Los Gatos City Council
April 5, 2022

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 13

7. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall away from TREE PROTECTION ZONE and avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the Consulting Arborist may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees, or grinding the stump below ground.

8. All down brush and trees shall be removed from the TREE PROTECTION ZONE either by hand, or with equipment sitting outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding across the ground. Brush shall be chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE

9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall use equipment that will minimize damage to trees above and below ground, and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Tie back branches and wrap trunks with protective materials to protect from injury as directed by the Project arborist. The Project arborist shall be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity.

10. 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 feasible 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.

Recommendations for tree protection during construction

1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist. The Consulting arborist shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project Consulting Arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits.

2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved.

3. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist.

4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION ZONE at all times.

5. Construction activities within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, including but not limited to:
excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree are prohibited, unless approved by the Director, per Sec.10.29.1005.

6. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Project Arborist. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and smooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2” in diameter should be avoided.

7. If roots 2” and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, the Project Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.

8. Any brush clearing required within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be accomplished with hand-operated equipment.

9. All down brush and trees shall be removed from the TREE PROTECTION ZONE either by hand, or with equipment sitting outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding across the ground.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 14

10. Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of, and be supervised by, the Project Arborist.

11. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.

12. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible.

The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

13. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3 to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 30”.

14. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. The Director and Consulting Arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered.

15. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree are prohibited.

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

17. Trees that accumulate a sufficient quantity of dust on their leaves, limbs and trunk as judged by the Consulting Arborist shall be spray-washed at the direction of the Project Arborist.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 15
Maintenance of impacted trees
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.

Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.

Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.

Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.

If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Ryan Gilpin, M.S.

Certified Arborist #WE-10268A
Pam Nagle
Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester
Certified Arborist #WE-9617A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 16
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Assessment
Tree Disposition
Tree Appraisal

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
1 Coast redwood 40 Protected 50% Moderate Slight sweep in lower trunk; poor color; water stressed.2 California bay 8,8,7 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy form; decay in stem; crown one sided west.
3 California bay 6,5 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy form; crown one sided east; covered in ivy.
4 Valley oak 17 Protected 50% Moderate Leaning south; crown one sided west; covered in ivy and another vine.
5 Valley oak 14 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; small crown; crown one sided south.6 Coast live oak 23 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet with seam; dense crown; pruning wound at 5 feet; trunk wound at 2 feet; both healed. 7 Blue gum 40 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; yellow jacket at base.
8 Blue gum 38 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth.
9 Blue gum 20,7 Exception 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; old retaining wall at base; decay in base. 10 Blue gum 54 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; base at old retaining wall. 11 Blue gum 28 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet with dead main stem decaying into attachment; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; base at old retaining wall. 12 Blue gum 39 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; base at old retaining wall; curb bumps out around base. 13 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% High Strong central leader; crown one sided east; minor dieback.

Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
14 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Low Crook in trunk at 3 feet; crown one sided south; dense crown; supporting retaining wall.
15 California bay 10 Protected 50% Moderate Lower trunk sweeps east; holding up retaining wall; minor dieback.
16 California bay 10 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow upright form; sinuous trunk; interior tree.17 California bay 9,9 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from base with decay running up inside of trunks; narrow upright form; small crown.
18 California bay 5 Protected 10% Low Main stem dead.19 California bay 13,8 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; one stem bowed east; larger stem upright, narrow form.
20 California bay 11 Protected 30% Low Codom in upper crown; thin crown; narrow form.21 California bay 13 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise in upper crown; poor form and structure; dense chaotic crown.
22 California buckeye 9 Protected 50% Moderate Leans heavily east; suppressed by neighboring trees.23 California bay 7 Protected 30% Low Main stem bowed heavily east with vertical epicormic stems.24 California bay 17,16 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from base; wide spreading crown; dominant tree.
25 California bay 11 Protected 30% Low Narrow form; sinuous trunk; cavity in base.26 California bay 12 Protected 50% Low Leaning heavily east; codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; small dense crown.
27 California bay 7 Protected 10% Low Leaning east, closer to horizontal than vertical; epicormic sprouts.
28 California bay 8 Protected 10% Low Main stem totally hollow.29 California bay 12,7,6 Protected 10% Low Stump sprout; can see through base.30 Valley oak 34 Large Protected
70% High Codominant trunks arise from 25 feet; minor dieback; dominant tree; crown above building.
31 California bay 16 Protected 50% Low Leaning east; narrow upright form cabled wrapped around tree; 8 inch trunk wound on south side.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
32 California bay 8 Protected 50% Low Leaning east; narrow upright form; edge tree.33 California bay 14,6 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; leaning east; wrapped around coast live oak.
34 California bay 8 Protected 30% Low Bowed heavily east; epicormic growing vertically.35 California bay 11,10,7 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; sinuous trunks; minor dieback.36 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown one sided east; edge tree.
37 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Leaning heavily east; topped; dense epicormic growth.38 Blue oak 19 Protected 30% Low Sinuous trunk; low live crown ratio; thin, small crown; bark peeling off base.
39 Coast live oak 27 Large
Protected
50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; leaning east; swollen, bleeding base.
40 Valley oak 17 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet with dead stem; other stem bowed over other trees, difficult to see.
41 California bay 8,5,4 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy, interior tree.42 California bay 5 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light.43 Valley oak 14 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 30 feet; difficult to see crown above other canopy.
44 Coast live oak 22 Protected 50% Low Lost codominant trunks arise from 5 feet decaying into trunk; dense wide spreading crown.
45 California bay 6,5 Protected 50% Low Bushy interior tree.46 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light.47 Valley oak 17,13 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet; trunks bow away form each other; wide spreading crown, difficult to see.
48 California bay 22,12 Protected 10% Low Dead stump resprouting.49 California bay 7 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light; swollen base.50 California bay 7 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light; swollen base.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
51 California bay 7 Protected 30% Low Bowed horizontal to east; epicormic growing vertical.52 California bay 9 Protected 30% Low Bowed horizontal to east; epicormic growing vertical; topped at property line.
53 California bay 10 Protected 50% Low Narrow upright form; cavities at base; edge tree.54 California bay 13,9 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; swollen base; leaning east; headed at property line.
55 California bay 6,5,5,4 Protected 50% Low Bushy interior tree bowed to east.56 California bay 7 Protected 30% Low Bowed horizontal to east; epicormic growing vertical; topped at property line.
57 California bay 9,8 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from base; sinuous trunks; interior tree.58 California bay 12 Protected 30% Low Cavities in base; bowed horizontal east; vertical epicormic sprouting.
59 Coast live oak 27,16 Large
Protected
50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; all stems bowed east; dense chaotic crown; base at 2 bay trees.
60 California bay 14 Protected 10% Low Cavities in base; broken top with epicormic resprouting.61 California bay 15 Protected 30% Low Bowed to east; epicormic growing vertical.62 California bay 13 Protected 30% Low Bowed to east; epicormic growing vertical; headed at property line.
63 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light.64 California bay 10,9 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from base; trunk sweeping east; edge tree; headed at property line.
65 California bay 9 Protected 30% Low Bowed horizontally to east; epicormic growing vertical.66 California bay 11 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 20 feet where it perfectly props coast live oak stem.
67 Olive 5,4,3,2 Exception 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; volunteer; thin crown; interior tree.
68 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
69 California bay 7 Protected 30% Low Narrow form; thin crown; dieback.70 Coast live oak 6 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; dense crown, one sided east.
71 California bay 17,8 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; swollen base; dense chaotic crown.
72 Valley oak 33 Large
Protected
70% High Dominant tree; codominant trunks arise from 6 feet with seam; wide spreading crown.
73 Olive 5 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; narrow crown.74 Coast live oak 6 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; dense crown, one sided south.
75 Coast live oak 30 Large
Protected
50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet crown one sided south; dense crown; minor dieback.
76 Monterey pine 15 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; thin crown; gray blue color.77 Monterey pine 17 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; thin crown; gray blue color.78 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% High Good young tree; remove staking.79 Coast redwood 13 Protected 90% High Good form and structure; dense crown.80 Blue oak 12 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; thin crown; upright form.81 Coast redwood 5 Protected 90% High Good young tree; remove staking.82 Coast redwood 7 Protected 30% Low Dead top.83 Monterey pine 14 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; thin crown; gray blue color.84 Bigleaf maple 9 Protected 30% Low 2 foot basal wound with decay; good form and structure; dense crown.
85 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% High Good young tree; remove staking.86 Valley oak 19 Protected 70% Moderate Dominant tree; codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; crown one sided east.
87 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% High Good form and structure; dense crown.88 Monterey pine 8 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; leaning south; thin crown; gray blue color.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
89 Monterey pine 8 Protected 50% Moderate Strong central leader; crown one sided south; thin crown.90 Blackwood acacia 10,6 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; invasive.91 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; invasive.92 Blackwood acacia 8,7,4 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; invasive.93 Blackwood acacia 5,5,5,4 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; invasive.94 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Huge basal cavity; lost half of tree.95 California bay 16 Protected 30% Low Lost top; epicormic resprouting; dieback.96 California bay 5 Protected 10% Low Base decayed and failed; leaning on neighboring tree.97 California bay 10,6,5,4,4 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; base at valley oak; bushy, wrapping around valley oak.
98 Valley oak 17,16 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; surrounded by bays; crown one sided south; dieback throughout crown.
99 California bay 7,6,6,5 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; base at valley oak; bushy, wrapping around valley oak.
100 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Base at valley oak; bushy, wrapping around valley oak.101 California bay 5 Protected 70% High Good young tree.102 California bay 5,5,5,4,4,3 ,3,2,2
Protected 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; short wide spreading bushy form.
103 Coast redwood 9 Protected 50% Moderate Lost top; remove staking.104 Coast redwood 8 Protected 90% High Good young tree.105 Coast redwood 9 Protected 90% High Good young tree.106 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% High Good young tree.107 Coast redwood 8 Protected 90% High Good young tree.108 Coast redwood 4 Protected 90% High Good young tree; remove staking.109 Grecian laurel 10,9,9 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; upright form; thin crown; previously topped.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
110 Grecian laurel 6,6,5,5,4,3
,3,2
Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; upright form; thin crown; previously topped.
111 Grecian laurel 5,4,4,4,4,4
,3,3,3
Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; upright form; thin crown; previously topped.
112 Olive 6 Exception 50% Moderate Sinuous trunk; small crown; interior tree; healing trunk wound.113 Olive 12,7 Exception 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; sinuous trunk; dieback; interior tree; healing trunk wound.
114 Olive 10,6,5,4,3,
2,2,2
Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; sinuous trunk; dieback; interior tree.
115 Valley oak 21 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet; chaotic form; thin crown; weeping.
116 Blue gum 47,32,17 Large
Protected
50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 2 feet; dominant tree; history of branch failure; growing on slope; previously topped.
117 Bronze loquat 6 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; half of crown dead.118 Coast live oak 19,15 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from base; dense crown; growing on slope.
119 Coast live oak 19 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet with seam; crown bowed south; dense crown.
120 Valley oak 14 Protected 50% Moderate Crook in trunk at 5 feet; crown one sided east.121 Valley oak 19 Protected 50% Low Dominant tree; dieback to 5 inches; declining.122 Coast live oak 11 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet with wide attachment; chaotic form.
123 Olive 7,7,5,4,4,3 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 1 foot; dense crown; 3 foot long trunk wound.
124 Coast live oak 25 Large
Protected
10% Low Mostly dead.
125 Coast redwood 19 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
126 Coast live oak 7,7 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.127 Coast live oak 8 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.128 Canary Island pine 28 Protected 70% Moderate Strong central leader; heavy sap flow; difficult to see top.129 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet with seam; bowed south, on slope.
130 Canary Island pine 23 Protected 70% High Strong central leader; difficult to see top.131 Canary Island pine 26 Protected 30% Low Sinuous trunk difficult to see top.132 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% Moderate Good young tree; growing into pines crown.133 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; difficult to see top.134 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet; dense crown; minor dieback.135 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise in upper crown; dense crown; difficult to see top.
136 Canary Island pine 23 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; difficult to see top; base 4 inches from curb.
137 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; difficult to see top.138 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; difficult to see top; prune drooping branch.
139 Bronze loquat 5,3,3,3 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 2 feet; growing in dense bushes.140 Bronze loquat 6,4,2 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; declining141 Crabapple 8 Exception 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; wide spreading crown.142 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; wide spreading crown; base covered in ivy.
143 Coast live oak 16 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; wide spreading crown; base covered in ivy.
144 Canary Island pine 18 Protected 50% Moderate Lost top; dense crown; base in ivy.145 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; base in ivy.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
146 Canary Island pine 26 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise in upper crown; dense crown; base in ivy.
147 Douglas fir 18 Protected 70% Moderate Good form and structure; minor dieback; epicormic growth.148 Douglas fir 29 Protected 70% Moderate Good form and structure; dominant tree; root collar buried.149 Hollywood juniper 9,5 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; low branching dorm; dense crown.
150 Douglas fir 15 Protected 50% Moderate Good form and structure; minor dieback; thin crown.151 Douglas fir 15 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet where lost top; narrow form; dense crown.
152 Douglas fir 18 Protected 50% Low Good form and structure; minor dieback; lost top.153 Douglas fir 14 Protected 50% Moderate Good form and structure; minor dieback; thin crown.154 Valley oak 11 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet with seam; crown one sided south.
155 Silk oak 11 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 25 feet; dense crown.156 Coast live oak 17 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown; buried root collar.
157 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet with seam; very non circular trunk; extensive dieback throughout crown.
158 Douglas fir 22 Protected 30% Low Topped at 25 feet; extensive surface roots.159 Coast live oak 21 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; hose embedded in trunk at 6 feet; crown one sided west.
160 Valley oak 21 Protected 50% Moderate Trunk bows east; minor dieback.161 Valley oak 16 Protected 30% Low Trunk bows horizontal to north; vertical branch becomes main stem; dieback throughout crown.
162 Coast live oak 20 Protected 50% Moderate Leaning west; dense crown.163 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% High Typical upright form; planted at edge of retaining wall.164 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% High Typical upright form; planted at edge of retaining wall.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
165 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% High Typical upright form; planted at edge of retaining wall.166 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% High Typical upright form; planted at edge of retaining wall.167 Monterey pine 4 Protected 90% High Good young tree.168 Red horsechestnut 5,2 Protected 90% High Good young tree; prune codominant.169 Coast live oak 7 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; crown one sided west over parking; dieback.
170 California bay 17,10,6 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; base totally hollow; wide spreading crown.
171 California bay 7,7,7,6,5,5
,5,5
Protected 30% Low Stump sprout; decaying base.
172 California bay 8,5,5,4 Protected 30% Low Stump sprout; decaying base.173 California bay 16 Protected 50% Moderate Upright form; thin crown; dieback.174 Coast live oak 8 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; dense crown one sided east.
175 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet with bleeding seam; poor form and structure; dense crown one sided east.
176 Sugar gum 17,16 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; sinuous trunk; dense crown.177 Sugar gum 12,11,11,1 1 Protected 30% Low Stump sprout; decaying base; long levers arms. 178 Deodar cedar 6 Protected 90% High Good young tree.179 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown; dieback throughout crown.
180 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% High Typical upright form.181 Sitka spruce 6 Protected 70% High Dense narrow weeping form; large surface roots.182 Italian stone pine 22 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; crown one sided east over building; weeping.
183 Italian stone pine 19 Protected 50% Moderate Crown one sided east over building; weeping.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
184 Red ironbark 13 Exception 10% Low Mostly dead.185 Incense cedar 11 Protected 90% High Good form and structure; dense crown.186 Italian cypress 5 Protected 50% Moderate Typical upright form; grown around tie.187 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% High Typical upright form.188 Blackwood acacia 4 Exception 70% Low Young invasive volunteer.189 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 15 with awkward branching angles; dense flat topped crown.
190 Red ironbark 13 Exception 10% Low Mostly dead.191 Blackwood acacia 17 Exception 50% Low Sinuous trunk; dense crown one sided north over building; invasive.
192 Red ironbark 14 Exception 10% Low Mostly dead.193 Hollywood juniper 17 Protected 70% High Typical chaotic form; dense crown.194 Hollywood juniper 5,5,4,3,3,3 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; decay at base.195 Hollywood juniper 11,7 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 1 foot from building; crown one sided east.
196 Blue blossom 5,4,4 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 1 foot with trunk wound; topped harshly.
197 Hollywood juniper 18 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 1 foot from building; crown one sided east.
198 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 3 foot from building; crown one sided east.
199 Hollywood juniper 11 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 6 foot from building; crown one sided south.
200 Hollywood juniper 10 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 2 foot from building; crown one sided north.
201 Hollywood juniper 12 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 2 foot from building; crown one sided north.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
202 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 1 foot from building; crown one sided east.
203 Crabapple 4,3 Exception 70% High Good young tree, iconic part of landscape.204 Sawleaf zelkova 23 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with narrow attachment; wide spreading crown; northern half of tree declining; dieback. 205 Sawleaf zelkova 22 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with narrow attachment; wide spreading crown; tree declining; dieback.
206 Valley oak 24 Large
Protected
70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; growing in small space; vase shaped crown; minor dieback.
207 Sawleaf zelkova 19 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with narrow attachment; wide spreading crown; tree declining; dieback.
208 Sawleaf zelkova 18 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with narrow attachment; wide spreading crown; tree declining; dieback.
209 Mayten 7 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; thin crown; yellow foliage; declining.
210 Italian cypress 14 Protected 70% Moderate Typical upright form.211 Italian cypress 14 Protected 70% Low Typical upright form; growing into buildings eve.212 Crabapple 12 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; crown one sided north.213 Crabapple 11 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; crown one sided north.214 Crabapple 11 Exception 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet with cavity; crown one sided north.
215 Coast live oak 22,22 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with seam; dense wide spreading crown; 2 cables in tree; significant growth around equipment. 216 California bay 10 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; dense crown; upright form.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
217 Brazilian pepper 5 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; bushy form; topped at 15 feet; base at deck.
218 Loquat 6 Protected 70% Moderate Narrow form; base 1 foot from retaining wall; dense crown.219 Blue gum 36 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow form dense bushy growth; difficult to see upper crown.220 Blue gum 62 Large Protected
50% Moderate Dense bushy growth; difficult to see upper crown. 221 Blue gum 36 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow form dense bushy growth; difficult to see upper crown; minor dieback.
222 African fern-pine 5 Protected 70% Moderate Good young tree; in narrow planting location.223 California bay 13 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; dense crown; upright form; hole at base.
224 California bay 13,13 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet; dense crown; upright form.225 Coast live oak 20 Protected 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; crown one sided west; dense crown.
226 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; thin crown; dieback.227 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; thin crown; dieback.228 Red horsechestnut 5 Protected 50% Moderate Strong central leader; thin crown.229 Coast live oak 23 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; crown one sided east; dense crown.
230 Red ironbark 22 Exception 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; poor form and structure; history of branch failure; dead branches.
231 Red ironbark 5,5,5,5,4 Exception 30% Low Stump sprout; long vertical stems from removed base.232 Purpleleaf plum 4 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 4 feet; thin small crown; low vigor; 4 foot long trunk wound.
233 Red ironbark 19 Exception 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; thin crown; wide spreading crown.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
234 Coast live oak 10,9 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot with seam; twig dieback throughout dense crown.
235 Toyon 6,5,4,4 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy.236 California bay 12 Protected 50% Low Leaning east; codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; one stem vertical one horizontal.
237 California bay 11 Protected 50% Moderate Crook in trunk at 4 feet; narrow upright form.238 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; dense crown one sided south; under utility lines; at edge of slope.
239 Olive 10,5,5 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; dense crown one sided north.240 Coast live oak 28 Large Protected
50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; dead branch; pruned away from utility lines; dense two dimensional crown; exposed roots. 241 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Young tree with exposed roots from eroding slope.242 California bay 5 Protected 50% Low Young tree with exposed roots from eroding slope.243 Coast live oak 27 Large Protected
10% Low Mostly dead.
244 Valley oak 15 Protected 30% Low Small crown pruned away from utilities; plastic attached to trunk to keep sprouts from growing towards utilities?
245 Coast live oak 4,4,4,3,3,2
,2,2
Protected 30% Low Decaying stump sprout.
246 Valley oak 26 Large
Protected
50% Low Leaning east over building; minor dieback; pruned away from; utilities.
247 Coast live oak 16 Protected 50% Low Trunk embedded in fence; multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown one sided east.
248 Coast live oak 6,5,3 Protected 30% Low Decaying stump sprout.249 Victorian box 5,4,4,4,4,3 ,2
Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy; decaying stem at attachment.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
250 Blue gum 50 Large
Protected
30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; heading cuts; pruned harshly; dead branch decaying into branch; poorly attached regrowth. 251 Valley oak 28 Large
Protected
70% High Off-site; base 15 feet from fence; overhangs fence by 20 feet. 252 Crabapple 5 Exception 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; crown one sided east; suppressed.
253 Plum 6,5,3 Exception 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; crown one sided east; suppressed.
254 Crabapple 7 Exception 30% Low Swollen base with cavity; thin two dimensional crown.255 Crabapple 11 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; poorly pruned; dense wide spreading crown.
256 Bottlebrush 4,4 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot; trunks wrapping; dense crown; close to building.
257 Aleppo pine 6 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; thin crown.258 Victorian box 4,3 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from base; trunk wound; sweep at base; small crown.
259 Victorian box 6,5,2,2 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; basal sprouts; base in ivy; bushy.
260 Blue gum 52 Large
Protected
50% Low Property line tree; no tag; cannot see base; lower 30 feet covered in ivy.
261 Jacaranda 7 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; sinuous trunk; attractive flowers.
262 Portugal laurel 6,5,4,4,4 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy; declining; dieback.263 Japanese flowering cherry
10 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 4 feet; dieback; declining. 264 Coast live oak 20 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; dense crown.265 Cherry 12 Exception 30% Low Poorly attached codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; suppressed crown one sided north.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
266 California black
walnut
8 Protected 30% Low Half dead.
267 Coast live oak 7 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; leaning south over path; small crown.268 California bay 5 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; interior tree; narrow upright form.
269 African sumac 12 Protected 10% Low Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet with 6 foot long trunk wound; poor form and structure; crown bowed south.
270 African sumac 9,9 Protected 10% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with 6 foot long trunk wound; poor form and structure; crown bowed south.
271 Coast live oak 11 Protected 50% Low Leaning north over neighboring property.272 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; partially covered in ivy; interior tree.
273 African sumac 13,11 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with 6 foot dead branch; crown bowed south.
274 Glossy privet 8,5 Exception 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; partially covered in ivy; dense crown.
275 African sumac 9,7 Protected 10% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with 6 foot long trunk wound; crown bowed south.
276 Crabapple 13 Exception 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; swollen base; dense crown.277 Crabapple 13 Exception 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; base in ivy; dense crown.278 California bay 6,5 Protected 70% Moderate Base covered in ivy; codominant trunks arise from base; dense crown.
279 Flowering dogwood 9,4 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; chaotic structure; interior tree.280 Coast live oak 12,10 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from base; interior tree; dieback; base covered in ivy.
281 California bay 6,4,3,2 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; base in ivy; suppressed to north.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
282 Coast live oak 15 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; dense vase shaped crown.283 Coast live oak 9 Protected 50% Low Covered in ivy; suppressed south.284 Windmill palm Exception 90% Moderate 9 feet brown trunk height; growing in small space.285 African fern-pine 4 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; bent top; planted against wall.286 Hollywood juniper 12,6,5 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 4 foot from building; crown one sided north.
287 Red maple 12 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; dense, spreading crown.288 White willow 24 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown; basal sprout; branch headed.
289 Valley oak 28 Large
Protected
30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; narrow upright form; dieback; 12 inch cavity decaying into trunk.
290 Sweetgum 15 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise in upper crown; dense crown; slightly sinuous trunk; minor dieback.
291 Sweetgum 20 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 4 feet with bulge; dense crown; slightly sinuous trunk; minor dieback.
292 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; declining; extensive dieback.
293 Ginkgo 5 Protected 50% Moderate Competing with bush; narrow upright form.294 Coast live oak 19 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; dead branch over road; dieback.295 California bay 6 Protected 30% Low Bowed east; covered in ivy.296 Coast live oak 26,25,17 Large Protected
50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; wide spreading crown; reduced at perimeter.
297 Arroyo willow 18,16 Protected 30% Low Partial failure; dense bushy crown.298 Coast live oak 18 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; crack and cavity in lowest branch; dense crown one sided east.
299 African fern-pine 8 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; crown touching building.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
300 African fern-pine 8 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; crown touching building; 8 inch trunk wound.
301 Japanese maple 5 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; narrow crown; growing in small space.
302 Crabapple 9 Exception 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; cavity with decay at 5 feet.303 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet with seam; dense chaotic crown; headed back on east.
304 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 15; narrow upright form; crown one sided east.
305 Coast live oak 5 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 4 feet; poor form and structure; suppressed.
306 Coast live oak 9 Protected 30% Low Bowed east to horizontal; suppressed.307 Coast live oak 4 Protected 30% Low Small; stunted; suppressed; lost main stem.308 Coast live oak 12 Protected 10% Low Leaning heavily on eucalyptus; declining; dieback.309 Sugar gum 33 Protected 30% Low Dead main stem; 20 foot long trunk wound.310 Sugar gum 33 Protected 30% Low Dead codominant at 30 foot; trunk wound spreading down from there.
311 Coast live oak 8 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 4 feet; crown one sided west; narrow form; interior tree.
312 Coast live oak 12 Protected 50% Low Leaning west; crown one sided west; dense crown.313 Coast live oak 17 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunk removed at 6 feet; upright form; thin crown; dieback.
314 California bay 18,14 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from base; dense crown; growing in ivy.315 California bay 9 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow upright form; leans west; dense crown.316 California bay 11 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow upright form; leans west; dense crown.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
317 Valley oak 18 Protected 30% Low Extremely sinuous trunk; low live crown ratio; difficult to see crown.
318 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; intertwined with valley oak; bushy.
319 California bay 9,6,5 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; base in ivy; leans west; dense crown.
320 California bay 9 Protected 50% Low Base in ivy; sinuous trunk crown one sided north.321 Coast live oak 14 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet with seam; narrow crown; leaning heavily east.
322 California bay 19 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; swollen base; yellow jacket nest at base.
323 Coast live oak 10 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; bushy growth; leaning east.
324 Valley oak 13 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; base flipped over root; small crown.325 Coast live oak 8 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; small stunted.326 Coast live oak 13 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; small crown; leaning east.327 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Crook in trunk at 20 feet; dense, narrow crown; decay at base.328 California bay 12 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 20 feet; dense, narrow crown; decay at base.
329 Coast live oak 8 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; small stunted; leaning east; tangled with 330.
330 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Mostly dead; leaning east; tangled with 329.331 Coast live oak 17,14 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; base in ivy; dense crown.332 Purpleleaf plum 8 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; 1/4 dead, dieback.333 Coast live oak 27 Protected 10% Low Only epicormic growth; cabled with no tension.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
334 California bay 12,11 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot; swollen base; poor form and structure; basal decay.
335 Coast live oak 10 Protected 30% Low Bowed north to horizontal; suppressed.336 California bay 10 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise in upper crown; dense crown; dieback.337 Coast live oak 22,10 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with unusual swelling; declining; cavities in all branches.
338 California bay 11 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow upright form; top bowed east; dense crown.339 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Low Narrow upright form; epicormic growth; declining.340 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 70% Low Invasive volunteer; bushy upright form.341 California bay 12 Protected 50% Low Narrow upright form; sinuous trunk; dieback.342 California bay 12 Protected 50% Low Narrow upright form; sinuous trunk; dieback.343 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 25 feet; top bowed east; dead branch.
344 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% Moderate Upright form; crown one sided east; dense crown.345 Coast live oak 8 Protected 10% Low Most of tree removed.346 Olive 9,7 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot; crown bowed east; two 4 foot long trunk wounds.
347 Coast live oak 5 Protected 30% Low Small stunted tree; small crown.348 Marina madrone 14 Protected 90% High Nice tree; 5 feet from building.349 Valley oak 34 Large Protected
30% Low In 15x15 raised planter; declining; cabled; pruned harshly. 350 Valley oak 37 Large
Protected
50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet with 2 foot bleeding decaying cavity; thin crown; over pruned; 4 cables plus 2 failed to. 351 Coast live oak 9 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet with wide attachment; dense crown one sided south.
352 Coast live oak 10 Protected 30% Low Codom poor form and structure; crown one sided west.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
353 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Moderate Bowed slightly south; dense crown; growing in ivy.354 New Zealand cabbage palm
5 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; declining. 355 Hackberry 6 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.356 Hackberry 9 Protected 30% Low Half dead.357 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% Moderate Typical narrow form; growing in very small curb cutout.358 Italian cypress 8 Protected 90% Moderate Typical narrow form; growing in very small curb cutout.359 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Upright form; bushy crown; dieback; declining; yellow jacket nest at base.
360 California bay 9 Protected 50% Low Sweep in lower trunk; dense crown; upright form.361 California bay 8 Protected 30% Low Narrow upright form; bowed east over road; dieback; dead branches.
362 California buckeye 9 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; bowed east towards road; dense crown.
363 Coast live oak 5,4 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.364 Coast live oak 4 Protected 50% Low Small, stunted; searching for light; neighboring trees recently removed.
365 California bay 4 Protected 50% Low Small stunted; searching for light; neighboring trees recently removed.
366 Bailey acacia 5 Protected 10% Low Failed; topped.367 Bailey acacia 7 Protected 30% Low Topped; dead branches and decay.368 Bailey acacia 5 Protected 30% Low Topped; dead branches and decay.369 Bailey acacia 7,7,7,6 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; multiple trunks arise from base with poorly attached connections.
370 Bailey acacia 10 Protected 30% Low Most of base removed; one stem remaining leaning heavily north.
371 Plum 5,4 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; bowed heavily east.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Status
Condition
out of 100%
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Los Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update
372 Coast live oak 9,8 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot; partially covered in ivy; small crown; interior tree.
373 California bay 8 Protected 30% Low Completely covered in ivy.374 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% High Good young tree.375 Coast redwood 14 Protected 90% High Good form and structure; dense crown.

