concern, making sure that these kids are kept safe and that we can maintain sight lines where they can see cars and potential dangers, and that the cars can see them and the potential dangers.

As we go forward, I would hope that the
Commission could consider possibly reducing the size of this particular development, particularly just for the

Page 457 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
sight lines on Church Street and Main Street/High School Court; and then also just looking at potential traffic
lights to help keep the kids safe as they’re coming into campus. Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIR THOMAS: I think some Commissioners might
have questions, so first Vice Chair Burch.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Hi, thanks for coming today.

In any of your discussions that you’ve had with the
Applicant, have you started having any preliminary
discussions around the Logistics and Safety Plan during construction?
DAVE POETZINGER: I have had no contact with the
Applicant on this particular development.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions? Okay, thank
you, and thank you for being here in March, late at night.

I’m a teacher, so I understand. The next card I have is for Cathy Gist. Thank you. If you could just state your name and speak directly into the microphone, you can adjust.

CATHY GIST: Cathy Gist. I live on Blossom Hill
and Los Gatos and I’ve lived here forever.

One of my concerns is the students during dropoff, pick-up, and lunchtime; it’s already kind of a problem driving through town; you have to be really, really

Page 458 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
careful, and adding an additional 30 units is a concern as well.

I was concerned about the potential loss of
vegetation management and wildfire fuel abatement funding that could happen, and so now we’re adding an additional 30 multi-family units, which is more cars on already impacted streets during an emergency.

I was listening to when we did the discussion on
the Los Gatos site, 155 units there, and again, the concern with traffic during an emergency, and I think I heard at that time they were going to build a street through that, coming through High School Court and it was going to end up on Main Street as well, so again, that just seems like a lot of traffic coming through.

I know you mentioned everything being looked at
in total, all the projects that Los Gatos is looking at right now. There are a lot of high-rise, multi-family,
large buildings going in at most of the intersections. I don’t know if studying just one-by-one is the right thing, so I don't know if you have a plan that’s already looked at everything and had a CAD drawing of what these are all
going to look like and the impacts on traffic. If not, I think that’s a good idea.

Page 459 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The height of the building is also a concern for
me in terms of the view and the look and the feel of Los Gatos. We’re kind of losing a lot of the sights of the
mountains and everything else that people come here and really appreciate, and that’s why they want to live here, because it’s beautiful. We’re starting to look like San Jose, which is not bad, but I don’t think that’s what we actually want to look like. I think we want to look like the Town of Los Gatos.

I know the Town has been trying to encourage more
tourism as well, and I think removing some of Los Gatos’ charm does not bring tourists in, and neither does bad
traffic or parking problems, and parking is an issue. I know (inaudible) have more than most, but parking still is a problem in Los Gatos.

Then adding the retail space, I know right now on
Main Street and North Santa Cruz Avenue there is a ton of vacant retail, and I was wondering do we really need to add more retail space?
It’s not that I’m opposed to growth, I’m all for
growth, I just think that we need to make sure that it
appeals to people and all the residents, and that it’s what the Town really needs. Thank you.

Page 460 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Thank you. The next speaker card I have is Jorge Polo Tomas. Thank you.

JORGE POLO TOMAS: Good afternoon. My name is
Jorge Polo Tomas. I’m a representative of the Nor Cal
Carpenters Union Local 405. Today I’m here to talk to you about this project.

This project sits in the heart of our community,
and how it gets built matters. We’re calling on the
developer to make the right decision by hiring responsible contractors, contractors who pay fair wages, offer health benefits, invest in apprenticeship programs, and hire
locally. These aren’t just boxes to check, these standards ensure the people building our homes and businesses can afford to live here too. Responsible contractors bring
quality, safety, and accountability to the job site. They don’t cut corners, they don’t exploit workers, and they don’t leave communities worse off than when they arrived.

East Main Street deserves more than just another
development. We deserve a project that reflects the values of our cities, opportunity, fairness, dignity for the
working people, so let’s make sure this project is built by those who are invested in our community, not just profiting off of it. Thank you.

Page 461 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, and can you just
reiterate your list at the beginning, contractors that do X, Y, and Z?
JORGE POLO TOMAS: Work with contractors who pay
fair wages, offer health benefits, invest in apprenticeship programs, and hire locally.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, fair wages, apprenticeship
programs, health care, and hire locally. Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. The next card I have is Majid Alasvandian.

