Los Gatos City Council
January 13, 2026

ITEM NO. 1.

In addition to the overall form, scale and character of the larger residential portion of the structure, the treatment of the ground floor commercial/ retail space seems quite at odds with the specific plan. It currently stretches along the pedestrian Paseo, wraps around onto the Los Gatos Blvd. frontage, and is highly constrained by the standard “podium” framework approach. It is more typical of shopping center design or very urban ground floor office mixed use retail spaces.

In contrast, the visual images included in the specific plan as a statement of community expectations reflect a more individualistic approach that have elements in common with store frontages in downtown Los Gatos - see specific plan image excerpts below
North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 21

ITEM NO. 1.

While many taller mixed use buildings have generic base commercial frontages to allow flexibility in leasing, there are many other examples of newer mixed use developments emphasizing individuality of uses and design on ground floor commercial spaces. A few examples are shown below. The majority shown come from Emeryville’s Bay Street, San Jose’s Santana Row, Valencia’s Town Center and The American at Brand in Glendale.

North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 22

ITEM NO. 1.

Given the community expectations that even this much larger structure will be designed and built in a manner that has the “Look and feel of Los Gatos”, some examination may be useful of other examples of development where larger buildings used techniques to reduce the visual size of larger buildings to better fit into their community context. The photographs below, some historic and some contemporary, illustrate some of these approaches.

North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 23

ITEM NO. 1.

Mixed Use Housing Recommendations
The Mixed Use building will likely require considerable more study and testing if it is to achieve the community’s expectations and the vision of the North 40 Specific Plan. The prior pages address some of the issues and approach precedents for discussion. While I do not have a definitive recommendation regarding the final design of the mixed use building, I do have a few suggestions for consideration as the design refinement progresses.

1. Horizontal and vertical balance
I do believe that the project will be more successful if the current strong vertical elements of the design are more subdued. The comparison illustration below shows the introduction of more horizontally proportioned window patterns.

North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 24

ITEM NO. 1.

2. Building Base
While the “residential structure on top of a garage podium” is quite common, I think in this instance it creates a great deal of rigidity in conflict with the scale and character goals of the specific plan and divorces the residential units from the pedestrian environment. My strong suggestion would be to bring the residential structure and details down to grade level in lieu of using the podium formant. Further, I would suggest that plans be implemented to allow greater user individuality and variety that better reflects the scale and character of Los Gatos. Two examples are shown below, North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 25

ITEM NO. 1.

3. Balconies
Increase the number of balconies to more strongly enhance the residential character of the structure.

4. Greater Articulation
Reduce the boxiness of the building forms by more height variations and by taking advantage of special building corner designs - especially at the pedestrian Paseo - two examples are shown below.

North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 26

ITEM NO. 1.

SUMMARY
Overall the plan for Phase 2 seems well thought out in terms of the open space framework. The Townhome and Affordable Housing components are a good start but seem to fall short of the successful Phase 1 structures in terms of individual unit identity, visual variety and their fidelity to the “look, feel and small town character of Los Gatos” vision. Further refinements should be encouraged.

The biggest concern is the abrupt change of scale for the Mixed Use Building compared to not only adjacent development but also to all other portions of the town’s community fabric. The proposed height and bulk of the mixed use housing project would be a major departure from the wishes of the community over the past several decades. It’s size is more suited to urban and transit oriented cities and transportation corridors in the Bay Area than to a small town context. All of the mixed use building recommendations and suggestions above are focused on improving the project’s compliance with the North 40 Specific Plan community expectation, but they cannot fully mitigate the building’s visual impact on the community.

The mixed use examples shown above are intended to show that there are a variety of ways to approach taller residential buildings in a smaller scale context. The following examples are provided to focus attention on some specific concepts that staff might wish to explore further with the applicant to address the mixed use building. These are not design recommendations but rather concepts on how others have approached similar specific design and massing issues.

North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 27
• Facade variety and articulation within smaller building width increments. • Clearly defined pedestrian scale base with related but different upper floors. • Window recesses and varied residential character windows. • Varied top silhouette and special treatment to provide a residential top. • Facade variety and articulation within smaller building width increments.
• Clearly defined pedestrian smaller scale base with
related but different upper floors.
• Prominent residential balconies.

ITEM NO. 1.

North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 28
• Building division into base, middle and top.
• Upper floors facade change to minimize visual
vertical building height.
• Prominent residential balconies.
• Separate buildings treatment with varied
facade treatments and articulation.
• Prominent residential balconies.
• Upper floor articulation and varied silhouette.
• Prominent residential balconies and facade
depth.
• Varied and differentiated building base.
• Separate buildings treatment with varied
facade treatments and articulation.
• Prominent residential balconies and other
architectural details.
• Varied top building silhouette.
• Separate buildings treatment with varied
facade treatments and articulation.
• Prominent residential balconies and other
architectural details.
• Varied building top silhouette.
• Buildings firmly linked to grade with varied
ground floor facade treatments.
• Separate buildings treatment with varied
facade treatments and articulation.
• Prominent residential balconies and other
architectural details.

ITEM NO. 1.

While the above concepts could reduce the mixed use building’s impact on the scale and feel of the North 40 project, they could not fully mitigate its height and bulk. While the applicant has wide latitude to fashion the development to meet their increased housing goals, some consideration could be given to reallocating some of the units to other portions of the site to reduce the overall height of the building along the Los Gatos Blvd. and Paseo frontages.

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
North Forty Phase 2
Design Review Comments
February 7, 2024 Page 29
• Buildings firmly linked to grade with varied ground floor facade treatments.
• Prominent second floor residential living space related to the ground floor facades.
• Varied ground floor facade treatments with
more of a “Look and Feel of Los Gatos”.
• Stronger landscaping and sense of residential
activity at second floor terrace.
• Upper floor setbacks along
the Los Gato Blvd. and Paseo
frontages.
• More unique building corners
with clear residential character.

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

Grosvenor – Property Americas
T +1 (415) 434-0175
www.grosvenor.com
One California Street
Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94111
USA
4896-9879-6334 v1
March 25, 2025
Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Final Application Submittal for 14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road (APN 424- 07-009, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, -116, and -052)
Architecture and Site Application S-23-031
Subdivision Application M-23-005
Dear Ms. Shoopman:

I am writing to confirm our response to the Town of Los Gatos’s Consulting Architect report, dated February 4, 2024. In Sections II and III of the October 3, 2024 letter addressed to you from Eric Phillips, we acknowledged the receipt of the Cannon Design Group’s Design Review Comments and provided our response. For ease of reference, the portions of the October 3, 2024 letter relevant to our response to the Design Review Comments are excerpted and updated below.

As an initial matter, we note that the Project has been designed to comply with all of the Town’s applicable, objective design standards, as demonstrated by the most recent “Objective Design Standards” matrix submitted in support of our application. In addition, Grosvenor has partnered with three highly-qualified, well-respected architecture firms who have expended a tremendous amount of time and thought in developing a vision for Phase II of the North 40 that includes neighborhood serving retail, complements the surrounding neighborhoods and uses, and maximizes open space that both the North 40 and surrounding community can enjoy – all while satisfying the minimum density requirement identified in the Town’s Housing Element. Therefore, we believe that the Project’s design thoughtfully satisifes the Town’s applicable design standards and its housing policies in a manner appropriate for the required density, the Project Site, its immediate surroundings, and the larger community-wide context.

The Project Complies with the Town’s Applicable, Objective Development Standards.

The Town has adopted “Objective Design Standards” to evaluate housing development projects. In its December 23, 2024 Staff Technical Review letter, the Town did not identify any applicable Objective Design Standards that the Project did not satisfy.1
Note that the Project has also applied for
concessions/incentives and waivers pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code section 1 The Staff Technical Review letter requested additional justification related to the Project’s requests under the State Density Bonus Law, which information was provided to the Town on March 7, 2025.

EXHIBIT 4

ITEM NO. 1.
4896-9879-6334 v1
65915) to accommodate the Project’s design.2 Accordingly, not all of the Town’s Objective Design Standards are applicable to the Project. However, the Project’s design satisfies all applicable Objective Design Standards.

Cannon Design Group’s Design Review Comments are inapplicable to the Project.