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
1 Coast redwood 40 Protected 50% Preserve Outside of grading ~30 2 California bay 8,8,7 Protected 50% Preserve Outside of grading ~30 3 California bay 6,5 Protected 30% Preserve Outside of grading ~30 4 Valley oak 17 Protected 50% Preserve Outside of grading ~30 5 Valley oak 14 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~206 Coast live oak 23 Protected 70% Preserve Outside of grading ~30 7 Blue gum 40 Protected 30% Remove Road ~308 Blue gum 38 Protected 30% Remove Road ~309 Blue gum 20,7 Exception 30% Remove Road ~20 10 Blue gum 54 Protected 30% Remove Road ~5011 Blue gum 28 Protected 30% Remove Road ~3012 Blue gum 39 Protected 30% Remove Road ~30 13 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 14 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Remove Road ~2015 California bay 10 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20 16 California bay 10 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
17 California bay 9,9 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20
18 California bay 5 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~20
19 California bay 13,8 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~3020 California bay 11 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20 21 California bay 13 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~3022 California buckeye 9 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~3023 California bay 7 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 24 California bay 17,16 Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~5025 California bay 11 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~2026 California bay 12 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2027 California bay 7 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 Tree Disposition

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
28 California bay 8 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 29 California bay 12,7,6 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 30 Valley oak 34 Large Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~60 31 California bay 16 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 32 California bay 8 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 33 California bay 14,6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 34 California bay 8 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 35 California bay 11,10,7 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 36 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 37 California bay 10 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 38 Blue oak 19 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 39 Coast live oak 27 Large Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 40 Valley oak 17 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 41 California bay 8,5,4 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 42 California bay 5 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 43 Valley oak 14 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 44 Coast live oak 22 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 45 California bay 6,5 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 46 California bay 6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2047 Valley oak 17,13 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 48 California bay 22,12 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~5049 California bay 7 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2050 California bay 7 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2051 California bay 7 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~3052 California bay 9 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~3053 California bay 10 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2054 California bay 13,9 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
55 California bay 6,5,5,4 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 56 California bay 7 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 57 California bay 9,8 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 58 California bay 12 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 59 Coast live oak 27,16 Large Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~60 60 California bay 14 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 61 California bay 15 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 62 California bay 13 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 63 California bay 6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 64 California bay 10,9 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 65 California bay 9 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 66 California bay 11 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 67 Olive 5,4,3,2 Exception 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 68 California bay 6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 69 California bay 7 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 70 Coast live oak 6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 71 California bay 17,8 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 72 Valley oak 33 Large Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~60 73 Olive 5 Exception 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10
74 Coast live oak 6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 75 Coast live oak 30 Large Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 76 Monterey pine 15 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2077 Monterey pine 17 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2078 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% Remove Road ~10 79 Coast redwood 13 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~20
80 Blue oak 12 Protected 50% Remove Road ~2081 Coast redwood 5 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~10

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
82 Coast redwood 7 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 83 Monterey pine 14 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2084 Bigleaf maple 9 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 85 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~10 86 Valley oak 19 Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 87 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 88 Monterey pine 8 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2089 Monterey pine 8 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2090 Blackwood acacia 10,6 Exception 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2091 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2092 Blackwood acacia 8,7,4 Exception 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 93 Blackwood acacia 5,5,5,4 Exception 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 94 California bay 10 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~2095 California bay 16 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~3096 California bay 5 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~1097 California bay 10,6,5 4 4 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 98 Valley oak 17,16 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 99 California bay 7,6,6,5 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 100 California bay 6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 101 California bay 5 Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 102 California bay 5,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2 Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 103 Coast redwood 9 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 104 Coast redwood 8 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 105 Coast redwood 9 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 106 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 107 Coast redwood 8 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 108 Coast redwood 4 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~10

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
109 Grecian laurel 10,9,9 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 110 Grecian laurel 6,6,5,5,4,3,3,2 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 111 Grecian laurel 5,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 112 Olive 6 Exception 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~10 113 Olive 12,7 Exception 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 114 Olive 10,6,5,4,3,2,2,2 Exception 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 115 Valley oak 21 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 116 Blue gum 47,32,17 Large Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~60 117 Bronze loquat 6 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 118 Coast live oak 19,15 Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 119 Coast live oak 19 Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 120 Valley oak 14 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 121 Valley oak 19 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 122 Coast live oak 11 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 123 Olive 7,7,5,4,4,3 Exception 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 124 Coast live oak 25 Large Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 125 Coast redwood 19 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~20126 Coast live oak 7,7 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 127 Coast live oak 8 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 128 Canary Island pine 28 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 129 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Remove Road ~30
130 Canary Island pine 23 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 131 Canary Island pine 26 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 132 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% Remove Road ~20133 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 134 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% Remove Road ~50
135 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
136 Canary Island pine 23 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 137 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 138 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 139 Bronze loquat 5,3,3,3 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20140 Bronze loquat 6,4,2 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20141 Crabapple 8 Exception 70% Remove Grading ~30142 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30 143 Coast live oak 16 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30
144 Canary Island pine 18 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 145 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 146 Canary Island pine 26 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 147 Douglas fir 18 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30148 Douglas fir 29 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30149 Hollywood juniper 9,5 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30150 Douglas fir 15 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30151 Douglas fir 15 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30152 Douglas fir 18 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30153 Douglas fir 14 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30154 Valley oak 11 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30155 Silk oak 11 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30156 Coast live oak 17 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30 157 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50
158 Douglas fir 22 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30159 Coast live oak 21 Protected 50% Remove Building ~30 160 Valley oak 21 Protected 50% Remove Building ~50
161 Valley oak 16 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30162 Coast live oak 20 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
163 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~10164 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~10165 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~10166 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~10167 Monterey pine 4 Protected 90% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20168 Red horsechestnut 5,2 Protected 90% Remove Building ~20169 Coast live oak 7 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20 170 California bay 17,10,6 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 171 California bay 7,7,7,6,5,5,5,5 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 172 California bay 8,5,5,4 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 173 California bay 16 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30174 Coast live oak 8 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~20 175 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30
176 Sugar gum 17,16 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30177 Sugar gum 12,11,11,11 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50178 Deodar cedar 6 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~20 179 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30
180 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~10181 Sitka spruce 6 Protected 70% Remove Building ~10 182 Italian stone pine 22 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 183 Italian stone pine 19 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 184 Red ironbark 13 Exception 10% Remove Building ~20
185 Incense cedar 11 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~20186 Italian cypress 5 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~10187 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~10 188 Blackwood acacia 4 Exception 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10189 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~50

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
190 Red ironbark 13 Exception 10% Remove Grading ~30
191 Blackwood acacia 17 Exception 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30192 Red ironbark 14 Exception 10% Remove Grading ~30 193 Hollywood juniper 17 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~20194 Hollywood juniper 5,5,4,3,3,3 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20195 Hollywood juniper 11,7 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20196 Blue blossom 5,4,4 Protected 30% Remove Building ~20197 Hollywood juniper 18 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20198 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20199 Hollywood juniper 11 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20200 Hollywood juniper 10 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20201 Hollywood juniper 12 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20202 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20203 Crabapple 4,3 Exception 70% Remove Building ~20204 Sawleaf zelkova 23 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~50205 Sawleaf zelkova 22 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50 206 Valley oak 24 Large Protected 70% Remove Grading ~50 207 Sawleaf zelkova 19 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50 208 Sawleaf zelkova 18 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50209 Mayten 7 Protected 30% Remove Building ~20210 Italian cypress 14 Protected 70% Remove Building ~10211 Italian cypress 14 Protected 70% Remove Building ~10212 Crabapple 12 Exception 50% Remove Building ~20 213 Crabapple 11 Exception 50% Remove Building ~20214 Crabapple 11 Exception 30% Remove Building ~20215 Coast live oak 22,22 Protected 50% Remove Road ~50 216 California bay 10 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
217 Brazilian pepper 5 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20218 Loquat 6 Protected 70% Remove Building ~20219 Blue gum 36 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~50220 Blue gum 62 Large Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~60 221 Blue gum 36 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~50222 African fern‐pine 5 Protected 70% Remove Building ~20223 California bay 13 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20224 California bay 13,13 Protected 50% Remove Road ~30225 Coast live oak 20 Protected 70% Remove Road ~50 226 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20227 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20228 Red horsechestnut 5 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20229 Coast live oak 23 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30 230 Red ironbark 22 Exception 30% Remove Road ~30
231 Red ironbark 5,5,5,5,4 Exception 30% Remove Road ~20 232 Purpleleaf plum 4 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10233 Red ironbark 19 Exception 50% Remove Road ~50 234 Coast live oak 10,9 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20 235 Toyon 6,5,4,4 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 236 California bay 12 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 237 California bay 11 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 238 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 239 Olive 10,5,5 Exception 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 240 Coast live oak 28 Large Protected 50% Remove Grading ~50 241 California bay 6 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
242 California bay 5 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 243 Coast live oak 27 Large Protected 10% Remove Grading ~30

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
244 Valley oak 15 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20245 Coast live oak 4,4,4,3,3,2,2,2 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20 246 Valley oak 26 Large Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30 247 Coast live oak 16 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 248 Coast live oak 6,5,3 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20 249 Victorian box 5,4,4,4,4,3,2 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20 250 Blue gum 50 Large Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~50 251 Valley oak 28 Large Protected 70% Preserve Outside of grading ~50 252 Crabapple 5 Exception 50% Remove Grading ~20253 Plum 6,5,3 Exception 50% Remove Grading ~20254 Crabapple 7 Exception 30% Remove Grading ~20255 Crabapple 11 Exception 50% Remove Grading ~30256 Bottlebrush 4,4 Protected 70% Remove Building ~20257 Aleppo pine 6 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20258 Victorian box 4,3 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20 259 Victorian box 6,5,2,2 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20 260 Blue gum 52 Large Protected 50% Preserve Outside of grading ~50 261 Jacaranda 7 Protected 50% Preserve Outside of grading ~20 262 Portugal laurel 6,5,4,4,4 Protected 30% Preserve Outside of grading ~20 263 Japanese flowering cherry 10 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20 264 Coast live oak 20 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30
265 Cherry 12 Exception 30% Remove Grading ~20266 California black walnut 8 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20267 Coast live oak 7 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~10 268 California bay 5 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~10269 African sumac 12 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~30270 African sumac 9,9 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~30

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
271 Coast live oak 11 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
272 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
273 African sumac 13,11 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20274 Glossy privet 8,5 Exception 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20275 African sumac 9,7 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~20276 Crabapple 13 Exception 70% Remove Road ~20277 Crabapple 13 Exception 70% Remove Road ~20278 California bay 6,5 Protected 70% Remove Building ~20279 Flowering dogwood 9,4 Protected 70% Remove Road ~20280 Coast live oak 12,10 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30 281 California bay 6,4,3,2 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20282 Coast live oak 15 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30 283 Coast live oak 9 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
284 Windmill palm 5 Exception 90% Remove Building ~20
285 African fern‐pine 4 Protected 30% Remove Building ~10 286 Hollywood juniper 12,6,5 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20287 Red maple 12 Protected 70% Remove Building ~30 288 White willow 24 Protected 70% Remove Building ~50289 Valley oak 28 Large Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30 290 Sweetgum 15 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30291 Sweetgum 20 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30292 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30 293 Ginkgo 5 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20294 Coast live oak 19 Protected 30% Preserve Outside of grading ~30 295 California bay 6 Protected 30% Preserve Outside of grading ~20 296 Coast live oak 26,25,17 Large Protected 50% Remove Grading ~60 297 Arroyo willow 18,16 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
298 Coast live oak 18 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30
299 African fern‐pine 8 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20300 African fern‐pine 8 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20301 Japanese maple 5 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20 302 Crabapple 9 Exception 50% Remove Building ~20303 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Remove Building ~30 304 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
305 Coast live oak 5 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20
306 Coast live oak 9 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20
307 Coast live oak 4 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20
308 Coast live oak 12 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~20
309 Sugar gum 33 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50310 Sugar gum 33 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50 311 Coast live oak 8 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
312 Coast live oak 12 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30
313 Coast live oak 17 Protected 50% Remove Road ~30
314 California bay 18,14 Protected 70% Remove Road ~30315 California bay 9 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20316 California bay 11 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20317 Valley oak 18 Protected 30% Remove Road ~30 318 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20
319 California bay 9,6,5 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20320 California bay 9 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20321 Coast live oak 14 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20 322 California bay 19 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30323 Coast live oak 10 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20 324 Valley oak 13 Protected 30% Remove Road ~30

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
325 Coast live oak 8 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20
326 Coast live oak 13 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20
327 California bay 10 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20328 California bay 12 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20329 Coast live oak 8 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20 330 California bay 10 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20331 Coast live oak 17,14 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~30 332 Purpleleaf plum 8 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20333 Coast live oak 27 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~30 334 California bay 12,11 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30335 Coast live oak 10 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20 336 California bay 10 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20337 Coast live oak 22,10 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~30 338 California bay 11 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20339 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20 340 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20341 California bay 12 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20342 California bay 12 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20343 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30 344 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% Remove Road ~30
345 Coast live oak 8 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~10
346 Olive 9,7 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20347 Coast live oak 5 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~10 348 Marina madrone 14 Protected 90% Remove Building ~20 349 Valley oak 34 Large Protected 30% Remove Building ~30 350 Valley oak 37 Large Protected 50% Remove Grading ~50 351 Coast live oak 9 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20

Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Condition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx.
crown
diameter
(feet)
Tree Disposition
352 Coast live oak 10 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20
353 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
354 New Zealand cabbage pal 5 Exception 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10 355 Hackberry 6 Protected 10% Remove Road ~10356 Hackberry 9 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20357 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% Remove Road ~10358 Italian cypress 8 Protected 90% Remove Road ~10359 California bay 10 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20360 California bay 9 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20361 California bay 8 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20362 California buckeye 9 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20363 Coast live oak 5,4 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~20 364 Coast live oak 4 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~10 365 California bay 4 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~10366 Bailey acacia 5 Protected 10% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10367 Bailey acacia 7 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20368 Bailey acacia 5 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20369 Bailey acacia 7,7,7,6 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30370 Bailey acacia 1 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30371 Plum 5,4 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 372 Coast live oak 9,8 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20 373 California bay 8 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~10374 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 375 Coast redwood 14 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
1 Coast redwood 40 Protected $                  14,800
2 California bay 8,8,7 Protected $                    3,000 3 California bay 6,5 Protected $                       650 4 Valley oak 17 Protected $                    6,200
5 Valley oak 14 Protected $                    2,550
6 Coast live oak 23 Protected $                    9,400 7 Blue gum 40 Protected $                    2,950
8 Blue gum 38 Protected $                    2,750
9 Blue gum 20,7 Exception $                       900
10 Blue gum 54 Protected $                    4,300
11 Blue gum 28 Protected $                    1,600
12 Blue gum 39 Protected $                    2,850
13 Canary Island pine 21 Protected $                    7,850 14 Coast live oak 15 Protected $                    2,900 15 California bay 10 Protected $                    1,700 16 California bay 10 Protected $                    1,700 17 California bay 9,9 Protected $                    1,650 18 California bay 5 Protected $                       100 19 California bay 13,8 Protected $                    3,900 20 California bay 11 Protected $                    1,250 21 California bay 13 Protected $                    1,200 22 California buckeye 9 Protected $                       950 23 California bay 7 Protected $                       350 24 California bay 17,16 Protected $                    8,750 25 California bay 11 Protected $                       850 26 California bay 12 Protected $                    2,100 27 California bay 7 Protected $                       150 28 California bay 8 Protected $                       150 29 California bay 12,7,6 Protected $                       650 30 Valley oak 34
Large
Protected $                  23,150
31 California bay 16 Protected $                    2,950 32 California bay 8 Protected $                       950 33 California bay 14,6 Protected $                    3,350 34 California bay 8 Protected $                       450 35 California bay 11,10,7 Protected $                    3,100 36 Coast live oak 19 Protected $                    3,950 37 California bay 10 Protected $                       900 38 Blue oak 19 Protected $                    3,100
Tree Appraisal

