Agenda packet — Los Gatos City Council, February 4, 2025 (part 4 of 9)

ITEM NO. 9.

P a g e | 17
The project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. The project would provide state-of-the-art health care services for residents who would have access to health care facilities, open 24/7, to ensure consistent and reliable care. The project would have a dedicated fire access road, located on the western side of the property, improving fire access to the entire site, which would improve safety on-site. Because the project is a rebuild of the prior use, it will also include an updated Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) and evacuation plan to address the new facilities and ensure a safe environment for all residents and staff, commensurate with Covia’s Risk Assessment Policy. In compliance with Covia’s Risk Assessment Policy, these two plans already exist for the prior facility, but would be updated in accordance with the applicable federal, state, and local requirements in effect at the time of building occupancy.

The project would result in the reconfiguration of the existing “exit only” driveway, located on Broadway, and would convert the driveway into a pedestrian and bicycle lane, thereby creating safer conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as serve as the fixed route for an autonomous vehicle connection from the main entrance to the Broadway frontage. This would provide for safer modes of transportation between the project site and downtown Los Gatos. The project would ensure that seniors have convenient access to social and medical services, commercial areas, and transportation by providing on-demand shuttle and/or car service to the residents.

The proposed uses of the project would be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning ordinance. As discussed above, the project is consistent with several of the aspects of the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan (refer to “Letter of Justification Appendix A”). The project is consistent with the Town’s Sustainability element and would implement best practices both in design and operations through the adoption of biophilic design principles and sustainable design measures to best fit into the unique site while minimizing initial and ongoing environmental impacts. In addition to this, the site plan of the project incorporates environmentally appropriate design attributes, utilizing the site’s topography and natural setting to create a synergy between the design and the hillside that does not exist today.

The project would allow seniors in the Town of Los Gatos to age in place with state-of-the-art health and living facilities. In addition, the proposed CCRC would continue to make a significant contribution to the Town, both as a major employer, as well as a vital resource for residents who want to remain a part of the community. We believe that the project will be a tremendous asset to the Town of Los Gatos, extending a historical legacy of quality residence and care to the broader senior community. In consideration of all the points outlined above, we welcome your review and appreciate your timely consideration of our request.

As per Town Planning Division Staff request, we have provided an analysis of how the project meets the findings required to grant a Planned Development Ordinance request as detailed in Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code. Given its length, this analysis is included as Appendix B to this letter.

Page 385 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

P a g e | 18
VII. Justification
For all the many reasons articulated in detail throughout this letter (and appendices hereto), the rebuild project would be both essential and desirable to the Los Gatos community.

The rebuild project furthers the Town’s General Plan by revitalizing the existing site and continuing provision of a healthy, contemporary independent senior living community that connects seniors with existing resources in the community, encourages social interaction, improves mobility, and ensures a safe environment for Los Gatos seniors. The project would result in the construction and/or provision of many service facilities including, but not limited to, a health center, dining venues, fitness services, and supplemental transportation services that would be located throughout the property. These services and amenities would help provide social interaction for the residents. The project would provide a wide variety of senior services and programs, including daily opportunity for health care, physical activity and recreation, and mental stimulation. In addition, the project would provide coordinated health care services, specializing in assisted living care, memory care and respite care, meeting the wide range of needs for seniors as they age.

The feedback on the proposed uses of the project from local prospects and neighbors and local leadership has been very positive. The 174 independent residential apartments would assist in the implementation of the Town’s 2015-2035 Goals for providing housing opportunities, lifestyle living, and assisted living facilities for seniors. The project would provide a mix of different size apartments and varying levels of care and amenities that respond to the needs of the active, aging community found in the Town of Los Gatos. The functional site layout, floor plans, and site architecture have been specifically designed to align with the local market, providing larger apartments and on-site amenities desired by seniors.

We are confident that you will find the proposed uses of the project to be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, the purposes of the zoning ordinance and in concert with the feedback we have received from our extensive outreach to the Community. The project would implement best practices both in design and operations through the adoption of biophilic and sustainable design measures to best fit into the unique environs of the site while reducing environmental impacts. Our rebuild project incorporates environmentally appropriate design attributes, utilizing the site’s topography and natural setting to create a synergy between the design and the hillside that does not exist today and would not exist in the absence of the project.

Page 386 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

P a g e | 19
Finally, the project would allow seniors in the Town of Los Gatos to age in place with stateof-the-art health and living facilities. The rebuild project would continue to make a significant contribution to the Town, both as a major employer, as well as a vital resource for residents who want to remain an integrated and valued part of the community. We believe that the project will be a tremendous and valuable asset to the Town of Los Gatos, extending a historical legacy of quality residence and care to the broader senior community.

Respectfully,
___________________________________
Francesco J. Rockwood
Rockwood Pacific Inc.

Applicant

Page 387 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix A Page 1
Appendix A
Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Related to Project
Housing Element:

HOU-5.3 Work with existing senior lifestyle living and assisted living facilities in Los Gatos and support the development of new senior housing that includes continuum of care facilities within the Town.

Land Use Element:

LU-1.3 To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well-designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments.

LU-1.4 Infill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area.

LU-6.7 Continue to encourage a variety of housing types and sizes that is balanced throughout the Town and within neighborhoods, and that is also compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Community Design Element:

CD-1 Preserve and enhance Los Gatos’ character through exceptional community design.

CD-1.1 Building elements shall be in conformance with those traditionally in the neighborhood.

CD-1.2 New structures, remodels, landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area.

CD-1.3 Buildings, landscapes, and hardscapes shall follow the natural contours of the property.

CD-1.4 Development on all elevations shall be of high equality design and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town’s ambiance. Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods.

CD-2 To limit the intensity of new development to a level that is consistent with surrounding development and with the Town at large.

Page 388 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix A Page 2
CD-3.2 Street and structural lighting shall be required to minimize its visual impacts by preventing glare, limiting the amount of light that falls on neighboring properties, and avoiding light pollution of the night sky.

CD-3.5 All landscaping shall be carefully reviewed to ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing, compatible with its neighborhood and natural environment, and water conserving.

CD-4 To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments.

CD-4.5 New development shall promote visual continuity through tree planting, consistent use of low shrubs and ground cover.

CD-4.7 Landscaping plans should maximize the use of trees for energy efficiency, climate control, screening, shading (especially of parking lots), and aesthetics.

CD-7 To preserve the quality of the private open space throughout Los Gatos.

CD-7.1 Maximize quality usable open space in all new developments.

CD-7.3 All residential developments shall include private open space in proportion to the building size.

CD-15 To preserve the natural topography and ecosystems within the hillside area by regulating grading, landscaping, and lighting.

CD-15.4 Hillside landscaping shall be designed with the following goals in mind: a. Minimizing formal landscaping and hardscape. b. Siting formal landscaping and hardscape close to the house. c. Following the natural topography. d. Preserving native trees, native plant and wildlife habitats, and migration corridors.

CD-16 Promote and protect view sheds and scenic resources.

Human Services Element:

HS-8 To ensure programs and facilities for social interaction for senior citizens.

HS-8.3 Encourage the Los Gatos-Saratoga Recreation District and other service providers to provide a wide variety of senior services and programs, including daily opportunities for seniors to have physical activity, social interaction, and mental stimulation.

HS-8.5 Encourage new development to include intergenerational spaces, such as cafés or familyPage 389 Page 569 ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix A Page 3
oriented outdoor spaces.

HS-8.6 Encourage the establishment and operation of a dedicated space for seniors.

HS-8.5 Connect seniors with existing resources in the community.

HS-9 To improve mobility and access to care and services for seniors.

HS-9.1 Ensure that seniors have convenient access to social and medical services, commercial areas, and transportation by coordinating with senior shuttle service providers.

HS-9.2 Encourage all new senior housing developments to provide transportation services.

HS-10 To encourage a wide variety of types of senior housing, including independent living, residential care facilities, and affordable housing within the Town.

HS-10.1 Encourage new development or substantial remodels to incorporate barrier-free design principles to ensure access for people of all ages and abilities.

HS-10.1 Identify incentives for the development of a variety of types of senior housing, including independent living and residential care facilities.

HS-11 To ensure safe environments for Los Gatos seniors.

Transportation Element:

TRA-2.6 Street improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalks, bus stop turnouts, bus shelters, light poles, traffic signals, benches, and trash container shall be planned as an integral part of development projects to ensure safe movement of people and vehicles and minimize disruption to the streetscape.

TRA-3 To prevent and mitigate traffic impacts from new development (all policies under Goal TRA-3).

TRA-5 To ensure that Los Gatos streets are safe for all users, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

TRA-8.4 Coordinate with appropriate agencies to provide transit service in the Town for seniors, school children, low-income people, the physically disabled, and other groups with special needs.

Page 390 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix A Page 4
TRA-9.6 Require development proposals to include amenities that encourage alternate forms of transportation that reduce pollution or traffic congestion as a benefit to the community (e.g., bicycle lockers/racks, showers, dedicated vanpool or car-pool parking areas, dedicated shuttle services, innovative bus shelter designs).

TRA-13 To provide adequate parking for existing and proposed uses, and to minimize impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Environmental and Sustainability Element:

ENV-1 To preserve and protect native plants and plant communities in the Town, and promote the appropriate use of local, native plants in habitat restoration and landscaping.

ENV-9 To minimize the amount of storm water runoff, as well as to protect and improve the water quality of runoff.

ENV-10 To promote recycling and reuse as well as reduction in demand.

ENV-12 To conserve the air resources of the Town and maintain and improve acceptable air quality in Los Gatos.

ENV-13 To promote a sustainable community that protects environmental resources and the climate to prevent negative impacts to future generations.

ENV-14 To reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

ENV-17 To promote green buildings that minimize consumption of energy and natural resources
Los Gatos Sustainability Plan (2012):

TR-1 Support for Pedestrians, Bicyclists and Transit. Promote walking, bicycling, and transit through the following:
a. Require all new buildings, excluding single-family homes, to include a principal functional entry that faces a public space such as a street, square, park, paseo or plaza, in addition to any entrance from a parking lot, to encourage pedestrian foot traffic.
b. Require new projects, excluding single-family homes, to include pedestrian or bicycle through-connections to existing sidewalks and existing or future bicycle facilities, unless prohibited by topographical conditions. c. Seek grant funding to establish a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program to increase more student walking and biking trips.
d. Design and implement affordable traffic-calming measures on specific streets to

Page 391 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix A Page 5
dissuade Highway 17 cut-through traffic and attract pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
e. Implement transit access improvements through sidewalk/crosswalk safety enhancement and bus shelter improvements.