The Town’s July 17, 2024 Staff Technical Review letter attached a report from the Town’s Consulting Architect evaluating the Project (Design Review Comments from Cannon Design Group dated February 4, 2024, or the “Cannon Letter”). As discussed in more detail below, the Cannon Letter’s comments do not address standards applicable to the Project or identify any basis to disapprove or condition the Project.

Therefore, the Project application material does not include a response to each specific comment in the Cannon Letter.

First, the Cannon Letter focuses on the “vision, goals, policies, development standards, and design guidelines” from the North 40 Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). However, the referenced standards were created for residential uses already developed in Phase I of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan describes commercial design guidelines for Phase II and the Project Site. However, as discussed in Section II of this letter, the Specific Plan’s land use designations and standards are not applicable to a housing development project that is consistent with the Housing Element’s designation for the Project Site.

Because the Project will consist of residential development consistent with the Housing Element, the Specific Plan’s commercial design guidelines and Phase I residential design guidelines are not applicable to the Project.

Second, the Housing Element designates the Project Site for residential development at 30 du/ac with an expected yield of up to 461 units. The Specific Plan was intended for a much lower density development and accommodated only 320 total units in Phase I and Phase II after a density bonus was awarded. This means that the Specific Plan’s guidelines do not facilitate nor accommodate the density currently allowed on the Project Site, and as such they may not be enforced. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(1) (development polices “shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development”).) Third, many of the Cannon Letter’s comments and the underlying design guidelines use the word “should,” which is not mandatory language. (See Specific Plan, p. 3-1 [“Mandatory regulations are denoted by the use of the word “shall.” A guideline, which is denoted by the word “should,” is not mandatory”].) In addition to being advisory, the Cannon Letter’s comments and underlying design guidelines are highly subjective, and the Town’s discretion is limited to compliance with objective standards. No response is required to comments regarding non-mandatory guidelines, which are not a basis to deny or condition the Project.

For example, the Architectural and Site Character Goals and Policies in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines include a goal to “continue the small-town character of Los Gatos,” and Policy DG2 is to “create a new neighborhood that has its own identity yet complements the existing character of Los Gatos.” (Specific Plan, p. 3-1.) Throughout the Cannon Letter are many variations on the statement that 2 Because of the Project’s affordability levels, it is eligible for two concessions/incentives that result in cost reductions and unlimited waivers of development standards necessary to accommodate the Project as proposed. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(B), (e).)

ITEM NO. 1.
4896-9879-6334 v1
the Project design should reflect the “look, feel and small-town character of Los Gatos.” These standards are neither mandatory nor objective, so no response is required.

The Cannon Letter’s comments rely on inapplicable, subjective standards that conflict with the density allowed in the Housing Element in an apparent effort to reduce the Project’s density, in direct conflict with the Housing Accountability Act and the Town’s own Housing Element policies. For example, the Cannon Letter takes issue with the Project’s proposed height. (See, e.g., pp. 10 [“The height and mass of the structure are magnitudes larger than any other residential or commercial development in the community”], 18 [“The currently proposed design falls arguably short of accommodating a building of this size and height”], 27 [“The proposed height and bulk of the mixed use housing project would be a major departure from the wishes of the community over the past several decades”], & 29 [design concepts could “reduce the [Project’s] impact” but “could not fully mitigate [the Project’s] height and bulk”].) None of these comments are based on applicable, objective standards. Rather, the Cannon Letter raises issues with height and bulk in connection with its comments on the “character” of the development, which is not a valid basis to review the Project.

We look forward to the Planning Commission’s and Town Council’s review of the Project application and continuing to work with the Town to meet the community’s housing needs.

Yours sincerely,
Steve Buster
Senior Vice President
[email protected]

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024
Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA

Arborist Report
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
PREPARED FOR:

Perkins & Will
2 Bryant Street Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
PREPARED BY:

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
2550 Ninth Street, Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
August 2023
Updated September 27, 2024
EXHIBIT 5

ITEM NO. 1.

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Arborist Report
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Suitability for Preservation 9
Los Gatos Tree Ordinance 10
Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 11 Estimate of Value 12
Preliminary Tree Preservation Specifications 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence 2 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 10
Table 3. Replacement Tree Requirements 11
Attachments
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Protection Plan
Tree Disposition and Estimated Values Form
Tree Photos

ITEM NO. 1.

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Arborist Report
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
Introduction and Overview
Perkins and Will are planning the development of the North 40 Phase II project in Los Gatos, CA.

The site formerly consisted of a walnut orchard, farmhouses, a barn and other outbuildings.

Landscaping surrounded the primary home at 15495 Los Gatos Blvd., Los Gatos. The project limits also include homes and properties on the south side of Burton Road. Perkins and Will requested that HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (Divisions of the F.A. Tree Expert Company) prepare an Arborist Report for the site as part of the development application to the Town of Los Gatos. This updated report was created to address comments provided by Monarch Consulting Arborists dated April 15, 2024.

This report provides the following information:

1. An evaluation of the health and structural condition of the trees within or adjacent to the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground.

2. A preliminary assessment of trees that will be preserved and removed based on architectural plans.

3. An estimate of the value for retained trees and required mitigation.

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

Assessment Methods
Trees were evaluated on July 7, 2023 and again on August 11, 2023. All trees measuring 4 inches in diameter and greater were included in this assessment, as required by the Town of Los Gatos. An exception was made for the English walnut orchard trees less than 18”; other than areas specified by Perkins and Will. Trees on adjacent properties with canopies extending into the project area were also assessed and included in this inventory. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:

1. Identifying the tree species.

2. Identifying trees with a number and recording their location on a map.

3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54 inches above grade.

4. Estimate the tree’s height and canopy spread at the widest point.

5. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - 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.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

6. 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.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 2
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 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 than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in the ‘high’ category.

Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. The 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
Two hundred and ninety-two (292) trees, representing 44 species (Table 1) were evaluated.

Trees were likely planted when the site was homesteaded many years ago. Most trees were growing around structures and homes within the English walnut orchard. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) was the only native species and may have been indigenous to the site. Of note, five large cork oaks (Quercus suber) were located on the west side of the property. Tree condition was variable: 16 trees were in good condition, 201 were fair and 75 were poor. Twenty-two (22) trees were located off-site including 15 Australian willows (Geijera parviflora) planted in 4x4 tree wells along Los Gatos Blvd., incense cedars (Calocedrus decurrens) #281 and 282, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) #219, 258 and 279 and Aleppo pines (Pinus halepensis) #263 and 280.

Tree growing off-site had crowns extending into the project area. Descriptions of each tree can be found in the Tree Assessment and locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Attachments).
*Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Japanese maple Acer palmatum 2 - - 2
African fern-pine Afrocarpus falcatus - 1 - 1
Strawberry tree Arbutus unedo - 1 - 1
Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 2 - - 2
Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica - 3 - 3
Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 1 2 1 4
Carob Ceratonia siliqua - 1 - 1
Lime Citrus aurantifolia 2 - - 2
Orange Citrus sinensis 1 - - 1
Cabbage palm Cordyline australis 1 - - 1
Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 11 2 - 13
Persimmon Diospyros kaki - - 1 1
Cider gum Eucalyptus gunnii - 1 - 1
Australian willow Geijera parviflora 1 14 - 15
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba - 1 - 1
Monterey cypress Hesperocyparis macrocarpa - 1 - 1
Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 1 1 - 2
English walnut Juglans regia 19 122 - 141

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 3
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company *Table 1 Continued. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Western juniper Juniperus occidentalis - 1 - 1
Goldenrain tree Koelreuteria paniculata - 1 - 1
Japanese privet Ligustrum japonicum - 1 - 1
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 1 - - 1
Mulberry Morus sp. 1 - - 1
Olive Olea europaea 2 16 - 18
Avocado Persea americana 1 2 - 3
Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis - 1 - 1
Shore pine Pinus contorta - 1 - 1
Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis - 3 - 3
Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 1 - 1
Japanese black pine Pinus thunbergiana 1 - - 1
Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis 2 - - 2
Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 8 - - 8
London plane Platanus x hispanica - 1 - 1
Almond Prunus dulcis 1 - - 1
Hollyleaf cherry Prunus ilicifolia 1 - - 1
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 9 15 9 33
Pin oak Quercus palustris - 1 - 1
Cork oak Quercus suber 2 2 5 9
Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 1 - - 1
California pepper Schinus molle - 1 - 1
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - 1 - 1
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 1 3 - 4
Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 1 - - 1
Xylosma Xylosma congestum 2 - - 2
Total 75 201 16 292
*Please note that the mulberry was dead, and the Siberian elm was severely storm-damaged and resting on the roof of an outbuilding.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 4
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company The most common species was English
walnut with 141 trees. Not all orchard trees
were counted in this inventory since only
English walnuts over 18” are Protected by
Los Gatos. Trees had the typical round full
crowns that have been regularly pruned for
harvesting (Photo 1). One hundred and
twenty-two (122) were in fair condition and 19
were poor. Many trees had structural defects,
decay in the main stem, and poor structure
due to previous orchard pruning practices.