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
39 Coast live oak 27
Large
Protected $                    7,950
40 Valley oak 17 Protected $                    3,200
41 California bay 8,5,4 Protected $                    1,250 42 California bay 5 Protected $                       300 43 Valley oak 14 Protected $                    2,900
44 Coast live oak 22 Protected $                    4,250 45 California bay 6,5 Protected $                       750 46 California bay 6 Protected $                       450 47 Valley oak 17,13 Protected $                    6,750 48 California bay 22,12 Protected $                    1,450 49 California bay 7 Protected $                       600 50 California bay 7 Protected $                       600 51 California bay 7 Protected $                       350 52 California bay 9 Protected $                       700 53 California bay 10 Protected $                    1,450 54 California bay 13,9 Protected $                    3,600 55 California bay 6,5,5,4 Protected $                    1,500 56 California bay 7 Protected $                       350 57 California bay 9,8 Protected $                    1,000 58 California bay 12 Protected $                    1,000 59 Coast live oak 27,16
Large
Protected $                    8,600
60 California bay 14 Protected $                       450 61 California bay 15 Protected $                    1,550 62 California bay 13 Protected $                    1,450 63 California bay 6 Protected $                       550 64 California bay 10,9 Protected $                    2,600 65 California bay 9 Protected $                       600 66 California bay 11 Protected $                       850 67 Olive 5,4,3,2 Exception $                       250
68 California bay 6 Protected $                       450 69 California bay 7 Protected $                       450 70 Coast live oak 6 Protected $                       450 71 California bay 17,8 Protected $                    6,750 72 Valley oak 33
Large
Protected $                  36,300
73 Olive 5 Exception $                       350
74 Coast live oak 6 Protected $                       600

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
75 Coast live oak 30
Large
Protected $                  13,000
76 Monterey pine 15 Protected $                       750 77 Monterey pine 17 Protected $                    1,000 78 Coast redwood 7 Protected $                    1,000 79 Coast redwood 13 Protected $                    2,200 80 Blue oak 12 Protected $                    2,450
81 Coast redwood 5 Protected $                       550 82 Coast redwood 7 Protected $                       250 83 Monterey pine 14 Protected $                       450 84 Bigleaf maple 9 Protected $                       150 85 Coast redwood 7 Protected $                       700 86 Valley oak 19 Protected $                    7,500
87 Coast redwood 10 Protected $                    1,300 88 Monterey pine 8 Protected $                       150 89 Monterey pine 8 Protected $                       150 90 Blackwood acacia 10,6 Exception $                       250 91 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception $                          50 92 Blackwood acacia 8,7,4 Exception $                       250 93 Blackwood acacia 5,5,5,4 Exception $                       150 94 California bay 10 Protected $                       700 95 California bay 16 Protected $                    1,800 96 California bay 5 Protected $                          50 97 California bay 10,6,5 4 4 Protected $                    2,250 98 Valley oak 17,16 Protected $                  13,300 99 California bay 7,6,6,5 Protected $                    2,800 100 California bay 6 Protected $                       750 101 California bay 5 Protected $                       750 102 California bay 5,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2 Protected $                    2,500 103 Coast redwood 9 Protected $                    1,000 104 Coast redwood 8 Protected $                    1,450 105 Coast redwood 9 Protected $                    1,800 106 Coast redwood 10 Protected $                    1,500 107 Coast redwood 8 Protected $                    1,450 108 Coast redwood 4 Protected $                       450 109 Grecian laurel 10,9,9 Protected $                    2,050 110 Grecian laurel 6,6,5,5,4,3,3,2 Protected $                       950 111 Grecian laurel 5,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3 Protected $                       600 112 Olive 6 Exception $                       450
113 Olive 12,7 Exception $                    2,200

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
114 Olive 10,6,5,4,3,2,2,2 Exception $                    2,050 115 Valley oak 21 Protected $                  10,800
116 Blue gum 47,32,17
Large
Protected $                  11,950
117 Bronze loquat 6 Protected $                       400 118 Coast live oak 19,15 Protected $                  11,850 119 Coast live oak 19 Protected $                    6,450 120 Valley oak 14 Protected $                    4,850
121 Valley oak 19 Protected $                    8,850
122 Coast live oak 11 Protected $                    1,600 123 Olive 7,7,5,4,4,3 Exception $                    1,600 124 Coast live oak 25
Large
Protected $                    1,800
125 Coast redwood 19 Protected $                       850 126 Coast live oak 7,7 Protected $                       300 127 Coast live oak 8 Protected $                       200 128 Canary Island pine 28 Protected $                  13,900 129 Coast live oak 15 Protected $                    3,300 130 Canary Island pine 23 Protected $                  10,700 131 Canary Island pine 26 Protected $                    5,850 132 Coast redwood 7 Protected $                    1,000 133 Canary Island pine 22 Protected $                    9,800 134 Coast live oak 18 Protected $                    6,600 135 Canary Island pine 22 Protected $                    8,600 136 Canary Island pine 23 Protected $                    9,400 137 Canary Island pine 21 Protected $                    7,850 138 Canary Island pine 21 Protected $                    7,850 139 Bronze loquat 5,3,3,3 Protected $                       900 140 Bronze loquat 6,4,2 Protected $                       600 141 Crabapple 8 Exception $                    1,200
142 Coast live oak 18 Protected $                    5,800 143 Coast live oak 16 Protected $                    3,550 144 Canary Island pine 18 Protected $                    3,200 145 Canary Island pine 22 Protected $                    6,650 146 Canary Island pine 26 Protected $                    9,300 147 Douglas fir 18 Protected $                    2,600 148 Douglas fir 29 Protected $                    6,650 149 Hollywood juniper 9,5 Protected $                       850 150 Douglas fir 15 Protected $                    1,300 151 Douglas fir 15 Protected $                       750

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
152 Douglas fir 18 Protected $                    1,850 153 Douglas fir 14 Protected $                    1,150 154 Valley oak 11 Protected $                    3,700
155 Silk oak 11 Protected $                       300
156 Coast live oak 17 Protected $                    3,550 157 Coast live oak 15 Protected $                    1,200 158 Douglas fir 22 Protected $                    1,150 159 Coast live oak 21 Protected $                    3,850 160 Valley oak 21 Protected $                    6,500
161 Valley oak 16 Protected $                    2,300
162 Coast live oak 20 Protected $                    3,500 163 Italian cypress 5 Protected $                       400 164 Italian cypress 6 Protected $                       500 165 Italian cypress 6 Protected $                       500 166 Italian cypress 5 Protected $                       400 167 Monterey pine 4 Protected $                       100 168 Red horsechestnut 5,2 Protected $                       950 169 Coast live oak 7 Protected $                       700 170 California bay 17,10,6 Protected $                    4,250 171 California bay 7,7,7,6,5,5,5,5 Protected $                    1,850 172 California bay 8,5,5,4 Protected $                    1,300 173 California bay 16 Protected $                    4,300 174 Coast live oak 8 Protected $                    1,200 175 Coast live oak 15 Protected $                    1,750 176 Sugar gum 17,16 Protected $                    1,850 177 Sugar gum 12,11,11,11 Protected $                    1,050 178 Deodar cedar 6 Protected $                       900 179 Coast live oak 14 Protected $                    2,550 180 Italian cypress 5 Protected $                       400 181 Sitka spruce 6 Protected $                       450 182 Italian stone pine 22 Protected $                    2,950 183 Italian stone pine 19 Protected $                    2,000 184 Red ironbark 13 Exception $                          50 185 Incense cedar 11 Protected $                    1,550 186 Italian cypress 5 Protected $                       200 187 Italian cypress 5 Protected $                       400 188 Blackwood acacia 4 Exception $                       100 189 Coast live oak 19 Protected $                    4,600 190 Red ironbark 13 Exception $                          50 191 Blackwood acacia 17 Exception $                       950

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
192 Red ironbark 14 Exception $                          50 193 Hollywood juniper 17 Protected $                    2,250 194 Hollywood juniper 5,5,4,3,3,3 Protected $                       550 195 Hollywood juniper 11,7 Protected $                    1,200 196 Blue blossom 5,4,4 Protected $                       450 197 Hollywood juniper 18 Protected $                    2,250 198 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected $                    1,200 199 Hollywood juniper 11 Protected $                       850 200 Hollywood juniper 10 Protected $                       700 201 Hollywood juniper 12 Protected $                    1,000 202 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected $                    1,200 203 Crabapple 4,3 Exception $                       600 204 Sawleaf zelkova 23 Protected $                    7,950 205 Sawleaf zelkova 22 Protected $                    4,350 206 Valley oak 24
Large
Protected $                  21,850
207 Sawleaf zelkova 19 Protected $                    3,250 208 Sawleaf zelkova 18 Protected $                    2,950 209 Mayten 7 Protected $                       300
210 Italian cypress 14 Protected $                    1,500 211 Italian cypress 14 Protected $                    1,500 212 Crabapple 12 Exception $                    1,450
213 Crabapple 11 Exception $                    1,200
214 Crabapple 11 Exception $                       750
215 Coast live oak 22,22 Protected $                  12,250 216 California bay 10 Protected $                    1,700 217 Brazilian pepper 5 Protected $                       350 218 Loquat 6 Protected $                       650
219 Blue gum 36 Protected $                    3,250
220 Blue gum 62
Large
Protected $                    6,350
221 Blue gum 36 Protected $                    3,250
222 African fern‐pine 5 Protected $                       650 223 California bay 13 Protected $                    2,850 224 California bay 13,13 Protected $                    5,650 225 Coast live oak 20 Protected $                    7,150 226 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected $                       850 227 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected $                       850 228 Red horsechestnut 5 Protected $                       600 229 Coast live oak 23 Protected $                    7,300

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
230 Red ironbark 22 Exception $                       700 231 Red ironbark 5,5,5,5,4 Exception $                       150 232 Purpleleaf plum 4 Protected $                          50 233 Red ironbark 19 Exception $                       850 234 Coast live oak 10,9 Protected $                    2,350 235 Toyon 6,5,4,4 Protected $                       750 236 California bay 12 Protected $                    2,450 237 California bay 11 Protected $                    2,050 238 Coast live oak 14 Protected $                    2,550 239 Olive 10,5,5 Exception $                    1,500
240 Coast live oak 28
Large
Protected $                    9,900
241 California bay 6 Protected $                       650 242 California bay 5 Protected $                       450 243 Coast live oak 27
Large
Protected $                    1,850
244 Valley oak 15 Protected $                    2,900
245 Coast live oak 4,4,4,3,3,2,2,2 Protected $                       450 246 Valley oak 26
Large
Protected $                  14,450
247 Coast live oak 16 Protected $                    3,300 248 Coast live oak 6,5,3 Protected $                       500 249 Victorian box 5,4,4,4,4,3,2 Protected $                       800 250 Blue gum 50
Large
Protected $                    3,400
251 Valley oak 28
Large
Protected $                  20,200
252 Crabapple 5 Exception $                       300
253 Plum 6,5,3 Exception $                       750
254 Crabapple 7 Exception $                       300
255 Crabapple 11 Exception $                    1,200
256 Bottlebrush 4,4 Protected $                       500 257 Aleppo pine 6 Protected $                       150 258 Victorian box 4,3 Protected $                       400 259 Victorian box 6,5,2,2 Protected $                    1,000 260 Blue gum 52
Large
Protected $                    5,950
261 Jacaranda 7 Protected $                       300
262 Portugal laurel 6,5,4,4,4 Protected $                       600 263 Japanese flowering cherry 10 Protected $                    1,050

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
264 Coast live oak 20 Protected $                    6,150 265 Cherry 12 Exception $                       950
266 California black walnut 8 Protected $                       200 267 Coast live oak 7 Protected $                       600 268 California bay 5 Protected $                       400 269 African sumac 12 Protected $                       400 270 African sumac 9,9 Protected $                       450 271 Coast live oak 11 Protected $                    1,350 272 Coast live oak 13 Protected $                    1,900 273 African sumac 13,11 Protected $                    3,750 274 Glossy privet 8,5 Exception $                       300 275 African sumac 9,7 Protected $                       400 276 Crabapple 13 Exception $                    2,350
277 Crabapple 13 Exception $                    2,350
278 California bay 6,5 Protected $                    1,450 279 Flowering dogwood 9,4 Protected $                    1,200 280 Coast live oak 12,10 Protected $                    2,150 281 California bay 6,4,3,2 Protected $                       950 282 Coast live oak 15 Protected $                    2,800 283 Coast live oak 9 Protected $                       950 284 Windmill palm 5 Exception $                       800 285 African fern‐pine 4 Protected $                       200 286 Hollywood juniper 12,6,5 Protected $                    1,450 287 Red maple 12 Protected $                    2,100
288 White willow 24 Protected $                    3,450 289 Valley oak 28
Large
Protected $                  12,700
290 Sweetgum 15 Protected $                    4,750
291 Sweetgum 20 Protected $                    6,050
292 Coast live oak 15 Protected $                    1,700 293 Ginkgo 5 Protected $                       200
294 Coast live oak 19 Protected $                    2,750 295 California bay 6 Protected $                       400 296 Coast live oak 26,25,17
Large
Protected $                  20,050
297 Arroyo willow 18,16 Protected $                    1,000 298 Coast live oak 18 Protected $                    4,150 299 African fern‐pine 8 Protected $                       500 300 African fern‐pine 8 Protected $                       500 301 Japanese maple 5 Protected $                       350

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
302 Crabapple 9 Exception $                       800
303 Coast live oak 19 Protected $                    3,550 304 Coast live oak 13 Protected $                    1,700 305 Coast live oak 5 Protected $                       150 306 Coast live oak 9 Protected $                       450 307 Coast live oak 4 Protected $                       100 308 Coast live oak 12 Protected $                       250 309 Sugar gum 33 Protected $                    1,500
310 Sugar gum 33 Protected $                    1,500
311 Coast live oak 8 Protected $                       600 312 Coast live oak 12 Protected $                    1,300 313 Coast live oak 17 Protected $                    2,550 314 California bay 18,14 Protected $                    8,350 315 California bay 9 Protected $                       950 316 California bay 11 Protected $                    2,050 317 Valley oak 18 Protected $                    4,200
318 Coast live oak 14 Protected $                    2,550 319 California bay 9,6,5 Protected $                    1,650 320 California bay 9 Protected $                    1,400 321 Coast live oak 14 Protected $                    1,500 322 California bay 19 Protected $                    4,150 323 Coast live oak 10 Protected $                    1,300 324 Valley oak 13 Protected $                    2,200
325 Coast live oak 8 Protected $                       500 326 Coast live oak 13 Protected $                    1,300 327 California bay 10 Protected $                    1,000 328 California bay 12 Protected $                    1,000 329 Coast live oak 8 Protected $                       350 330 California bay 10 Protected $                       700 331 Coast live oak 17,14 Protected $                    5,950 332 Purpleleaf plum 8 Protected $                       200 333 Coast live oak 27 Protected $                    1,250 334 California bay 12,11 Protected $                    1,850 335 Coast live oak 10 Protected $                       550 336 California bay 10 Protected $                    1,200 337 Coast live oak 22,10 Protected $                    3,050 338 California bay 11 Protected $                    1,400 339 Coast live oak 15 Protected $                    2,000 340 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception $                       100 341 California bay 12 Protected $                    1,700

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Status Appraised Value
Tree Appraisal
342 California bay 12 Protected $                    1,700 343 Coast live oak 14 Protected $                    1,750 344 Coast live oak 18 Protected $                    5,800 345 Coast live oak 8 Protected $                       150 346 Olive 9,7 Protected $                    1,300
347 Coast live oak 5 Protected $                       150 348 Marina madrone 14 Protected $                    5,900 349 Valley oak 34
Large
Protected $                  11,150
350 Valley oak 37
Large
Protected $                  21,450
351 Coast live oak 9 Protected $                       750 352 Coast live oak 10 Protected $                       550 353 Coast live oak 13 Protected $                    2,200 354 New Zealand cabbage pal 5 Exception $                          50 355 Hackberry 6 Protected $                       100
356 Hackberry 9 Protected $                       500
357 Italian cypress 6 Protected $                       500 358 Italian cypress 8 Protected $                       850 359 California bay 10 Protected $                    1,000 360 California bay 9 Protected $                    1,400 361 California bay 8 Protected $                       650 362 California buckeye 9 Protected $                    1,400 363 Coast live oak 5,4 Protected $                       100 364 Coast live oak 4 Protected $                       250 365 California bay 4 Protected $                       250 366 Bailey acacia 5 Protected $                             ‐ 367 Bailey acacia 7 Protected $                          50 368 Bailey acacia 5 Protected $                             ‐ 369 Bailey acacia 7,7,7,6 Protected $                       150 370 Bailey acacia 1 Protected $                       100 371 Plum 5,4 Protected $                       250
372 Coast live oak 9,8 Protected $                    1,600 373 California bay 8 Protected $                       550 374 Coast redwood 10 Protected $                    1,650 375 Coast redwood 14 Protected $                    3,150 Total 991,050 $

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

110 Wood Road Arborist’s Review -2 February 12, 2021
February 12, 2021
Jocelyn Shoopman
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
110 E Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
The report contains the required information and the judgments are accurate. The report and plans have been reconciled with proper disposition and updated after recent tree removals and the recommendation requests. The T-1 sheets were enclosed updated to indicate the trees removed in 2019 with a red “X” symbol and a new column in the table provided. The sheets also indicate the tree protection guidelines and fence locations around those to be retained and protected.

The following recommendations were rectified as indicated.

1. Revise the report and plan sheets to reflect the current conditions and trees removed this year by updating the existing tables, data, and removing those trees from the plans.

Complete

2. Revise the disposition table to display the trees that are Protected, Large Protected, Exceptions, or Heritage based on the Town definitions and include a condition percentage (this may require a large format document).

Complete

3. Include crown diameters for at least all the trees indicated for removal to account for the Canopy Replacement Standard.

Complete

4. Reconcile the number of trees to be removed between the report and the T-1 sheets.

Complete
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 12

110 Wood Road Arborist’s Review -2 February 12, 2021

5. Place tree protection measures and the municipal code 29.20.1005 Protection of trees during construction. in both the report and the T-1 sheet. Develop tree protection measures and fence locations for the T-1 sheet. and any other tree protection notes or recommendations.

Replace the “Tree Protection Notes” with appropriate information that is either in the Municipal Code or provided by the arborist.

Complete
Richard J. Gessner
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT 13 Page 838

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

From: Andrew Ghofrani < >
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:11:19 PM
To: Sally Zarnowitz <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Cc: Ryan Safty <[email protected]>; Andrew Ghofrani < >; Feri Ghofrani < >
Subject: Los Gatos Meadows- Reconstruction / expansion
Dear Mrs. Zarnowitz,
I am currently a resident of Town of Los Gatos, residing at . I have been a resident of Santa Clara County for the past 42 years. I have been an active member of this community, currently a Vice President at Granite Construction Company, responsible for the Heavy Construction Division for the Western United States. It is has come to my attention that the Meadows of Los Gatos is proposing to increase the existing building heights from 55’ to 88.5’. My property is directly situated behind the Meadows on Wood Road, and this increase in elevation will directly block my view. We primarily chose this property because of its view of downtown and the valley in front of our house. Since we don’t have a usable front yard, our front deck serves as our primary entertainment area and considered a special amenity with added value to our property.

Last week we had a visit by the architect, the project manager along with his assistant of the reconstruction project, asking to take a picture from our front deck point of view. In the same visit, the architect admitted that our view will be affected by the additional height. I have also learned that for some reason the Meadows management has asked for a waiver on putting up story poles in its application process.

It is really disturbing that the Meadows is planning to block our view completely without sharing its plan and the bulk of the intended buildings. A lot of my property value is directly correlate to its view and the possible blockage is totally unacceptable.

I have a serious objection to the height increase of this construction directly in front of my property and want to be on record to that effect. Please advise about the application process as I along with my neighbors want to share our opposition to this increase in elevation.

I can be reached at or my email
Thank you for your attention.

Andrew Ghofrani P.E
EXHIBIT 14

From: Joseph Gemignani < >
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 12:08 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: 110 Wood Road
Hi Jocelyn, the project proposed at 110 Wood road just seems to tall and too dense.

Also, can we get a more traditional style of architecture? Joseph (amateur weatherman)

From: Esther Grant < >
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 7:11:28 PM
To: Planning Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Removoal of large procted trees
Property zoned R:PD APN 510-47-038, If you are removing these tree's for the purpose of having more land to build on, than I would have a Tree Surgeon, give their professional opinion! As a concerned neighbor, I would not want to see the destruction of gorgeous protected tree's for selfish reasons.

Esther Grant

From: Matthew Southern < >
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 9:57 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: 110 Wood Road
Hello Mr. Mullin -
Thank you for your service to the town of Los Gatos.

I'm writing to you as a resident of Wood Road concerned about the plans for 110 Wood Rd.

According to the town website, the planned development at 110 Wood Road is happening as the current "Los Gatos Meadows facility presented too great a safety risk to our residents and employees" (see screenshot). On that note, were there any specific risks that were provided? I'm curious as to how a larger and taller Los Gatos Meadows facility will be safer for residents and employees - especially if the Broadway access road is to be closed as part of the plans. Considering the previous issues the Meadows has had with evacuation during the 1997 Cats fire, I would think a larger building with less access roads would be less safe than what is currently standing.

Thanks for listening to my concerns. Please let me know if there is any additional information you may need.

Thanks,
Matthew Southern
Los Gatos

From: Julie Southern >
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 1:35 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: 145 Wood Road - new build
Hello Mr Mullin,
I live at and received the green notice about site application s-21-003. I met with the new neighbors several months ago when the story poles went up. I have no specific issues with their plan, just the usual: increased noise and road traffic from the build, keeping their build traffic from using my driveway to park or turn around, will it be restricted to 8-5pm, M-F like it was when I built 135 Wood?
In fear of sounding like a broken record, the concern of more traffic on Wood road is that the Meadows is proposing to close one alternative access point - the only access point, except from Wood Road. I lived thru the 1997 fire and access was KEY. Again, this is a general comment to anything going on at Wood Road.

And lastly, it would be nice if the town would repair the town retaining wall adjacent to my driveway - do let me know if I should submit this to someone else! See picture below. It will only get worse with the traffic on Wood.

Thank you
Julie Southern

From: Andrew Ghofrani < >
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:52 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Ghofrani < >; Julie Southern >; Bernd
Neudecker < >
Subject: 110 Wood Rd LG

EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Sean,
It has come to my attention that the developer is asking for an exception about putting up the complete story poles for full visualization. In a joint zoom meeting in early June, I was assured that they fully intend to install story poles & orange netting in early October.

I want to be on record again about my objection to a waiver of this requirement as i have previously stated as well. The only way to truly realized the full visual impact of this massive project is to see the story poles and orange netting.

The story poles are needed for full transparency and any waiver to that will not be the right approach.

Please acknowledge the receipt of this email and adding my objection to the record.

Thank you,
Andy Ghofrani

From: Andrew Ghofrani < >
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 10:40 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Bernd Neudecker >; C So <c >; Julie Southern
>; Andrew Ghofrani < >
Subject: Re: 110 Wood Rd LG

EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Sean
Attached please find a current view from my front deck showing the story poles. In the first file you see the story poles and the second view shows the proposed building in darker shading. As you can see there is a major impact to my view. Please advise what is my recourse for objecting to this situation and if there are any remedies to reducing the impact.

Please add these pictures to your public project folder.

Thank you
Andy Ghofrani

From: Todd Johnson < >
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 10:16 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Wood Rd.

EXTERNAL SENDER
The story poles indicate this will be a massive project. The buildings will not fit into the surrounding hillside area whatsoever. Given how the town has tried to preserve the hillsides I am just shocked that someone would even propose such a development. Thus, I’m opposed to the development is it is story poles.