GB-4 Solar Orientation. Require measures that reduce energy use through solar orientation by taking advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sunscreens.

RE-5 Solar Ready Features. Where feasible, require that all new buildings be constructed to allow for the easy, cost-effective installation of future solar energy systems. “Solar ready” features should include proper solar orientation (i.e., south facing roof area sloped at 20 to 55 degrees from the horizontal); clear access on the south sloped roof (i.e., no chimneys, heating vents, or plumbing vents); electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring; plumbing installed for solar hot water system; and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank.

EC-1 Energy-Efficient Appliances and Lighting. Require new development to use energyefficient appliances that meet Energy-Star standards and energy-efficient lighting technologies that exceed Title 24 standards by 30 percent.

EC-3 Energy-Efficient Outdoor Lighting. Require outdoor lighting fixtures to be energyefficient. Require parking lot light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings to be on full cutoff- fixtures, except emergency exit or safety lighting, and all permanently installed exterior lighting shall be controlled by either a photocell or an astronomical time switch.

Prohibit continuous all night outdoor lighting in construction sites unless required for security reasons. Revise the Town Code to include these requirements.

EC-10 Heat Gain Reduction. Require all new development and major rehabilitation (i.e. additions or remodels of 20,000 square feet of office/retail commercial or 100,000 square feet of industrial floor area) projects to incorporate any combination of the following strategies to reduce heat gain for 50 percent of the non-roof impervious site landscape, which includes roads, sidewalks, courtyards, parking lots, and driveways:
shade within five years of occupancy; paving materials with a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of at least 29, open grid pavement system; and parking spaces underground, under deck, under roof, or under a building. Any roof used to shade or cover parking must have an SRI of at least 29.

WW-1 Water Use and Efficiency Requirements. For new development, require all water use and efficiency measures identified as voluntary in the California Green Building Standards Code, and consider more stringent targets. California Green Building Standards Code requirements include: 1) reduce indoor potable water use by 20 percent after meeting the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements, and 2) reduce outdoor potable water use by 50 percent from a calibrated mid-summer baseline

Page 392 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix A Page 6
case, for example, through irrigation efficiency, plant species, recycled wastewater, and captured rainwater.

WW-3 Bay Friendly Landscaping. Require new development to use native plants or other appropriate non-invasive plants that are drought-tolerant, as described in the Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines, available at StopWaste.Org and BayFriendlyCoalition.Org.

SW-3 Salvage, Recycled-Content and Local Construction Materials. Encourage the use of salvaged and recycled-content materials and other materials that have low production energy costs for building materials, hard surfaces, and non-plant landscaping. Require sourcing of construction materials locally, as feasible.

Page 393 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix B Page 1
Appendix B
Planned Development Ordinance Findings
In the Planning Division Staff Technical Review Comment letter dated May 22, 2020, Planning staff requested the following:

1) Address in the letter of justification for the project how the project meets the findings required to grant a Planned Development Ordinance as detailed in Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code.

While the main body of this Justification Letter provides significant detail as to how the project meets the requirements of the PD Ordinance (refer to Section IV of this Letter of Justification), the following describes how the project meets the findings required to grant a Planned Development Ordinance as detailed in Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code, as requested.
• Sec. 29.80.095. - Findings.
(1) The proposed PD is in compliance with all sections of this division.

The proposed rebuild project (or “project”) is in compliance with section 29.80.075 as it clearly meets the purpose and intent of the PD zone by enhancing and promoting the Town’s natural resources, maximizing open space and providing a public benefit to the citizens of the Town. The project will result in a slight reduction in the overall development pad, increasing the amount of common open space available for all to enjoy, consistent with the Community Design Goal - 7. The project would further the Community Design Goal CD- 1, CD-4 and CD - 15, by preserving and enhancing Los Gatos’ character through exceptional community design features including, but not limited to: buildings that shall follow the natural contour of the surrounding hillside; promoting visual continuity through tree planting; and designing new structures to harmonize and blend with the natural features of the area.

The project is in compliance with section, 29.80.080 of this division as it meets both the purpose and intent of this division and meets the following criteria: it provides a public benefit to the citizens of the Town, and is a property that has a current PD zone based on the combination of uses not otherwise permitted under the Town’s existing zoning Ordinance.

The project similarly is consistent with section 29.80.085 as it does not seek to deviate from general plan provisions, guidelines adopted by the Town Council, standards contained in any existing land use regulation or any other provision of the Town Code

Page 394 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix B Page 2
otherwise applicable to the property except as otherwise provided for in section

29.080.095.

Finally, the project is in compliance with all the requirements set forth in section

29.080.090 as the PD application includes text and plans/figures and/or diagrams that demonstrate (1) compliance with all sections of this division; (2) conformity of the PD to the goals, policies, applicable land use designations(s) and standards of the general plan; (3) includes the characteristics existing on the property which warrant application of the PD overlay zone; (4) shows the distribution, location and extent of the land uses on the site, including open space; (5) includes the proposed standards and criteria by which development will proceed; (6) includes proposed deviations from the land use regulations and development standards applicable to the underlying zoning district; and (7) describes the public benefit of the proposal. Further, as noted in our Letter of Justification, the project site is zoned as Residential Planned Development (R:PD) which is typically applied to areas where residential development is planned in the future.

However as noted earlier, this project site secured its Planned Development permit entitlements in 1968 and has operated under this permit until late September 2019. The project has been designed in conformance with the Town of Los Gatos zoning requirements for Planned Development (PD) overlay zones as described further below.

As per the Municipal Code, Development in a PD zone must be in accordance with the approved “development plan”. The Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code provides that the development plan must contain:
_ a land use plan locating all proposed uses, a tentative site plan, _ schematic architectural elevations of all buildings and structures in relationship to each other,
_ a schedule for any phasing of development,
_ a tabulation of land area including the entire planned development, _ the floor area of each occupancy,
_ the proposed number of off-street parking, and grading, soils and geologic information
Our project application includes each of these “development plan” requirements as documented in the full project application submittal.
(2) The proposed PD is in conformance with the goals, policies, and applicable land use designation(s) and standards of the Town's general plan.

The project is in conformance with the applicable goals, policies and applicable land use designations(s) and standards of the Town’s general plan as described in this Letter of Justification and the Design Principles section of the Project Description.

Page 395 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix B Page 3
This project request is for approval of a new Planned Development Overlay permit. The project complies with the Town’s existing PD zoning for the property, as shown in Table 1 of the Letter of Justification. The project does not require any variance or exception to any rule, code, or regulation and meets the basic requirements under the existing zoning permit related to site coverage, density, open space, and parking.

Further, though the project is not located within the boundaries of the Hillside Zone, we have made every attempt to meet the spirit and intent of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines as identified in Section IV. A of this Letter of Justification.

Where we do not meet the spirit of the guidelines (e.g. retaining wall height), we have identified why and how our deviations to this non-applicable standard are needed for this site (see Section IV. I of this Letter of Justification). (3) The proposed PD is in conformance with all other applicable land use regulations, including but not limited to Town Council adopted guidelines, except as otherwise provided in section 29.80.095(4).

The proposed PD is in full conformance with all other applicable land use regulations, including but not limited to Town Council adopted guidelines. The project seeks no exceptions, variances or deviations/modifications from any Town goals, policies, regulations, standards or guidelines applicable to the project site. (4) Any proposed use or development standards that deviate from the underlying zoning district(s) result in innovative and creative site planning to develop:
a. Housing with a minimum of forty (40) percent of the units affordable to households of very low, low, or moderate income; or
b. Mixed commercial, or mixed residential, or mixed commercial and residential development; or
c. A development designed and sited to protect, preserve and enhance conservation and enrichment of hillsides, natural and/or historic resources, ridgelines, a tree or stand of trees, creek and riparian corridors, geologic hazard or fault zone, and open space; or
d. A project that maximizes open space
Approximately 77.5% of the site would be open space, contributing to the visual compatibility of the surrounding hillsides as well as to create a natural environment for residents (see Section IV. B for additional discussion related to open space). The project results in a slight decrease in the overall development pad, increasing the amount of common open space available for all to enjoy. e. The proposed PD provides a public benefit to the citizens of the Town.

Page 396 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix B Page 4
The project would allow seniors in the Town of Los Gatos to age in place with state-ofthe-art health and living facilities.

The project would further the Town’s General Plan by revitalizing the existing site and continuing provision of a healthy, contemporary independent senior living community that connects seniors with existing resources in the community, encourages social interaction, improves mobility and ensures a safe environment for Los Gatos seniors. The proposed uses of the project would be essential and desirable to the community. The project would result in the construction and/or provision of many service facilities including, but not limited to, a health center, dining venues, fitness services, and supplemental transportation services that would be located throughout the property.

These services and amenities would help provide social interaction for the residents. The project would provide a wide variety of senior services and programs, including daily opportunity for health care, physical activity and recreation, and mental stimulation. In addition, the project would provide coordinated health care services, including 17 supporting care units with sections specializing in assisted living care, memory care and respite care, meeting the wide range of needs for seniors as they age.

The project would also improve the integration of the site with the broader Los Gatos community by closing Farwell Lane to through traffic and transitioning this pathway connecting Los Gatos Meadows and Broadway into a naturally landscaped, pedestrian friendly connection to downtown Los Gatos. The conversion of Farwell Lane into a pedestrian and bicycle lane would improve safety for vehicle and pedestrian interaction at the intersection of Farwell Lane and Broadway. The project would continue to use the existing driveway on Wood Road for access to the parking entrance, main entrance, and loading entrance, providing safe and efficient access to the site.

One of the extraordinary elements of the project is the integration of one or more autonomous vehicles and control systems deployed along Farwell Lane to enable a safe, convenient and alternative means of transporting residents between the project and Town retail, entertainment, and civil services. This element of the project will enable both safe and convenient access for residents to connect to Downtown Los Gatos. The project would consider Aurrigo, a vendor of autonomous vehicles, to provide this alternative transportation.

As consistently stated in our Project Application submittal and responses to Town staff comments thereto, the project would continue to make a significant contribution to the Town, both as a major employer, as well as a vital resource for residents who want to remain an integrated and valued part of the community. We believe that the project will be a tremendous and valuable asset to the Town of Los Gatos, extending a historical legacy of quality residence and care to the broader senior community.

Page 397 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix C
Project Compatibility with General Plan and Zoning Code Project Compatibility with Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The Medium Density Residential designation allows for multi-family residential, duplex, and/or small single-family homes and a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would result in 16 dwelling units per acre, which is above the 12 dwelling units permitted for the Medium Density Residential land use designation. However, consistent with density bonus laws in the State of California, General Plan Action HOU-1.3 provides up to a 100 percent density bonus for developments that include housing for elderly households. Since the proposed project’s residential uses would be restricted to seniors 62 years and older, it qualifies for the density bonus up to 100 percent. Therefore, the proposed 16 dwelling units per acre would be well within the 24 dwelling units per acre allowed for by the land use designation.