Walnuts ranged in diameter between 4 – 21
inches with an average of just over 8 inches.

Of the 33 coast live oaks, nine were in good
condition, 15 were fair and nine were poor.

These native trees had typical large crowns with
good structure and form (Photo 2). These trees
were semi-mature to mature in development
with trunk diameters ranging between 4 – 48
inches with an average of 16 inches.

Eighteen (18) olive trees, except for #261, were
located along the front of the property creating a
buffer between Los Gatos Blvd. and the orchard
(Photo 3). These were mature trees with large
crowns and multiple attachments at the base.

Sixteen (16) were in fair condition while #313
and 314 were in poor condition with poor
structure and form and decay between multiple
attachments at the base.

Fifteen (15) Australian willow trees were
growing as street trees along Los Gatos Blvd.

These trees were young in development with
diameters ranging between 5 – 12 inches.

These trees were growing in 4x4 foot tree
wells in the sidewalk between the olive trees
and the street. Fourteen (14) were in fair
condition and #297 was in poor condition with
low vigor and twig dieback.

Photo 1. English walnut #345 had a typical
orchard-pruned shape.

Photo 3. Olives #311 – 317 were
growing behind the fence and sidewalk
along Los Gatos Blvd.

Photo 2. Coast live oak #380 was growing
on the northeast side of the house in the
orchard had good structure and form.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 5
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Thirteen Arizona cypress
trees lined the east fence line
between current residences
and the walnut orchard.

Eleven cypresses were in
poor condition with broken
branches, poor form and
dieback in their crowns.

Cypress # 223 and 447 were
in fair condition with wide
crowns.

Nine cork oaks were growing
throughout the property. Of
note were five mature
specimens #394 – 398
growing in a row on the west
side of the property (Photo 4).

Five oaks were in good
condition, #373 and 396 were
fair and #388 and 389 were in
poor condition growing in front
of the primary residence with major crown dieback and very low vigor. Cork oak #381 had three stems at 3 feet with a full crown and minor dead branches.

Eight Victorian box trees were growing on the northwest side of 16270 Burton Rd. between the fence and dog kennels. All eight were in poor condition with branch dieback, poor structure and poor form. Diameters ranged between 5 – 9 inches with an average of just over 7 inches.

No other species were represented by more than four trees. Included in this group were:
• African fern-pine #269 had a 21-inch trunk diameter and was in fair condition. It had an upright form with a wide crown and a history of branch failure. • Aleppo pines #263, 265 and 280 were in fair
condition with large crowns and large
diameter stems averaging over 31 inches.
• Almond #376 had multiple attachments at
the base with dead branches and poor form.

It was growing on the north side of the
primary residence in a fence line and was in
poor condition.
• Atlas cedars #370 – 372 were in fair
condition growing in the front yard of the
primary residence (Photo 5). The growth
habit was upright in form with large crowns
and low vigor. All were mature in
development and averaged 27 inches in
trunk diameter.

Photo 4. Cork oaks #394 – 398 were growing in a row on the west side of the property.

Photo 5. Atlas cedars #370 – 372 were
in fair condition in front of the primary
residence.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 6
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company • Avocados #340 and 347 were in fair condition. Tree #347 had poor form due to previous branch failures and had decay in the main stem. Tree #340 was young with a 6-inch diameter trunk and leaned to the east.
• Black locust #341 had a 12-inch diameter trunk and was previously topped. It had multiple attachments at 4 feet and was in poor condition. • Cabbage palm #383 was behind the primary residence with two stems at 3 feet. The palm was declining.
• California pepper #336 was one-sided and
bowed to the east. The tree was in fair
condition with an 11-inch diameter trunk.
• Canary Island pine #264 was in fair
condition with a 23-inch diameter trunk.

The side branches had been pruned due
to power lines causing this tree to be onesided to the south. • Carob #387 was at the east side of the
primary residence with fair structure and
form, wide crown and moderate vigor. The
tree was in fair condition overall with a
codominant stem below 4 feet.
• Chinese elm #385 had a 12-inch diameter
trunk and had been previously topped. It
had low vigor and poor structure leading to
its poor condition rating. Three other
Chinese elms were in fair condition with fair
or poor structure and form.
• Chinese pistache #451 and 452 were in
poor condition due to being previously
topped and multiple attachments at 6’.
• Cider gum #267 had a wide crown with
multiple attachments at the base and was in
fair condition.
• Coast redwood #270 was codominant at 3’
with poor form and moderate vigor (Photo
7). This tree had a diameter sum total of 54
inches and was in fair condition.

Photo 6. Canary Island pine #264 was oneside to the south due to power line pruning.

Photo 7. Coast redwood #270 had a codominant
trunk at 3 feet and was in fair condition.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 7
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company • Deodar cedar #272 and 390 were in fair condition. Cedar #374 was in poor condition with a small, suppressed crown behind the primary residence. Cedar #390 was in fair condition growing in front of the primary residence with a weeping form and an 8-inch trunk diameter.
• Gingko #446 was in fair condition with a relatively wide crown and multiple attachments at 8 feet.
• Goldenrain tree #343 was growing beside a carport on the west side of the secondary residence. It had a 12-inch diameter trunk and a small crown. The tree was in fair condition.
• Hollyleaf cherry #386 was growing beside the primary residence with poor structure and form. It was previously topped due to site constraints and was in poor condition. • Incense cedars #281 and 282 were growing off-site in front of 16245 Burton Rd. Both trees were in poor condition with large branch dieback and poor structure and form. • Jacaranda #338 was in full flower with a codominant trunk at 3 feet with a full crown of epicormic sprouts due to having been previously topped (Photo 8). The tree was in fair condition and leaned heavily to the north. Jacaranda #382 had been previously topped and was in poor condition.
• Japanese black pine #392 had a 6-inch diameter trunk, low vigor and yellowing needles.

The tree was in poor condition.
• Japanese flowering apricot #344 was in fair condition with a small crown and 10-inch diameter trunk.

Photo 8. Jacaranda #338 was in full bloom and had poor structure due to being previously topped.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 8
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company • Japanese maple #393 and 448 were in poor condition with poor form and decay in the main stems.
• Japanese privet #334 had a small crown with a 10-inch diameter trunk and was in fair condition.
• Limes #352 and 353 were located on the east side of the barn. They had small crowns with multiple attachments at the base. Both trees were in poor condition. • London plane #222 was in fair condition with poor form and co-dominant at 1 foot. • Monterey cypress #216 had multiple attachments at the base with poor form and lower branch dieback. The tree was in fair condition.
• Monterey pine #449 had a 38-inch diameter trunk with a large crown and leaned slightly south. This tree had a large lateral branch removed from the southwest side and the tree was in fair condition.
• Mulberry #274 was dead in the back of 16270 Burton Road, surrounded by pavement. • Persimmon #342 had a 12-inch diameter trunk with good form and high vigor. The crown had an umbrella shape, and the tree was in good condition. • Pin oak #221 was a small, young tree with a 6-inch diameter trunk with upright form and fair condition.
• Shore pine #391 had multiple attachments at the base with a round crown and twig dieback. The tree was in fair condition.
• Siberian elm #277 was in the
back of 16270 Burton Road with
a split codominant main stem
and half of the tree was resting
on the dog kennel (Photo 9).

This tree was in poor condition.
• Strawberry tree #217 was in fair
condition with three stems
arising from the base. The tree
had a full crown but had poor
form.
• Sweetgum #384 was in poor condition and had been previously topped, with poor structure and low vigor.
• Western juniper #271 had a 15-inch diameter trunk with twig dieback and the tree was in fair condition.
• Xylosma #259 and 260 were in poor condition with codominant stems at 1-foot, poor form and moderate vigor.