Todd Johnson

From: Michael Kennedy < >
Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Rob Rennie <[email protected]>
Cc: Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Marico Sayoc <[email protected]>; Janette Judd <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proposed construction project, height blocking hillside views - site of former Los Gatos Meadows

EXTERNAL SENDER
Adding Joel Paulson and Janette Judd to distribution. It appears that the building height has been increased by 2-3X, see photos below. In a recent proposed commercial development, building heights at the north entrance of town were limited to protect hillside views. One would expect the same policy also applies for the south entrance of town. Is there an easy way to limit building height to the structures currently in place and still satisfy the needs of the community? Mike

Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 21, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Michael Kennedy < > wrote:
> I’m also concerned about increased hillside fire risk and especially loss of privacy from proposed project views into my bathroom and bedroom windows. Mike >

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 21, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Michael Kennedy < > wrote:
>>
>> Attaching photo from E. Main St, see below. Mike
>>
>>

>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2021, at 1:27 PM, Michael Kennedy < > wrote:
>>> Dear Mr. Rennie,
>>> I’m writing to ask you and other councilmembers to kindly consider reducing the size and scale of the proposed hillside construction project on the site of former Los Gatos Meadows. >>> I woke up the other day and saw tall story polls from my bedroom window on . I was astonished that the proposed building height would actually extend above the nearby hillside ridge tree line, see photo below.
>>> I’ve provided another photo of the project returning home from the library today on the east side of town, see below. The width of the project from this perspective could be reduced in size to scale other buildings on the hillside to blend more uniformly with the surrounding landscape. >>> I respectfully object to approval of this project as it is proposed. Can you please ask the developer to kindly scale back the project to an a more appropriate size to avoid diminishing the beautiful hillside views of our lovely town?
>>> Best regards,
>>> Mike Kennedy
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone

From: Michael Kennedy < >
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 8:28 AM
To: Rob Rennie <[email protected]>
Cc: Janette Judd <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed construction project, height blocking hillside views - site of former Los Gatos Meadows

EXTERNAL SENDER
Understood and agreed. One wonders if the community would be better served by establishing moderate building height limits to protect neighbor privacy and hillside beauty from aggressive development projects. The sudden unsightly appearance of a sprawling and tall building complex towering above all others in a scenic bucolic landscape seems wrong. Mike Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 28, 2021, at 6:45 AM, Rob Rennie <[email protected]> wrote:

Mike,
The 1st step is planning commission. They have the authority to ask for changes or they will not approve. The council puts high consideration on planning commission work when approving projects or asking for changes.

I recommend helping to make sure there is a robust discussion at the planning commission about this project.

Thank You,
Rob Rennie
Los Gatos Town Mayor
Help me prevent brown act violations. Please do not forward this email

From: Chad < >
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:24 PM
To: Planning Comment <[email protected]>
Cc: Lauren Kutting < >
Subject: Regarding 110 Wood Road Application PD-20-001

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello, my name is Chad Kutting, resident of in Los Gatos. I received notice of the upcoming planning meeting to discuss the 110 Wood Road application. To date, we have been supportive of the revitalization of the Wood Road property but have grown concerned after the most recent story poles went up. Our home faces south towards one of the proposed buildings and the bulk and mass appears to be significantly larger than appropriate for the hillside. The unobstructed view of the trees and hillside is now covered end to end with the proposed massive structure. In the attached photos you can see how the new structure would dwarf the surrounding homes. Photos attached below.

Our hope is that this section can be reduced in mass to better fit within the guidelines for our town.

Sincerely -
Chad and Lauren Kutting
Source: Planning Website (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W)

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/12/2022
ITEM NO: 3

ADDENDUM
DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval of a Planned Development for Construction of a Senior Living Community, Removal of Large Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R:PD. Located at 110 Wood Road. APN 510-47-038. Planned Development Application PD-20-001 and Environmental Impact Report EIR-21-002. APPLICANT: Rockwood Pacific.

PROPERTY OWNER: Covia Communities. PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin.

REMARKS:

Below is an updated table of earthwork quantities clarifying the grading quantities that contribute to a Grading Permit. This table is to replace the table included on page nine of the Staff Report. Exhibit 16 includes a letter from the applicant providing an update on their community engagement efforts and additional renderings of the proposed project. Exhibit 17 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022.

Preliminary Earthwork Quantities
Type Cut (cy) Fill
(cy)
Net (cy) Max Cut
Depth (ft)
Max Fill
Depth (ft)
Buildings* 113,000 1,000 112,000 <Cut> 61.5 3.5
Driveways 9,900 2,300 7,600 <Cut> 21.0 14.0
Sidewalk 3,700 700 3,000 <Cut> 20.5 10.5
Landscape 13,100 2,400 10,700 <Cut> 27.0 13.5
Utility Spoils 7,000 -- 7,000 <Cut>
TOTAL 146,700 6,400 140,300 <Cut>
GRADING PERMIT TOTAL** 33,700 5,400 39,100
* Excavation within building footprints does not count toward a Grading Permit. ** Cumulative total of site grading quantities counting toward a Grading Permit.

ATTACHMENT 6

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002
JANUARY 11, 2022
EXHIBITS:

Previously received under separate cover:

1. May 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad)

2. September 2021 Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad) Received with the January 12, 2022 Staff Report:

3. Location Map

4. Required Findings

5. Required CEQA Findings of Fact

6. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Staff Report, April 9, 2008

7. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes, April 9, 2008

8. Project Description and Letter of Justification, January 3, 2022

9. Town’s Consulting Architect Report, May 8, 2020

10. Applicant’s response to Town’s Consulting Architect recommendations, May 22, 2020

11. Arborist Report by Hort Science, October 12, 2020

12. Town's Consulting Arborist peer review report, February 12, 2021

13. Supplemental community engagement letter, December 9, 2021

14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022

15. Planned Development Ordinance with Exhibit A Rezone Area and Exhibit B Development Plans, July 27, 2021
Received with this Addendum Report:

16. Supplemental community engagement letter with visualizations, January 11, 2022

17. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022

36 Southwood Drive | Orinda, California | 94563
www.RockwoodPacific.com
January 11, 2021
Ms. Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Community Engagement Update + Visualization Updates Rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows
Dear Ms. Hanssen:

This letter supplements our justification letter of January 6, 2022, and our prior community engagement update letter of December 9, 2021, related to the rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows (the “project”), the 10.84-acre site located at 110 Wood Road (APN 510-47-038) at the intersection of Wood Road and S. Santa Cruz Avenue in Los Gatos.

Since our December 9th letter, we held our 10th neighborhood open house meeting. Given recent installation of the story poles and lead up to the Planning Commission public hearing tomorrow , it was well attended (13 neighbors). The primary focus on our update related to visual impacts and construction processes. There were several questions related to the visual impacts & simulations, construction hours/truck trips, tree removal and proposed landscaping, and building heights each of which we addressed. There were a few miscellaneous questions, not directly related to our application, but nonetheless important to our neighbors, that our team will respond to over in the next few days.

Attached herein is an updated an Updated Listing of Meetings with Neighbors and Community (Appendix D).

As previously indicated, we continue to update a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document and posts this document to the Los Gatos Meadows page of the Covia web site:
https://covia.org/los-gatos-meadows/
EXHIBIT 16

P a g e | 2
This web site also has a video summary of the overall proposed project and well as a video focusing on our plans to employ self-driving vehicles.

Respectfully,
___________________________________
Francesco J. Rockwood
Rockwood Pacific Inc.

Applicant
Attachment
- Updated Listing of Meetings with Neighbors and Community (Appendix D) - Updated visualizations

Appendix D
Listing of Meetings with Neighbors and Community
Type of Meeting Date Time Location Attendee Notes from Meeting Outcome Open House 1 03/08/18 7:30-9PM Los Gatos
Meadows
Maria Ristow, Irving & Evelyn
Mitsunaga, Robert Mullan(Toll House)
General introduction of intent to rebuild Los
Gatos Meadows
Kicked-off neighborhood
communications plan
Open House 2 04/18/18 7-8PM Los Gatos
Meadows
Julie Ritter Southern, Maria Ristow,
Claire Leclaire, Cathy Colgan
General introduction of intent to rebuild Los
Gatos Meadows; similar material to first
meeting
Kicked-off neighborhood
communications plan
Open House 3 05/03/18 7-8PM Los Gatos
Meadows
Karen Kurtz, Linda Iversen, Sue Fairley Attendees interested in architecture and supplemental transportation options
Design team elevated analysis of
supplemental transportation
alternatives
Open House 4 05/20/18 3-4PM Los Gatos
Meadows
John and Jean Richardson, Stanford
Stickney and 3 other family members
Questions related to timeline, storm
drainage, and fire risk
Resolved current storm drain issue
and initiated planning to mitigate
fire risk through brush removal
Focus Groups
(3 Sessions)
10/2/2018 -
10/3/2018
Varies Toll House 36 older adults participated in 3 sessions.

Participants were drawn from the local
area. Participants were promised
confidentiality.

Sensitive to how various attributes or
requirements may drive cost, supplemental
transportation system very important,
limited enthusiasm for LEED certification
but recycling and energy efficiency
important, limited enthusiasm for
facilitating non-residents/non-guests on
campus, preference for larger, more
spacious units, recommendation to
minimize long corridors, preference for
multiple dining venues and ample on-site
amenities such as fitness center, walking
trails, access to town, casual dining, library,
coffee shop, and access to on-site support
care.

Design team made applicable
refinements to concept plan
Open House 5 12/06/18 7-8PM Los Gatos
Meadows
Julie Ritter Southern, Matt and Marlena
Hood and friend, Mike Wasserman
Question about timing, policy related to
relocation of existing residents, impact on
visibility to neighbors above, use of solar
panels and roof color, impacts on traffic
(with specific concerns about summer
traffic), site security during closure,
parking, noise impacts and construction
parking. Requested advance notifications
of all construction work that could affect
access. Some residents on Wood Road
would prefer that Farwell Lane continue to
support regular vehicle traffic. A video
summary of the meeting was posted at:
https://vimeo.com/278024461
Feedback informed further
refinement to concept plan. With
regard to Wood Road traffic
impacts, design team is prioritizing
minimizing errant trips up Wood
Road past the main entrance, and
more importantly, further
prioritizing the supplemental
transportation system to convert
more trips to autonomous vehicle,
pedestrian or bike trips. Also,
currently planning to include solar
panels.

Open House 6 10/10/19 7-8PM Toll House Julie Ritter Southern, Maria Ristow, Jamie Garcia & Friend, Irving & Evelyn
Mitsunaga
Questions about Wood Road traffic,
availability of Wood Road for evacuation,
potential impact of project on housing
element, and recommendation to deploy
goats to further reduce fire risk. Request for
copy of facts and figures table.

Confirmed that project not
expected to affect housing
element. Planning to deploy goats
on property this spring; planning to
make commitment to make Wood
Road available for evacuation
during emergencies.

Open House 7 03/05/20 7-8PM Los Gatos United
Methodist Church
None General heightened sensitivity due to
COVID-19 may have been a factor in
suppressing turnout.

Produced and circulated video
update; available at Covia/Los
Gatos Meadows website
https://covia.org/los-gatosmeadows/
Open House 8 12/03/20 7-8PM Zoom Meeting Julie Ritter Southern, Fred Lester, Matt Wood, Zane Rowe, Gary/Jamie Garcia,
Claire Leclair, Evelyn/Irving Mitsunaga,
Robert Macartney, Matthew Bigge
Green roof (Fred), Solar (Julie), incline
elevator (Fred), security current through
construction (Matt), views from 135 Wood
and story pole modification request (Julie),
visualization from 100 Wood Rd (Matt),
Condo v. CCRC (Julie), fire evacuation
(Matt), parking for construction (Fred),
construction traffic (Matt)
Provided advance notice of intent
to seek modification to Town's Story
Pole Policy
Public Hearing -
Story Pole
Exception
Request
01/19/21 7-9PM Zoom Meeting Town Council and Town Staff (in advance of meeting, staff received
letters from Clare Southern, Matthew
Southern and Mark Rigoli (via Council
Member Maria Ristow)
No public comments; council members
discussed merits and concerns regarding
proposal
Consideration for request for fewer
poles continued to future council
meeting (subsequently withdrew
modification request)
NOP Meeting 02/25/21 7-7:15PM Zoom Meeting Presenters: Joel Paulson, Jocelyn Shoopman, Sean Mullin, Terri Wissler
Adam (EMC Planning).

Public Attendees: Matt Hood
Matt Hood inquired about availability of
video recording of the NOP meeting
1/11/2022:10:51 AM

Appendix D
Listing of Meetings with Neighbors and Community
Type of Meeting Date Time Location Attendee Notes from Meeting Outcome Open House 9 08/09/21 7-8PM Zoom Meeting Presenters: Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, David Gates, Chris Ichien
Comments and questions related to: clarify
visual impacts (during and after
construction), number of expected truck
trips, construction hours, placement of
parking, project schedule, emergency
circulation and clarification of employee
break area
City Council
Public Hearing -
Story Pole
Exception
Request
10/19/21 7-10PM Zoom Meeting Town Council and Town Staff (in advance of meeting, staff received
letters from Julie Southern, Esther
Grant and Andrew Ghofrani)
Frank Rockwood and Mark Falgout stepped
through request. No public comments;
council members discussed merits and
concerns regarding proposal as well as
addressed policy in general
Request was granted to use flags
versus netting with condition of
using 2 rows of flags.

Open House 10 01/10/22 7-8PM Zoom Meeting Presenters: Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, David Gates, Chris Ichien,
Victor Ceron, Laura WorthingtonForbes; Attendees: Gillian and Mike Verga, Julie Ritter Southern, Clare
Southern, Matt Southern, Cathy
Colgan, Maria Ristow, Andrew Ghofrani,
Michael and Kimberley Wasserman,
Omari and Kavita Bouknight, Cindy Slain
Comments and questions related to:
massing, visualizations (from specific
neighbors on Wood Road and Tate & Main
Street), Broadway use for pedestrians,
construction hours and traffic route, access
to vineyard above Los Gatos Meadows,
solar panels, undergrounding, PG&E lines,
TV antennae tower, color of roof and
buildings
Project team to follow up with
neighbors re: distribution of massing
and additional details on building
heights
1/11/2022:10:51 AM

LOS GATOS MEADOWS - PHOTOSIMULATION BEFORE AND AFTER

EXISTING
(JULY 2021) (DECEMBER 2021)
(JANUARY 2022)
(JULY 2021)

PROPOSED VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

VIEW CORRIDORS
49 E MAIN STREET

VIEW CORRIDORS
49 E MAIN STREET - ENLARGED
LOS GATOS MEADOWS - PHOTOSIMULATION BEFORE AND AFTER JANUARY 2022

VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

(JULY 2021) (JULY 2021)
(JANUARY 2022)
(DECEMBER 2021)

EXISTING PROPOSED

VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

VIEW CORRIDORS

S SANTA CRUZ AVENUE & WOOD ROAD

VIEW CORRIDORS

S SANTA CRUZ AVENUE & WOOD ROAD - ENLARGED

VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

(DECEMBER 2021)
(JANUARY 2022)
JANUARY 2022

VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

VISUALIZATION

UPPER WOOD ROAD

(DECEMBER 2021)
(JANUARY 2022)

VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

VISUALIZATION
121 WOOD ROAD
(MAY 2021)

PROPOSED

From: Michael Kennedy < >
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 11:16:33 AM
To: Rob Rennie
Cc: Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc; Janette Judd ; Joel Paulson Subject: Re: Proposed construction project, height blocking hillside views - site of former Los Gatos Meadows

EXTERNAL SENDER
Adding an additional photo taken from Broadway neighborhood, see below. Mike.

EXHIBIT 17

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/12/2022
ITEM NO: 3

DESK ITEM
DATE: January 12, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval of a Planned Development for Construction of a Senior Living Community, Removal of Large Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R:PD. Located at 110 Wood Road. APN 510-47-038. Planned Development Application PD-20-001 and Environmental Impact Report EIR-21-002. APPLICANT: Rockwood Pacific.

PROPERTY OWNER: Covia Communities. PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 18 includes additional site plan diagrams provided by the applicant. Exhibit 19 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2022.

EXHIBITS:

Previously received under separate cover:

1. May 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad)

2. September 2021 Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad) Previously received with the January 12, 2022 Staff Report:

3. Location Map

4. Required Findings

5. Required CEQA Findings of Fact

6. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Staff Report, April 9, 2008

7. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes, April 9, 2008

8. Project Description and Letter of Justification, January 3, 2022 ATTACHMENT 7

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002
JANUARY 12, 2022
EXHIBITS (continued):

9. Town’s Consulting Architect Report, May 8, 2020

10. Applicant’s response to Town’s Consulting Architect recommendations, May 22, 2020

11. Arborist Report by Hort Science, October 12, 2020

12. Town's Consulting Arborist peer review report, February 12, 2021

13. Supplemental community engagement letter, December 9, 2021

14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022

15. Planned Development Ordinance with Exhibit A Rezone Area and Exhibit B Development Plans, July 27, 2021
Previously received with the January 12, 2022 Addendum Report:

16. Supplemental community engagement letter with visualizations, January 11, 2022

17. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022
Received with this Desk Item Report:

18. Site plan diagrams

19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Assets and resource for local
seniors
EXHIBIT 18

A
B
C
F
D
E
G
H

DEVELOPMENT AREA

EXISTING PROPOSED
2

(547’) (540’)
(547’)
(537’)
(537’) (530’)
(537’)
(537’)
(519’)
529’) (520’)
(512’)
(547’)

EXISTING ELEVATIONS
571’ VILLA HEIGHTS
3

(547’) (540’)
(547’)
(537’)
(537’) (530’)
(537’)
(537’)
(519’)
529’) (520’)
(512’)
(547’)

EXISTING ELEVATIONS
571’ VILLA HEIGHTS
4

+23’
+20’
+24’
+10’
+3’
+6’
+20’
+6’
+27’
+13’
+19’
+3’
+16’

BY ELEVATION

TERRACE LEVEL
REDUCED BY 7’
-15’
-25’ -25’
-39’
-30’
-32’
571’ HEIGHT COMPARISONS
5

+23’
+20’
+24’
+10’
+20’
+27’
+19’
+16’

BY ELEVATION

TERRACE LEVEL
REDUCED BY 7’
-15’
-25’ -25’
-39’
-30’
-32’
571’ HEIGHT COMPARISONS
6

-----Original Message-----
From: Esther Grant < >
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Jan 11, 2022 11:25 am
Subject: Fwd: Planed Development App.PD-20-001. APN 510-47-038 Sean,
If you want to get a prospective view(this project for PD20=001, that can be seen all over Los Gatos), go out to Main St. from your Planning Office, turn left onto Main, drive about a block and a half, look to your left, toward the foothills, until you see a"Massive Complex with Orange Flag's blowing in the wind. Now imagine living behind or surrounding this, your view is now only this structure, you will have to go through massive removal of beautiful tree'e, massive grading, massive construction, equipment noise , gas smell(dirt, dust),..... etc. You will not have the serene, open green space next to you, the quite, peaceful, Loas Gatos is gone! How would you like to live like that?
Esther Grant
From: Esther Grant < >
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:18 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Planed Development App.PD-20-001. APN 510-47-038

EXTERNAL SENDER
Project Planner Sean Mullin,
I Esther Grant(Wincott), ., Los Gatos., my property along with 50 and 100 clifton ave., are connected to(Meadows) 110 Wood Road. At the lower right of the map you will see "Wood Road", you can also see the top of Wood Road!" MY property is located behind the Meadows at the prior Rose Garden, and some of the existing apartment's. Our properties are also joined to "The Meadows Open Space", Green space. My concern is not only the visual, but the hazard to protected wild life, we(the Meadows) has Eagle's, Falcon's, Red tailed Hawk's(on our properties), just to name a few. We do not want "story Poles, extended flag poles, any poles with netting on them, to snag any birds"!
You can adjust the map size, at the top of the map.

EXHIBIT 19

I have two regular PG&E pole's, that is connected to a third pole at 110 Wood Road, the middle pole on my property connects to three sub poles, that provides our (Clifton) PG&E electricity. See PG&E right away on . The S/E, PG&E right/away continues to 110 Wood Road, to service the third pole. I would not want any of the proposed poles to jeopardize my land, Bird's, PG&E pole's.

Thank You for your consideration,
Esther Grant

From: Esther Grant < >
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:40 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd:

EXTERNAL SENDER
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Weisz <[email protected]>
To: Esther Grant < >
Cc: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Corvell Sparks <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jan 11, 2022 4:35 pm
Subject: RE: Fwd:

Good afternoon Esther,
Thank you for your email. The setbacks for the proposed development, as compared to the original/existing setbacks, are tabulated on Page 5 of 16 of the staff report. This table also includes the percentage of original and proposed open space. I have Cc’d Sean Mullin in case there is any additional information that he may have.

Thanks,
Mike
Mike Weisz, P.E. ● Senior Civil Engineer
Parks and Public Works Department ● 41 Miles Avenue, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.5236 ● [email protected]
www.losgatosca.gov ● https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca Engineering Office Counter Hours: Monday-Friday 8:00am to 1:00pm Please note the upcoming Town closure: Mon., Jan. 17, 2022 This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address.

From: Esther Grant < >
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:07 PM
To: Mike Weisz <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd:

EXTERNAL SENDER
Senior Civil Engineer, Mike Weisz,

The Los Gatos Medows, 110 Wood Road, is Planning a redevelopment project, application number PD20-001, the planning commission will be holding a hearing on January 12, to consider the project. The existing complex is already overbuilt, and has an open area(green area), that is next to and property, and along side of s properties, and extends to Wood Rd. The project is triple the size of the current construction, it will have an underground parking, expand and replace all the two story apartments, with five story apartment's. I was under the impression that when a property development was overbuilt that an open space had to be provided, there is such a space behind the Los Gatos Medows currently, but according to the Planning Department, Project Planner Sean Mullin's, about 94 tree's have already been removed and 140 more tree's are scheduled for removal? The expansion size of he building's plan is to "remove large protected tree's", this way they can have their five story buildings right up to the property line,'s further blocking the view from the surrounding properties(like the CarrIage House Apartments, at 31 Clifton Ave., that will now have a view of a five story building's. The impact of just building(noise, gas powred equipment) this massive complex, let alone all the traffic from apartment owner's will generate from entering on Wood Rd.,(behind the Toll House Hotel, and also from removing sound barrier tree's) and exiting onto Broadway. Are the Land Developer's allowed to construct five story building's up to the property line? Can these Developer's overbuild without a open space(Green Space)? The time frame for the project hearing is tomorrow at 11:30 A.M., for comment's.

Thank you,
Esther Grant

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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:

Kathryn Janoff, Chair
Melanie Hanssen, Vice Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Kylie Clark
Steve Raspe
Reza Tavana
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 8

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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 JANOFF: We will resume the Planning
Commission meeting and move on to Item #3, which is
requesting approval of a Planned Development for
construction of a senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit on property zoned R:PD. Located at 110 Wood Road.

APN 510-47-038. Planned Development Application PD-20-001, and Environmental Impact Report EIR 21-002. Applicant,
Rockwood Pacific. Property Owner, Covia Communities. The project planner is Sean Mullin.

Are there any disclosures? By a show of hands may
I see which Planning Commissioners have visited the
property? Thank you for that.

I understand, Mr. Mullin, you’ll be giving the
Staff Report tonight?
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, thank you, Chair. Before you
tonight is a request for a recommendation to the Town
Council for a proposed Planned Development Ordinance and Environmental Impact Report for construction of a senior community at 110 Wood Road, the current site of the Meadows senior community.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
The EIR was prepared to address potential
significant impacts resulting from the project and
concluded that all impacts could be mitigated to less than significant.