MAJID ALASVANDIAN: Hi, my is Majid Alasvandian.

I am a resident of Los Gatos for 26 years; I live on
Cleland Avenue right behind this building. I am opposing this project for a number of reasons.

The first reason is the safety. As you all know,
downtown Los Gatos is bordering the hills on two sides, and there are hundreds of homes that are in the hillside, and the evacuation paths are coming through. If you’re looking on the east side, my side, this side, all comes through College Avenue. So, all the homes on Prospect Avenue with wineries, all the homes on the Cleland Reservoir, they all come through College. All the homes further south, they come through Alpine Avenue and Jackson Street, and they are all close to each other, and all of them merge into Main

Page 462 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Street; Main Street being narrow. From Highway 9 and Main, they come down south. Going back through Santa Cruz and University back to Highway 9 is a very narrow street. This town was built in 1860s, it was not built for high traffic and high density.

The safety in lieu of the fires that we have
experienced. SB 330 was passed prior to all that experience that we had in Maui and with Pacific Palisades. I hope that never happens, but I can’t forget the pictures of Pacific Palisades when the fire was taking place. Everybody was escaping and all the traffic on Highway 1, people leaving their cars, escaping with their lives. So, all that talk about SB 330, Builder's Remedy, they can do whatever they want to do, but I think we have to take into consideration the safety of the downtown residents; I think that should be the number one.

High density in the downtown. We can have that
(inaudible) closer to the freeway, there are more escape routes, but not in the downtown. The downtown is enclosed by the hills. So, that’s number one.

Number two is the traffic. The gentleman provided
a number of data.

CHAIR THOMAS: I’m sorry, that’s time. But are
there any questions for the speaker? Commissioner Stump.

Page 463 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: From a traffic standpoint,
where do you find, as a resident, the greatest pinch
points, and when?
MAJID ALASVANDIAN: On Main Street. My kids went
to Van Meter and Fisher, and they’re in high school; my son is graduating from high school. In the morning, 7:00-7:30 to 9:00 o’clock, it would take you 45-50 minutes to go a mile-and-a-half from here to Fisher or to the Van Meter.

And you would spend probably 15 minutes at the
intersection of Jackson and Main Street, because you have traffic coming from high school, traffic on Main Street, people dropping and people who are taking their kids to school, people going to work.

On the intersection of Highway 9 and Los Gatos
Boulevard, the incoming traffic to Los Gatos, they might be missing multiple traffic lights, because they don’t get the chance to actually get in; they might be sitting 15-20
minutes.

And we’re going to be building the Los Gatos
Lodge right there. I don’t have a problem with that if
there’s a way to deal with that, but this side, this
project, is too big.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thanks for your answer.

Appreciate that.

Page 464 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much for your
comments. I don’t think there are any additional questions.

The next speaker I have is Brent Knudsen.

BRENT KNUDSEN: Thank you very much. My name is
Brent Knudsen, and my wife Kathryn and I live on Alpine Avenue; have for over 30 years. She’s a therapist and her office is on Church Street. We have a private equity
business and one is on the corner of Main and North Santa Cruz, and now over on Jackson Street, so we’re really
familiar with the area.

I’m reminded of the old story about painting an
animal to look a little bit better, and this is really a situation of trying to paint a not attractive animal into a cat, and as great as Mr. Rodrigues is, and if anybody can do it, I think he’s our man, but you can’t paint a bad idea into being a beautiful cat, and that’s what Los Gatos is about.

We’ve talked about the traffic. I’m no traffic
expert, but I do know math, and I know that if you put 80 parking spaces into a downstairs parking lot, you’re going to have a lot more than 17 new cars on the road. I can go through the math, but it just doesn’t work, in all due
respect, sir.

Page 465 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The safety from our principal is so important,
and allowing those students a place where they not only feel good but they know they’re safe, I’d go back to the Traffic Department and ask them to look at all the things that we talked about, not just cars, but adding scooters, ebikes, bicycles, all of those wheels together. Maybe the math should be number of wheels versus number of cars, and you’d come up with a really different answer.