Photo 9. Siberian elm #277 was
storm damaged and the main
trunk was split at the base.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 9
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 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 longterm health, structural stability and longevity.

Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors as listed below:
 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 nonvigorous trees. For example, cork oaks #388 and 389 were in poor condition and declining and will likely not tolerate additional root zone impacts.  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. Siberian elm #277 was split at the base and half the tree was on the roof of an outbuilding. This tree is not structurally sound.  Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Walnuts are very sensitive to construction impacts, while coast live oak and olive are more tolerant of site disturbances.  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. Cork oaks and coast live oaks were mature in development and will require more space to protect roots.  Invasiveness
Trees with the potential to invade native habitats, reproduce rapidly, and grow in suboptimal environments are considered invasive. Species with these qualities may alter the functional and aesthetic qualities of the habitats they invade. Black locust, cabbage palm, California pepper and olive have been listed as having Limited invasive potential by the California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (https://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/).

Each tree was rated on suitability for preservation based on its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2, following page). We consider trees with good suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend the 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.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 10
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Table 2. Suitability for preservation
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Thirteen trees had high suitability for preservation: seven coast live oaks, five cork oaks and persimmon #342.

Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and they may have shorter life spans than those in the “high” category. One hundred and sixty-four (164) trees had moderate suitability for preservation: 101 English walnuts, 15 olives, 14 Australian willows, 13 coast live oaks, blue Atlas cedars # 370 – 372, Avocado #340 and 347, deodar cedar #266 and 272, cork oaks #373 and 396, California pepper #336, goldenrain tree #343, African fern-pine #269, Aleppo pine #280, Chinese elm #276, cost redwood #270, ginkgo #446, jacaranda #338, Japanese privet #344, Monterey pine #449, pin oak # 221 and carob #387.

Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in the structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. One hundred and fifteen (115) trees were included in this category: 40 English walnuts, 13 Arizona cypresses, 13 coast live oaks, eight Victorian box, three olives, three Chinese elms, and 27 other species with 35 total trees.

Los Gatos Tree Ordinance
The Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Chapter 29, Division 2, Tree Protection, defines Protected trees as non-native and native trees with a trunk diameter of 4 inches and larger measured at 54 inches above ground level. Multi-stem trees are measured with the sum of all diameters. Los Gatos also defines Large Protected trees as oaks with 24-inch diameter trunks and larger or any other species with a trunk diameter of 48 inches or larger. Fruit or nut trees less than 18 inches in diameter are exempt from protection.

Based on these criteria, 21 trees are considered Large Protected, and 126 trees are considered Protected. Of the 145 fruit and nut trees assessed, 138 English walnuts, limes #352 and 353, orange #262, persimmon #342 and avocados #340 and 347 and almond #376 are not protected and do not require a permit for removal.

Large Protected and Protected trees are regulated by the Town of Los Gatos and cannot be removed without a permit. Per the Municipal Ordinance, replacement tree planting or fees in lieu may be required by the Town of Los Gatos. The status of individual trees is identified in the Tree Assessment and Tree Disposition and Estimated Values Tables (see Attachment).

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 11
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities with the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Impacts from construction were estimated given the project information available to date. I referred to the North 40 Phase II Master Plan Entitlement Set – Revision 3 prepared by Perkins and Will, MacKay & Somps, DAHLIN Group, Heller Manus Architects and CMG Landscape Architecture (3/29/24) and Landscape Site Plan Coordination (Sheet L1.12) prepared by Perkins and Will (9/17/24) to evaluate impacts.

The development of Phase II proposes to construct both townhomes and multifamily residential units with private streets and parking. The development will encompass a large part of the site, leaving the primary opportunity for tree preservation along the open space in the middle referred to as “The Meadow,” with moderate impacts expected. All non-orchard trees 4” and larger were evaluated in this assessment. H|BC was asked to evaluate specific orchard trees during the second Updated Preliminary Arborist Report for locations specified by Perkins and Will. This did not include every English walnut on-site. All English walnuts over 18 inches, considered Protected, were included in this report.

My preliminary disposition is for the removal of 265 trees that are within the proposed construction footprint or will have impacts beyond the tolerance of the trees. I recommend the preservation of 23 on-site and four off-site trees (refer to the Tree Disposition and Estimated Values Table in the Attachments). Of the 265 trees to be removed, 127 were considered Exempt due to being a fruit or nut tree under 18 inches in diameter. One hundred nineteen (119) trees were considered Protected and 19 were considered Large Protected, totaling 138 trees requiring replacement mitigation.

Los Gatos requires tree replacements for Protected and Large Protected tree removals based on canopy spread (Table 3). Please note that a 36” box-size tree equals two (2) 24” box-size trees.

Preserved off-site trees may require crown and root pruning due to the proximity to the multifamily housing. I expect that pruning will be well within the tolerance limits of the trees. Survival can further be enhanced by following the Tree Preservation Guidelines on page 13.

Canopy Size of
Removed Tree
Replacement Requirement # of Protected
Trees Removed
# of Replacement
Trees Required
10' or less Two (2) 24" box trees 38 76
>10' to 25' Three (3) 24" box trees 45 135
26' to 40' Four (4) 24" box trees 33 132
41' - 55' Six (6) 24" box trees 14 84
> 55' Ten (10) 24" box trees 8 80
Total 138 507
Table 3. Replacement Tree Requirements with 24” box-size trees.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 12
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Estimate of Value
The Town of Los Gatos required Perkins & Will to provide the estimated value for trees that will be preserved. To accomplish this, I used the standard methods found in Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition (published in 2018 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 tree appraisal.

The reproduction cost of landscape trees is based on four factors: size, condition, functional limitations and external limitations. Size is measured as trunk diameter 54" above grade.

Condition reflects the health and structural integrity of the individual, as noted in the Tree Disposition and Estimated Values Table (see Attachments). Functional limitations consider the interaction of the tree with its planting site currently and for the foreseeable future. I did not identify any external limitations at this site.

The estimated value of all trees identified was $771,050. The estimated value of the 265 trees being removed was $665,000 (127 trees were exempt due to fruit or nut species that were less than 18 inches in diameter = $109,750; 19 Large Protected trees = $319,400; 104 Protected trees = $218,700 and 15 Protected street trees = $17,150).

The estimated value of 23 on-site trees and four off-site (#271, 280, 281 and 282) trees identified for preservation was valued at $106,050. Four on-site and three off-site trees were Protected, cork oak #381 and off-site coast live oak #279 were considered Large Protected and 18 were exempt due to being fruit or nut trees.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 13
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary 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 depends on the amount of excavation and grading, care with which demolition is undertaken, and construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ) can minimize these impacts. The Tree Protection Plan (TPP) (Perkins and Will, 9/27/24) can be found in the Attachments. Trees are listed on the TPP as existing Protected and non-Protected trees with the potential to be preserved to the extent feasible during the final design.

The following recommendations will help reduce impacts on trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading, and construction phases.

Trees should be preserved in groups where possible. Calculated TPZ’s were provided in the Disposition and Estimated Values Form (See Attachments). The Calculated TPZ was based on 10x the diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4.5 feet, of the tree. In most locations, 10x DBH is not possible. Specified TPZ’s are listed in the following guidelines for trees that are to be preserved. Additional mitigation measures should be performed where work must occur within 10x the DBH of any protected tree. Excavation should be performed using hand tools, air or water.

The following are recommendations for design and construction phases that will assist in successful tree preservation.

Tree Protection Zone

1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ) shall be defined as:
a. Fence all trees proposed for preservation out to the drip line where possible, to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE before demolition, grubbing or grading.

Fences shall be 6-foot chain link with posts sunk into the ground 2 feet at no more than 10-foot spacing, or equivalent as approved by the City. The following are specified TPZ for preserved trees:
• Persimmon #342 and Goldenrain tree #343 - enclose trees at the edge of the walkway and around the drip line.
• English walnut #349, 375, 379, 380, cork oaks #373 and 381 - enclose individual trees at the drip line to the edge of the hardscape.
• English walnut #350, 367, 368 and 369 - enclose the entire group to the edge of the dripline and edge of the walkways.
• Atlas cedar #372 - enclose crown to dripline.
• English walnut #377, 378, 458 and 469 - enclose the entire group to the edge of the dripline and edge of the walkway.
• English walnut #470 and 481 - enclose the entire group to the edge of the dripline and edge of the walkway.
• English walnut #473, 474, 477, 478 - enclose the entire group to the edge of the dripline and edge of the walkway.
• Off-site trees #279, 280, 281 and 282 are east of Burton Road, outside the construction footprint, and do not require TPZ fencing. b. Fences must be installed before beginning demolition and must remain until construction is complete.