The subject property is 10.8 acres characterized
by a hillside setting, but not located in the hillside
area. The site is the home to the Meadows senior community, which operated from 1971 until 2019.

The proposed Planned Development Ordinance in
front of you tonight would allow for the demolition of all existing buildings on the site, construction of a new fullservice senior living community with 174 independent living units and 17 assisted living units. Removal of 192 trees, including eight large protected trees, and site
improvements required a Grading Permit.

The proposed senior community consists of a
ground floor podium and eight separate buildings, or villas as they are termed in the plans, constructed above the
podium. The podium includes the main entrance to the
facility, 17 supporting care units, dining facilities,
offices, a fitness center, indoor swimming pool, mechanical areas, and two levels of indoor parking. An outdoor terrace would be located above the podium level, providing common space amongst the villas. The eight villas would then rise

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
three to five stories above the terrace level with heights from approximately 42-68 feet. The eight villas would
include the 174 one- and two-bedroom independent living units in a variety of floor plans. A full description of the project architecture, including a summary of the review by the Town’s consulting architect, are included in your Staff Report.

The proposed project is located primarily in the
areas of the property with existing development. Site
improvements are required for the new podium and villas, subterranean parking areas adjustments to the site plan, and circulation improvements including a new fire access ring road.

Several new retaining walls are required
throughout the site with heights from 3-24 feet. The
primary function of the new retaining walls is to improve and extend fire access around the project site via the new ring road. As detailed in the Staff Report, the podium and villas would largely screen the walls along the western edge of the development, while those on the eastern edge may be more visible. The applicant has provided a
discussion of their efforts to reduce wall heights and
visibility in their Letter of Justification. This Letter of Justification does touch on many aspects of the project and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
provides a detailed summary of their public outreach
efforts conducted since 2018.

Based on the summary provided in the Staff
Report, if the Commission finds merit in the proposal you can forward a recommendation to the City Council to make the required findings, certify the Final EIR, adopt the Mitigated Monitoring Reporting Program, and adopt the
Planned Development Ordinance.

An Addendum and Desk Item to your Staff Report
have been distributed, including additional materials from the Applicant, and additional public comment received after publishing the Staff Report.

This concludes Staff’s presentation and we are
available for any questions.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Mr. Mullin. Vice Chair
Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I have a question for Staff.

Since we have not seen a Planned Development proposal along with an EIR for a while, are they supposed to be separate actions? There’s the recommendation of the certification of the Final EIR, there’s the recommendation of the Planned Development Ordinance, and then I think you mentioned also the recommendation on the Mitigated Monitoring Reporting

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
Program. Are those all independent actions, or are they one action?
SEAN MULLIN: I’m going to defer to the Director
for that question.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Vice Chair Hanssen.

They are separate actions. So, for instance, you could make the same recommendation for both the Planned Development and the actions necessary for the EIR; or you could, as an example, recommend adoption and certification of the EIR but recommend denial of the project; or recommend to the Council the Planned Development be approved with
modifications. They are independent, so you could
technically forward a recommendation that is different on both of those, depending on the outcome of this discussion by the Planning Commission.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Then if I might, Chair, ask
a follow up question. There was a discussion also that once the Planned Development Ordinance and the EIR would be
approved, later on there would be an Architecture and Site and some other permits that have to be issued, so is the Architecture and Site… Since the proposed Planned
Development Ordinance already includes the height, the
number of buildings, and we have the plans with the size of the buildings, what would the Architecture and Site cover?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
SEAN MULLIN: The Architecture and Site
Application would require some additional information. For instance, the eight villas in front of you this evening in your project plans, full elevations of all eight villas are not included, so it’s an opportunity to make sure that we have all elevations of those buildings and verify that any project refinements made by the Applicant fit within the framework of any approved Planned Development Ordinance.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: So, the Planned Development
Ordinance would or would not include the height of the
villas?
SEAN MULLIN: The Planned Development Ordinance
would include the height of the villas, and in this case I could say that this particular plan set included for the PD is quite robust, so there’s kind of a fine line between what’s in front of us tonight and an Architecture and Site Application. But it would include the height, it would
include approximate grading quantities, retaining wall
heights, things that exceed what would normally be allowed under the zoning.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Just to clarify, were we to
approve the PD, it would be approving the overall form and perhaps not the details that we are seeing tonight?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
SEAN MULLIN: Any PD approval would include
adoption of these development plans, so maybe that’s a
better answer to that question than my previous. The
Architecture and Site Application would need to include a project or plans that are in substantial compliance with these development plans; that includes height of the
buildings. Should there be slight shifts to the location of buildings, Staff would evaluate that as whether that’s in substantial conformance, or not. But the development plans would be adopted with the Planned Development
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that
clarification. Any other questions of Staff at this time? Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I have a quick
clarification question. I believe that this would become the tallest building in Los Gatos, but I wanted to fact check myself and see if you know if that’s true.

SEAN MULLIN: Without 100% certainty, I could
answer the question that I believe that would be true.

JOEL PAULSON: I would just confirm that, yes,
the buildings that are upwards of 85 feet would be taller than the Netflix buildings on Winchester, the newer ones that were most recently approved.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, and do you know
how tall the Netflix buildings are, by chance?
JOEL PAULSON: I believe they’re approximately 75
feet, the tallest ones.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Any other questions for Staff?
Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Just kind of a technical
question with respect to the scope of the EIR. In the
materials we were provided I believe it states that with respect to the height issue only views from public
locations are part of the EIR and not any views from
private locations, is that accurate?
SEAN MULLIN: I believe that’s accurate and I
think that dovetails into our previous discussion from the Town Attorney on the previous item about protected views.

But, yes, I believe it’s limited to the public areas.

Through the Chair I would also mention that our
environmental consultants that prepared the environmental document are on hand, should we have more specific
questions about the EIR.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: One follow up question then.

As a result, any questions or comments we might have with respect to views from private areas would more properly be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
directed during the comments of the PD as opposed to the EIR, is that a fair statement?
SEAN MULLIN: I think that’s a fair statement.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Any other questions of
Staff? Yes, Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Is it correct that we are
making a recommendation to the Town Council on all of the issues that are on this matter, or are some of them going to be definitive at this stage?
SEAN MULLIN: Any decisions made tonight or at
any future meetings would be a recommendation to the Town Council. They are the final deciding body.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Any other questions?
I did have one, and that is I understand from the
Staff Report that this is not considered a hillside parcel.

Sure looks like hillside to me. Can you help us understand how this parcel is not in the hillside development area? I know we have maps. Is it just a matter of it being outside a map boundary?
SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you. I don’t see
any other hands raised, so at this time I will open the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
public hearing and give the Applicant up to five minutes to address the Planning Commission.

JOEL PAULSON: I will allow Mr. Rockwood to
speak. Mr. Rockwood, you can unmute yourself and you have up to five minutes.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: Can you pull up the
presentation? All right, so my name is Frank Rockwood; I’m with Rockwood Pacific, the Applicant. I’m here on behalf of the owners, Covia Communities. Covia Communities is a
nonprofit owner/operator of reputable senior living
communities throughout California.

Our proposal is quite simply to rebuild a better
Los Gatos Meadows. With the exception of the last line here listed on this chart, we developed these design goals back in 2018. Please note, we are not proposing to increase the number of units, to increase the number of residents, the number of staff, or to change the use. Furthermore, note that our proposal materially mitigates issues relating to parking, fire access, and fire safety.

The current facility was approved in 1968 and
opened in 1971.

In conformance with industry trends, and based on
the results of focus group sessions conducted with local residents of Los Gatos, we are proposing a project that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
would have materially larger units and more amenity spaces than the existing facility. While we are proposing a
reduction in the number of units, given the strong demand and need for senior housing, we are proposing only a modest reduction in number of units.

We have decided not to pursue an expansion of the
development pad, and in fact, we have modestly reduced the development pad in several key areas. Given this decision, combined with the other constraints and goals, our proposal would entail a material increase in massing.

Our property is approximate to numerous community
resources, and while there are pros and cons in
accommodating housing needs in any particular location in town, our project team strongly believes that this location is particularly well suited for our market rate senior
community at the scale presented tonight.

As everyone is aware, vehicle traffic is
particularly challenging in this part of Los Gatos. Our plan includes incorporating an on demand, self-driving
vehicle system that will enable our residents and our Staff to get to and from many resources approximate to our
community without the use of their cars.

We have made, and continue to make, a strong
investment in community engagement. We conducted our first

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
open house session in March 2018, with our tenth session this past Monday. While it is not practical for us to be fully responsive to every individual perspective, the
project team has and continues to take all comments
received into consideration. While there have been a wide range of comments and concerns, most of the comments we have received relate to visual impacts and construction impacts. With regard to construction, we plan to fully
conform to the Town standards, and as importantly, we are committed to a robust communication plan.

With regard to massing, we have tried to place
and balance massing in the matter that while clearly
impacting some of our neighbors in the broader community, it does so in a manner that we believe balances competing objectives and concerns. As the Draft Environmental Impact Report analysis concludes, visual impacts are less than significant and are deemed in compliance and compatible with the general character of the hillside area. See Impact

5.3. Please know that we are endeavoring to build and
operate an exemplary senior community that would be a
resource to the seniors of Los Gatos as well as, I truly believe, on balance a beneficial change for our neighbors and the wider community. In light of the benefits of our

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
proposal and its alignment with several important General Plan goals and policies, including housing policies, we are respectfully requesting the Planning Commission’s
consideration of recommending approval of our project to the Town Council.

This concludes my short presentation, and myself
and my team is available to answer any questions the
commission may have. Thank you for your time.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for your presentation.

Do Commissioners have questions for the Applicant at this time? Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: There was a time back in
2008 where this was brought in front of the Conceptual
Development Advisory Committee, which is not a requirement of any project but is a service that our town offers, but it’s often helpful to the Planning Commission and other deciding bodies to have that step. We do have access to the packet and the minutes from that meeting, and while the plans may have changed somewhat since then, it looks like there are less units than there were before.

But one of the things that was mentioned was it
would be important to have a certain amount of below market rate housing, because we’re under requirements with the State of California to have some level of affordable

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
housing, so could you comment on to what extent there will be affordable housing in this proposal.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’d like to point out that Covia
does have a rather significant affordable housing division.

Covia does not offer, and never has offered below market units or affordable market units in any of its continuing care/retirement communities.

Please note, as we’ve indicated on page 2 of our
Letter of Justification, that state law specifically
prohibits the imposition of rent regulations on CCRCs. In consulting with Perkins Coie, our counsel, we believe that this state law applies to our project.

I’d also like to observe that we are not
proposing to increase the number of units or staffing,
employees, etc., from our current approvals.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: No one has said you’re
required to do that, I just was asking the question if you had taken that under consideration, because that was a
comment made by the CDAC back in 2008, and had you brought it to the CDAC more recently it probably would have come up again.

I have a follow up question related to the same
conversation. During that same CDAC meeting there was at that time as well a proposal to go five stories, which is

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
unprecedented for the most part in Los Gatos even as of today. When you made your proposal, to what extent did you considered the feedback brought up by the CDAC back in 2008 that it would be a very difficult thing for the Town to even consider anything that tall?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I can say that we studied
thoroughly the feedback from CDAC, and we did consider all the comments. We did consider balancing the objectives, so for instance, there were comments about not expanding the development pad. There were comments about maintaining
housing supply. We tried to balance those, and we tried to balance the density. Yes, we do have buildings at five
stories, but we do believe that there is merit in keeping the housing supply, not reducing the housing supply any further than we are proposing to do here.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you. If I might,
Chair, I had one more question.

CHAIR JANOFF: Go ahead.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: The other question I have is
about the excavation, the cut and fill. This project is not in the hillside for purposes of the Hillside Standards and Design Guidelines, so you wouldn’t be subject to the
guideline of the limit on the cut and fill, but there is a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
need for a Grading Permit, and it did give me pause to see that.

We would require a Grading Permit for 50 cubic
yards, yet we’re looking at a net of 140,000, I think is what I read in the Staff Report. So, I just wondered if you could comment on where the 140,000 of cut… Because this is still our hillsides, even if it’s not subject to the
Hillside Design Guidelines. What are the things that are driving that? I’m sure part of it is the Fire Department, and maybe part of it is the subterranean garage, but could you break down where that 140,000 is going to come from? FRANK ROCKWOOD: I guess maybe this is a question
for Joel. Is this something I could have one of my team members jump in? There’s Mark Falgout with Kimley-Horn; I’m going to hand that question off to him if that’s possible or practical.

JOEL PAULSON: It is possible. One second. Mark,
you’re now able to speak if you unmute yourself.

MARK FALGOUT: Mark Falgout with Kimley-Horn,
civil engineer. Nearly all of that excavation is coming from the subterranean garage and the fact that we are
tucking this building into the hillside on the backside of the building in order to keep the heights down as low as we possibly can and to get all the parking off of the surface

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
area and onto the site, the excavations are required to do the subterranean garage and to nestle the building into the hillside.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: So, none of it is related to
the fire access road then?
MARK FALGOUT: The fire access roads are not
contributing to that much cut, it’s more keeping the
building elevation down and getting the parking taken care of.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you very much.

That is my questions for now, Chair. Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Do any other
Commissioners have questions? Yes, Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, and thank you for
being here today. I want a little more information on what you were saying about affordable housing. You said that Covia has a robust affordable housing division but that you’ve never had any BMR units in anything that you’ve
built. Can you clarify what the affordable housing division is doing then, and then also just state whether or not
there will be any affordable units in this complex.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: First of all, to clarify, Covia
has built, operates, and owns many affordable housing
units, but those are what I would call more traditional

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
housing. The community that we’re proposing to rebuild is what we characterize as a continuing care retirement
community, also called Life Plan community. That typically involves an entry fee and it involves substantial services:
meal services, social services, health services, etc. It’s a different model, and it’s a model that’s serviceintensive, and so, yes, Covia has never had below market rate units or affordable units in any of their continuing care retirement communities, but they do have communities that usually are exclusively focused on serving an
affordable housing population.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I understand. Thank you. I
know that it’s not something that anybody can require of you, but it’s definitely been a really big community
concern lately, and definitely in the Town of Los Gatos it’s something that we’re working on. Would you be open to putting any BMR units in this build?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: Unfortunately, it’s very, very
challenging, because we don’t have… If we think of
traditional housing you can have a range of units, and you can set aside a couple of units that are small, or set
aside just a fraction of units that are affordable.

The service component is so heavy, and we’ve
never kind of segmented out, there are fundamentally

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
different tiers of service. Everyone that moves into the community gets the same meals, very high-quality meal
service and social services and health services as
everybody else. Again, it’s not something that Covia has ever done, and they, quite frankly, don’t really think it would work in a CCRC environment.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, got it. Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Just a follow up question. The
CCRC environment that you’re describing is one business model of operating a senior community, and there are others that don’t require the same kind of entry fee and also
don’t provide the continuing care.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: Right.

CHAIR JANOFF: If the business model were a
different senior community business model that wasn’t the buy-in kind of model, would any other business model… I don’t mean to be so far ranging, but is there another
business model for a senior community that would allow for or would enable below market rate units to be incorporated? FRANK ROCKWOOD: The short answer is absolutely
yes. It could be just a traditional housing project. It could be an affordable housing project. Obviously, there is a whole range of different models that we haven’t talked about.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
CHAIR JANOFF: I’m speaking specifically of a
senior community where you have rental units and you do provide meals. We have many, many of these in our wider community; they’re not a CCRC model. The question is would those accommodate a below market rate unit?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: Yes, they could potentially
accommodate an affordable unit, but that’s not what we’re proposing. All of Covia’s properties that are not strictly affordable housing communities are continuing care
communities.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you. Commissioner
Thomas, do you have your hand raised?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I do. I have a
question for the Applicant about the community outreach that you did with regard to the focus group and what the community needed. When did that occur, and could you just elaborate a little bit on how many individuals you talked to and what feedback you provided?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: If you want to, you could pull
up slide #8; I can talk about that. We’ve had ten open
house sessions to date. We mailed and eventually over time we received emails from our neighbors. We used the same mailing distribution. We actually had a political
consultant working with us early on that procured a mailing

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
list that aligns with the notice mailing provision for
these types of meetings.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Mr. Rockwood, I’m sorry. I
think that I didn’t ask my question clearly. I meant not necessarily with a community outreach to the immediate
neighborhood. You said that you conducted some focus groups and talked to people in town about the needs?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: Yes, okay. We actually hired a
consulting firm that specializes in focus groups. They
actually controlled the mailing list. The majority of the participants in these focus groups were from Los Gatos, but some were from communities in the area immediately adjacent to Los Gatos. We hosted several sessions actually in the Toll House conference rooms, and they were basically all day sessions where we inquired about all kinds of
preferences to guide our programming for our rebuild
project.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What were the dates of
those? Just broadly, like how long ago?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: That was in October 2018.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, October 2018.

CHAIR JANOFF: Just a follow up question on the
community outreach. Since the story poles have gone up
there’s been a lot of community input regarding the visible

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
height, particularly those seen from the downtown area. Can you comment on whether you’ve had any communication with the community at large regarding the impact of the story poles post-story pole installation?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: We’ve had meetings with our
neighbors post-story pole installation. In fact, our last open house meeting was Monday. We haven’t had meetings with the broader community. I’m not sure how we would do that.

But yes, we’ve met with our neighbors post-installation of the story poles.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you. Just going
back to your original presentation, you mentioned that you believed that this proposed Planned Development would be a resource for seniors in Los Gatos. That’s a pretty broad statement that led me to wonder whether any portion of this community would be open to seniors who are not residents, and I don’t mean guests, but residents of Los Gatos?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: Hopefully I’m tracking the
question. We will in no way, shape, or form discriminate on who moves into the community based on where they’re moving from, but it is our experience that most people that move into these types of communities are moving from the area, so we do expect a significant majority of the residents to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
have a prior residence in the Town of Los Gatos. Did I
answer your question?
CHAIR JANOFF: Not precisely. You said that this
would be a resource to seniors in Los Gatos. If I’m not putting words in your mouth, what you’re really saying is that this is a place where residents of Los Gatos can find senior housing, but you’re not saying that it’s broadly a community area that other seniors who are residents of town and not residents of the community would be able to come and enjoy the park-like setting or any amenities that you might have.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask Chris Ichien,
he’s an executive with Covia, to elaborate on that
question.

CHRIS ICHIEN: My name is Chris Ichien and I was
executive director there for five years before we closed down in 2019, and currently with Covia in the operations side.

The questions regarding is our community a place
where the public can come and gather, the answer to that would probably be no, since they’re private property. As you can probably imagine, similar to the Terraces of Los Gatos, lots of neighbors and families and friends and
children go to those communities, but they’re usually

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
invited guests. Since this is a private residence of our guests, which it would be and historically has been, it wouldn’t be open to the public to come and go as they
please. I hope that answers your question.

CHAIR JANOFF: It does, thank you. Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I did have a follow up
question to that. I was wondering if Covia had any data from some of their other sites about the percentage of
residents that move into the community, about like how far they lived before, if they have any data about like have they moved in from the same zip code, what percent comes from farther away zip codes, etc.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask Mary Mullin to
respond to this question. She’s an executive at Covia.

MARY McMULLIN: My name is Mary McMullin; I’m
Chief Advancement Officer with Covia.

Our market research has showed that typically in
excess of 60% of the residents are local within a five to ten mile radius, and it’s usually more on the five-mile radius side. The additional residents of the community, 30- 40%, come primarily for a relationship with someone local.

In other words, parents of local residents, people who
lived prior in Los Gatos who are returning in retirement,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
or people who view this as a destination because they have a tie to the area. Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for that. One last
question before we go to Commissioner Raspe.

In the public outreach recently, since the story
poles have gone up, do you hear any feedback from anyone within the immediate neighborhood? Of course they’re
concerned about the height and its impact on their
property. Have they also indicated the concern about height as it appears from the story poles or from your renderings from downtown? Have you addressed the height concerns of the downtown views?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: Yes. I will relay that some of
the comments have related not only to personal views, but also to views from other parts of town. Again, we feel like we’ve done a lot of work in balancing where that massing goes, and we understand that there are some impacts from some perspectives of the massing. But the answer is yes we have gotten such comments.

CHAIR JANOFF: But in your work in addressing
those comments, the consideration of reducing the overall height of your buildings has not been an alternative that you’ve chosen?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
FRANK ROCKWOOD: That is correct. We have not
explored those alternatives at this time.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. I was hoping the
Applicant could address briefly the traffic issues that we would expect from the new project, how it would vary from its predecessor, including the changes in the ingress and egress to the project, and also its impacts on fire life safety as well.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask Mark Falgout to
take point on this. Mark, just a heads up, if you want, slides #50 and #51 may help provide backup on the traffic analysis.

MARK FALGOUT: Okay, if you’d like to display
those slides, that would be great, but essentially starting from an access standpoint for fire safety.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: That’s actually on #24. If you
go to slide #24, that’s the best slide to speak off of
fire.

MARK FALGOUT: Here’s the whole circulation. As I
believe everybody probably knows, the Farwell Lane does currently connect from Wood Road to Broadway as a private road, and then at the rear of the existing site there’s a dead-end road with a turnaround at the end of it, so from a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
fire access standpoint we are looping the circulation so that Fire can circulate throughout the site, and we are going to allow emergency vehicle access from Broadway for fire and other emergency vehicles, but not regular day-today operations. In-and-outs is depicted by the blue line for where folks will come in off of Wood Road, pull into the valet, and the valet will go and park their car in the underground garage. So, the main change in circulation is simply that the site will not use Farwell Lane for
vehicular access; typically it’s just going to be emergency vehicles.

Now, we are open to should there be some reason
that the neighbors up the hill would need to use Farwell to get out in an emergency situation, that would be available for neighbors up the hill.

This looping action on the access road came out
of a lot of coordination with the Fire Department, so we’re not only looping the road, we’re also widening the road to at least 20 feet, and it’s 26 feet in many cases so that they have room to set up an aerial apparatus so that they can access the roofs to serve the site.

From a traffic numbers standpoint, we did take
some traffic counts in 2018, and when compared to the
existing site the peak daily trips will go up minimally,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
ten trips per day, which is a very small amount. But the peak hour trips will actually decrease, and the reason for that is they’re just a slightly different use from the ITE Institute of Traffic Engineer’s handbook for determining trip counts, and so the peak hour will go down because the peak times for those daily trips does adjust.

So, from a traffic standpoint the peak hour trips
will actually be decreased, and I don’t have the numbers directly in front of me, but we’re talking about
approximately less than 30 trips per peak hour, which means that’s a trip every 30 seconds, so we’re not talking about a very steady flow of traffic coming out of these things during the peak hours.

Hopefully I answered your question, but if I
missed something please, let me know and I’ll try to speak to it.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Just one follow up. It
sounds like the traffic patterns, or at least volumes,
won’t shift dramatically, but does the fact that you’re using Wood Road exclusively mean there’s going to be more traffic on Wood as opposed to what there was on Wood
previously?
MARK FALGOUT: We did not study, we didn’t take
volumes of vehicles that are coming out, but that was the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
point where at peak hour utilizing Wood only would be
putting a car on Wood every 30 seconds, so there’s plenty of space between cars and it wouldn’t become a backup.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you very much.

CHAIR JANOFF: Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I had a follow up question.

It’s not a question about traffic; this is more about the construction phase. I realize that’s a time-limited thing, it’s not an ongoing thing, and it’s not something you’d typically worry about over the long term, but since under this proposal there would be 140,000—actually more coming out than that even—how long and how many truck loads would that be during the construction phase?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I do not know the estimated
number of truck offhand. Mark, I don't know if you do.