I’ll just conclude, from the Good Counsel of the
Town, if ever there was a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, this is it. I think we all know it’s a bad idea. As much as we can paint it as a good idea, it’s never going to be a good idea. It’s not going to be a cat.

We need to protect our town. We need to protect the look of our town, we need to protect the safety of our town, and this is a bad idea.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Thank you. The last speaker card I have is Lee Fagot.

LEE FAGOT: Good evening. I don’t have to say
good morning; we’re not quite there yet. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’m a 29-year resident of Los Gatos.

I think the architectural style fits the
character of the town pretty well; it’s really a nice

Page 466 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
building. Unfortunately, it’s not suitable for this site.

The density, the height, the contribution to traffic, and the impact on safety messages that this should be in
another location that is zoned in our Housing Element for the right height, the mixed-use, and some below market rate housing.

Please have the developer look at sites more
suitable, like on Los Gatos Boulevard, instead of some of those monoliths that are being proposed. Let’s put in
something that’s more appealing and more representative of the Town on Los Gatos Boulevard, as an example of another site for this kind of a beautiful building. The people
would cheer the developer for doing so, and the Shannon Road and Los Gatos Boulevard building sites would benefit that neighborhood and be so zoned, so that’s an example of one of the places on the Boulevard where there could be an improvement.

As an experiment, I went onto the high school
campus at the beginning of this current school year, midSeptember, and I parked in the parking lot and I waited there until the bell at the end of the school day. I waited 22 minutes before I needed to even start the engine on my car to start moving, because of the traffic that was there with the kids leaving the campus. It was another nine

Page 467 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
minutes before I was able to get around onto Main Street, and then another almost eight minutes before I was able to get over to University and Main with the traffic.

A building like this with more residential units
at that site is just going to compound the problem,
increase the safety risk, and really start changing the character of the town that we all love, and therefore I think the builder should look at a nice design, but put it in a different place that’s more suitable, with the
infrastructure that can support it, in a neighborhood where the people would cheer having such a building there instead of what is being proposed now. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for Mr. Fagot? Thank you. I did receive one more speaker card, and that is for Dania Sackrova (phonetic).

DANIA SACKROVA: Hello, my name is Dania. I am a
downtown resident for the last ten years. I was born and raised in Belarus, Europe. I have a degree in design and art. I’ve lived in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and I lived five years in downtown Chicago. I am a member of the oldest art club in the county called Palette and Chisel. I love
history, art, and nature.

When we moved to Silicon Valley, I fell in love
with this town and I really feel like it’s my town. I’m

Page 468 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
doing my best to be a good resident and save and preserve the beauty and nature of my town for future generations.

My concern is this new building sometimes
covering the view and ruining the landscape of the town.

When I’m driving around right now and seeing proposals for a seven-floor high building around the town is actually terrifying me, because we are kind of a unique town. When you come you see that San Jose and other towns, with their own beauty, they are actually really different from our town, and I would like to preserve it.

With respect to architecture, I think it is a
beautiful building and it is very good work, but compared to the high school I think it’s a little bit too big. I think right now the school looks like the main building, it has historical impact, and my opinion is it will look
insignificant compared with this big scale building nearby.

Also, my son goes to high school and we are lucky
he can walk to the high school, but he sprained his ankle and I was dealing with traffic the last couple of days
because I was dropping him off and picking him up, and it’s really, really bad traffic.

Another thing, I also live in a building which
has underground parking, and I know that underground water really close to the earth is another problem here. Also,

Page 469 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
underground parking near a high school could be not very safe in my opinion, or we need to think about some safety issue. That’s it. Thank you for your time.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Thank you. I have no more speaker
cards. Are there any hands raised on Zoom for Item 4?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. There are
currently no hands raised on Zoom.

CHAIR THOMAS: Then we will ask the Applicant if
they wish to make a closing statement? You will have three minutes.

KEN RODRIGUES: Thank you. A couple of
clarifications and then a closing statement.

One, I wanted to mention, I misspoke on the
appliances; the CEQA report looks at all electric
appliances, so I just wanted to go back on the record as stating that.

Two, I appreciate the comments here tonight. I’d
like to talk about the two that really deal with most of them, and that is height and traffic.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration really speaks
to both issues, and it’s important to note that as an
outside, independent consultant doing those studies, not

Page 470 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
us, not residents, not people like me too who have been here for a long time, they’re independent.