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 14
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company c. No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
d. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
e. Fenced areas shall be posted with signs stating, “TREE PROTECTION FENCE – DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM PROJECT ARBORIST.” Design recommendations

1. Any changes to the plans affecting the trees should be reviewed by the consulting arborist concerning 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. Plot accurate locations of all trees to be preserved on all project plans. Identify the TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree. Focus on preserving trees that have high suitability for preservation.

3. 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.

4. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist concerning 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 2 inches 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 feet 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 most 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. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading.

Fences shall be 6 feet chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such as removing pavement, install temporary trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattle or wood planks around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks to a height of approximately 5 feet (see photos, right).

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 15
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Any low branches that are within the work zone should also be protected. Remove trunk protection after demolition is completed and install a protective fence at the limits of the tree protection zone. Do not retain wattling around tree trunks for more than 2-3 weeks to avoid damaging trunks from excess moisture.

3. Apply and maintain 4 - 6 inches wood chip mulch within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Keep the mulch 2 feet from the base of tree trunks.

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

5. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1” and larger in diameter, raise or reduce canopies as needed for construction activities. a. Do not remove more than 20-25% of each tree’s crown. b. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker following 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). 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 branches 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. Trees to be removed shall be felled to fall away from TREE PROTECTION ZONE and avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain.

7. 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.

8. 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 before 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.

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 the permission of the Consulting Arborist.

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

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 16
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

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

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

Maintenance of impacted trees
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in the 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 of 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.

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Scott Stringer, Consulting Arborist & Urban Forester
ISA Certified Arborist # WE-5544A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Attachments: Tree Assessment
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Protection Plan
Tree Disposition and Estimated Values
Tree Photos

ITEM NO. 1.

Updated Arborist Report. September 2024 Perkins & Will
North 40 Phase II, Los Gatos, CA Page 17
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Attachments
Tree Assessment
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Protection Plan
Tree Disposition and Estimated Values
Tree Photos

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
212 Australian willow 11 Yes 3 20 15 Moderate Street tree; multiple attachments at 5’; thin crown.
213 Australian willow 11 Yes 3 20 15 Moderate Street tree; multiple attachments at 5’; thin crown.
214 Australian willow 8 Yes 3 20 15 Moderate Street tree; multiple attachments at 5’; thin crown.
215 Australian willow 12 Yes 3 20 15 Moderate Street tree; multiple attachments at 7’; one sided south; wide crown.
216 Monterey cypress 22,4,4,3 Yes 3 25 25 Low Multiple attachments at base; poor form; lower branch dieback.
217 Strawberry tree 12,10,9 Yes 3 20 20 Low 3 stem at base; full crown; poor form.
218 Arizona cypress 8,7 Yes 2 20 25 Low One-stem dead; thin crown; poor form.
219 Coast live oak 9,4 Yes 3 20 20 Moderate Off-site; two stem at 1’; small crown; moderate vigor.
220 Avocado 10,9 Yes 2 20 20 Low Decay in main stem; too and 221 Pin oak 6 Yes 3 10 20 Moderate Upright form; thin crown; small branch dieback.
222 London plane 6,6,2,2 Yes 3 20 20 Low Poor form; codominant at 1’; wide crown.
223 Arizona cypress 8,7 Yes 3 15 20 Low Poor form; codominant; medium crown.
224 Arizona cypress 8,7,6,4,4 Yes 2 15 25 Low Poor form; branch dieback; multiple attachments at base.
225 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 15 20 Low Poor form; heavy lean west. 226 Coast live oak 7 Yes 3 15 20 Low Fair form; one sided south. 227 Arizona cypress 10,8,7,7 Yes 2 15 20 Low Failing at base; poor form. 228 Coast live oak 7,2 Yes 3 15 20 Low Codominant at base; poor form; Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
229 Arizona cypress 10 Yes 2 15 20 Low Poor form; previous branch failures; poor condition.
230 Arizona cypress 9 Yes 2 10 20 Low Poor form; previous branch failures; poor condition.
231 Arizona cypress 5,4,4,3,2 Yes 2 10 20 Low Poor form; broken hanging branches; failing at base.
232 Arizona cypress 10,8,5 Yes 2 10 20 Low Poor form; broken hanging branches.
233 Coast live oak 5,5,2 Yes 2 10 15 Low Poor form; small crown; multiple attachments at 2’.
234 Arizona cypress 6 Yes 2 8 15 Low Poor form; small crown; broken top.
235 Arizona cypress 4,4 Yes 2 8 12 Low Poor form; small crown. 236 Coast live oak 4 Yes 3 8 15 Low Poor form; small crown. 237 Arizona cypress 5 Yes 2 8 15 Low Previous codominant failure; poor form.
238 Coast live oak 4 Yes 2 8 20 Low Upright form; thin crown. 239 Arizona cypress 5 Yes 2 10 25 Low Upright form; thin crown. 240 Coast live oak 9,7 Yes 3 20 25 Moderate Two stem at base; medium crowned moderate vigor.
241 Coast live oak 14 Yes 3 30 20 Low Wide crown; moderate vigor; estimated DBH; tag on fence.
242 Coast live oak 5 Yes 2 10 20 Low Small crown; poor form; fence leaning at trunk.
243 Coast live oak 6,3,3,3,3 Yes 2 20 15 Low Multiple attachments at base; poor form; moderate vigor.
244 Victorian box 9 Yes 2 10 15 Low Between kennel and fence; poor form; branch dieback.
245 Victorian box 9 Yes 2 10 15 Low Between kennel and fence; poor form; branch dieback.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
246 Victorian box 6 Yes 2 10 15 Low Between kennel and fence; poor form; branch dieback.
247 Victorian box 5 Yes 2 10 15 Low Between kennel and fence; poor form; branch dieback.
248 Victorian box 5 Yes 2 10 15 Low Between kennel and fence; poor form; branch dieback.
249 Victorian box 8,6 Yes 2 20 15 Low Between kennel and fence; poor form; branch dieback.
250 Victorian box 8,6 Yes 2 20 15 Low Between kennel and fence; poor form.
251 Victorian box 9 Yes 2 20 15 Low Between kennel and fence; poor form.
252 English walnut 7 No 3 20 20 Moderate Medium crown; fair form; moderate vigor.
253 English walnut 10 No 3 20 15 Moderate Wide crown; fair form; moderate vigor.
254 English walnut 9 No 3 15 10 Low Wide crown; fair form; moderate vigor.
255 Coast live oak 5 Yes 2 8 20 Low Poor form; suppressed; thin crown. 256 Coast live oak 12,10,9 Yes/LP 3 40 40 Moderate Poor form; one sided south; moderate vigor; multiple
257 Coast live oak 14,10,7,5 Yes/LP 2 20 50 Low Multiple attachments at the base; poor form; branch dieback.
258 Coast live oak 28,6 Yes/LP 4 50 15 High Off-site; excellent structure and form; slight lean south; estimated
259 Xylosma 6,3 Yes 2 10 15 Low Codominant at 1’; poor form; moderate vigor; no tag; estimated
260 Xylosma 6,5 Yes 2 10 20 Low Codominant at 1’; poor form;