MARK FALGOUT: I don’t have the estimate offhand,
but I will say that the route would be from Wood Road
directly to Highway 17, even if that meant that the trucks would have to drive the wrong way on 17 and turn around in order to get to their destinations, so that we would avoid and minimize our impact on any city streets.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s good to know. I
thought of it because we had some construction on my own street, and they were putting in subterranean square

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
footage and this was only dozens of cubic yards, and it was probably two weeks of trucks every half hour, all day long, so it’s good to know that they would not be going through our streets.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I have a question and then a
follow up to that. I remember seeing this somewhere, I
think, but I couldn’t find it. How many of the units will be two-bedrooms and how many will be one-bedroom?
FRANK ROCKWELL: Let me pull out this slide deck.

Slide deck #41 will show you a detailed breakout of the unit types that we’re proposing. The breakout is such.

Roughly two-thirds are two-bedrooms and one-third onebedrooms. No studios. That’s in alignment with the focus group sessions that we had. It’s also in alignment with our experience. We actually had not that many two-bedroom units in the existing facility and always had a long, long
waiting list, and we’d actually have studio units that
would go vacant for years.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Can you try to shed some
light on why that is? Because it was my gut reaction that seniors are empty-nesters, they usually don’t have
roommates, they’re retired and wouldn’t theoretically need

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
a second office or anything, and so do you know why that is?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask Mary McMullin
to take point on that question.

MARY McMULLIN: As people age, the idea that they
want to downsize radically is actually proving false with each successive generation, so prior years when we would develop communities they would be studios or small onebedroom apartments. In reality, people as they retire and downsize today feel a two-bedroom apartment is a major
downsizing. They still want to be able to have room for family to visit. They want to be able to have an office.

They want to be able to have spare space that is not
immediately lived in all the time. Or they want to be able to construct a home to allow for leisure space, workspace, workout space, you name it, so the two-bedroom apartment has really become very standard in housing as people age, because that is really how they choose to live.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: And a follow up question to that,
if I might. Two-bedrooms might be the standard, but 2,200 square foot, I guess that’s your penthouse. If you go back to the other slide you can see the square footage. The

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
square footage seems quite generous in terms of overall space.

MARY McMULLIN: Yes, again, it is response to
market demands. As people downsize out of a single-family house, our apartments offer anywhere from 40-80% of the space they experienced in a house prior to this. What they experience in the market as well as the focus groups and the market research has shown they want to be able to have their furniture, their treasures, their special pieces, with them. They want to be able to live in a way that
allows for entertaining and allows for visits, and so given the size of local homes, given the focus group work, given the market research, the square footage does reflect the desire of the market.

CHAIR JANOFF: And a follow up question. I think
it’s reasonable to say that there are multiple steps in a downsizing process for a senior, and it often comes to the point where they want to downsize further. They may have the two-bedroom now, but they want to go down to a onebedroom or a studio because they no longer have their spouse, or they no longer have possessions, or the ability to do the hobbies that they have. The configuration of your design looks to me as though it has minimal move-down
opportunity for seniors who might be part of the community

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
and want to move into a smaller space and stay within the community of friends and amenities that they’ve been
accustomed to. Can you speak to that?
MARY McMULLIN: We do have the opportunity for
people to move to the one-bedroom or one-bedroom with den apartments on campus. Again, something that we found in our decades of experience is that people do choose to move
down, but the numbers of people who do that is very small as a percentage of the total resident body. The preference is to stay in the apartment of origin, and then if they should choose to seek healthcare we do have the 17 care suites, which are smaller; those are studio-type homes. But we do have one-bedroom and one-bedroom with den homes that people could downside to on campus.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Any other questions for
the Applicant? Commissioner Clark and then Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just want to dig a little
bit deeper on some of your responses about meeting market demands. In terms of it being two bedrooms to meet that and the sizing to meet that, I live in a two-bedroom, pretty big I think, apartment and it’s 900 square feet. So, I
think I’m going to ask, when you talk about it, it feels like you’re speaking to a pretty wealthy and luxury focus

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
sort of group, so what are you talking about when you talk about market desires and general community desires like that?
MARY McMULLIN: I have to say, Commissioner, this
is a fairly affluent opportunity for retirement, so given that, yes, our product size is to meet the needs of people who have owned homes in the Los Gatos area, who have had property, who have raised families in homes, and frankly, as a result of the success in general of the Los Gatos
area, those home values are very strong, and that enables people to trade the equity in their house for lifelong
security through a continuing care Life Plan community. So, yes, frankly, it is geared to a financially successful
market.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I actually have six
questions, and I’m not sure what the order should be,
sequential or intermixed with other comments from the
Commissioners.

The one question I wanted to start with is
related to the Planned Development and height of the
buildings, which is a concern for the community. If I
counted right, on the five-story buildings there are only

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
19 units, which if they were eliminated would reduce the project by as much as perhaps 11%. I thought I saw a
comment about what’s economically feasible for this
project, and so the question is if 11% of the units were eliminated, would the project still be economically viable? FRANK ROCKWOOD: Unfortunately, it’s not kind of
black or white, what works and what doesn’t work. There are a lot of estimates that we make in the course of pursuing these projects, and some of those estimates vary as time goes on in terms of how they actually turn out, so it’s almost more of a probabilistic answer. If we eliminate one unit, two units, however many units, it goes from being viable to not being viable. No, that’s not the way we look at it does start to stress the project and makes it less likely that we’ll be able to get through the feasibility gate and get the financing and move forward. It’s a long way of saying that no, I don’t think reducing the project by a handful of units would necessarily put it in a
completely different category, but it would worsen the
probability to some degree.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Chair Janoff, I don't know
how you want to proceed with my additional questions. I’ll defer to you.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
CHAIR JANOFF: Well, I think the discussion that
we’re having now is both informative to the commission and it’s also informative to the audience who are potential speakers, and so if you believe the questions that you have would further augment that knowledge, that the speakers would have additional information to work from, then I
would say ask the questions. If these are questions that would better be a wrap-up in terms of suggested
alternatives, then I would say let’s hold that until we hear from the public.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: From my perspective
they’ll all important and could relate to community input.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, then proceed.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The draft CEQA findings
identify 205 protected trees and eight large protected
trees that are proposed for removal based on the arborist report. My question is are all those intended to be
addressed by new plantings, or would there be in lieu fees, and if so, can you estimate the percentage of one versus the other?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask David Gates to
take point on this question.

DAVID GATES: Dave Gates, landscape architect on
the project team. We hired an arborist to go out and study

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
the trees surrounding the building, which they did and
there was a minority report from the City arborist in
concert.

It’s an oak woodland basically, which had a lot
of invasive trees and a lot of suspect trees from a fire point of view and structural point of view, so the trees being removed are in most cases structurally damaged and fire suspect trees. There are some trees that will be
removed for construction, so those are also gone.

Our intent, to answer your question, is to put in
a lot of specimen trees, which you’re seeing in the
simulations now as a simulation with existing trees, and we will come back in and mitigate some of those views and we will bring back specimen oaks. In most cases there are
numbers in the tree report of what the mitigation costs would be for those trees. We will probably exceed that by 300-400% coming in with the specimen trees. We aren’t to that level yet, but I would guess we would be substantial in bringing in nice specimen oak trees, particularly the evergreen oaks, which will do a better job in screening.

A quick answer is we will probably exceed by
three to five times the cost of the mitigation price for the trees removed, and we’ll bring in the species in an appropriate way from a fire perspective with defensible

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
space and all the other criteria, which the species that are there now do not service well.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for that
comment. I have a major concern about the parking at the project with active seniors. I expect that the 78 nontandem spaces in the parking structure will be mostly inadequate, and I saw that you had an alternative suggested possibly of having a valet, so that would allow 222 cars to be parked there, which would allow, I calculated, 79% of the residences to be accommodated with at least one car. I wonder if you could comment on whether the suggestion of a valet could be made as, say, part of the condition of the PD, or whether that’s something that you want to keep in a flexible state?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’d like to refer to slides #43
and #44 in responding to this question. The existing
community, and again, similar scale in terms of the number of units that were residents (inaudible) Staff, had onsite 130 parking spaces, and we actually had a valet in the
prior operation. That was insufficient. We actually had an arrangement with the Toll House to rent some of their less than 20 parking spaces there. Then we had Staff. That would actually lose the Town parking at the foot of Wood Road.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
We are looking to substantially increase the
number of parking spaces from what we had previously, and we’re looking to eliminate all the parking that would be kind of outside of the garage. We do think that this meets the requirement, and yes, in terms of valet, again, that’s something that we did previously and that’s something we anticipate doing, and we certainly would not have an issue with that being a requirement imposed on this project.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you very much.

On reflection, I think I’ll continue the questioning after the public input.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Do we have any other
questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just have one last
question. I was wondering, was any outreach done
specifically to potential residents of Los Gatos Meadows? FRANK ROCKWOOD: The short answer is yes. That
focus group that we mentioned, all of the folks that were invited to participate in that process were effectively potential residents. There’s a timing issue, so it will be some time in the best case before we would actually be able to accommodate any of those residents, but they certainly were kind of chosen based on being candidates to move into this community in this location.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, great, and like
theoretically fit the demographic. Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: So, it’s fair to say that it was
as much a focus group as it was a marketing meeting, it sounds like, is that correct?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to let Mary McMullin
take point on that question.

MARY McMULLIN: Hi, it’s Mary again. It is a
marketing opportunity, but first and foremost it’s a survey opportunity to make sure that we’re designing a product that is applicable in the market. There were a number of questions asked that were iterative; so when people
answered we could work off of those responses and take that into consideration with development.

We used a list of people who would financially
qualify. We could obtain a similar list for marketing. We did not retain that list of people specifically from the focus group for future marketing.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: Actually, I’d like to make one
more comment that I think will address this question.

CHAIR JANOFF: I’m sorry, Mr. Rockford, Ms.

McMullin answered my question. If there are no further
questions from Commissioners, I think it’s a good time to move on to opening it for members of the public who would

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
wish to speak. Director Paulson, do we have anyone who
wishes to speak on this matter?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The first speaker will be
Julie.

JULIE: Hello, this is Julie. I am a neighbor of
Wood Road and I have attended almost all of the open houses at the Meadows. I’ve lived on the hill for over 30 years and I love the Meadows as a neighbor.

Very happy that the story poles have gone up so
that the neighbors and myself can see a little bit more of what’s going on. I still support the Meadows project, but I do have some items that I didn’t get in by the timeline this morning for Sean, so that’s why I’m speaking now.

The first item was that once the story poles went
up they did clearly show a bit more bulk than what we were anticipating.

The second item is that we’re very happy to hear
that they are proposing or thinking about solar, though we hope that it doesn’t add much to the height.

Third item is parking. More parking is good for
the workers, but it will add more traffic regardless of what I think any traffic study may have done. Before they closed, the workers that parked offsite walked up the road.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
Fourth item, Wood Road is getting lots of
attention by people on foot and by car, especially now that the flags are up. Many are driving to the top end of Wood Road and are coming back down, turning around in people’s driveways, etc., and really adding to the traffic flow.

This is really giving us a flavor of what’s going to happen once a project takes off.

This also exacerbates the fact that there is only
a sidewalk a few feet up the road. It might be nice to have some sort of sidewalk or street marking where bikes or
people could walk safely when they rebuild and after they have successfully built. I do understand from the open
house that a sidewalk may be out of the question due to tree roots and things of that nature, but I wanted to voice my interest.

Fifth item, this also leads to my consistent
request that the Meadows community have heard me say at almost every open house meeting is the closing off of the Broadway exit to neighbors. I do understand the theory, but in the open houses they said it’s because when people go down to Farwell Lane they don’t want to hit pedestrians on the sidewalk. Well, we don’t even have a sidewalk on Wood Road, and we have to walk in the road when we’re going up and down to our houses as it is today.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
So, the three items that I have to that is that
that current Broadway exit in front of the Meadows before they closed, it saved us during the 1997 fire. My house personally burnt down during that period of time, but
traffic was able to come and go from that.

CHAIR JANOFF: I’m sorry, I need to interrupt
you, but your time has expired. Do Commissioners have any questions? Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I just wanted to ask if you
wouldn’t mind submitting your comments in writing even
though you were able to speak at the meeting tonight,
because it would be good to have that as we move forward in working with this project. Would you be able to do that? JULIE: I believe I did submit them to Sean, but
I missed the deadline at 11:00 o’clock.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, you missed the deadline.

JULIE: I think I got them in at 1:00 o’clock.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you, because
your comments are very helpful, as are all comments from the public. Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, Director Paulson, do we
have anyone else wishing to speak?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The next speaker will be
Mr. Konrad.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
RICHARD KONRAD: I’m the current chair of the
Community Health and Senior Service Commission in Los Gatos and we recently completed a survey of service providers to deliver (inaudible), and in doing so there was a lot of concern among service providers that there are people who want to stay in Los Gatos but can’t afford it, and so I urge you to consider affordability in your actions as you go forward.

Also, I’m a member of the service committee
that’s currently doing an extensive survey of seniors in Los Gatos in January, and that data should be available soon, and it might be of use to everyone on the commission.

That’s all I have to say. Again, good luck and
let’s get affordable housing for seniors.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Mr. Konrad. Any
questions for the speaker? I don’t see any hands raised.

Thank you very much. Director Paulson, do we have any other individuals wishing to speak?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The next speaker will be
Andy.

ANDY GHOFRANI: Hi, this is Andy Ghofrani. I live
at 121 Wood Road on the hill directly behind the proposed development. My property has the largest visual impact by the mass of the proposed construction, and this is per the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
admission of the developer and the last architect that I have discussed.

Per the EIR, as I understand it, 85 foot building
heights are 35 feet more than the 50-foot original
elevation, so this essentially is a 35-foot vertical
reduction in my view of town and the east hills, which is replaced by buildings across my site.

As proposed, the villas farthest from me and
closer to Town are higher then the villas in front of me. I would like to ask the building masses to be distributed more evenly to reduce the visual impact from my site. Since we live on a hill and don’t have a front yard, my front deck acts as my yard, and this has a major effect on my view, as I mentioned. Per my conversation with Mr. Rockwood and Mr. Gates, this proposed change should not be visible from the Town’s point of view, which sits at the lower
angle and won’t have an additional impact to what’s shown in the current plans.

The second comment I have is about the truck
traffic. I am in the construction business myself, so once I heard the 140,000 cubic yards of excavation volume and using ten-wheeler trucks, which carry about ten yards, that will be 14,000 trucks, and if you have the 14,000 trucks in six months you’ll have about 15 trucks an hour going

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
through Wood Road, so you have to deal with that, and I wanted Julie to hear that, too, as a neighbor. We are
neighbors and this is something new to me. Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you very much for your
comments, and for clarifying what 140,000 square foot of dirt removal would entail in terms of truck trips. Any
other comments or questions from Commissioners? I don’t see any hands raised. Director Paulson, is there anyone else wishing to speak at this time?
JOEL PAULSON: I don’t see any other hands
raised. Let’s give it a minute. If anyone else from the public would like to speak on this matter, please raise your hand. I don’t see any other hands raised, Chair.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, then we’ll now close
the public hearing on this item and re-invite the Applicant back for three minutes. Thank you.

FRANK ROCKWELL: I do want to make one point
regarding our community outreach and regarding the
marketing question. If you could go to slide #11.

I’d like to point out that in our Letter of
Justification we have a comprehensive list of all of our communications with neighbors over the last several years.

We have been maintaining a project website since 2018. I encourage everybody and anyone that has any interest in

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
this project to go into this website. There’s the web
address, but if you just Google “Los Gatos Meadows,” this should come up. We post on this website. We have a video summary of our project proposal that really stresses the architecture. We have video on that website that talks
about this self-driving vehicle system, and we update the Frequently Asked Questions on a regular basis, and that includes contact information and links, and links to the Town’s website, etc.

About once a month we do get marketing inquires,
so we have been keeping track of real prospects, of folks that have indicated that they do want to live in this
community and want to be apprised or updated. I just wanted to get that point across.

Just one minor thing, on the sidewalk on Wood
Road I just want to clarify that as part of the draft
conditions we are obligated to install a sidewalk on Wood Road up to the entrance of our property, so I just wanted to clarify that.

That’s it. I’m going to hand it back to you.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you, Mr.

Rockwood. Do Commissioners have any additional questions for the Applicant at this time? Commissioner Barnett.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I had a few additional
points to make, or questions to ask here.

The letter of Mr. Rockwood to Vice Chair Hanssen
on January 26th, on page 13, says, “The Applicant will
either use LEED or GreenPoint rating system,” but later in that letter it indicates that there might be a choice
already of GreenPoint, and I was wondering if you had
agreed that the LEED process is more rigorous than the
GreenPoint?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to let our architect,
(inaudible) Kelly address that question.

MR. KELLY: Can you repeat the question, please?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The question is whether
Covia tends to use the LEED or the GreenPoint rating
system.

MR. KELLY: The LEED rating system is actually
outpaced by your California code, because it’s much more strict than the LEED. We could use LEED; it requires
verification. But because the California code is stricter than LEED, we just usually fall back on the California
code.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, that’s very helpful.

Than one other question. There’s a point in the letter of Mr. Rockwood dated July 9, 2021 regarding the need for a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
ten-foot setback from drainage features during tree
removal, demolition, and construction activities, and the comments stated that additional information would be
provided after consultation with the project team as to whether government agency approvals would be required. I was wondering what the outcome of that was.

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, could I ask you to repeat
the question? It has to do with…
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: A required ten-foot
setback from site drainage features during tree removal, demolition, and construction activities.

MR. KELLY: I think that was kind of a wetland
issue, staying away from a wetland condition, so Mark, I think that would be you.

MARK FALGOUT: This applies at the back of the
site. There is a drainage that runs down the hill that
drains into an existing inlet and it’s then piped off the site, and we’ve pulled back any work at least ten feet away from that in order to meet that requirement.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, so the government
agency of (inaudible) will not be necessary, correct?
MARK FALGOUT: Correct.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for those questions,
Commissioner Barnett. Any other questions for the Applicant at this time? Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I just have a follow up
question about the LEED versus the GreenPoint for our state standards. Are there any plans…
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’ve lost audio contact, so if
you could repeat that.

CHAIR JANOFF: We have lost audio as well.

Commissioner Thomas, if you can hear us, we can’t hear you.

JOEL PAULSON: It appears that she’s frozen.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right. Let’s ask the question
I think Commissioner Thomas was intending to ask, and that is… Well, actually I don’t know what she was going to ask for that matter, so let’s not put words in her mouth, and if she rejoins us then perhaps that’s a question that could be asked of Staff. If there are no other questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I just have a
question regarding the tree removals. I know that there are a variety of reasons for removing all of those different trees, but eight of the trees that you’re planning to
remove are large protected, and that’s definitely not
something that I take lightly. Those trees take 100 years

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
or more to grow, and you can’t plant a 100-year-old tree.

The reasoning I noticed for five of the eight was for
construction, so I wanted to ask what efforts you made to preserve trees? During my site visit I noticed a lot of them were incorporated into the existing facility, and did you try to do that in any way to preserve some trees?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’d like to speak to that, and
then I’ll also have Mark Falgout speak to that.

I just emphasize that one of the reasons we
decided to not expand the development pad was because of its impact on trees. Most of the tree removal, because
we’re keeping the same development pad it turns out—I’ll let Mark speak to it—a lot of the tree removal requirements were really being driven by fire access, so we really have a bad current situation in terms of fire accessibility.

Mark, I’ll let you speak to that.

MARK FALGOUT: Yes, we had to widen the road, but
for instance, at the back of the site we’re using the
uphill edge of the road as our limit, widening it into the site so that we’re not affecting the trees that are up the hill, and we’re not going to grade up the hill for
daylight. We’re going to build walls to really minimize the grading impact, because grading obviously is going to
impact trees.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
A major focus in the site design was how do we
preserve these trees, and quite frankly, we did the same thing on the downhill side where we did have to widen the roads to meet fire access requirements, but we’re using walls in order to minimize the grading down the hill where those two cottages are now so that we can preserve the
trees that are down there instead of impacting them.

So, there was quite a bit of thought that went
into how can we really minimize our footprint, and I think the whole idea that Frank mentioned of trying to design inside the existing footprint, as well as the way that we tried to minimize the grading outside of that footprint, speaks to that. Now, as the design progressed and our
discussions with Fire continued we did have to expand in order to make sure that we got the loop along the north edge that they were going to require.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I think I would have liked
to see some more effort to incorporate those trees that are on the property into the design, but I appreciate you
shedding light on the efforts that you made. Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Any other questions
from Commissioners? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Actually I have one more,
and this will be it. Apparently not required by CEQA, but I

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
am concerned about the safety at the intersection of Wood Road and the off-ramp and on-ramp to Highway 17. I was
wondering if you had considered whether any traffic
mitigation could be offered at that site, such as a
stoplight or a roundabout?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: My quick response is we
absolutely are going to contribute our fair share
contributions to any of those types of improvements. Mark, I don't know if you have anything to add to that.

MARK FALGOUT: No, I don’t think I have anything
to add.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you, that’s
appreciated.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, any other questions
from Commissioners? I don’t see any hands raised, so at this time I will now close the public hearing on this item and ask if any Commissioners have questions of Staff, wish to comment on the application, or introduce a motion for consideration? Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I have a quick question for
Staff and I’m not sure it can answered now or if it takes a little research, and specifically for our Town Attorney.

I know that Applicant’s counsel has opined that
the affordable housing laws are inapplicable to this

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
particular development, but before we proceed with that understanding I’d like get maybe a second opinion from the Town, whether there is a requirement to put affordable
housing in this development. I think it would be an
important thing to know as we proceed.

ROBERT SCHULTZ: And I completely agree with the
statements made by the Applicant, that they are exempt from it.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Okay, thank you, Counsel.

CHAIR JANOFF: Any other comments, questions, or
concerns? Commissioner Tavana, then Vice Chair Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I’ll be brief here. Thank
you, Chair. I do have concerns about this Planned
Development specifically regarding building height and the sheer number of trees being removed. There are only eight large protected trees, but if you go to the tree inventory table there are a host of protected tress. While not all of them are large protected, they are rather large trees, and I just don’t know how that will look in terms of the
viewing for like a hillside perspective.

Secondly, as part of a Planned Development—I’m
going back to the 2020 General Plan—it says, “The PD
Overlay Zone is intended to ensure orderly planning and quality of design that will be in harmony with the existing

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
or potential development of the surrounding neighborhood.” So, in looking at these plans and the story poles, I don’t see how it blends with the entire surrounding neighborhood.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for those
comments. Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I have mixed feelings on
this one. Certainly there is a need for additional senior housing. We all know that there is a long waiting list at the Terraces for certain kinds of units, but on the other hand we have also seen quite a number of people come into Town and are stating to want to build senior facilities. I guess where I come out on this is I was on the Planned
Development Study Committee when we were looking at the Planned Development Ordinance, and the Applicant did
mention about providing a public benefit, so the main
public benefit I see out of this is for the most affluent people in Los Gatos in the big houses to have something that they can move down to that’s easier to step down to than something that’s smaller.

But who we’re not providing a public benefit for
is the full range of people that live in Los Gatos that might be seniors that may or may not be able to afford
those penthouse units, so it troubles me to think that’s a pretty narrow slice of the market. I think we all know that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
Los Gatos is wealthy, but we’re trying to provide housing for a wide range of people, and as Chair of the Housing Element Advisory Board and the General Plan Committee
before that, it troubles me to see that this is such a
narrow slice.