I appreciate the traffic engineer’s comments;
he’s very thorough, and while we may question those
numbers, the numbers are the numbers that are in the CEQA report, and that is, I want to read exactly what it says:
“The existing office building is estimated to generate 119 daily trips. The proposed project will generate 136.”
That’s the net increase of 17 trips; that’s the number.

Then on height, although the proposed structure
is 7’ higher than the maximum permitted height in the C-2 zoning district, the project is eligible for this increase based upon Builder’s Remedy law. The project location in downtown, in addition to being a Builder’s Remedy project, will result in less than significant visual impacts. That’s important to me, that’s important that people know that as well.

Lastly, in terms of the health and safety issues
of traffic, to quote the CEQA report: “The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the town’s roadway system.” Again, it results in a less than significant impact. That’s important. There are no health and safety issues based upon the CEQA report.

Page 471 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Those are my comments, and we’d be happy to
answer any other questions that you may have. Thank you so much.

CHAIR THOMAS: I assume we do have some
questions. I will start with Vice Chair Burch and then
Commissioner Burnett.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you for saying something
about the high school, because while I realize builder’s risk, there are a lot of things that maybe we’re not going to be able to fully mitigate.

One of the things I think we can is safety to the
students during construction. I would really appreciate a commitment that your team would directly interface with the principal when you’re developing that logistics plan to keep large trucks away from the school during hours when kids are traveling to and from school. My own daughter was actually hit by a car right there; it’s not safe. How
you’re going to screen the construction from the students.

Kids are curious, they’re going to try to be close by. That is something that I feel like I can directly ask you guys to please really be a good neighbor here. Obviously, we are a town very passionate about our schools and our students, so if I could please ask you guys to begin those talks
early and develop a plan that will work really well for the

Page 472 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
school and for yourself, and for the safety of the
students.

KEN RODRIGUES: Yes.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. Because
the building is all-electric, I’m sure you’re providing generators, because sometimes our electricity goes out, and an all-electric building with chargers and everything else, you’d have to supply some pretty good generators to take care of the building if the electricity did go out.

KEN RODRIGUES: I’m not sure about that question
to answer it. That would be something that would be
designed in the next phase of things, but you’re right, the power in Los Gatos does go out a lot, especially at my
house.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Then a follow-up question,
Chair, if I may? Option 1 and Option 2, the first floor, or second floor, or both floors? I know the cost is definitely what is your concern here. Do you have a preference, or are you leaning toward one or the other to help us with the concerns that we have about parking, etc.?
KEN RODRIGUES: The owner and Applicant has been
asked that question by Staff, and I think his preference

Page 473 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
probably would be the one-level parking garage, which is the least amount of parking.

I think it’s important to just think about how
this building really gets built, and there is a lot yet to study, and that is why we are asking for the option of
both, and I really hope you consider this strongly, because the whole part of SB 330 is to make projects feasible to build, and that’s exactly why we’re asking for two options.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you for that,
and I understand because you are an SB 330 and you’re
having Builder's Remedy, so the constraints are… We
understand the position we’re in, we just have worries and concerns about mainly traffic, and so just (inaudible)
answered those questions, but thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: This may be more of a sales
question than a development question, but it’s linked back to parking. It’s quite apparent that you will not have
enough parking for the residents you have in the building unless they’re only going to have one car per family.

My question is, and maybe you have to work with
the Town, not work with the Town, but you’re going to have a number of residents that are going to need access to
unlimited parking, and there is no unlimited parking

Page 474 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
anywhere in this area; it’s either all time-limited or it’s private parking, so I’ve got to believe that in putting together a project like this you’re got to think about what do you tell these people? Where’s my parking? We don’t
know. Is there any thought about how to address that when you will not have enough parking even for your own
residents?
KEN RODRIGUES: Most of the units are smaller
units, and I would challenge the thinking a little bit
about enough parking. When I was remodeling my house on Pennsylvania Avenue, I got a chance to live for a year-anda-half in Forbes Mill while that was underway, and I remember my wife talking about how great it was to be able to walk everywhere in town, being able to use all the
facilities. We really didn’t need the two cars that we had at the time. That was in the 1980s and 1990s, and it’s even better today in that respect.