In accordance with the Town’s General Plan 2020 Land Use recommendations, the project would also promote the appropriate use of local, native plants in its landscaping. The project would promote the efficient use of water and would minimize the amount of storm water runoff. Energy systems would be new, and thus offer the benefit of far more efficient systems than those currently in place. The project would result in a slight reduction in the overall development pad and would include tree replacement and retention/preservation of mature onsite trees, a Village Green area, and passive gardens to ensure aesthetic consistency with the surrounding hillside area. Finally, there are a number of features incorporated into the project design, including provision of a new loop road that will serve to improve fire safety and minimize fire risk.

Among other benefits noted above, the project would further the Town’s General Plan by revitalizing the existing site into a healthy, contemporary independent senior living community that connects seniors with existing resources in the community, encourages social interaction, improves mobility, and ensures a safe environment for Los Gatos seniors. In addition, the project would provide seniors with an alternative mode of transportation by incorporating autonomous vehicle technology into the project to assist in enhanced connectivity between Los Gatos Meadows and proximate Town services such as the Library, Civic Center, and entertainment and retail establishments.

A more detailed description of how these goals/policies are incorporated into the project is included in below.

Housing and Health Services Elements
The project furthers many of the Housing and Health Services plan element goals. The project would be consistent with Goal HS-8, by providing a wide variety of senior services and programs, including daily opportunities for seniors to have physical activity, social interaction, and mental stimulation.

The project would further Policy HOU-5.3, to work with existing senior lifestyle living and assisted living facilities in Los Gatos and support the building of Los Gatos Meadows in a manner that includes a continuum of care facilities within the Town. The project would bring a new state-of-the-art CCRC, incorporating outstanding health care services, recycled and sustainable building materials, and energy efficient operational systems. The project would further Health Services Goal HS – 9,

Page 398 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
providing seniors with an alternative mode of transportation by incorporating autonomous vehicle technology into the project to assist in enhanced connectivity between Los Gatos Meadows and proximate Town services such as the Library, Civic Center, and retail and entertainment establishments.

Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element
The current architecture, with its substantial concrete façades, is not harmonious with its surroundings, nor does it provide an inviting or healthy environment sought by the senior community. The site plan of the project incorporates environmentally appropriate design attributes, utilizing the site’s topography and natural setting to create a synergy between the design and the hillside that does not exist today. This attention to design detail is consistent with Goal OSP-6 to consider the provision of open space in all development decisions, and both supports and reinforces Policies OSP 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4 which are all focused on consideration of health, welfare and public safety in the design of open spaces, including the effects on watershed areas, plant and wildlife habitat. The project will result in a slight reduction in the overall development pad, increasing the amount of common open space available for all to enjoy. The proposed residential buildings would be arranged around shared courtyards. They would be oriented to blend into the hillside and natural landscape to minimize the impact of views to the site while also maximizing views from the site to surrounding hillsides and across the valley. The peer review by the Town Architect was generally favorable and the project team has or will incorporate the design recommendations of this report into the project design. In addition, the project will include generous tree replacement and use of mature trees and a Village Green area, to ensure consistency with the surrounding hillside area.

Transportation Element
The project would improve bicycle and pedestrian access for seniors to downtown Los Gatos and would improve vehicular traffic circulation at the project site. As a part of the project, Farwell Lane at Broadway, the exit-only driveway, would be closed to through traffic. Farwell Lane would be constructed into an improved pedestrian and bicycle connection, as well as serve as the fixed route for an autonomous vehicle connection from the main entrance to the Broadway frontage. This reconfiguration of Farwell Lane will further Transportation Policy TRA-5 by ensuring that project streets are safe for all uses, including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy TRA-13 and would provide adequate parking for the proposed uses, thereby minimizing impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Previously, many staff members were forced to park on nearby residential streets due to the lack of on-site parking, which is a less than ideal situation for the neighborhood residents. Further, the project would provide seniors with an alternative mode of transportation by incorporating autonomous vehicle technology that will facilitate safe and reliable connections to Downtown Los Gatos. As such, the project would further the Transportation goal to provide transit services in the Town for seniors by incorporating autonomous vehicle technology for residents.

Community Design and Land Use Elements
The project will result in a slight reduction in the overall development pad, increasing the amount of common open space available for all to enjoy, consistent with the Community Design Goal - 7. The project would further the Community Design Goal CD-1, CD-4 and CD - 15, by preserving and enhancing Los Gatos’ character through exceptional community design features including, but not limited to: buildings that shall follow the natural contour of the surrounding hillside; promoting

Page 399 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
visual continuity through tree planting; and designing new structures to harmonize and blend with the natural features of the area. In addition, the proposed residential buildings would be arranged around shared courtyards. They would be oriented to blend into the hillside and natural landscape to minimize the impact of views to the site, while also maximizing views from the site to surrounding hillsides and across the valley, furthering the Town’s Land Use Element. In addition, the project would be consistent with Policy LU – 1.3, and would incorporate high quality, well-designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping.

Project Consistency with Zoning Code
The proposed project site is zoned as Residential Planned Development (R:PD) which is typically applied to areas where residential development is planned in the future. However as noted earlier, this project site secured its Planned Development permit entitlements in 1968 and has operated under this permit until late September 2019. The project has been designed in conformance with the Town of Los Gatos zoning requirements for Planned Development (PD) overlay zones as described further below. As per the Municipal Code, Development in a PD zone must be in accordance with the approved “development plan”. The Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code provides that the development plan must contain:
• a land use plan locating all proposed uses,
• a tentative site plan,
• schematic architectural elevations of all buildings and structures in relationship to each other,
• a schedule for any phasing of development,
• a tabulation of land area including the entire planned development, • the floor area of each occupancy,
• the proposed number of off-street parking spaces, and • grading, soils, and geologic information.1
Our project application includes each of these “development plan” requirements.

As per the intent of the PD Ordinance, the PD zoning allows uses not ordinarily possible, only if the use and development are in compliance with the complete development plan. Further, all uses in the PD zone are permitted to the extent specified in the development plan2. All uses identified in the rebuild project, are in compliance with the current PD zoning permit approved by Ordinance NO. 938 in 1968.

As per the Municipal Code, any ordinance that would rezone land to a PD zone must incorporate the development plan3. In addition, changes in the approved development plan must be made by ordinance4. Planned Development overlay zones also include projects that i) provide a public benefit to the citizens of the Town, ii) are designed to preserve and enhance conservation and enrichment of hillsides and ridgelines, iii) produce affordable housing and iv) maximize open space.

The proposed project would also increase the amount of onsite open space from 75.4% to 77.5%, consistent with the prevailing Planned Development zoning overlay requirement, of maximizing 1 Section 29.80.080 of the Town Municipal Code
2 Section 29.80.110 of the Town Municipal Code
3 Section 29.80.125 of the Town Municipal Code
4 Section 29.80.145 of the Town Municipal Code

Page 400 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
open space5. The open space would be controlled by topography, use of underground parking, and specific building location, in order to preserve and enhance the hillsides and ridgeline. The proposed project will also include a development plan that includes all the requirements provided.

The project would provide seniors with care housing that is subject to comprehensive statewide regulatory controls and oversite. The California Community Care Facilities Act and associated regulations establish a robust regulatory system relating to matters such as rates and refunds, personnel and administration, financing, admission agreements, and eviction proceedings. The project would not be subject to the Town’s inclusionary housing requirements because state law prohibits local agencies from imposing rent controls on licensed residential care facilities for the elderly. (Health & Safety Code § 1569.147(b).) As a practical matter, it is not possible to operate a facility such as this under two different regulatory systems affecting rent and pricing. (See Ocean House Corp. v. Permanent Rent Control Board of the City of Santa Monica, 147 Cal. App. 3d 395 (1983).) However, the project would provide intrinsic housing benefits and it would not result in any housing impacts. Onsite employment and indirect demand for professional and other services is expected to be consistent with that of the existing care facility. Thus, the project would not contribute to any increased need for affordable housing in the community. 5 Section 29.80.075 of the Town Municipal Code

Page 401 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 402 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix D
Listing of Meetings with Neighbors and Community
Type of Meeting Date Time Location Attendee Notes from Meeting Outcome 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 Claire 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
continued to future council
meeting
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
Open House 9
(Future Meeting)
08/09/21 7-8PM TBD
7/27/2021:1:24 PM