When I add that onto the fact that this is being
built in essentially the hillsides—and even though the
Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines don’t apply to this project, it was mentioned by the CDAC back when they first saw it that we have to consider it at least in the spirit of Hillside Design Guidelines—I have to ask myself would we put the tallest building in Los Gatos in our
hillsides? The answer to me says no, and so if I were to get comfortable with this proposal it would have to be less height.

Then I also wanted to comment on the cut and
fill. This is troubling, because it is desirable from a LEED perspective to do underground parking, but this is also in the hillside, so I wonder is this for the good of Los Gatos to dig into our hillsides and remove 140,000
cubic yards of soil just to get an underground parking
garage? I’m not sure that the benefit outweighs the cost of it.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
For me to get comfortable with recommending
approval of this there would have to be some changes,
definitely in reducing the height. I’m not as sure if I would stand firm on the underground parking, because I do see a benefit and a cost, but it might be nice to know what alternatives there are to architecting it in that way.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for those comments.

Commissioner Clark
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I also have a
number of concerns.

First would be affordable housing and the lack of
willingness to try to incorporate some form of that was concerning to me, because the reality is even if you’re not required to and even if you might not profit from it, you can choose to incorporate some affordable units just so that more of the community can be welcomed and more of the needs can be met.

I also wanted to point out that 120 Staff would
be hired, and we’re already seeing people commuting from like Stockton in order to work here because of the housing shortage, and so I think it could be kind of hurting that in multiple ways.

My next concern is definitely the height. I think
it’s very interesting that there are going to be less units

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
but the buildings are going to be two stories taller, and it seems to me because height is such a concern the units could be smaller, and I also think that there could be less two-bedroom units in order to try to accommodate this,
especially because it is in the hillsides and would be the tallest building in town.

Next is benefitting of the community at large. I
agree that it doesn’t really feel like it does this,
because first, who knows how many Los Gatos residents can afford to live here or would get admitted in order to live here, and then the fact that the general public isn’t
really allowed to utilize this area, it felt to me like it is a very thin slice of the population that it would be benefitting, and it’s something that a lot of us will see every single day.

Last is like I pointed out earlier, the tree
removals. It feels like there could be more effort to
preserve some of the trees and to incorporate them into the design and that sort of thing, and in general fit is a
concerning number to remove.

Overall it feels like more luxury housing isn’t
exactly what we need, and to me that is concerning.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for those comments,
Commissioner Clark. Any other comments? Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I have a
lot of concerns too with this project. At the end of the day I know that this is just moving a recommendation
essentially to the Town Council, but we’re still required to make some findings and I just don’t think this complies with the General Plan in any way, shape, or form. Maybe not in any way, shape, or form is an extreme way to say it, but as a person who just was on the General Plan Committee and now on the Housing Element, there are fewer units, it’s not the type of housing that we’re looking to develop in Los Gatos and that we know we need, and the tree removal. Those are just three of many things that I think that do not, in my mind, comply with the General Plan.

I really tried to come into this with an open
mind and hope that I was missing something, but the
information that I’ve received tonight is not making me feel any better about it complying with the General Plan. I am curious to hear about what other Commissioners think about that, but as far as the information I have in front of me and what I’ve heard tonight, I do not feel
comfortable saying that this aligns with our General Plan.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for those comments,
Commissioner Thomas. Any other thoughts? Commissioner
Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I think with respect to
our obligation in this matter we have to distinguish the Planned Development Application and the CEQA finding, as Commissioner Raspe pointed out in his initial remarks. From the CEQA standpoint I think that the findings can be made.

From the Planned Development standpoint I share the concern about the height of the building.

With respect to the trees, although mitigation
has been proposed I think that the concern about the
traffic coming off of Wood Road is a material factor and should be considered by the Council to see if something could be done on that front, whether it needs to be in
conjunction with the Town or otherwise.

Those are my general concerns and comments.

CHAIR JANOFF: Before calling on Vice Chair
Hanssen again, I share many of the same comments as
Commissioners have weighed in with tonight.

I do believe that there is a need for senior
housing. I think that we can agree that there’s a need for senior housing. The Meadows was sorely missed when it
closed and I think we’re all welcoming something coming

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
back into that facility, but as has been said, it feels very much like luxury, exclusive housing. I understand that it’s a senior model and it does provide care, but it
provides that at high expense to the residents of Los
Gatos.

When we saw the renderings that the Applicant
provided of the views from the Town where we see the
buildings up above the tree line, it’s an alarming thing to see those heights provided in penthouse format. We’re
losing the view of our hillside from the broader public and we’re giving it to a small number of potential senior
residents, and that seems like an unfair trade to me in terms of benefit to the Town of Los Gatos, so I do have a real concern about the height.

If the Applicant were to say to the Commission
tonight that it would be willing to consider reduced
heights so we don’t see the buildings above the trees, and however they made that happen, to pencil out with fewer units or units of smaller size, I agree that so many twobedrooms seem unnecessary. You could probably take those floors that I’m recommending be taken away and redistribute those into some smaller units. Not all of them; you could still maintain your sense of luxury. So, that’s a concern.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
The business model of a senior community is quite
different. I’ve looked into this extensively for my own mother in this community at large; I’m very familiar with the different models and how they work. How below market or reduced cost housing would be provided is a great question.

I don’t know it would be done, but I’m sure it could be, and that would be a further benefit to the community too.

I think from my standpoint the proposal before us
has gone a little bit too far in terms of height and luxury for a few people without the benefit to the rest of the Town. I would not be inclined to support it moving forward to the Town, but I would be inclined if the Applicant were interested in scheduling a continuation so that the
concerns of the Planning Commission that have been heard tonight can be reconsidered in a revised plan. Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m glad you made all your
comments before me. But mine was more of a process question related to what Commissioner Barnett said, so I wanted to ask our Town Attorney.

We’ve actually had this scenario in the past
where the Commission was having issues with the project, but then the EIR is this kind of a different matter. It’s sort of its own animal, and if the proper mitigation

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
measures are proposed, if it’s not necessarily related to the provability of the project, and if it were the will of the Commission to not move forward with a recommendation, is there any point in recommending approval of the EIR; I’m asking our Town Attorney that.

ROBERT SCHULTZ: When you’ve completed with your
deliberations, yes, you certainly could make the
recommendation to Council that the CEQA document is
adequate and then from there move onto your second, which would be a recommendation now that it doesn’t meet the
Planned Development requirements, and set forth those
reasons why.

The other question you can ask, you can open the
public comment for the limited issue of whether the
Applicant would even consider a continuance to try to
revise his application to see if he can meet the statements made by the Planning Commission; so that’s the other issue.

Instead of completing tonight you could ask the Applicant if he’s willing to consider making changes to the project and bringing it back, but if not and the Applicant doesn’t want to do that, or the Planning Commission doesn’t want a continuance, then it certainly could make a motion with regard to the CEQA document and then separate regarding (inaudible) the project.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Follow up question. I would assume
that any changes to the proposal would not materially
affect the CEQA document, and therefore approving it would not be a problem?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: You’re only doing a
recommendation on the CEQA document. I would imagine that it would not, but we’d have to just see where that would go to if the application were changed. I envision maybe they would do something with the height requirement, but that might do something with more grading; I’m just giving an example. You might have to then reopen CEQA if there were some new environmental issues. I just don’t know at this point in time, we’d have to wait and see how that would develop.

CHAIR JANOFF: From my standpoint it seems
prudent that we wouldn’t recommend approval of the EIR in advance of a Planned Development that we could get our
approval behind, because we really wouldn’t know. If you think about it in that way, if something did dramatically change, then we would have recommended something that
wouldn’t be appropriate.

ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
CHAIR JANOFF: So, if it is the will of the
Commission to reopen the public hearing to ask the
Applicant if they would be willing to undertake a
continuation in order to incorporate some of the changes that the Planning Commission has expressed concern about, I’d like to see a show of hands physical. Okay, it looks like that’s unanimous, so at this time, Director Paulson, if you would invite the Applicant back for that question, I would appreciate it.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Mr. Rockwood, you can
unmute yourself and answer this specific question as to whether or not you’re amenable to a continuance.

FRANK ROCKWOOD: Joel, I’d like to have Laura
Worthington-Forbes take point on this question. Would that be okay?
CHAIR JANOFF: That would be fine.

JOEL PAULSON: That is. One second. Ms.

Worthington-Forbes, you’re unmuted.

LAURA WORTHINGTON-FORBES: I think at this point
it would be very helpful if you could clarify what your recommendations are, and then our preference would be to provide us the ability to move forward. If you can make those recommendations we would take those into

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
consideration in tandem with moving towards a Council
hearing.

CHAIR JANOFF: Am I hearing you correctly in that
you would not be willing to take a continuance to respond back to the Planning Commission?
LAURA WORTHINGTON-FORBES: That’s correct. Our
preference would be to understand your recommendations and then consider those recommendations in tandem with the
ability to move forward to Council and address them at that time.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Now we’ll close the
public portion of the meeting. I have a question for Staff.

So, this is a no, and if we proceed with what
sounds like a recommendation to deny the Planned
Development as proposed, then we would articulate why we’re saying no. It goes to the Town Council. If in between our recommendation of denial and the meeting before the Town Council the project materially changes, wouldn’t it need to come back to the Planning Commission anyway? We’ve had this conversation before about the reasons why it would or
wouldn’t come back to the Planning Commission. It’s usually on the matter of an appeal, so I’m asking procedurally how would that work?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
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
ROBERT SCHULTZ: You’re absolutely right. Our
appeal procedures do specifically state that if new
information is provided that wasn’t available to the
Planning Commission, then Council has the ability to send it back to Planning Commission; you’ve seen that happen on many occasions. This is just a recommendation, so it would be completely at the discretion of the Council. If in fact they felt like the Planning Commission needs to weigh in on the issues of a changed project, they certainly could send it back to Planning Commission, but it’s not as absolute as the ordinance as it’s relating to appeals.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for the
clarification. Just want to check in with members of the Commission. Is everyone clear on where we stand at this point? Commissioner Raspe, do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Just one quick question. I
understand how we are standing with respect to the PD. What about with respect to the EIR?
CHAIR JANOFF: Good next question. If we make a
recommendation to deny the PD we can also make a
recommendation to deny the EIR because we don’t know yet what the final form of the PD might be, or we could also say we recommend approval of the EIR if the Planned
Development that Town Council might approve will not

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
69 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
materially impact the EIR. I’m not sure which is the best way to proceed.

JOEL PAULSON: I don't know if there’s a best
way. I’ll jump in, and then if the Town Attorney has
anything additional. There are multiple options. You just laid out two of them.

Also, you can have the conversation amongst
yourselves. You’ve had this come up before where an
Applicant has stated they’re not interested in a
continuance. Obviously, it’s ultimately up to the Planning Commission, so you really have a lot of different options to move forward.

CHAIR JANOFF: Discussion for the Commission, how
people would like to proceed. Commissioner Clark, then
Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just wanted to clarify,
when we asked about their willingness to return I felt like they used the word “preference” a lot but never really said whether they would actually be willing. I wanted to point that out, because I think that there is a chance that maybe they would prefer that over outright denial.

CHAIR JANOFF: I think I asked the question, for
clarification, but does the Commission agree that it was

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
70 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
unclear? Should we reopen to make that very specific
question? Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I didn’t think it was
unclear. I think they want to take their chances with the Town Council, and that they wanted to have further
direction from us, and it might have been that they wanted to make changes to the proposal between that and now and that was why you asked your question. Since this isn’t
truly an appeal it wouldn’t apply and the Council could do whatever they wanted. But I don’t think that they have an interest in coming back to the Planning Commission; that was my interpretation.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Raspe, did you have a
question or comment?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Two comments. First of all,
I agree with Vice Chair Hanssen’s interpretation of what just transpired. Additionally, with respect to the EIR my thinking would be that we would do a recommendation to not approve it until we have a more definitive PD in hand. I wouldn’t want to create a living document, for instance, that exists out there separate from the PD. Just my
thought.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Thomas.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
71 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 THOMAS: I agree. I think within our
recommendation to Town Council we can say we don’t see any material issues with the Environmental Impact Report,
right? Can we discuss that for a moment, because I’m a
little bit unclear where other Commissioners stand on that specifically?
CHAIR JANOFF: Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I meant to comment on that.

I agree 100% with Commissioner Raspe. While if the project were not to change at all from where it stands today,
certainly I have no issues with the Environmental Impact Report, which was done based on the project as it stands today as well as the alternatives that are always proposed, including no project or a lesser project and so on, but it makes no sense at all to me with the number of changes that I’m hearing from the fellow Commissioners that would be desired to make this acceptable for approval.

It wouldn’t make any sense to say that the EIR
was certifiable because we would expect the project to
change pretty substantially, and even though the changes we would be asking would probably be less impact than in the environmental report, it wouldn’t be the same, so to me it doesn’t make sense to recommend approval of one and not the other.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
72 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 JANOFF: All right, thank you for that. It
sounds like we have a motion at hand. Are we making a
motion, Director Paulson?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, you’ll need to make a motion.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right. Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m not sure I heard Mr.

Paulson right, but would it be in the power of the Planning Commission to continue this matter without agreement by the Applicant?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s always at the discretion of
the Planning Commission.

CHAIR JANOFF: The only problem I see with that
is that we could continue it and they come back with the proposal unchanged and we’ve just essentially wasted a lot of time without moving it along. I heard in so many words, as Vice Chair Hanssen stated, that they’re willing to take their changes with Town Council making a determination
that’s different from the direction that we will be
recommending, so I personally would not be in favor of the Planning Commission making a unilateral decision to
continue this, but I am open to other Commissioners. If that’s the will of the Commission we could certainly do that. I’m seeing a shaking head. I don’t see any traction

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
73 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
behind that approach, so I’m still looking for a motion.

Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I will make an attempt at
it. I’m going to make a motion to recommend denial of the Planned Development Ordinance as it’s defined in our Staff Report for the reasons that were given, not the least of which would be the height, the trees, the lack of diversity in the housing types, too much concentration in luxury, and there were some other issues mentioned by the
Commissioners. So, while project certainly has some merit, it would need to be revised to be something that we would recommend approval on.

In addition to that, because we don’t find that
the Planned Development Ordinance as proposed can be
recommended for approval, we also recommend not certifying the Final EIR because it is not based on the project that we would like to see that we think is approvable. Is there anything else I need to include, Staff?
JOEL PAULSON: No, I think you’ve incorporated
the findings for denial. If you or any other Commissioners or the seconder want to provide any additional comments related to why you’re finding the PD doesn’t meet those findings, that would also be helpful for the Council as they consider it.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
74 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 JANOFF: And the Council does receive
copies of our meetings, so the details of our discussion will be available to them, but I think just a quick
articulation as Vice Chair Hanssen has given is good just in case we don’t get a thorough read. Is there anything else that Commissioners would like to add to that, or do we have a second to the motion? Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would ask the Maker of
the Motion that we could add in the reduced number of units also, but the increase in really like the height of the buildings too, so just as a note that it seems problematic and doesn’t align with the General Plan.

CHAIR JANOFF: I think what I heard you say was
backward from what you intended. We have a concern with the height, and if that means reducing the number of units, then reduce the number of units or just the size?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, they are reducing the
number of units from what was previously there, but they’re making it taller.

CHAIR JANOFF: Oh, I see. Right.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just the ratio of number of
units to the overall height and size of the buildings, and the property does not seem to be in compliance with what our town needs right now.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
75 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 JANOFF: All right.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: And I would even add on what
Commissioner Thomas said earlier, that the things that I was citing are things that are founded in the General Plan as well as, even though it isn’t strictly applicable, the spirit of it is in the Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. And then I second the
motion.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that. Do
we have any discussion of the motion or comments?
Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I would recommend
underlining to the Council where there has been a point of agreement or two by the Applicant concerning first the
valet parking and… Let’s see, there was another point of agreement.

CHAIR JANOFF: I think sidewalks on Broadway.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Sidewalks on Broadway was
another one. There’s still another one.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: The traffic abatement on
Wood.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, the contribution to
the traffic control on Wood Road and Highway 17.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
76 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 JANOFF: Is the Maker of the Motion
comfortable with adding those?
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: And the seconder?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right. Any other changes or
comments on the motion on the table? Seeing no hands
raised, then I’ll call the question. By roll call, please vote yes, no, or abstain. Vice Chair Hanssen.

VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: And I vote yes as well, so the
motion carries unanimously.

36 Southwood Drive | Orinda, California | 94563
www.RockwoodPacific.com
March 17, 2022
Sean Mullin
Senior Planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.

Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
RE: Rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows
Letter of Response to Planning Commission Comments
Dear Sean:

Thank you for your continued assistance in helping navigate the proposed rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows, a Covia non-profit community, through the Town’s planning and entitlement process.

As you know, based on our meetings with Town Staff and further consideration, we have requested the opportunity to go back to Planning Commission to address the comments made during the January 12th Planning Commission hearing. Given the action taken by Planning Commission, we understand we must proceed to Town Council at this time.

Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to provide you and the Town Council a detailed response to the comments and concerns expressed by the Town Planning Commissioners and members of the public during the January Public Hearing.

The Meadows has fulfilled the need for senior housing in Los Gatos for more than 50 years.

Our proposal offers an opportunity to rebuild a beautiful, treasured Los Gatos asset in a manner that enhances public safety and respects the character of this unique site. We are eager to extend the historic legacy of much-needed residences and compassionate, highquality healthcare services to the broader Los Gatos senior community.

Our project application together with the corresponding Letter of Justification provide comprehensive details related to all aspects of our rebuild proposal, including our extensive and ongoing community outreach and engagement with our neighbors, stakeholders and seniors. Our project incorporates the comments received during review by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC), and the Technical Project Review meetings held with Town Staff and fully complies with the Town’s 2020 General Plan and the direction proposed in the 2040 General Plan Update. Our full proposal and letter of justification are available on the Town’s website (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W).

ATTACHMENT 9

Page | 2
Additional details regarding our proposal are addressed in regularly updated responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) and informational videos on Covia’s project website (https://covia.org/los-gatos-meadows/).

The rebuild proposal as submitted represents the culmination of more than three years of community outreach and scores of meetings with stakeholders. It was calibrated finely to meet the needs of the neighbors and of the community. Our request for approval of a Planned Development Overlay permit remains unchanged, as we are confident that our project as submitted would make a significant and beneficial contribution to Los Gatos.

We are pleased to present Town Staff and Town Council with specific options for consideration to address the Planning Commissioners’ feedback while respecting the time and effort of our stakeholders to shape our design. The result is a proposal that preserves the integrity of the Project Application while staying strictly within the parameters of the Town’s Environmental Impact Report.

We are also taking this opportunity to better explain some of our key priorities and/or critical project elements that we may not have articulated well during the Planning Commission public hearing. Some of these were most notably raised by the Planning Commissioners and quite validly warrant better explanation.

The Tradeoff Between Height/Massing versus Housing
The primary theme of comments made by the Planning Commission and the public is related to the height/massing of our proposed project as well as issues related to the project’s contribution to provide appropriate housing. These issues are directly linked. The smaller we make our project; the fewer units we can provide. As the project gets smaller, several fixed upfront and on-going costs are allocated over fewer units, increasing the minimum pricing to maintain feasibility. While Covia is a non-profit organization, it is not immune from these fundamental economic forces.

With this understanding in mind, coupled with our sensitivity to the concerns raised during the Planning Commission hearing, we are offering the following options for the Town Council’s consideration that carefully balances these tradeoffs. We plan to review these options in a town hall with our neighbors prior to presentation of the project to the Council.

Option A: Select Reduction in Height and Massing
We believe that our proposal “as-is” achieves an appropriate balance between the numerous applicable factors involved.

However, herein we summarize an option (Option A) that reduces the scale of the proposed project by eliminating a floor in Villa C (loss of six units) and stepping back Villa A (loss of two units). This change would reduce visual impacts from public and private views.

Appendix A includes more details related to this option.

Page | 3
We are planning to add additional flags in a contrasting color to demarcate the revised massing and height of Option A using the existing Story Poles. The new flags will be in place prior to the Town Council meeting. Besides the additional flags, a new visualization exhibit, while not included herein, will be prepared and available at the Town Council meeting.

It’s worth noting that the Town’s Consulting Architect Report (May 8, 2020) and the Draft EIR concluded, respectively, that no changes to the proposed building design are warranted and that the “impacts to the visual character of the project site associated with the proposed project would be less than significant” (Impact 5-3).

Option B: Change in Unit Mix
Several comments made during the Planning Commission meeting questioned the “luxury” positioning of the proposed project. To be clear, it is our objective to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows as a beautiful community. The proposed use and proposed target positioning of the current application does not differ from our original entitlement application secured in the late 1960s. What has changed are the expectations for senior living that have evolved markedly over the past half-century. The preferences and expectations of people born in the later part of the 1800s (the intended age cohort of the original design) differ greatly from those of the baby-boomer generation.

The unit sizes and unit mix of the proposed project is based on focus group studies with local residents and decades of Covia’s experience providing similar services to thousands of older adults. A project positioning that is not in alignment with the market is not feasible.

We believe our proposal “as-is” aligns well with current local and market preferences.

However, herein we summarize an option (Option B) that makes a modest adjustment to the proposed unit mix by eliminating the five top-story penthouse units entirely, reducing the number of two bedroom/dens by eight units, increasing the number of one bedroom/dens by one unit, and adding 12 additional one-bedroom units. This option recovers the eight units lost in the implementation of Option A, while also achieving a more diverse mix in unit size/mix. Appendix B includes more details related to this option.

Option C: Reduction in Net Off-Haul
Meeting the operational needs for the former Los Gatos Meadows site required the use of numerous surface parking spaces as well as extensive use of off-site public and private parking that compromised fire department access. Resolving this has been a major priority of our planning efforts. In response to CDAC’s recommendation, our rebuild proposal incorporates a substantial increase in the number of below grade parking spaces that would necessitate a substantial volume of soil off-hauls.

We believe our proposal “as-is” balances the trade-off between parking needs and other factors such as volume of soil removed, off-haul impacts, visual impacts, fire access and tree removal impacts.

Page | 4
However, we’ve heard Planning Commission’s concerns. Herein we summarize an option (Option C) that reduces the number of parking spaces provided and the volume of soil removed by approximately 10 percent. Appendix C includes more details related to this option.

Each of these options, independently and collectively, preserve the integrity of our rebuild proposal. Further, they fall within the parameters of the EIR Project Description, corresponding impacts analysis and conclusions, as prepared by the Town’s environmental consultant. Finally, based on review by our civil engineer, we are confident that any one or the combination of Options will result in only minor modifications to the plan sets on file.

Potential Below Market Rate Housing Contribution
We are not proposing to change the existing use. The State of California specifically prohibits the imposition of rent restrictions on this use.

In the spirit of contributing to the Town’s housing goals, subject to certain conditions, we are proposing that 7 units of our proposed rebuild be subject to similar restrictions as those imposed by the Town on the Terraces of Los Gatos. Details regarding this proposal are outlined in Appendix D.

Tree Impacts
The Planning Commission review raised a concern regarding our proposed project’s impact on trees. We believe we may not have sufficiently addressed this in our communications.

Without such explanation and key context, we understand these concerns.