So, while we do have a few larger units that are
within the project, we think the parking is balanced. We think it’s balanced based on today’s need for a more urban, downtown project, not a suburban project; I agree with you there.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

Page 475 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any other questions for
the Applicant? I do have some questions regarding some of the proposed landscaping. I was wondering if you would be amenable to planting more native trees instead of the crepe myrtles, like planting additional redbuds instead of the crepe myrtles?
KEN RODRIGUES: I think that certainly the owner
would look at that option. The crepe myrtles are onsite that we’re proposing on the Guzzardo landscape plan?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, it’s like obviously the
magnolias.

KEN RODRIGUES: They’re not the street trees?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, the street trees that will be
put in.

KEN RODRIGUES: No, are they the street trees?
CHAIR THOMAS: I think they’re the street trees
that have to be replaced, from the magnolia that’s coming out. I don't know, maybe Mr. Safty can clarify.

RYAN SAFTY: The street trees proposed are crepe
myrtles.

CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, the street trees.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: That would go through our
Parks and Public Works, because those are street trees, so

Page 476 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I wouldn’t limit them to another species that is not
currently proposed.

CHAIR THOMAS: There is redbud proposed, there
just also are crepe myrtles.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: In the street tree wells?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, I think so, but maybe it’s
also kind of hard to see late at night, so I understand if that is not the case. Okay, so not the street trees, but do you think that you would be amenable to…
KEN RODRIGUES: The onsite planting, absolutely.

CHAIR THOMAS: …onsite plantings being…
KEN RODRIGUES: But we’re open to that, yes.

CHAIR THOMAS: Do we know if all the…
RYAN SAFTY: The street trees are all crepe
myrtles.

CHAIR THOMAS: And so, I guess this is a question
just for Staff before we close this public portion of the hearing. What would be the recommendation if that was
trying to recommend that those be a native tree instead of crepe myrtles?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I think one option would be to
add a condition that additional types of native street
trees be considered by Parks and Public Works in addition to what is currently proposed.

Page 477 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
57 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Yes, Vice Chair
Burch.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Also, I believe it was
Commissioner Raspe who had asked about the hours of
operation you had noted for the commercial portion of the property. Would you be open to making those hours be a
little earlier? It’s not unheard of that what might go in that would also be something that would be serving to the students and the staff of the high school, and I know
what’s there right now is pretty packed by 7am, so would you be open to making those hours be earlier so teachers like Chair Thomas can get a coffee in the morning?
KEN RODRIGUES: I think the Applicant certainly
would be. I mean, the more flexibility, the better, on
tenant use. I would defer to Staff.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Yes, I’ll ask them when it’s
time, but I just didn’t want to commit for you.

KEN RODRIGUES: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any other questions for
the Applicant at this time?
KEN RODRIGUES: We’re happy to answer any other
questions, if they come up.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. We will now close
the public portion of the public hearing, and I invite my

Page 478 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
58 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Commissioners to ask questions of Staff. That’s probably the first thing we’re going to need to do. I actually will kick that off.

My first question for Staff is that we’ve heard a
lot of issues regarding safety in the area, and I think that a lot of that already exists with no matter what
structure is or isn’t on this site, so my question for
Staff is how can we, as a commission or perhaps as a town, move forward with looking at some adjustments to traffic and safety in this area, or is that already (inaudible) on the Bike and Pedestrian Safety Plan improvements, or
anything related to that?
MIKE VROMAN: Mike Vroman, Traffic Engineer. The
site lines will be improved with the proposed project. The existing building comes up to the back of the sidewalk on Church/High School Court and E. Main Street. The proposed new building would be set back at least 10’ from Church and Main Street and about 5’ from High School Court. In
addition, the corners of the building will be chamfered so they’ll improve site lines.