Page 403 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix E
Listing of Communications
DATE DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENCY COMM_TYPE INDIVIDUALS COVIA_TEAM_REPRESENTATIVES 10/23/2017 Meeting with Town Attorney and Planning Town In-Person Meeting Laurel Prevetti, Joel Paulson, Robert Schultz Frank Rockwood, Laura Worthington-Forbes, Barbara Schussman
2/7/2018 Meeting with Fire Department Town In-Person Meeting Fardean Amadhani, Tracy Staiger Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout 2/27/2018 Open House 1 Invitation Neighbors Letter [Sent to neighborhood distribution list] Letter from Kevin Gerber 3/8/2018 Tour with Town Staff Town Tour Laurel Prevetti, Joel Paulson Frank Rockwood, Kevin Gerber, Chris Ichien, Eric Morley
3/8/2018 Open House 1 meeting Neighbors In-Person Meeting Maria Ristow, Irving & Evelyn Mitsunaga, Robert Mullan (Toll House)
Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Eric Morley, Kevin
Gerber, Ron Schaefer
3/8/2018 Resident Council 1 Meeting Residents In-Person Meeting [Los Gatos Meadows residents] Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Eric Morley, Kevin Gerber, Ron Schaefer
4/2/2018 Open House 2 Invitation Neighbors Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien 4/8/2018 Open House 2 Next Door Posting by
Ristow
Neighbors NextDoor
4/13/2018 Meeting with Toll House Hotel Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan, Robert Mullan Frank Rockwood 4/18/2018 Open House 2 meeting Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern, Maria Ristow, Claire LeClair, Cathy Colgan
Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Eric
Morley
4/18/2018 Resident Council 2 Meeting Residents In-Person Meeting [Los Gatos Meadows residents] Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Eric Morley
4/23/2018 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Barbara Spector Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin, Eric Morley
4/23/2018 Meeting with Town Attorney Town In-Person Meeting Robert Schultz, Joel Paulson Bill Tobin, Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Barbara Schussman
4/24/2018 Open House 3 & 4 Invitation Neighbors Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list]
Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood
4/30/2018 Meeting with Toll House Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan Frank Rockwood 4/30/2018 Meeting with Town Official Town In-Person Meeting Monica Renn Frank Rockwood 4/30/2018 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Marico Sayoc Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Diana Jamison, Eric Morley
5/1/2018 Open House 3 Next Door Posting by
Ristow
Neighbors NextDoor
5/3/2018 Meeting with Toll House business Organizations In-Person Meeting Fred Lester, Dave Lazzarini (at the beginning) Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley 5/3/2018 Open House 3 meeting Neighbors In-Person Meeting Kurtz, Fairey, Iversen (and Mike Vrevich resident) David Gates, Chris Ichien, Ron Schaefer, F Rockwood, Mark Falgout, E Morley
5/3/2018 Resident Council 3 Meeting Residents In-Person Meeting [Los Gatos Meadows residents] David Gates, Chris Ichien, Ron Schaefer, Frank Rockwood
5/3/2018 Meeting with Fire Town In-Person Meeting Fardean Amadhani, Tracy Staiger Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Eric Morley 5/3/2018 Meeting with Planning Town In-Person Meeting Joel Paulson Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout 5/4/2018 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Rob Rennie Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Kevin Gerber, Eric Morley
5/3/2018 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Marcia Jensen Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin, Eric Morley
5/4/2018 Meeting with Public Works Town In-Person Meeting Jessy Pu, Lisa Pedersen Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Eric Morley 5/4/2018 Tour with Mayor Town Tour Rob Rennie Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Kevin Gerber, Eric Morley
5/10/2018 Open House 4 Invitation Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list]
Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood
5/17/2018 Emailed Director of Chamber of Organizations Email Joe Pirzynski Email from Frank Rockwood 5/20/2018 Open House 4 meeting Neighbors In-Person Meeting John and Jean Richardson, Stanford Stickney and 3 other family members
David Gates, Chris Ichien, Bill Tobin, F Rockwood,
Mark Falgout
5/22/2018 Emailed Julie Ritter Southern Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Email from Frank Rockwood 6/4/2018 Emailed Los Gatos Roasting Company Organizations Email Teri Hope Email from Frank Rockwood 6/4/2018 Emailed McCarthy Ranch Organizations Email Joey McCarthy Email from Frank Rockwood 6/4/2018 Emailed Time Out Clothing Organizations Email Ginger Rowe Email from Frank Rockwood 6/10/2018 Emailed Julie Ritter Southern Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Email from Frank Rockwood 6/11/2018 Emailed Time Out Clothing Organizations Email Ginger Rowe Email from Frank Rockwood 6/15/2018 Meeting with Los Gatos Roasting Organizations In-Person Meeting Teri Hope Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/15/2018 Meeting with McCarthy Ranch Organizations In-Person Meeting Joey McCarthy Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/15/2018 Stopped Rural Supply Hardware Organizations In-Person Meeting Ken Nelson Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/15/2018 Stopped by Cucina Bambina Organizations In-Person Meeting Met with receptionist (Izzy) Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/15/2018 Stopped by The Spa - Los Gatos Organizations In-Person Meeting Met with receptionist Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/25/2018 Meeting with Time Out Clothing Organizations In-Person Meeting Ginger Rowe Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/25/2018 Meeting to review views of neighbor Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern Frank Rockwood and Chris Ichien 6/26/2018 Call with Town Not City Representative Organizations Call Rod Teague Frank Rockwood 6/27/2018 Emailed UMC and Live Oak Organizations Email Jennifer Murdock, Trudy Burling Email from Frank Rockwood 7/13/2018 Meeting with Chamber Organizations In-Person Meeting Joe Pirzynski Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien 7/13/2018 Meeting with The Spa - Los Gatos Organizations In-Person Meeting Patti Rice Frank Rockwood 7/17/2018 Open House 5 & 6 Invitation and Open
House 4 Video Link
Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list]
Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood
7/18/2018 NextDoor Posting about video Neighbors/Organizations NextDoor 7/19/2018 Meeting with Live Oak and LGUMC Organizations In-Person Meeting Jennifer Murdock, Trudy Burling, Kathy Mlinarich Frank Rockwood and Laura Worthington-Forbes 7/20/2018 Emailed neighbor who reached out Neighbors Email James Holtz Email from Frank Rockwood 7/23/2018 Emailed meeting invitation Organizations Email Ron Tate Email from Frank Rockwood 7/23/2018 Emailed meeting invitation Organizations Email Shelly Blanchard Email from Frank Rockwood 7/24/2018 Call with Shelly Blanchard Organizations Call Shelly Blanchard/Cucina Bambina Frank Rockwood 7/24/2018 Meeting with Fred Lester Organizations In-Person Meeting Fred Lester Frank Rockwood 7/24/2018 Meeting with Jason Bogan Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan Frank Rockwood 7/27/2021:1:34 PM

Page 404 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix E
Listing of Communications
DATE DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENCY COMM_TYPE INDIVIDUALS COVIA_TEAM_REPRESENTATIVES 7/30/2018 Email from Maria Ristow Neighbors Email Maria Ristow Email from Frank Rockwood 8/1/2018 Email from Joe Pirzynski Organizations Email Joe Pirzynski Email from Frank Rockwood 8/28/2018 Announcement re: rescheduling Open
House 5 & 6 and commencement of focus
groups
Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list]
Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood
8/30/2018 James Holtz emailed re: focus group Neighbors Email James Holtz Email from Frank Rockwood 9/25/2018 Survey mailed to people in Town and
vicinity
Neighbors/Vicinity Letter [Sent to neighborhood distribution list + mailing list for vicinity]
Brook Adams
10/2/2018;
10/3/2018
Focus Groups Neighbors/Vicinity In-Person Meeting 3 focus groups of about 12 each Brook Adams 10/29/2018 Meeting with Town Staff Town In-Person Meeting Laurel Prevetti, Joel Paulson, Robert Schultz Frank Rockwood, Laura Worthington-Forbes, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien, Barbara Schussman
11/9/2018 Open House 5 Invitation Neighbors Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list]
Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood
12/6/2018 Open House 5 Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Southern, Matt and Marlena Hood and friend, Mike Wasserman
D Gates, C Ichien, A Pelley, F Rockwood, M Falgout, E
Morley, M McMullin, L Darling
12/6/2018 Resident Council #5 Meeting Residents In-Person Meeting [Los Gatos Meadows residents] D Gates, C Ichien, A Pelley, F Rockwood, M Falgout, E Morley, K Gerber, M McMullin, L Darling
12/7/2018 Public Works Meeting Town In-Person Meeting Jessy Pu, Lisa Pedersen Frank Rockwood, Susan Rockwood, Mark Falgout 12/11/2018 Meeting with Town Staff Town In-Person Meeting Laurel Prevetti, Joel Paulson Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien, Mark Falgout
12/11/2018 Meeting w/Town Not City Organizations In-Person Meeting Rod Teague Frank and Susan Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien 12/12/2018 Meeting with Council Member Marico
Sayoc
Town In-Person Meeting Marico Sayoc Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien 12/12/2018 Meeting with Council Member Steve
Leonardis
Town In-Person Meeting Steve Leonardis Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien 12/12/2018 Meeting with Chamber Organizations In-Person Meeting Joe Pirzynski, Catherine Somers Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien 12/13/2018 Meeting with Toll House Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan Frank and Susan Rockwood, Victor Ceron 12/13/2018 Meeting with Council Member Rob Town In-Person Meeting Rob Rennie Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Kiran Kaur 12/14/2018 Meeting with Council Member Barbara
Spector
Town In-Person Meeting Barbara Spector Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin 12/18/2018 Emailed link to Open House 5 Video Town/Org/Neighbors Email [sent to email distribution list] Frank Rockwood 1/29/2019 Meeting with Council Member Marcia
Jensen
Town In-Person Meeting Marcia Jensen Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin, Chris Ichien 2/19/2019 Emails from Maria Ristow and Matt Hood Neighbors Email Maria Ristow, Matt Hood Frank Rockwood 2/21/2019 Phone Conversation with Rod Teague Organizations Call Rod Teague Frank Rockwood 2/22/2019 Emails with Fred Lester re: Oak Trees Organizations Email Fred Lester Frank Rockwood 3/15/2019 Meeting with Caroline and Marc Philippe Neighbors In-Person Meeting Caroline and Marc Philippe Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron 3/15/2019 Meeting with Julie Ritter Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron 5/15/2019 Julie Ritter Emailed re: project status Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Email from Frank Rockwood 7/8/2019 Email with Caroline Phillippe re:

ADU/vineyard
Neighbors Email Caroline and Marc Philippe Frank Rockwood 7/25/2019 Meeting with Toll House Hotel Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan Frank Rockwood 8/5/2019 Conversation with John Richardson re:
status
Neighbors Call John Richardson Frank Rockwood
8/15/2019 Meeting with Joel Paulson and Laurel
Prevetti
Town In-Person Meeting Joel Paulson, Laurel Prevetti Frank Rockwood, Laura Worthington-Forbes, David Gates, Chris Ichien
8/15/2019 Meeting with Catherine Somers from
Chamber
Organizations In-Person Meeting Catherine Somers Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien 8/15/2019;
8/17/2019
Open House 6 Invitation and FAQ's Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list]
Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood
9/24/2019 Meeting with Toll House Hotel Organizations In-Person Meeting Abel Veloz Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron 9/24/2019 Meeting with Fred Lester Organizations In-Person Meeting Fred Lester and his wife Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron 9/24/2019 Meeting with Senior Commission Town In-Person Meeting Arn Andrews, Commission Members Frank and Susan Rockwood 10/1/2019 Meeting with Julio Hernandez, SDA Town In-Person Meeting Julio Hernandez, SDA Church Victor Ceron 10/10/2019 Open House 6 at Toll House Hotel Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern, Jaime Garcia & friend, Irving & Evelyn Mitsunaga, Maria Ristow
F Rockwood, M Falgout, D Gates, C Ichien, V Ceron, V
Troncosco, P Hillan
10/14/2019 Response re: OH 6 Questions re: schedule
and security and goats
Neighbors Email Maria Ristow, Julie Ritter Southern, Irving and Evelyn Mitsunaga, Jaime Garcia
Frank Rockwood
10/25/2019 Email Intro to New Neighbor Neighbors Email Zane Rowe (bought Phillipe property) Frank Rockwood 12/18/2019 Meeting with Town Town In-Person Meeting Joel Paulson, Sally Zarnowitz, Jocelyn Shoopman Frank Rockwood, Laura Worthington-Forbes, David Hance
2/6/2020 Site Visit with Town Staff Town In-Person Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman, Sally Zarnowitz, Mike Weisz, Robert Gray, Corvell Sparks
Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron, Chris Ichien, Vincent
Troncoso
2/11/2020 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re:

Broadway
Neighbor/Town Letter Julie Ritter Southern NA
2/12/2020 Technical Review Town In-Person Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman, Sally Zarnowitz, Bob Gray, Tracy Staiger
Frank Rockwood, Arch Pelley, Mark Falgout, Kimmy
Chen
2/13/2020 Open House 7 Invitation and FAQ's Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list]
Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood
3/5/2020 Open House 7 at Los Gatos United
Methodist Church
Neighbors In-Person Meeting None Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Victor Ceron, Mark Falgout, David Gates
7/27/2021:1:34 PM

Page 405 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix E
Listing of Communications
DATE DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENCY COMM_TYPE INDIVIDUALS COVIA_TEAM_REPRESENTATIVES 3/6/2020;
3/10/2020
Maria Ristow inquired re: Open House 7;
response addressed possible alternatives
to in-person meetings; communicated
that Covia is targeting distribution of
video summary in May; appreciative of
goats
Neighbors Email Maria Ristow Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 4/2/2020 John Richardson inquired re: status;
resent February FAQ; communicated that
Covia is targeting distribution of video
Neighbors Email John Richardson Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 4/14/2020;
4/16/2020
Julie Ritter Southern inquired re: status;
complained re: unsightly trash bin;
appreciative of goats; responded that
Covia is targeting distribution of video
summary; committed to removal of
unsightly trash bin
Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 5/31/2020 Sent link to summary video to neighbors;
updated Covia website with link to
summary video
Neighbors Email [Sent to neighborhood] Frank Rockwood
6/3/2020 Meeting with Town Staff Town Video Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman Frank Rockwood, Arch Pelley, Melissa Destout 6/3/2020 Meeting with Fire Department Town Video Meeting Tracy Staiger, Kathy Baker Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Matt Lissak 6/7/2020 Zane Rowe acknowledged receipt of May
31st email; interested in meeting in
person when things return to normal
Neighbors Zane Rowe Emails to/from Frank Rockwood
6/10/2020 Meeting with Town Staff re: Land Use
CEQA Path
Town Video Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman, Sally Zarnowitz, Joel Paulson, Robert Schultz
Frank Rockwood, Barbara Schussman, Laura
Worthington-Forbes
6/11/2020 Julie Ritter Southern forwarded link to
video to Justin Draa and Brend
Neudecker; requested consideration of
another in-person presentation
Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 6/12/2020 Meeting with Town Staff re: Story Pole
Visualization
Town Video Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman, Sally Zarnowitz, Joel Paulson Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, David Gates, Melissa Destout
6/29/2020 Maria Ristow inquired re: status general
and tagged trees behind 65 Broadway;
tagged trees related to trimming project
Neighbors Email Maria Ristow Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 6/29/2020 Margaret Bielski called about trees at 19
Clifton that appear to be marked for
removal; understands that there is a
proposal to add two units
Neighbors Phone Call Margaret Bielski Call to/from Frank Rockwood 11/17/2020 Open House 8 Invitation Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list]
Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood
12/2/2020 Meeting with Council Member-Elect
Maria Ristow
Town Video Meeting Maria Ristow Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Laura WorthingtonForbes 12/3/2020 Open House 8 Neighbors Video Meeting Julie Ritter Southern, Fred Lester, Matt Wood, Zane Rowe, Gary/Jamie Garcia, Claire LeClair, Evelyn/Irving
Mitsunaga, Robert Macartney, Matthew Bigge
Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, David Gates, Victor
Ceron, Laura Worthington-Forbes, Mark Falgout,
Laura Darling
12/3/2020 Meeting with Council Member Marico
Sayoc
Town Video Meeting Marico Sayoc Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Laura WorthingtonForbes 12/4/2020 Meeting with Jocelyn Shoopman Town Video Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Laura WorthingtonForbes 12/9/2020 Meeting with Council Member Rob
Rennie
Town Video Meeting Rob Rennie Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin, Laura WorthingtonForbes 1/11/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re:

Story Poles and Fire Evacuation
Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Matthew Southern N/A
1/12/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re:

Story Poles
Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Clare Southern N/A
1/12/2021 Meeting with Council Member Matthew
Hudes
Town Video Meeting Matthew Hudes Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Laura WorthingtonForbes 1/12/2021 Meeting with Council Member Mary
Badame
Town Video Meeting Mary Badame Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Laura WorthingtonForbes 1/15/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re:

Story Poles and Farwell Lane
Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Mark Regoli N/A
1/19/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re:

Story Poles and View
Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Julie Ritter Southern N/A
1/19/2021 Town Council Hearing re: Story Pole Town/Neighbors Video Meeting Matthew Hudes, Mary Badame, Jocelyn Shoopman, Rob Rennie, Marico Sayoc, Maria Ristow (recused)
Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, David Gates, Laura
Worthington-Forbes
2/1/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re:

Story Poles
Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Bernd Neudecker N/A
2/1/2021 Meeting with Julie Ritter Southern and
Andrew Ghofrani
Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern (123/135 Wood Rd) and Andrew Ghofrani ( 121 Wood Rd)
Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, David Gates
2/2/2021 Julie Ritter Southern conveyed that Bernd
Neudecker would be sending letter to
staff
Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern (123/135 Wood Rd) and Berne Neudecker (109 Wood Rd)
Emails to/from Frank Rockwood
2/8/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re:

View and Building Height
Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Andrew Ghofrani N/A
2/8/2021 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Matthew Hudes Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien 7/27/2021:1:34 PM

Page 406 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Appendix E
Listing of Communications
DATE DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENCY COMM_TYPE INDIVIDUALS COVIA_TEAM_REPRESENTATIVES 2/22/2021 Letter recap of meeting with Arn Andrews
regarding Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee;
Jocelyn Scoopman directed project team
to incorporate contents of letter in
updated Justification Letter
Town Email Arn Andrews Laura Worthington Forbes
3/14/2021 Neighbor reached out about people
cutting plants on property
Neighbors Email Cathy Colgan Frank Rockwood, Alex Gerasimov 3/18/2021 Owner of business located at the corner
of Wood Rd and S. Santa Cruz Ave
reached out about construction start and
length - concern of holistic tenant
Neighbor/Town Email Shayna Orr, Exec Asst for Owner of business located at the corner of Wood Rd and S. Santa Cruz Ave
Frank Rockwood
4/22/2021 Letter to Neighbor re: Visualizations Neighbor Letter Andrew Ghofrani Frank Rockwood 4/28/2021 Emailed Visualizations from Ghofrani
Property
Neighbor Email Andrew Ghofrani, Julie Ritter Frank Rockwood 5/3/2021 Email to Neighbor re: project status and
tree
Neighbor Email John Richardson Frank Rockwood
5/12/2021 Communication with Neighbor about
Trees - to be taken down 5/15/21
Neighbor Email John Richardson Alex Gerasimov
5/15/2021 Communication with Town Council
Member Who Reached Out For Update
Town Email Maria Ristow Frank Rockwood
5/17/2021 Communication with Neighbor about Tree
Taken Down - Neighbor Said Looked Great
Neighbor Email John Richardson Alex Gerasimov
5/24/2021 Communication with Neighbor re:

Visualizations from House
Neighbor Email Andrew Ghofrani Frank Rockwood
6/5/2021 Neighbor Reached Out Regarding Annual
Clearing of Brush by 50 Clifton Ave.

Neighbor Email Michael Walton Alex Gerasimov
6/14/2021 Communicate with Neighbor re: Request
for Project Update
Neighbor Email Julie Ritter Southern Frank Rockwood
6/14/2021 Communication with Neighbor re:

Upcoming DEIR Meeting 6/23/21
Neighbor Email Julie Ritter Southern and Andrew Ghofrani Frank Rockwood 7/6/2021 Communication with Neighbor re:

Upcoming Open House - Checking on Aug
9 Date
Neighbor Email Julie Ritter Southern Frank Rockwood
7/27/2021:1:34 PM

Page 407 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 408 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

May 8, 2020
Ms. Jocelyn Shoopman
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 110 Wood Road
Dear Jocelyn:

I reviewed the drawings and evaluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows:

Neighborhood Context
The site is located on a hillside parcel near Downtown Los Gatos. The proposed Los Gatos Meadows continuing retirement care facility is similar in use to the existing care facility on the site. The site is surrounded by substantial mature landscaping. A single family residential neighborhood bounds the site to the north, and a hotel and retail structures are also nearby on South Santa Cruz Avenue. Otherwise, the remainder of the site perimeter is less developed. Additional aerial photos are shown on the following page for further site context.

EXHIBIT 9

Page 409 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
110 Wood Road
Design Review Comments
May 8, 2019 Page 2
Aerial view of site from the south
Aerial view of site from the east

Page 410 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
110 Wood Road
Design Review Comments
May 8, 2019 Page 3

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project would largely be developed within the same plan area as the existing care facility on the site - See site plan over aerial photo and the building layout plan with individual building identification letters below.

Page 411 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
110 Wood Road
Design Review Comments
May 8, 2019 Page 4
Potential visual impacts largely relate to height and proximity of a few new structures to the adjacent residential and commercial areas to the north and east and to the broader downtown area.

1. There are two specific areas where the removal of substantial mature landscaping and the increase in nearby building heights might create some visual impacts - adjacent to the Toll House Hotel and some of the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Page 412 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
110 Wood Road
Design Review Comments
May 8, 2019 Page 5
There was not enough usable information regarding
location and size of the trees that are proposed for
retainion to be able to visualize for sure their potential visual impacts on adjacent properties or public spaces.. However. the simulation photo below suggests that without adequate tree buffering, the building height and bulk might seem very much out of character with the Town. While there are no specific
guidelines which I can apply to this unique project,
I would note the both the Town’s Commercial and
Residential Guidelines emphasize a respect for and
adherence to designing to fit into the Town’s small
scale character.

Note that the photo simulation above is located at the Farwell Lane secondary exit street at Broadway which is about 300 feet east of Clifton Avenue where the single family home closest to this site is located.

Recommendation: Request the applicant to provide additional plan and section drawings to clarify the location and scale of both the trees to be retained and any proposed new buffer landscaping.

Tree removal areas of concern

Page 413 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
110 Wood Road
Design Review Comments
May 8, 2019 Page 6

2. Since the proposed buildings would be substantially taller than those currently on the site, more of the project would be seen from East Main Street in the vicinity of Town Hall - see applicant’s simulation photos below.

The evaluation of this potential impact will require a judgment as to whether the larger scale and increased building visibility is consistent with the Town’s past emphasis on small scale character throughout the community.