The decision to maintain and, in fact, slightly reduce the development pad was made to prioritize tree preservation and to keep the design consistent with the spirit of the hillside guidelines. We made a judgment call that tree preservation should be a higher priority than height and massing impacts. Accordingly, we elected not to pursue an approach that would have stepped the project up the hill any further, resulting in shorter buildings and a loss of open space and existing trees.

Given this priority, why does our rebuild proposal affect so many trees? In two words: fire access. Most of the trees affected by our project directly relate to fire access improvements including:
• Creating a drive aisle around the entire property
• Widening the access route
• Adding staging areas
• Reducing grade changes in conformance with current standards We have taken extraordinary care to work with the Santa Clara County Fire Department to design a rebuild that respects the retention of existing trees and minimizes the existing wildfire risk.

Page | 5
Any rebuild on the existing development pad would be expected to trigger these requirements and would result in the loss of some trees. In the event that the property is not rebuilt, one possible scenario is that the property would be re-opened with severely compromised fire accessibility with only few improvements to wildfire risk.

Further, the new plantings as described in our rebuild proposal will provide major improvements to mitigating wildfire risk in conformance with current best practices.

Finally, please consider the long-term impact of our proposed project to the ecology of trees on our site. Our proposed project will increase the amount of open space and the number of trees, as demonstrated by Sheets LS-1 through LS-11 of our submittal.

Community Benefit
Our Justification Letter addresses community benefits related to human services, town integration, improved on-site circulation, enhanced fire access, enhanced emergency access, improved vehicle and bicycle safety, reduction of vehicle trips, and energy and healthy environment improvements (see Section V of the Justification Letter).

In addition to these benefits, we are offering to support housing objectives (see “Below Market Rate Housing” section above).

Other Questions
There were questions related to off-haul and construction traffic, PG&E lines, water pressure, pedestrian access along Wood Road, and public access over Farwell Lane. We have updated our FAQ (Appendix E) to address these questions (See Questions 11 through 20). We have been updating periodically this FAQ document. The most current version of the FAQ document is available on the Covia Los Gatos Meadows website (https://covia.org/los-gatos-meadows/).
* * *
Our current project team began our journey to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows four years ago and along the way we have had the opportunity to communicate with numerous neighbors, business leaders, community leaders and stakeholders. This project represents the culmination of their hard work and participation in our community process.

We greatly appreciate the comments provided by members of the public and Planning Commission and appreciate having the opportunity to respond in detail. Given that our request is for a PD Overlay permit, we are optimistic that any design refinements from this point forward can be addressed during the Architectural and Site review process, thereby allowing this process to continue its path forward.

Page | 6
We look forward to continuing to work with you and the Town Council to provide the residents of Los Gatos with a markedly improved, beautiful and safer Los Gatos Meadows.

Respectfully,
___________________________________
Francesco J. Rockwood
Rockwood Pacific Inc. (Applicant)
On behalf of Covia Communities (Owner)
c: Chris Ichien, Vice President of Life Plan Operations, Covia Communities Attachments
Appendix A – Option A
Appendix B – Option B
Appendix C – Option C
Appendix D – Potential Below Market Rate Housing Contribution Appendix E – FAQs as of March 2022

Appendix A – Option A
In response to feedback on views from Main Street and neighboring properties, the design team has reduced building heights in select locations. This option includes removing a full floor from Villa C and further stepping back the upper floors of Villa A as shown in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4. The 5th floor of Villa A in the current proposal (refer to A-105A) was stepped back with a clubhouse and rooftop patio. Figure 7 below shows the reduction of the 4th floor of Villa A (previously the 5th floor) and Figure 8 shows the 5th floor further stepped back. Figures 9 and 10 below show the impact of these reductions in section with Option A in red lines and the current proposal dashed in blue. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the reduction in Villa A, primarily impacting the public view, and Figures 13-14 illustrate the reduction in Villa C, impacting the neighbors’ views.

This will result in a reduction of 8 units, representing 14,612 gross square feet and 12,240 rentable square feet.

We are planning to add additional flags in a contrasting color to demarcate the revised massing and height of Option A using the existing Story Poles. The new flags will be in place prior to the Town Council meeting. Besides the additional flags, a new visualization exhibit, while not included herein, will be prepared and available at the Town Council meeting.

Figure 1: Current
Proposal; unit count
at top floor

Appendix A – Option A
Figure 2: Option A;
unit count at top
floor
Figure 3: Current Proposal; Height comparison from existing

Appendix A – Option A
Figure 4:

Option A;
Height
comparison
from
existing
Table 2: Summary of Proposed Buildings
Building # of
Apartments
Gross Square Feet
(GSF)
Building
Height (ft)2
Building A 46 157,0541 85.5
Building B 20 41,483 70.5
Building C 29 56,891 81.5
Building D 15 31,426 70.5
Building E 18 40,712 82
Building F 17 40,712 82
Building G 14 31,426 70.5
Building H 15 31,112 59
1 Building A GSF includes service spaces on Level G including entry/reception, fitness area, health center and several back of house areas.
2 Finished building height dimensions are to ground level (+488’).

Source: Perkins Eastman, January 2020
Figure 5: Current Proposal; Summary of Proposed Buildings

Appendix A – Option A
Table 2: Summary of Proposed Buildings
Building # of
Apartments
Gross Square Feet
(GSF)
Building
Height (ft)2
Building A 44 152,7951 85.5
Building B 20 41,483 70.5
Building C 23 46,538 70
Building D 15 31,426 70.5
Building E 18 40,712 82
Building F 17 40,712 82
Building G 14 31,426 70.5
Building H 15 31,112 59
1 Building A GSF includes service spaces on Level G including entry/reception, fitness area, health center and several back of house areas.
2 Finished building height dimensions are to ground level (+488’).

Source: Perkins Eastman, January 2020
Figure 6: Option A; Revised Summary of Proposed Buildings Figure 7: Villa A 4th Floor – Option A

Appendix A – Option A
Figure 8: Villa A 5th Floor – Option A
Figure 9: Villa A Section through elevators Figure 10: Villa A Section through lounge

Appendix A – Option A
Figure 11: Current Proposal View; Villa A Figure 12: Option A View; Villa A Figure 13: Current Proposal View; Villa C Figure 14: Option A View; Villa C

Appendix B – Option B
Option B
In order to maintain an overall unit count of 174, the penthouse units on the upper floors of Villa E and F were reduced in size and divided into multiple units, while the stepped penthouses on C, D and G were eliminated and replaced with small units.

Figure 1 below shows the unit count in the current proposal as compared to the revised mix resulting from the reduction of units in Villas A and C and the division of units in Villas B, E, F and H.

Current Proposal Option B
Totals Totals

Avg Area
in SF
Unit
Count
Total SF
of Units
Avg
Area in
SF
Unit
Count
Total SF
of Units
1 Bedroom 1,067 9 1,011 21
1 Bed/Den 1,248 48 1,231 49
2 Bedroom 1,531 66 1,510 66
2 Bed Den 1,693 46 1,703 38
Penthouse 2,267 5
TOTALS 1,493 174 259,744 1,414 174 245,974
Figure 1: Unit Mix Comparison

Appendix C – Option C
Option C
Reductions to the parking garage were studied in order to reduce the hillside excavation and offhaul quantities. Figure 2 shows the lower level garage reduced by the area highlighted in red, reducing parking by 15 spaces in order to eliminate approximately 10,600 CY of off-haul (per Figure 1). Figure 3 shows the ground floor parking garage reduced by the area highlighted in red, reducing parking by 4 spaces in order to eliminate approximately 2,800 CY of off-haul (per Figure 1).

As a result, total parking spaces would decrease from 200 parking spaces to 181 parking spaces.

Standard parking spaces would decrease from 77 standard parking spaces to 62 standard parking spaces. At the previous site, Covia provided valet attendants that were available from 8AM and 5PM and had posted a phone number for valet services requested outside those hours. Covia intends to continue providing a similar valet service.

Figure 1: Off-haul Analysis

Appendix C – Option C
Figure 2: Lower-Level Garage Floor Reduction
Figure 3: Ground Floor Garage Reduction

Appendix D – Potential Below Market Housing Contribution Background: The proposal to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows does not increase the number of units, residents, or on-site staff, and accordingly, the project would not affect local affordable housing conditions. Furthermore, the imposition of rent and income restrictions for the Los Gatos Meadows use category (which is proposed to remain unchanged) is prohibited by state law.

However, in the spirit of expanding community benefits of the proposed project, Covia would be willing to implement a below market rent agreement contingent upon terms generally and similarly imposed on the Terraces of Los Gatos (the “Terraces”) per Town of Los Gatos Resolution 1993-49 (the “1993-49 Resolution”) with the adjustment, exceptions and qualifications outlined herein.

Units: Unlike the “Terraces”, the proposal is a rebuild project and would not increase the number of units, residents, or staff above the current baseline conditions as reflected in our existing entitlement approval granted in 1968. We propose that units subject to this limitation be based on the number of additional units we can accommodate by having Villa buildings up to five stories versus having Villa buildings up to only four stories.

Based on our proposed project and utilizing the 20% ratio specified in the 1993-49 Resolution, this would result in 7 units being subject to the below market rate restrictions.

Proposed Project with Option B Updates
1-BED
1-BED w
DEN 2-BED
2-BED w
DEN TOTAL RATIO BMR Units
Terrace 8 4 10 8 30
2nd Level 4 15 17 10 46
3rd Level 2 14 18 11 45
4th Level 3 11 14 7 35 x 20% 7 units
5th Level 4 5 7 2 18
TOTAL 21 49 66 38 174 7 units
In the above calculation, we are assuming that we would keep similar setbacks, so accordingly, for the purpose of this calculation we utilize the unit counts on the fourth level.

Another way to get to the same result would be to: (i) calculate the total number of units for a hypothetical version of the project limited to four stories, (ii) determine the change in the number of units in comparison to the proposed version, and (iii) apply the 20% ratio to the difference.

By permitting the project to go up to five stories, the project can accommodate an additional 35 units (174 units less 139 units as outlined below). Applying the 20% ratio to this increase (and rounding up) yields 7 units.

Appendix D – Potential Below Market Housing Contribution Hypothetical Project
1-BED
1-BED w
DEN 2-BED
2-BED w

DEN TOTAL
Terrace 8 4 10 8 30
2nd Level 4 15 17 10 46
3rd Level 2 14 18 11 45
4th Level 4 5 7 2 18
TOTAL 18 38 52 31 139
Note that the calculations above assume the adoptions of adjustments contemplated in Option A and Option B as outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B herein respectively. It is worth repeating, the proposed project is a rebuild proposal that is not proposing to increase the number of units.

As with the terms specified in the 1993-49 Resolution, only smaller units (one-bedroom units and one-bedroom with den units) would be subject to the below market rate terms. The rent discount would only apply to the independent residential apartments and would not apply to the supporting care units.

Monthly Rent Discount: The market rate monthly service fee shall be reduced by the percentage specified below to determine the amount of the below market price monthly fee.

One Bedroom 18.2%
One Bedroom with Den 14.7%
These percentages may not be decreased.

Qualifications:

1. No Material Changes: This proposal is contingent on there being no material changes to the proposed project imposed by the Town Council (aside from those offered herein), including a minimum Los Gatos Meadows unit count of 174 units with a minimum average unit size of 1,414 square feet of useable area per unit.

2. Internal Approvals: Imposition of these limitations are subject to appropriate internal Covia approval processes.

Appendix E – March FAQ
Rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows
Frequently Asked Questions
March 2022
Q1: What is the Los Gatos Meadows proposal?
A1: Our proposal to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows provides innovative senior care and housing on a safe and modern campus that ensures the safety and well-being of residents, employees and neighbors. It will include sustainable, accessible and state-ofthe-art features that are aligned with the Town of Los Gatos’ long-term vision. We are committed to working closely with the community and Town leaders to ensure a transparent and thoughtful proposal review process.

Q2: What is the status of the proposal?
A2: Rockwood Pacific Inc. on behalf of Covia, the non-profit owner of Los Gatos Meadows, submitted a formal application for re-development review for 110 Wood Road to the Town of Los Gatos Planning Division on Jan. 22, 2020. The project application and all related documents, including the Draft Environmental Impact Report are available on the Town of Los Gatos website (www.losgatos.com) and at https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W.

Q3: What is the expected timeline for the rebuild proposal? A3: The project is expected to be reviewed by the Town Council in the Spring of 2022.

Preparation of construction documents and permit approvals are likely to take at least another 18 months following the Town’s action on the project. The soonest construction would start is mid-2024 and we anticipate it lasting two and a half years.

Q4: What is happening now to the buildings and grounds? A4: Since the Los Gatos Meadows facility closed Sept. 30, 2019, Covia has provided on-site property management and security, ensuring the campus remains safe from fire, trespassing, vandalism and illegal dumping. In addition, ongoing maintenance has been provided as needed. Covia has erected a perimeter fence around the main campus and has posted no trespassing signs. We do not anticipate demolishing our existing facilities until we have a permit for the rebuild proposal.

Q5: Why did Los Gatos Meadows close?
A5: In early 2019, after completion of a rigorous facilities assessment, Covia concluded that continuing operations of the 48-year-old Los Gatos Meadows facility presented too great a wildfire risk to our residents and employees. We worked closely with all our residents, their families, our employees, neighbors and the Town of Los Gatos to ensure a thoughtful and smooth closing on Sept. 30, 2019.

Appendix E – March FAQ
Q6: Who is managing the proposal?
A6: Covia, the long-standing Los Gatos Meadows non-profit property owner/operator with 50 years’ experience managing senior living communities, is overseeing the proposal. Covia recently affiliated with Front Porch, a non-profit family of senior communities and partnerships. The two organizations are stronger together in an evolving marketplace and have increased their ability to deliver services.

Covia has retained Rockwood Pacific Inc. to provide development management services. Other members of the team include Perkins Eastman (site planning and architecture); Kimley-Horn (planning and civil engineering); and Gates + Associates (landscape architecture).

Q7: What is the visual impact of the project on the surrounding community? A7: Covia has erected story poles on all perimeter buildings to provide the community with the anticipated visual impact of the proposal for Los Gatos Meadows. We have developed numerous visualization exhibits to assist in gauging the impact of our proposed rebuild. The visual impacts have been significantly mitigated.

Q8: Who will own and operate the proposed Los Gatos Meadows? A8: Covia, as part of its recent affiliation with the non-profit Front Porch, intends to continue to operate the proposed community and to retain full control of the property.

Q9: Are there any updates regarding the “Town Integration Plan”? A9: Yes, design and programs for the proposed community may include improved quality-of-life experiences for residents, increased accessibility to Los Gatos businesses, and fewer car trips.

Q10: Is the proposed project expected to affect the Town of Los Gatos’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)?
A10: No. The current and proposed use is as a Continuing Care Retirement Community. The proposal is to amend and replace an existing Planned Development.

These actions are not expected to affect the Town’s RHNA calculations.

Q11: What are the plans for Farwell Lane?
A11: The proposal would minimize on-campus interactions between vehicles and pedestrians. The current plan includes the integration of one or more electric autonomous vehicles (similar in size to a golf cart) to be used along a re-built and widened (with some portions widened from 12’ to 26’) Farwell Lane to enable the safe, convenient and alternative means of transport for residents between Los Gatos Meadows and Los Gatos retail, entertainment and civil services and reduce traffic and parking demand. The autonomous vehicles are not expected to leave the Los Gatos Meadows property.

Appendix E – March FAQ
Neighbors have expressed a concern regarding evacuation alternatives in the event of an emergency. Though it is a private road, Covia intends to improve and operate Farwell Lane in a manner that would permit accessible use of this route by our neighbors in the event of an emergency.

The rebuilt Farwell Lane will also a critical fire access route. The Santa Clara County Fire Department intends to utilize Farwell Lane as the primary access point to the property in the event of a fire.

Q12: What is the expected traffic impact after completion? Q12: Per the traffic analysis provided in the memorandum of Dec.10, 2020 regarding Los Gatos Meadows – Transportation Analysis, the rebuild is expected to result in a reduction in the number of peak hour trips in the mornings and evenings.

The project is expected to result in a modest increase in the number of trips on Wood Road due to the change in the use of Farwell Lane (see question above). The proposed rebuild would result in not more than an additional 30 cars per hour in or out which equates to about one car per every 2 minutes. On Saturdays, the peak hour in-bound is 39 trips.

This still equates to less than one trip per minute which is minimal. It is anticipated that the improvements to the parking conditions at Los Gatos Meadows will reduce the number of trips under prior conditions, where a visitor or staff attempts to find parking, fails and has to park at one of the off-site options.

The site further mitigates its traffic impact by utilizing electric autonomous shuttles to connect residents to downtown without impacting parking demand.

Q13: What is the expected construction traffic impact related to off-haul? Q13: The estimated net off-haul dirt volume is 144,000 cubic yards. A combination of double bottoms, end dumps, and super dump trucks are expected to be utilized for this task. The total number of expected trips is approximately 14,000. At roughly 200 loads per day, the duration of this task is approximately three months. For outbound trips, trucks are expected to turn right onto Santa Cruz Avenue and head south on CA-17 and, as appropriate, turnaround on Bear Creek Road. For inbound trips, trucks are expected to approach the site from the CA-17 exit onto Santa Cruz Ave.

The existing draft Conditions of Approval includes a requirement for Covia to rebuild the segment of Wood Road from Santa Cruz Avenue to the project.

Per the current draft of Conditions of Approval, hauling of soil shall not occur during the morning and evening peak periods (between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 4 p.m. and

Appendix E – March FAQ
6 p.m.) and such hauling shall be subject to a traffic control plan acceptable to the Town.

Q14: Will the project include sidewalk improvements on Wood Road? Q14: Yes. The current draft Conditions of Approval require the installation of a sidewalk connecting the project to the intersection of Wood Road and Santa Cruz Avenue and construction of the necessary retaining wall(s), potential pedestrian crosswalk and associated ADA ramps for connectivity to the existing sidewalk on the south side of Wood Road.

Q15: Will the project affect water pressure?
Q15: No. The project is not expected to affect pressure in the area. As part of the project planning process, San Jose Water Company performed hydraulic analysis and confirmed that water pressure is suitable.

Q16: Will the project result in the undergrounding of PG&E lines? Q16: The proposal does not address under-grounding of power lines. At an appropriate time, the project team intends to inquire with PG&E regarding the undergrounding of power lines and will plan to coordinate with interested neighbors on this matter.

Q17: Will the new roof be white?
Q17: No. Unlike the existing roof color, the new buildings are not expected to have white roofs. However, to address sustainability goals, the selected color is not expected to be dark. Roof color and other design attributes are expected to be addressed in a future phase of the project.

Q18: Will the project include solar panels and what would the panels look like? Q18: The current proposal does not address this level of detail. The use, placement and configuration of solar panels, as applicable, are expected to be addressed in a future phase of the project (during the architectural and site application review process).

Q19: During what hours will construction occur?
A19: Per current Town policy, all construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays.

Q20: What are the current plans related to trails and paths? A20: We are not planning to incorporate trails or walking paths into the project based on feedback from some neighbors.

Appendix E – March FAQ
Q21: How did Los Gatos Meadows engage the community through the design process?
A21: Rockwood Pacific Inc., Covia’s project manager, organized and participated in at least 15 public forums and approximately 75 meetings with community members, local businesses, neighbors, community groups and other stakeholders to gather public input to shape the project designs.

Q22: How will the project respect hillside character?
A22: Although Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines do not apply to this project, Los Gatos Meadows will be built in accordance to the spirit of the guidelines. Los Gatos Meadows steps into the hillside and increases available open space. Architects have selected natural, muted tones to blend in seamlessly with the surrounding environment.

Q23: Will the project meet green building standards?
A23: The project will exceed the California Green Building Standards Code, which is more rigorous than other independent certifications. In response to community feedback, the project will incorporate recycling, ample natural light, energy and water efficiency, and other environmentally sound practices.

Q24: How do I get information regarding pricing, units and services? A24: Information about pricing and services is not expected to be available until 2023.

Please send your name, mailing address and email address to Susan Rockwood ([email protected]) to be added to a list of interested future residents.

Q25: How can I receive updates about the Los Gatos Meadows proposal? Who do I contact if I have questions?
A25: Please visit our website - https://covia.org/los-gatos-meadows/ - to stay informed about the proposal or the Town of Los Gatos Planning Division’s website at https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W. Covia has retained Rockwood Pacific Inc. to assist in the management of the proposal. Please contact Frank Rockwood of Rockwood Pacific Inc. by emailing [email protected] for further details about information sessions and open houses.
###

ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE
FROM R:PD TO R:PD

FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
110 WOOD ROAD (APN 510-47-038)
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I
The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning on property located at 110 Wood Road (APN 510-47-038) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is part of this Ordinance, from R:PD (Residential, Planned Development) to R:PD (Residential, Planned Development). Ordinance number 938, passed and adopted by the Town Council of Los Gatos on March 4, 1968, is hereby rescinded and replaced with this Ordinance.

SECTION II
With respect to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Town Council finds as follows:

A. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed for the proposed development and no significant unmitigated impacts are associated with the application. The Findings of Fact are made, the Final EIR is certified, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is adopted.

SECTION III
The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements:

1. Demolition of all existing buildings on the site;

2. Construction of a new senior living facility as shown on the Official Development Plans (Exhibit B);

3. Removal of 192 trees, including 8 large protected trees;

4. Site improvements requiring a Grading Permit; and

5. Uses permitted are those specified in the R (Residential) zones by Article IV of the Town Code as it exists at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future.

ATTACHMENT 10
Draft Ordinance: subject to
modification by Town Council
based on
deliberations and direction

SECTION IV
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan specifically shows otherwise.

SECTION V
Architecture and Site Approval is required prior to submitting for Building, Tree Removal, and/or Grading Permits. Construction permits shall only be in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130 (PD Ordinance) of the Town Code.

SECTION VI
The attached Exhibit A (Map), and Exhibit B (Official Development Plans), are part of the Official Development Plan. The following performance standards must be complied with before issuance of any grading, or construction permits (mitigation measures are so noted and are flagged with an asterisk):

TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

Planning Division

1. OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS: The Official Development Plans provided are conceptual in nature. Final building footprints, building designs, colors, and materials shall be determined during the Architecture and Site approval process.

2. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.

3. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED: A separate Architecture and Site (A&S) application and approval is required for the project. The Architecture and Site application may be reviewed by the Development Review Committee.

4. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review.

5. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: All recommendations of the 2018 project arborist report and 2020 arborist report update (HortScience Bartlett Consulting) shall be followed

6. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for trees approved

for removal prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits.

7. REPLACEMENT TREES: New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being removed. The number of trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Tree Protection Ordinance.

8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits.

9. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees and shall remain through all phases of construction. Refer to the 2018 project arborist report and 2020 arborist report update (HortScience Bartlett Consulting) requirements.

Fencing shall be six-foot high cyclone attached to two-inch diameter steel posts drive 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans.

10. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.

11. FINAL UTILITY LOCATIONS: The applicant shall submit plans showing the final locations and screening of all exterior utilities, including but not limited to, backflow preventers, Fire Department connections, transformers, utility boxes and utility meters. Utility devices shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for new construction.

12. PLAN INCONSISTENCY: Any inconsistencies between sheets shall be limited to whichever is more restrictive.

13. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.

14. *AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-6-5a: During construction, the project contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions of fugitive dust and engine exhaust DPM, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. These measures shall be included in the project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three (3) times per day and at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent.

Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;
c. Avoid tracking visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with a 6 to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment prior to leaving the site;