In addition, one of the mitigation measures was
to paint red curb. There will be a new driveway entrance into the underground parking off Church Street, and there will be red curb on both sides, and there will also be a

Page 479 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
59 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
loading zone put in, so those are some of the mitigation measures to improve and enhance safety.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Just to follow-up
is this an area, besides this project, that the Town has recently looked at trying to improve safety with making the lanes narrower, or making things one way, or anything like that?
MIKE VROMAN: Recently, a few years ago, we put
in the green bike lanes, and we currently have a CIP
project that we’re working on. We had it designed and it’s back on our list to put in to enhance the crossings. There are three high-visibility crosswalks that lead to the high school, and we’re looking at a project to put on curb
extensions which minimizes pedestrian crossing distance, minimizes exposure of pedestrians in the roadway, and
brings out pedestrians so they can see and be seen much more readily, so those are some safety issues. Then there will be an additional high-visibility crosswalk as part of this project in improved curb ramps.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you for answering
that. My other follow-up question to Staff is just about how traffic with regard to the high school is managed in the sense of is that up to the school district to provide

Page 480 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
alternative modes of transit to the high school? Do they work with the Town on that?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: To be honest, I don’t want to
provide an answer to that. Obviously, the Town has
historically had a number of conversations with the school, and the school with us, regarding this issue, because it’s not a new issue, as everyone understands, it’s been going on forever. So, I’m sure there are always discussions on what could be done to help improve the situation, and so I would say it’s not quite as bad, but it’s nearly as bad as the other issue with beach traffic, for which the Town has tried a number of solutions which have not been successful.

I think we’ll continue to work with the school from the Town Manager’s office and Parks and Public Works to look at solutions when they’re available, but it’s really just a constrained situation that there aren’t any quick or great ideas that are just going to overnight change that
scenario.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you for confirming that. I
have two more questions. I’m sorry, I’m hogging the mic, but I will let other people ask questions.

My question is for Park and Public Works about
the street trees. Would it be appropriate to ask for

Page 481 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
western redbuds instead of crepe myrtles or something
because they are native?
GARY HEAP: Thank you. Gary Heap, Public Works.

Yes, we’d be fully supportive of changing out the crepe myrtles to an alternative tree that fits more of the local character of the area, like the redbud.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Then my last
question is with regard to any Conditions of Approval
regarding the public comment from the local union about responsible contractors. I know that this has come up in the past and I was wondering, can we put any conditions about who gets hired, and if not, is the Town looking into implementing an ordinance that requires some of that?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: There are some jurisdictions in
California that have local ordinances that would permit such conditions. The Town currently does not have such an ordinance on the books, and there is currently no
discussion of adding that.

CHAIR THOMAS: So, what would be the most
appropriate route for having a discussion about that?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: If the Commission wished, the
Commission could include that in its recommendation to the Town Council on this item, that that be considered in the future, or anybody who has an interest in that topic can

Page 482 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
write to the Town Attorney, the Town Manager, the Town
Clerk, or members of the Town Council to ask that an
ordinance be considered.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, everyone else now who have
questions. Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Question for Staff. On
Church Street is there any way to have it so that when cars come out of the building in the back, on Church Street, that they would not be able to turn right into the High School Court area, but they would have to go to the left, so that would divert traffic in the High School Court area? I don't know if we can request that, a traffic study or something, but it would prevent traffic in that area. Then I have a second question.

MIKE VROMAN: Typically, that’s not something
that we would do. Recently it came up at one of our
offsites places where there were complaints that they force people to turn right coming out of the driveway, and some of the neighbors resented that because it added traffic, but the Town doesn’t really have authority of how people come in or out of the driveway; it’s a public roadway and as long as they perceive it as safe to turn one way. Then if we force them to go back the other direction, there are still conflicts down at the other end, and so it’s good to

Page 483 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
have people distribute sometimes; it depends where they’re going to which way they would go. Hopefully that answers your question.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: It does. Thank you. Just
another question.

The Town, as a lead agency for our environmental
and CEQA issues, because we have to consider the cumulative effect of other and whatever under California Code 15065, does the Town have the option to relook at this? Because we’re thinking of all the other projects that might have impact on this project, and so the cumulative effect?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The Commission definitely has
the ability to ask for more environmental work. The
Commission might want to hear from the Town’s CEQA
consultant to hear how they analyzed cumulative impacts to date.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Do you want to ask a question for
the CEQA consultant now?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’m pretty sure that question
was answered earlier in the hearing, so I guess I can get her to repeat that if it’s necessary.

CHAIR THOMAS: Other questions for Staff?
Commissioner Barnett.