The applicant’s design team has been sensitive in designing the buildings to blend into the hillside as much as they can given their height. Deep roof overhangs, set back upper floors and the separation of individual Villa structures are intended to reduce the visual impact.

ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION
The project is well designed with a lot of thought given to the facilities’ layout and building design. Some features are shown below on the partial east elevation and sketches showing the exterior and interior courtyard scale and character.

Page 414 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
110 Wood Road
Design Review Comments
May 8, 2019 Page 7
Recommendations:

I have no recommendations for changes to the building designs. Staff, however, may wish to discuss the materials palette with the applicant. The materials are of high quality, but they are largely, with the exception of the stone veneer, metal and concrete faux simulations of natural materials. In the Town’s Commercial and Residential Design Guidelines, natural materials are strongly encouraged although provisions are made in the Residential Design Guidelines for use of synthetic materials under some circumstances (Guideline 3.8.1: Use high quality materials).

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

Sincerely,

CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon

ENTRY SKETCH

COURTYARD SKETCH

Page 415 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 416 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC
PERKINSEASTMAN.COM
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Costa Mesa
Dallas
Dubai
Guayaquil
Los Angeles
Mumbai
New York
Oakland
Pittsburgh
San Francisco
Shanghai
Stamford
Toronto
Washington DC

RESPONSE TO TOWN OF LOS GATOS STAFF TECHNICAL REVIEW
Department: PLANNING DIVISION
Community Development Department
Item: 110 Wood Road
Planned Development Application PD-20-001
Project Name: Los Gatos Meadows Covia Community
Property Owner: Covia Communities
Applicant: Rockwood Pacific Inc.

Description: Requesting approval of a Planned Development for a senior living community on property zoned R:PD. APN 510-47-038.

Date of Staff Review Comments: May 22, 2020 (Second Review) Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman
This letter is the response to the comments submitted to the Town by the consulting architect, Larry L. Cannon in his letter of May 8, 2020.

Tree Removal Area of Concern, (page 5)
Response: This view on sheet A303 is missing landscape, we have revised this section to include landscaping as part of our resubmission.

Recommendation: Request the applicant to provide additional plan and section drawings to clarify the location and scale of both the trees to be retained and any proposed new buffer landscaping. (page 5)
Response: We have coordinated with the landscape architect and have revised this view to clarify the location and scale of both the trees to be retained and proposed new buffer landscaping as shown on Sheet A406 as part of the resubmission.

Recommendation: As noted above, this will be a community expectation issue. However, if the Town is comfortable the project scale and massing, my only recommendation would be to assure that the metal roofing selected is similar to the subdued color shown on the simulation and not the bright silver shown on the materials sheet. (page 6) Response: As recommended, we have revised the color of the roof on the material sheet A204 as part of the resubmission to the subdued color shown in the visualization.

Recommendations: I have no recommendations for changes to the building designs.

Staff, however, may wish to discuss the materials palette with the applicant. The materials are of high quality, but they are largely, with the exception of the stone veneer, metal and concrete faux simulations of natural materials. (page 7) Response: Due to building occupancy type and current building code requirements, certain natural materials, especially wood or other combustible materials, are not permitted. Therefore high quality alternatives with similar qualities were selected.

These materials were chosen to keep within the spirit of the Town’s Commercial and Residential Design Guidelines as well as to conform to the current building codes.

EXHIBIT 10

Page 417 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

We believe we have answered all of the recommendations and concerns in the letter of May 8, 2020. Please let us know if any concerns remain.

Sincerely,
Arch Pelley AIA
Associate Principal
T: 412 894 8306
E: [email protected]

Page 418 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update
Los Gatos Meadows
Los Gatos, CA

PREPARED FOR
Covia
2185 N. California Blvd. Suite 215
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
PREPARED BY:

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
325 Ray St.

Pleasanton, CA 94566
October 12, 2020
EXHIBIT 11

Page 419 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update
Los Gatos Meadows
Los Gatos, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary 1
Introduction and Overview 1
Tree Assessment Methods 2
Description of Trees 2
Suitability for Preservation 7
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 9
Appraisal of Value 10
Sudden Oak Death 10
Tree Preservation Guidelines 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 3 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 9
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Assessment
Tree Disposition
Tree Appraisal

Page 420 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update
Los Gatos Meadows
Los Gatos, CA
Executive Summary
Covia is planning to re-develop the Los Gatos Meadows property in Los Gatos, CA. Trees were assessed on June 26 and 27, 2018. The assessment included all trees 4” and greater in diameter, located within and adjacent to the project area.

Three hundred seventy-five (375) trees representing 57 species were evaluated (Table 1). For all species combined, trees were in fair (42% of population) to poor (36% of population) condition with 22% of trees in good condition. One off-site tree (#251) was included in the assessment. No street trees had canopies over the project area.

The Town of Los Gatos protects all trees 4” and larger on sites being developed (Municipal Code Section 29.10). Certain species of designated sizes are excepted per Section 29.10.0970.

Based on this definition, 338 of the original 375 trees were protected. These trees cannot be removed or pruned more than 25% without a permit.

Based on my evaluation of the plans:
• Two hundred twelve (213) trees will be removed (205 Protected, 8 Large Protected). • One hundred eighteen (118) trees will be preserved (109 Protected, 9 Large Protected) In 2019, selected trees were removed in response to a Wildland Urban Interface fire management review and the resulting Tree Management Plan prepared by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (3/27/19). This Arborist Report incorporates the data on trees removed and responds to a Arborist’s Review letter prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists (July 6, 2020). Forty-four (44) trees were removed and three hundred thirty-one (331) trees remain.

The primary impacts of the proposed project to trees were expected to be from re-grading the slopes, reorienting and creating new roads, and re-configuring the buildings. I recommend carefully considering how future landscapes will be used before retaining trees with a low suitability for preservation. Impacts to trees being preserved can be minimized by following the Tree Preservation Guidelines (below).

Introduction and Overview
Covia is planning to re-develop the Los Gatos Meadows property in Los Gatos, CA. Currently the property is a senior living community with associated landscapes and natural areas. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting was asked to prepare an Arborist Report for the site as part of the application to the City of Los Gatos.

This report provides the following information:

1. Assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground.

2. Evaluation of the impacts to trees based on development plans.

3. Appraisal of value of each tree using the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisal methodology.

4. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development.

Page 421 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 2
Tree Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on June 26 and 27, 2018. The assessment included all trees 4” and greater in diameter, located within and adjacent to the project area. Off-site trees with canopies extending over the property line were included in the assessment and viewed from the subject property. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:

1. Identifying the tree as to species;

2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map; offsite trees were not tagged;

3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade; for off-site trees diameters were estimated.

4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 10%-90% based on a visual inspection from the ground:
90% - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptom of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
70%- Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.
50%- Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
30% - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 10% - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.

High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.

Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects that can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.

Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use areas.

Description of Trees
Three hundred seventy-five (375) trees representing 57 species were evaluated (Table 1). For all species combined, trees were in fair (42% of population) to poor (36% of population) condition with 22% of trees in good condition. One off-site tree (#251) was included in the assessment, and no street trees had canopies over the project area. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment, and approximate locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).

Page 422 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 3
The site was notable for several reasons. The site was on the edge of Los Gatos downtown area where it transitioned into forest. Tree species diversity was high (57 species). Over half of the trees (53%, 7 species) were locally native species generally growing in natural conditions. In addition to the locally native species were:
• California species that are not native to the site such as coast redwood, Monterey pine and incense cedar;
• Common ornamental trees such as purpleleaf plum, eucalyptus and Italian cypress and, • Less common ornamental trees such as blue blossom, Sitka spruce and white willow.

Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees Los Gatos Meadows, Los Gatos, CA
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(10-
30%)
Fair
(50%)
Good
(70-
90%)
Bailey acacia Acacia baileyana 5 - - 5
Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon 4 1 2 7
Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 1 - - 1
Japanese maple Acer palmatum - 1 - 1
Red maple Acer rubrum - - 1 1
California buckeye Aesculus californica - 2 - 2
Red horsechestnut Aesculus x carnea 2 1 1 4
African fern-pine Afrocarpus falcatus 3 - 1 4
Marina madrone Arbutus 'Marina' - - 1 1
Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens - - 1 1
Blue blossom Ceanothus thyrsiflorus 1 - - 1
Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara - - 1 1
Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 2 - - 2
New Zealand cabbage palm Cordyline australis 1 - - 1
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida - - 1 1
Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens - 1 10 11
Bronze loquat Eriobotrya deflexa 2 1 - 3
Loquat Eriobotrya japonica - - 1 1
Sugar gum Eucalyptus cladocalyx 3 1 - 4
Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus 7 5 - 12
Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 5 1 - 6
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba - 1 - 1
Silk oak Grevillea robusta - 1 - 1
Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia - 1 - 1
Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia - 1 - 1
California black walnut Juglans hindsii 1 - - 1
Hollywood juniper Juniperus chinensis 'Kaizuka' - 9 2 11 Grecian laurel Laurus nobilis 3 - - 3
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum - 1 - 1
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua - 1 1 2

Page 423 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 4
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(10-
30%)
Fair
(50%)
Good
(70-
90%)
Crabapple Malus sylvestris 2 5 4 11
Mayten Maytenus boaria 1 - - 1
Bottlebrush Melaleuca citrina - - 1 1
Olive Olea europaea 1 7 - 8
Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis - - 1 1
Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 1 1 10 12
Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 1 - - 1
Italian stone pine Pinus pinea - 2 - 2
Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 5 1 6
Victorian box Pittosporus undulatum 1 2 - 3
Cherry Prunus avium 1 - - 1
Purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 2 - - 2
Plum Prunus domestica 1 1 - 2
Portugal laurel Prunus lusitanica 1 - - 1
Japanese flowering cherry Prunus serrulata - 1 - 1
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 3 2 7
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 25 40 14 79
Blue oak Quercus douglasii 1 1 - 2
Valley oak Quercus lobata 8 10 6 24
African sumac Rhus lancea 3 1 - 4
White willow Salix alba - - 1 1
Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis 1 - - 1
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius - 1 - 1
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 2 2 13 17
Windmill palm Trachycarpus fortunei - - 1 1
California bay Umbellularia californica 38 46 5 89
Sawleaf zelkova Zelkova serrata 3 1 - 4
Total 135 158 82 375
The most common species was California bay (89 trees, 24% of population). The bays were in fair (46 trees) to poor (38 trees) condition with five trees in good condition. They varied in development from young (4” trunk diameter) to mature (22, 12” trunk diameter). Twenty-eight (28) California bays had multiple trunks (31%). The single stem trees had an average trunk diameter of 9”. The bays were generally growing in dense stands with oaks in undeveloped natural areas (Photo 1).