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
261 Olive 16,12,10 Yes 3 40 12 Low Multiple attachments at base; fair condition; tag on fence; estimated
262 Orange 5,5,4,3 No 2 15 15 Low Multiple attachments at 3’; poor form.
263 Aleppo pine 34 Yes 3 60 70 Low Large crown; low vigor; branch dieback.
264 Canary Island pine 23 Yes 3 40 70 Low Power line pruned in east side; 265 Aleppo pine 20 Yes 3 40 60 Low Leans north; two stem at 12’; low 266 Deodar cedar 24 Yes 4 50 60 Moderate Wide crown; good structure and form; moderate vigor.
267 Cider gum 42,10,10,
9,7,7
Yes/LP 3 50 50 Low Wide crown; multiple attachments
at base, poor form.
268 Coast live oak 21 Yes 3 50 40 Moderate Wide crown; borer damage on 269 African fern-pine 21 Yes 3 40 60 Moderate Upright form; wide crown; history 270 Coast redwood 30,24 Yes/LP 3 40 80 Moderate Codominant at 3’; poor form; moderate vigor.
271 Western juniper 15 Yes 3 20 30 Low Thin crown; upright form; twig dieback.
272 Deodar cedar 22 Yes 3 50 40 Moderate South side of house; wide crown; poor form.
273 Chinese elm 17 Yes 3 40 40 Low East side of house; wide crown; poor form.
274 Mulberry 15 Yes 1 30 30 Low Dead tree in back.
275 Chinese elm 15 Yes 3 20 30 Low Poor form; one sided east; by fence.
276 Chinese elm 15,14 Yes 3 40 40 Moderate Two stem at base; poor form; moderator vigor.
277 Siberian elm 29,28 Yes/LP 1 50 50 Low Two stem, split at the base; sitting on the building.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
278 Coast live oak 18 Yes 3 40 45 Moderate In front of 16250 Burton Rd; wide 279 Coast live oak 25,25,15 Yes/LP 4 60 60 Moderate Off-site; large, wide spreading crown; 3 stem at 3’; fair form.
280 Aleppo pine 40 Yes 3 50 40 Moderate Off-site; large, wide spreading crown; codominant at 6’; fair form.
281 Incense cedar 13,13 Yes 2 20 30 Low Off-site; poor form; low vigor; codominant at 2’; north stem in
282 Incense cedar 18 Yes 2 15 30 Low Off-site; dying top; poor form; low vigor.
283 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 20 25 Moderate Medium crown; multiple attachments at 7’; poor form;
284 Coast live oak 15,9,9 Yes/LP 3 40 30 Moderate Medium crown; codominant at base; moderate vigor.
285 Coast live oak 5 Yes 2 10 15 Low Small crown; highly suppressed. 286 Coast live oak 5,4,2 Yes 2 10 20 Low Small crown; multiple attachments at 6”; poor form.
287 Coast live oak 48 Yes/LP 3 60 50 Moderate Large crown; ; major wounds on north and west sides; wide
spreading crown.
288 English walnut 18 Yes 3 30 20 Moderate Large, wide crown; good form; high vigor.
289 Australian willow 9 Yes 3 20 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 5’.
290 Australian willow 7 Yes 3 10 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 5’.
291 Australian willow 5 Yes 3 10 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 4’.
292 Australian willow 8 Yes 3 10 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 4’.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
293 Australian willow 10 Yes 3 20 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 4’.
294 Australian willow 8 Yes 3 15 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 5’.
295 Australian willow 6 Yes 3 15 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 5’.
296 Australian willow 9 Yes 3 15 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 5’; low
297 Australian willow 9 Yes 2 10 20 Low Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 5’; low
298 Australian willow 10 Yes 3 15 20 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; multiple attachments at 5’.
299 Australian willow 10 Yes 3 15 25 Moderate Street tree in 4x4’ tree well; 300 English walnut 21 Yes 3 30 25 Moderate Large, wide crown; decay in main stem at 6’; good form; high vigor.
301 Olive 13,12,12,
7,7,4
Yes/LP 3 40 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; included bark.
302 Olive 7,6,5,4,3,
2 Yes 3 25 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; branch and
303 Olive 16,13,7,4 Yes 3 40 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; branch and
twig dieback.
304 Olive 18,11,9 Yes 3 40 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; main stem
305 Olive 22,12,8,7,
5,5
Yes/LP 3 50 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; bulbous root
306 Olive 8,6,6,5,5 Yes 3 20 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; small branch
307 Olive 9,9,5,5 Yes 3 20 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; small branch

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
308 Olive 10,10,7,6 Yes 3 40 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; small branch
309 Olive 11,10,6 Yes 3 40 25 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor 310 Olive 16,11,9,8,
4 Yes/LP 3 50 30 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; wide crown.
311 Olive 17,10 Yes 3 50 30 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; wide crown.
312 Olive 15,9,8,7,6 Yes 3 50 30 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; wide crown.
313 Olive 5,5,5,4 Yes 2 50 30 Low Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; suppressed.
314 Olive 11,11,9,7,
4 Yes 2 40 30 Low Multiple attachments at base; poor
structure and form; decay in base
of tree; branch dieback.
315 Olive 10,10,9,6, Yes 3 40 30 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor 316 Olive 16,10,9,9 Yes 3 40 30 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; poor structure and form; decay between
317 Olive 10,10,9,8,
8,7,5
Yes 3 40 30 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; fair structure and form.
318 Coast live oak 10,9 Yes 4 30 30 High Codominant at base; wide crown; moderate vigor.
319 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 20 30 Moderate One-sided northwest; slight lean west.
320 Coast live oak 11,5,3,3 Yes 3 25 20 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; 3” dead stem.
321 English walnut 12 No 3 20 20 Moderate Wide crown; basal decay, moderate vigor.
322 English walnut 11 No 3 30 20 Moderate Wide crown; basal decay, moderate vigor; previous branch
323 English walnut 5 No 3 10 20 Moderate Small crown; moderate vigor.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
324 English walnut 16 No 3 25 20 Moderate Wide crown; fair structure; decay in base of trunk.
325 English walnut 4 No 3 10 20 Moderate Small crown; fair structure; 326 English walnut 10 No 3 20 20 Moderate Good structure and form; moderate vigor.
327 English walnut 12 No 3 30 20 Moderate Overextended branch to the south; wide crown.
328 English walnut 12 No 3 30 20 Moderate Good structure and form; full crown; decay in trunk.
329 English walnut 8 No 2 10 20 Low Poor form; major trunk decay; twig dieback.
330 English walnut 14 No 3 20 20 Moderate Fair form; small crown; moderate vigor.
331 English walnut 8,7 No 2 15 20 Low Previous branch failures; poor 332 English walnut 9 No 3 10 20 Moderate Small crown; previously broken 333 English walnut 11 No 3 20 20 Moderate Small round crown; fair form. 334 Coast live oak 32 Yes/LP 4 50 50 High Large , round crown; broken top; previous branch failures.
335 English walnut 8 No 3 10 20 Moderate Small crown; young tree; good form.
336 California pepper 11 Yes 3 20 25 Moderate Bows heavy east; poor form; one sided.
337 Coast live oak 11 Yes 3 25 25 Moderate One-sided northeast; leans 338 Jacaranda 10,9 Yes 3 30 25 Moderate Codominant at 3’; fair form; leans 339 Coast live oak 25 Yes/LP 4 50 50 High Good structure and form; bricks 340 Avocado 6 No 3 10 15 Moderate Fair structure and form; leans east. 341 Black locust 12 Yes 2 10 15 Low Topped at 5’; multiple attachments at 4’.
342 Persimmon 12 No 4 15 15 High Good form; high vigor; umbrella