Page 484 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: With respect to a couple
members of the community who suggested that the building be not built in that location, or not be so big, because of the safety issues, would that be a reasonable request under SB 330?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The way that statute is
written, it requires that the public health and safety
concern be based on an adopted written objective standard of the Town’s, and so any requested change, the project would need to be based on one of those standards.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Are such standards in
place?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’m not familiar with all the
Town’s development standards, but what I read in the Staff Report indicated that this project conformed with most of the Town’s objective standards, and I’d defer to Public Works.

JAMES WATSON: James Watson, Parks and Public
Works, Senior Engineer. We’ve received the plan set, we made comments, we went through all our consistency items, and we found the project to be in conformance with the Town Code, with the exception of the exceptions that they
requested.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you.

Page 485 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I think I still need to
hear again from the CEQA representative. I’m not satisfied with her answer. I think the Town, as a lead agency, can request another study if we foresee a cumulative impact, and so I just want that clarified.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: EMC, you can go ahead and
unmute yourself and speak. Again, the similar question that was asked previously.

TERI WISSLER ADAM: Good evening, Chair Thomas,
Commissioners, my name is Teri Wissler Adam with EMC
Planning Group. I worked with Shoshana, who you heard from earlier, on the preparation of the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration.

When looking at cumulative impacts, one of the
options that is provided by the CEQA guidelines is to look at the buildout of the General Plan that was evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and so that’s what we did. We looked at this project’s contribution to that cumulative impact, and CEQA requires us to make a determination on whether the contribution of this particular project is considerable when compared to the cumulative impacts of buildout of the General Plan.

Page 486 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
There are other options for looking at cumulative
projects, and one of them, as has been suggested by some of the Commissioners, is looking at all the projects that are currently proposed in the Town at this point, but again, that’s not the route that we used in this particular
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, I would add
that further analysis has been discussed, and I know the Town Attorney is still discussing what options there are.

Some of you are aware that for additional cumulative
analysis for specifically or maybe including the projects that weren’t part of the Housing Element sites inventory, so there are still conversations going on around that.

I haven’t heard any substantial evidence from an
expert that has changed the determinations made in the MND that there is a significant adverse impact based on an
objective standard or a health and safety standard that has been adopted, but again, we’re going to consider looking at this as each of these projects come forward.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Anyone want to start discussion,
make comments?

Page 487 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Before you start discussion,
you might want to discuss extending the meeting, because we’re almost at 11:30.

CHAIR THOMAS: And how long do we need?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s up to you and how your
discussion goes.

CHAIR THOMAS: Midnight is our cutoff, right? No,
11:30 is our cutoff?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Correct, so then you make a
motion to extend the meeting.

CHAIR THOMAS: We need to make a motion. Does
anyone want to make a motion to extend the meeting?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: So moved.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Second that.

CHAIR THOMAS: So, to 30 minutes? Okay, so
Commissioner Stump and Commissioner Barnett second. I’ll call the question. All those in favor? Motion passes
unanimously. Thank you for that reminder. Commissioner
Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m going to jump in here,
and this goes back to the first question that I really
asked, and that was about CEQA, and that has to do with cumulative impact.

Page 488 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
We’ve heard a little about cumulative impact, but
what I’m going to say is that tonight I cannot make the required finding for CEQA related to this project. This study does not take into account the cumulative impacts of probable projects that are out here in the future that were not envisioned to be at the mass, scale, height, or density that are being proposed. Thanks.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, I’ll go next. I am
going to disagree, I’m afraid, with my fellow commissioner.

This is our first SB 330 Builder's Remedy project. The
Lodge could have been developed in that fashion, they chose not to, and so this is really our first experience with it.

And really, it hands the Town an unfortunate
situation in many instances. The Town may not disapprove a qualified affordable housing project on the grounds that it does not comply with the Town zoning and General Plan, and this project we have before us is a qualifying affordable housing project; it has six below market units. That means, in short, we can’t disapprove of this project on the
grounds of the height, the FAR, the setbacks, the density, etc.

To those points, overall, I find the building is
well designed and it fits within our Town’s aesthetic. It’s

Page 489 ends

Los Gatos City CouncilMay 27, 2025

Los Gatos City Council
May 27, 2025