Seventy-nine (79) coast live oaks were assessed (21% of population). The coast live oaks were in fair condition (40 trees) with 25 trees in poor condition and 14 trees in good condition. They ranged from young (4” trunk diameter) to mature (26, 25, 17” trunk diameter). Thirteen (13) of the coast live oaks had multiple trunks (16%). The single stem trees had an average trunk diameter

Page 424 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 5
of 15”. Several of the oaks were declining in health. I have provided additional information on Sudden Oak Death which is somewhat of a concern in this area.

Twenty-four (24) valley oaks were assessed (6% of population). The valley oaks were in poor (8 trees) to good (6 trees) condition with 10 trees in fair condition. They ranged from relatively young (11” trunk diameter) to mature (37” trunk diameter) with an average trunk diameter of 22”.

Valley oaks were growing both in the natural areas and in the planted landscape. Some of the more important trees on the site were valley oaks. Valley oaks #30 and 72 were large trees in good condition growing on the eastern slope. Valley oak #206 was a mature tree in good health growing in the courtyard. Valley oak #350 was in decline and had broken two of the 6 cables installed (Photo 2). Tree #349 was a mature oak preserved in a 15x15’ raised planter at the edge of a courtyard.

Seventeen (17) coast redwoods were assessed (5% of population). The redwoods were in good condition (13 trees) with two trees in fair condition and two trees in poor condition. The coast redwoods were predominantly young (average trunk diameter 11”) and ranged from 4” to 40” in trunk diameter. The majority of the young redwoods still had staking which should be removed before it girdles the trees.

Twelve (12) Canary Island pines were assessed (3% of population). The pines were in good condition (10 trees) with one tree in fair condition and one in poor condition. They were mature with an average trunk diameter of 23”. Most of the Canary Island pines were located just east of the road that cuts through the lower half of the property.

Twelve (12) blue gum eucalyptus trees were assessed (3% of population). The blue gums were in poor (7 trees) to fair (5 trees) condition with no trees in good condition. They were the largest trees assessed with an average trunk diameter of 44”. Blue gum #62 was the largest tree assessed with a trunk diameter of 62”. Blue gums #7-12 had been harshly topped with poorly attached regrowth (Photo 3).

Eleven (11) crab apples were assessed (3% of population). The crabapples were in good (4 trees) to poor (2 trees) condition with five trees in fair condition. Crabapples are typically small trees; an average trunk diameter of 10” is relatively mature for the species. Crabapple #203 was an iconic piece of the landscape.

Eleven (11) Hollywood junipers were assessed (3% of population). The junipers were in fair condition (9 trees) with two trees in good condition and no trees in poor condition. The junipers had their typical chaotic, bushy form. They were planted in a narrow location high above the walkway providing minimal benefits to the landscape (Photo 4).

Eleven (11) Italian cypresses were assessed (3% of population). The cypresses were in good condition (10 trees) with one tree in fair condition. They had the typical dense, narrow crown of their species.

The remaining 29% of trees included 48 species. Some particularly notable trees or groups of trees were:
• Douglas firs #147-153 had an 18” average trunk diameter and were growing on the southern edge of the property (Photo 5).
• Four sawleaf zelkovas were growing in the central courtyard and were declining in health. • Sugar gums #309 and 310 were mature trees in decline with large trunk wounds. • White willow #288 was a large mature single-stemmed tree in good condition growing in the courtyard.
• Bailey acacia seed production was impressive along the northern property boundary (Photo 6).

Page 425 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 6
The Town of Los Gatos protects all trees 4” and larger on sites being developed (Municipal Code Section 29.10). Certain species of designated sizes are excepted per Section 29.10.0970.

Based on this definition, 338 of the original 375 trees were protected. Some Protected trees of certain species and sizes are designated Large Protected. Protected trees cannot be removed or pruned more than 25% without a permit. Designations for individual trees are provided in the Tree Assessment (see Exhibits).

Photo 1 (upper left) – California bays and native oaks were the dominant species especially across the natural areas within the site.

Photo 2 (upper right) – Valley oak #250 was declining and had been over-pruned. Two of the six cables in the tree had broken.

Photo 3 (lower left) – Blue gums #7-12 had been topped with poorly attached regrowth.

Photo 4 (lower right) – The Hollywood junipers (#197 shown) were growing in raised planter beds next to covered sidewalks.

Page 426 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 7
Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape.

Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or injury if they fail.

However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure and death should be allowed to continue.

Photo 5 – Douglas firs #147 and 148 were
growing near the southern boundary of the site.

Photo 6 – Bailey acacias #366-370
were growing near the northern
boundary of the property and produced
an extreme amount of seed.

Page 427 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 8
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
• Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. For example, sawleaf zelkova #208 was declining and unlikely to survive regardless of construction impact.
• Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. For example, Valley oak #350 had a large decaying cavity and had broken cables.
• Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For instance, coast live oaks are more tolerant of root pruning than valley oak.
• Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.
• Species invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.

The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database http://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/ lists species identified as being invasive. Los Gatos is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Blackwood acacia, New Zealand cabbage palm, blue gum, glossy privet, olive and purpleleaf plum are listed as limited invasiveness, and Brazilian pepper is listed as moderate invasiveness.

Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment in Exhibits, and Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.

Page 428 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 9
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation
Los Gatos Meadows, Los Gatos, CA
High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Fifty-three (53) trees had high suitability for preservation.

Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category.

Ninety-seven (97) trees had moderate suitability for preservation.

Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Two hundred twenty-five (225) trees had low suitability for preservation.

Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
In 2019, selected trees were removed in response to a Wildland Urban Interface fire management review and the resulting Tree Management Plan prepared by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (3/27/19). This Arborist Report incorporates the data on trees removed, and responds to a Arborist’s Review letter prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists (July 6, 2020). Forty-four (44) trees were removed and 331 trees remain.

The Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree health, condition, and suitability for preservation. I used the Planning Submittal set (10/8/20) created by Gates + Associates and the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (6/30/20) created by Kimley-Horn to estimate impacts to trees. The plans show a nearly complete demolition of the site within between the two roads and additional grading outside of the roads in some areas.

The disposition of each tree is shown in Tree Disposition Exhibit. Based on my evaluation of the plans:
• Two hundred twelve (213) trees will be removed (205 Protected, 8 Large Protected). • One hundred eighteen (118) trees will be preserved (109 Protected, 9 Large Protected) The primary impacts of the proposed project to trees were expected to be from re-grading the slopes, reorienting and creating new roads, and re-configuring the buildings. Impacts to trees being preserved can be minimized by following the Tree Preservation Guidelines (below).

I estimate that 118 trees can be preserved because construction would not be occurring in their area, all of them around the perimeter of the site, and many of these on the east slope of the property downhill of the project area. Of all the trees recommended for preservation, approximately 37% have low suitability for preservation. I generally do not recommend preserving trees with low suitability for preservation in use areas. I consider the trees being preserved to be in non-use areas, but the occupancy rates may increase post construction. If current non-use areas change after development, I recommend carefully considering how future landscapes will be used before retaining trees with a low suitability for preservation. Impacts to trees being preserved can be minimized by following the Tree Preservation Guidelines (below).

Page 429 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 10
Appraisal of Value
The Town of Los Gatos requires establishing the value of all assessed trees. To accomplish this, I used the standard methods found in Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition (published in 2000 by the International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign IL). In addition, I referred to Species Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a publication of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. These two documents outline the methods employed in the tree appraisal.

In 2019, the ISA published a new (10th) edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, which revised the methods for estimating tree values using the reproduction cost and specifically the trunk formula technique. For the sake of consistency, I have not updated the estimated the value of the trees in this report to the 10th edition. This report estimates values using the 9th edition, which was the most recently published at the time.

The value of landscape trees is based upon four factors: size, species, condition and location.

Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54" above grade. The species factor considers the adaptability and appropriateness of the plant in the south bay area. The Species Classification and Group Assignment lists recommended species ratings and evaluations. Condition reflects the health and structural integrity of the individual, as noted in the Tree Assessment. Location considers the site, placement and contribution of the tree in its surrounding landscape.

The appraised value of the 375 trees assessed in this report is $991,050. The appraised value of each tree is shown in the Tree Appraisal attachment. The appraised value of the:
• 44 trees already removed is $129,650.
• 213 trees to be removed is $483,750.
• 118 trees to be preserved is $377,650.

Sudden Oak Death
Sudden Oak Death (SOD) is caused by Phytophthora ramorum, a fungal pathogen (actually a water mold) affecting oaks in the red oak group, including coast live oak. Valley oak, in the white oak group, is not affected.

The disease was first recognized in Santa Cruz and Marin counties in the mid 1990’s. Research indicates it was likely introduced through the nursery industry and may have been in the environment for many years before it ‘escaped’ into the forest.

The disease requires water to grow and spread and has many host species that are not affected by the disease but play a critical role in its spread. The disease has been shown to move from plant to plant via wind-driven rain, water, plant material and human activities. The disease typically lands on the foliage of a susceptible plant and migrates with water movement onto the trunk. Trunk lesions and foliar dieback ensue, eventually girdling the trunk, but the tree may remain green for several months or even years before it suddenly turns brown (hence the name).

Bleeding cankers and dieback are not sufficient to make a positive SOD identification. Lab analysis of plant material is required before the suspected case can be confirmed.

There are thousands of confirmed cases of SOD in Santa Clara County (mostly in the forested areas). I did not see any indications of SOD on any trees being preserved, but I consider this a relatively high likelihood of outbreak area. Several precautions are recommended to help limit the possibility of infection. A detailed list of susceptible and host species, management and monitoring guidelines and prophylactic treatments are provided on the California Oak Mortality Task Force website (http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/). Of particular concern in this situation is the combined effect of construction impact and SOD on mature oak trees.

Page 430 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 11
Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset.

The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.

The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. All tree protection measures to comply with Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Sec.29.10.1005- Protection of Trees During Construction.

Tree Protection Zone

1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be identified for each tree to be preserved. The TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree shall be the dripline of the tree. In most cases, groups of trees can be protected collectively.

2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with 2-inch diameter galvanized iron posts driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more than 10- foot spacing, or equivalent as approved by the Town. Tree #75 shall be fenced at the edge of construction. Trees to remain in the sequences of #19-102 and 101-127 can be fenced along the western edge of their collective dripline. All other trees to remain can be protected by the perimeter fencing at their collective driplines at the limit of grading on the northern, eastern, and southern edges of the project.

3. Fences must be installed before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and must remain in place until construction is complete. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the Consulting Arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence.

4. No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Excavation within the dripline of tree #75 shall be approved by and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

5. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.

6. Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating: "Warning—Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025".

7. The attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree is prohibited.

Design recommendations

1. Any changes to the plans affecting the trees should be reviewed by the consulting arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site plans, improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and demolition plans.

2. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved. This is the TREE PROTECTION ZONE: No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.

3. Consider the vertical clearance requirements near trees during design. Avoid designs that would require pruning more than 20% of a tree’s canopy.

Page 431 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

4. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading plans, drainage plans, utility plans, and landscape and irrigation plans.

5. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching severs roots larger than 1” in diameter will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.

6. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all plans.

7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.

8. Do not lime the subsoil within 50’ of any tree. Lime is toxic to tree roots.

9. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area.

Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement.

10. Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in some cases occasional irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.

Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations

1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.

2. Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or TREE PROTECTION ZONE around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction.

3. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied back and protected from damage.

4. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattling around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks.

5. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1” and larger in diameter, raise canopies as needed for construction activities.
a. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). b. The Consulting Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition. c. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied back and protected from damage.
d. While in the tree the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify any defects, weak branch and trunk attachments and decay not visible from the ground. Any additional work needed to mitigate defects shall be reported to the property owner.

6. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) or located within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE of tree(s) to remain shall be removed by a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and not by the demolition contractor. The Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker shall remove the trees in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Stumps shall be ground below grade.

Page 432 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 433 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 434 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 435 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 436 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 437 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 438 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 439 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 440 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 441 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 442 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 443 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 444 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 445 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 446 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 447 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 448 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 449 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 450 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 451 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 452 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 453 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 454 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 455 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 456 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 457 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 458 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 459 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~305 Valley oak 14 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20 6 Coast live oak 23 Protected 70% Preserve Outside of grading ~30 7 Blue gum 40 Protected 30% Remove Road ~30
8 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 ~2016 California bay 10 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~2017 California bay 9,9 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~2018 California bay 5 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~2019 California bay 13,8 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~3020 California bay 11 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~2021 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 ~5024 California bay 17,16 Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~50 25 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

Page 460 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~2029 California bay 12,7,6 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~5030 Valley oak 34 Large Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~6031 California bay 16 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~3032 California bay 8 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2033 California bay 14,6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2034 California bay 8 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~2035 California bay 11,10,7 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~3036 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 ~2039 Coast live oak 27 Large Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~3040 Valley oak 17 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~2041 California bay 8,5,4 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2042 California bay 5 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2043 Valley oak 14 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~3044 Coast live oak 22 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~5045 California bay 6,5 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~2046 California bay 6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 47 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 ~30 52 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

Page 461 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~3057 California bay 9,8 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~3058 California bay 12 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~3059 Coast live oak 27,16 Large Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~60 60 California bay 14 Protected 10% Preserve Not developing slope ~2061 California bay 15 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~3062 California bay 13 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~3063 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 ~3066 California bay 11 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~2067 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 ~2070 Coast live oak 6 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 71 California bay 17,8 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~3072 Valley oak 33 Large Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~6073 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 ~5076 Monterey pine 15 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 77 Monterey pine 17 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 78 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% Remove Road ~1079 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

Page 462 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~2083 Monterey pine 14 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 84 Bigleaf maple 9 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 85 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~1086 Valley oak 19 Protected 70% Preserve Not developing slope ~5087 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 88 Monterey pine 8 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 89 Monterey pine 8 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 90 Blackwood acacia 10,6 Exception 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 91 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 92 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 ~10 97 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 ~20102 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 ~20104 Coast redwood 8 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20105 Coast redwood 9 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20106 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20 107 Coast redwood 8 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~20108 Coast redwood 4 Protected 90% Preserve Not developing slope ~10

Page 463 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~20111 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 ~10113 Olive 12,7 Exception 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20114 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 ~30116 Blue gum 47,32,17 Large Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~60117 Bronze loquat 6 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20118 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 ~30121 Valley oak 19 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30122 Coast live oak 11 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20123 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 ~30125 Coast redwood 19 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~20 126 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 ~30130 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 ~50135 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30

Page 464 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~20 140 Bronze loquat 6,4,2 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20
141 Crabapple 8 Exception 70% Remove Grading ~30
142 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 ~30
148 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 ~30157 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50158 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

Page 465 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~20 168 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 ~50171 California bay 7,7,7,6,5,5,5,5 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30172 California bay 8,5,5,4 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~30 173 California bay 16 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30
174 Coast live oak 8 Protected 70% Remove Grading ~20175 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 ~50 178 Deodar cedar 6 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~20179 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30180 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% Remove Grading ~10181 Sitka spruce 6 Protected 70% Remove Building ~10182 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 ~20
186 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 ~10 189 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~50

Page 466 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~30 192 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 ~20 204 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 ~50207 Sawleaf zelkova 19 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50208 Sawleaf zelkova 18 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~50 209 Mayten 7 Protected 30% Remove Building ~20
210 Italian cypress 14 Protected 70% Remove Building ~10211 Italian cypress 14 Protected 70% Remove Building ~10 212 Crabapple 12 Exception 50% Remove Building ~20
213 Crabapple 11 Exception 50% Remove Building ~20
214 Crabapple 11 Exception 30% Remove Building ~20
215 Coast live oak 22,22 Protected 50% Remove Road ~50
216 California bay 10 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20

Page 467 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~20 218 Loquat 6 Protected 70% Remove Building ~20219 Blue gum 36 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~50 220 Blue gum 62 Large Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~60 221 Blue gum 36 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~50
222 African fern‐pine 5 Protected 70% Remove Building ~20 223 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 ~20235 Toyon 6,5,4,4 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20236 California bay 12 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30237 California bay 11 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~20238 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Preserve Not developing slope ~30239 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

Page 468 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~20
245 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 ~20250 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 ~20
253 Plum 6,5,3 Exception 50% Remove Grading ~20254 Crabapple 7 Exception 30% Remove Grading ~20255 Crabapple 11 Exception 50% Remove Grading ~30 256 Bottlebrush 4,4 Protected 70% Remove Building ~20
257 Aleppo pine 6 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 258 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 ~20
266 California black walnut 8 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~20 267 Coast live oak 7 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~10
268 California bay 5 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~10
269 African sumac 12 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~30270 African sumac 9,9 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~30

Page 469 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~20 275 African sumac 9,7 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~20276 Crabapple 13 Exception 70% Remove Road ~20 277 Crabapple 13 Exception 70% Remove Road ~20
278 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 ~30288 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 ~30293 Ginkgo 5 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20 294 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

Page 470 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~20
300 African fern‐pine 8 Protected 30% Remove Road ~20
301 Japanese maple 5 Protected 50% Remove Building ~20302 Crabapple 9 Exception 50% Remove Building ~20 303 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 ~30313 Coast live oak 17 Protected 50% Remove Road ~30314 California bay 18,14 Protected 70% Remove Road ~30315 California bay 9 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20 316 California bay 11 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20317 Valley oak 18 Protected 30% Remove Road ~30318 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Remove Road ~20319 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 ~20322 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

Page 471 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~20 333 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 ~20
339 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20340 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 70% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 341 California bay 12 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20
342 California bay 12 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~20343 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Remove Grading ~30344 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% Remove Road ~30345 Coast live oak 8 Protected 10% Remove Grading ~10 346 Olive 9,7 Protected 50% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20
347 Coast live oak 5 Protected 30% Remove Grading ~10
348 Marina madrone 14 Protected 90% Remove Building ~20349 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

Page 472 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 ~10
366 Bailey acacia 5 Protected 10% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10 367 Bailey acacia 7 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 368 Bailey acacia 5 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20 369 Bailey acacia 7,7,7,6 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 370 Bailey acacia 1 Protected 30% REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 371 Plum 5,4 Protected 30% Preserve Not developing slope ~20372 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

Page 473 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 474 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 475 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 476 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 477 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 478 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 479 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 480 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 481 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 482 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 483 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 484 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
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 of 1 2
EXHIBIT 12

Page 485 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
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 of 2 2

Page 486 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

EXHIBIT 13 Page 487 Page 667
ITEM NO. 9.

Page 488 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 489 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 490 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 491 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 492 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 493 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 494 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 495 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 496 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 497 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 498 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 499 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 500 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 501 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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)

Page 502 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 503 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 504 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 505 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 506 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 507 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Page 508 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 509 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 510 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 >

Page 511 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 21, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Michael Kennedy < > wrote:
>>
>> Attaching photo from E. Main St, see below. Mike
>>
>>

Page 512 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
>>
>> 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

Page 513 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 514 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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)

Page 515 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 516 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 517 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 518 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
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

Page 519 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 520 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

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

Page 521 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 522 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 523 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 524 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
(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

Page 525 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

VIEW CORRIDORS

S SANTA CRUZ AVENUE & WOOD ROAD - ENLARGED

VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

Page 526 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
(DECEMBER 2021)
(JANUARY 2022)
JANUARY 2022

VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

VISUALIZATION

UPPER WOOD ROAD

Page 527 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
(DECEMBER 2021)
(JANUARY 2022)

VIEW WITH STORY POLE FINE TUNED ARCHITECTURE

BASED ON STORY POLE LOCATIONS

VISUALIZATION
121 WOOD ROAD
(MAY 2021)

PROPOSED

Page 528 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 529 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 530 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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 531 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 532 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

Assets and resource for local
seniors
EXHIBIT 18

Page 533 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

A
B
C
F
D
E
G
H

DEVELOPMENT AREA

EXISTING PROPOSED
2

Page 534 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
(547’) (540’)
(547’)
(537’)
(537’) (530’)
(537’)
(537’)
(519’)
529’) (520’)
(512’)
(547’)

EXISTING ELEVATIONS
571’ VILLA HEIGHTS
3

Page 535 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
(547’) (540’)
(547’)
(537’)
(537’) (530’)
(537’)
(537’)
(519’)
529’) (520’)
(512’)
(547’)

EXISTING ELEVATIONS
571’ VILLA HEIGHTS
4

Page 536 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
+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

Page 537 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
+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

Page 538 ends

ITEM NO. 9.
-----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

Page 539 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 540 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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,

Page 541 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 542 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 543 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 544 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 545 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 546 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 547 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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?

Page 548 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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?

Page 549 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 550 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 551 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 552 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 553 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 554 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 555 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 556 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 557 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 558 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 559 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 560 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 561 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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.

Page 562 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 563 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 564 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 565 ends

ITEM NO. 9.

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

Page 566 ends

Los Gatos City CouncilFebruary 4, 2025

Los Gatos City Council
February 4, 2025