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
343 Goldenrain tree 12 Yes 3 10 12 Moderate Small crown; beside car port; 344 Japanese privet 10 Yes 3 10 20 Moderate Small crown; beside car port on west side.
345 English walnut 14 No 3 25 15 Moderate Wide crown; fair structure and form.
346 English walnut 11 No 2 10 15 Low Small crown; poor form; previous branch failures; entire top missing.
347 Avocado 17 No 3 15 25 Moderate Poor form( previous branch failures; decay in trunk.
348 Coast live oak 16 Yes 4 20 20 Moderate Good form and structure; low vigor.
349 English walnut 14 No 3 20 15 Moderate Good form and structure; wide crown; high vigor.
350 English walnut 9 No 3 20 15 Moderate Small crown; leans south; fair form.
351 English walnut 16 No 2 30 15 Low Very thin crown; low vigor. 352 Lime 4,4,3,2,2 No 2 10 10 Low Small tree; low vigor; southwest 353 Lime 5,5 No 2 10 10 Low Small tree; low vigor; southeast corner of barn.
354 Coast live oak 23 Yes 4 40 40 High Wide crown; good structure and form; twig dieback.
355 English walnut 11 No 3 20 20 Moderate Small crown; good form. 356 English walnut 6,6 No 3 25 20 Moderate Wide crown; good form; high vigor. 357 English walnut 11 No 2 20 20 Low Major nasal decay; potential root failure.
358 English walnut 9,9,8 Yes 3 30 20 Moderate Wide, low crown; overextended branches.
359 English walnut 12 No 3 30 20 Moderate Moderate crown; decay in base; narrow.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
360 English walnut 5 No 3 10 20 Moderate Small crown; decay in base; narrow.
361 English walnut 5 No 3 10 20 Moderate Small crown; moderate vigor. 362 English walnut 6 No 3 15 20 Moderate Small crown; moderate vigor. 363 English walnut 5 No 3 15 20 Moderate Small crown; moderate vigor. 364 English walnut 13 No 2 15 20 Low Small crown; major stem decay. 365 English walnut 10 No 3 20 20 Moderate Medium crown; good form; twig dieback.
366 English walnut 7 No 2 10 20 Low Small crown; trunk decay. 367 English walnut 4 No 3 10 20 Moderate Small crown; young tree. 368 English walnut 8,9 No 3 20 20 Moderate Medium crown; high vigor; good form.
369 English walnut 4 No 3 15 15 Moderate Medium crown; high vigor; good form.
370 Atlas cedar 33 Yes 3 50 45 Moderate Large crown; low vigor; hood form; broken 2” branch in crown.
371 Atlas cedar 20 Yes 3 30 45 Moderate Large, upright crown; low vigor; good form.
372 Atlas cedar 28 Yes 3 40 30 Moderate Large, upright crown; low vigor; good form.
373 Cork oak 16 Yes 3 25 20 Moderate Previously topped; poor structure; epicormics comprise crown.
374 Deodar cedar 5 Yes 2 10 20 Low Poor location between house and 375 English walnut 16 No 3 30 15 Moderate Wide crown; ivy around base and growing up trunk.
376 Almond 5,5,2,2 No 2 20 15 Low Poor condition; dead branches; 377 English walnut 10 No 3 20 15 Moderate Fair form; previously topped; wide crown.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
378 English walnut 9 No 3 20 15 Moderate Fair form; wide crown; moderate vigor.
379 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Moderate Fair form; wide crown; moderate vigor.
380 Coast live oak 23 Yes 4 40 50 High Good structure and form; full 381 Cork oak 30,27,24 Yes/LP 4 70 60 High 3 stems at 3’; full, large crown; dead branches.
382 Jacaranda 4,3,2 Yes 2 10 15 Low 3 stems at 3’; full, previously topped; poor condition.
383 Cabbage palm 7,3 No 2 10 20 Low 2 stems at 3’; full, dieback; poor condition.
384 Sweetgum 10 Yes 2 20 20 Low Previously topped, poor structure; low vigor.
385 Chinese elm 12 Yes 2 20 15 Low Previously topped, poor structure; low vigor.
386 Hollyleaf cherry 6 No 2 10 20 Low Previously topped, poor structure; 387 Carob 20,13 Yes 3 30 25 Moderate Good structure and form; wide crown; moderate vigor.
388 Cork oak 20 Yes 2 15 25 Low Poor structure and form; low vigor:
389 Cork oak 63 Yes/LP 2 70 60 Low Declining; low vigor; high crown; branch dieback.
390 Deodar cedar 8 Yes 3 8 8 Low Weeping form; small crown. 391 Shore pine 8,5,5,4,4,
4 Yes 3 10 20 Low Multiple attachments at base;
round crown; twig dieback.
392 Japanese black 6 Yes 2 10 15 Low Low vigor; yellowing. 393 Japanese maple 5,3,1 Yes 2 10 10 Low Poor form; decay in trunk. 394 Cork oak 43 Yes/LP 4 60 60 High Large crown; good structure and form; wide spreading.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
395 Cork oak 32 Yes/LP 4 60 60 High Large crown; good structure and form; wide spreading; codominant
396 Cork oak 22 Yes 3 30 50 Moderate One sided east; 3 stems at 8’. 397 Cork oak 38 Yes/LP 4 60 60 High Large crown; wide spreading; codominant at 10’.
398 Cork oak 32 Yes/LP 4 60 60 High Large crown; wide spreading; sinuous trunk.
399 English walnut 10 No 3 25 15 Moderate Multiple attachments at 7’; round crown; fair form.
400 English walnut 9 No 3 15 15 Low Multiple attachments at 7’; round 401 English walnut 6 No 1 4 15 Low Lost too; poor form; nearly dead. 402 English walnut 10 No 3 20 15 Moderate Full, round crown; good form; multiple attachments at 7’.
403 English walnut 9 No 2 15 15 Low Small crown; small crown to height ratio; dead twigs.
404 English walnut 14 No 2 30 15 Low Wide crown; branch dieback; low 405 English walnut 12 No 1 10 15 Low Small crown; branch dieback; nearly dead.
406 English walnut 9 No 3 8 15 Moderate Small crown; fair form; moderate vigor.
407 English walnut 10 No 3 8 15 Moderate Small crown; fair form; moderate vigor; crook in trunk at 3’.
408 English walnut 6 No 3 12 15 Moderate Good structure and form; wide crown; codominant at 4’.
409 English walnut 11 No 3 15 15 Moderate Good structure and form; medium 410 English walnut 6 No 3 15 15 Moderate Good structure and form; small crown.
411 English walnut 11 No 3 20 15 Moderate Good structure and form; medium crown; slight lean north.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
412 English walnut 10 No 3 20 15 Moderate Good structure and form; medium crown; sinuous trunk.
413 English walnut 6 No 3 20 15 Moderate Good structure and form; medium crown; codominant at 4’.
414 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Moderate Good structure and form; medium crown; multiple attachments at 5’.
415 English walnut 5 No 2 10 15 Low Thin crown; low vigor; twig 416 English walnut 8,7 No 3 30 15 Moderate Two stem at 3’; wide crown; fair form.
417 English walnut 6 No 2 8 15 Low Poor form; heavy lean north; small crown.
418 English walnut 4 No 1 8 15 Low Poor form; small crown; nearly 419 English walnut 7 No 3 10 15 Moderate Small crown; good form; moderate vigor.
420 English walnut 8 No 3 20 15 Moderate Small crown; good form; moderate vigor.
421 English walnut 8 No 3 15 15 Moderate Codominant at 5’; twig dieback; fair form.
422 English walnut 10 No 3 15 15 Moderate Codominant at 5’; twig dieback; fair form.
423 English walnut 4 No 3 8 15 Low Small crown; fair form. 424 English walnut 9 No 3 15 15 Low Small crown; poor form; moderate vigor.
425 English walnut 6 No 3 15 15 Low Small crown; poor form; low vigor. 426 English walnut 7 No 3 15 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; moderate vigor.
427 English walnut 4 No 3 15 15 Moderate Small crown; good form; moderate vigor.
428 English walnut 6,5 No 3 20 15 Moderate Wide crown; multiple attachments at 3’; moderate vigor.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
429 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Moderate Wide crown; moderate vigor. 430 English walnut 6 No 3 20 15 Low Medium crown; moderate vigor; decay at base of trunk.
431 English walnut 6 No 3 18 15 Moderate Medium crown; moderate vigor; good form.
432 English walnut 4 No 3 18 15 Moderate Small crown; moderate vigor; good form.
433 English walnut 7 No 3 18 15 Moderate Medium crown; moderate vigor; good form.
434 English walnut 4 No 2 10 15 Low Poor form; major wound in north side of trunk.
435 English walnut 5 No 3 10 15 Low Fair form; small crown; low vigor. 436 English walnut 6 No 3 10 15 Low Good form; small crown; moderate vigor.
437 English walnut 5 No 3 10 15 Low Fair form; small crown; low vigor. 438 English walnut 6 No 3 15 15 Moderate Fair form; small crown; moderate vigor.
439 English walnut 9 No 3 20 15 Moderate Fair form; small crown; moderate vigor.
440 English walnut 6 No 2 10 15 Low Poor form; small crown; previous branch failure.
441 English walnut 5 No 3 10 15 Low Fair form; small crown; fair structure.
442 English walnut 8 No 2 20 15 Low Wide crown; twig dieback; fair vigor.
443 English walnut 6 No 3 20 15 Moderate Medium crown; fair form and moderate vigor.
444 English walnut 6 No 3 20 15 Moderate Medium crown; fair form and moderate vigor.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
445 English walnut 10 No 3 20 15 Moderate Medium crown; fair form and moderate vigor; crook in trunk at
446 Ginkgo 14 Yes 3 30 25 Moderate Wide crown; multiple attachments at 8’; poor structure and form.
447 Arizona cypress 10,9,8,7,6
,4
Yes 3 35 20 Low Wide crown; multiple attachments
at 3’; poor structure.
448 Japanese maple 4,4,3,3,2,
2 Yes 2 10 12 Low Decay in base; multiple
attachments at 1’; decay in base.
449 Monterey pine 38 Yes 3 40 40 Moderate Large crown; thin middle; leans south; large lateral branch
450 Coast live oak 30 Yes/LP 5 60 50 High Large crown; good structure and form; wide crown; excellent
451 Chinese pistache 5 Yes 1 10 15 Low Poor form; previously topped. 452 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 2 20 20 Low East side of driveway.; thin crown; multiple attachments at 6’.
453 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Moderate Good form; moderate crown; twig dieback.
454 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Moderate Good form; moderate crown; twig dieback.
455 English walnut 6 No 3 10 15 Low Large wound on s; side; small crown.
456 English walnut 5 No 3 10 15 Low Small crown; low vigor. 457 English walnut 6 No 3 10 15 Low Small crown; low vigor; twig dieback.
458 English walnut 7 No 3 15 15 Moderate Small crown; codominant at 6’; medium crown.
459 English walnut 5 No 3 15 15 Low Small crown; split trunk on east 460 English walnut 6 No 3 10 15 Moderate Small crown; fair form; low vigor. 461 English walnut 7 No 3 15 15 Moderate Small crown; fair form; moderate vigor.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
462 English walnut 4 No 3 10 15 Moderate Small crown; fair form; moderate vigor.
463 English walnut 7 No 3 10 15 Low Small crown; fair form; moderate vigor.; split in trunk on the
464 English walnut 5 No 3 10 15 Low Small crown; fair form; moderate vigor; bleeding canker on trunk.
465 English walnut 4 No 2 8 15 Low Poor form; branch dieback. 466 English walnut 7 No 3 15 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; moderate vigor.
467 English walnut 8 No 3 15 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; 468 English walnut 7 No 3 15 15 Moderate Small crown; fair form; moderate vigor.
469 English walnut 9 No 3 20 15 Moderate Small crown; fair form; moderate vigor.
470 English walnut 9 No 3 30 15 Moderate Medium crown; fair form; moderate vigor.
471 English walnut 4 No 2 8 15 Low Small crown; poor form; low vigor. 472 English walnut 8 No 3 15 15 Moderate Wide crown; good form; moderate vigor.
473 English walnut 8 No 3 18 15 Moderate Wide crown; good form; moderate vigor.
474 English walnut 7 No 3 12 15 Moderate Small crown; thin top; fair form. 475 English walnut 8 No 3 20 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; moderate vigor.
476 English walnut 6 No 3 10 15 Moderate Small crown; good form; low vigor. 477 English walnut 9 No 3 20 15 Moderate Wide crown; good form; moderate vigor.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
478 English walnut 9 No 3 20 15 Moderate Wide crown; good form; moderate vigor.
479 English walnut 7 No 3 18 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; low vigor.
480 English walnut 8 No 3 20 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; low vigor.
481 English walnut 9 No 3 25 15 Moderate Wide crown; good form; low vigor. 482 English walnut 12 No 3 20 15 Low Codominant at 6’; crack in trunk on south side; ; low vigor.
483 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Low Codominant at 6’; small crown; low vigor.
484 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 6’; small crown; moderate vigor.
485 English walnut 8 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 7’; medium crown; moderate vigor.
486 English walnut 8 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 6’; medium crown; low vigor.
487 English walnut 4 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 6’; medium crown; low vigor.
488 English walnut 6 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 6’; medium crown; low vigor.
489 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 6’; medium crown; moderate vigor.
490 English walnut 8 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 6’; wide crown; moderate vigor.
491 English walnut 7 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 6’; wide crown; moderate vigor.
492 English walnut 8 No 3 20 15 Moderate Codominant at 6’; wide crown; moderate vigor.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree
No.

Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
LP=Large
Protected
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Height
(ft.)
Suitability
for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
August 2023
493 English walnut 9 No 3 20 15 Low Codominant at 6’; twig dieback; canker in trunk.
494 English walnut 7 No 3 18 15 Moderate Small crown; twig dieback; multiple attachments at 6’.
495 English walnut 10 No 3 25 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; moderate vigor.
496 English walnut 6 No 3 18 15 Low Small; Town; poor form; twig dieback.
497 English walnut 8 No 3 15 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; moderate vigor.
498 English walnut 7 No 3 15 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; moderate vigor.
499 English walnut 8 No 3 18 15 Moderate Medium crown; good form; moderate vigor.
500 English walnut 4 No 3 12 15 Low Small crown; fair from; crook in trunk at 4’.
501 English walnut 7 No 3 12 15 Moderate Small crown; fair from; moderate vigor.
502 English walnut 6 No 3 10 15 Moderate Medium crown; fair from; moderate vigor.
503 English walnut 7 No 3 12 15 Moderate Medium crown; fair from; moderate vigor.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

D3 STREET
LOS GATOS BLVD.

MILLS STREET
C1 STREET
C5 STREET

N TURNER STREET

BARTLETT STREET
C2 STREET
C3 STREET
C4 STREET

BURTON ROAD
5TH STREET
D1 STREET

NORTH TURNER STREET

BLOCK E
E 1
H 1 H 2

BLOCK I

BLOCK D
I1
D 2
D 1

BLOCK H

BLOCK B BLOCK A
A 1A 2
B 3 B 1
C 3C 2C 1
B 2 A 3

BLOCK C
A 4
G 1

BLOCK G/EDEN

BLOCK F
F 1
F 2F 3

MULTI-USE PATH

BUILDING
J
D4 STREET
D2 STREET
C6 STREET
D5 STREET

OAK GROVE

THE MEADOW

THE PASEO

PAVILION
A

AMPHITHEATER
2 5TH STREET
CA 85 SOUTH
CA 17 SOUTH
NORTH 40 PHASE I
424-07-064
424-07-063
424-07-065
424-07-054
424-07-010
#342
#343
#349#350#368 #369
#367
#372
#373
#375 #379
#377 #378
#380
#381
#458
#469#470 #481
#473 #478#474 #477

PROPERTY LINE
LEGEND
EXISTING "PROTECTED TREE" WITH THE POTENTIAL TO BE PRESERVED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE DURING FINAL DESIGNSPECIFIED TREE PROTECTION ZONEEXISTING "NON-PROTECTED" TREE WITH THE POTENTIAL TO BE PRESERVED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE DURING FINAL DESIGN NOTE:
- SEE TREE ASSESSMENT AND TREE DISPOSITION TABLES FOR MORE INFORMATION. - EXISTING "NON-PROTECTED" TREES SHOWN IN PLANS HAVE BEEN DEEMED SUITABLE FOR PRESERVATION AND WILL BE INCORPORATED WHERE FEASIBLE IN CONSTRUCTION PERMIT DOCUMENTS.

SHEET NUMBER
TITLE
Job Number

ISSUE CHART

CONSULTANTS

KEYPLAN

PROJECT

DRY UTILITY DESIGN

GIACALONE DESIGN
5820 Stoneridge Mall Rd. Suite 345
Pleasanton, CA 94588

ASSOCIATED TOWNHOME AND AFFORDABLE

HOUSING ARCHITECT

DAHLIN GROUP
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588

CIVIL ENGINEER

MACKAY & SOMPS
5142 Franklin Drive Suite B
Pleasanton, CA 94588

ASSOCIATED MULTI-FAMILY ARCHITECT

HELLER MANUS ARCHITECTS
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Grosvenor-Property Americas
One California Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94111

LIGHTING DESIGN

PIVOTAL AEI
10 S LaSalle St.

Chicago, IL 60603

APPLICANT
9/27/2024
1:56:11PM
A
utodesk
Docs://LosGatosN
orth40/ARCH
_
LosG
atosNorth40
_
Site
_
R22.rvt
T-001

TREE PROTECTION PLAN
492028.000
NORTH 40 PHASE II
© 2023 Perkins and Will
North 40
Los Gatos, CA 95032
2 Bryant Street
Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001
www.perkinswill.com
1 1" = 50'-0" TREE PROTECTION PLAN

MARK ISSUE DATE
1 ENTITLEMENT SET 09/15/232 ENTITLEMENT SET - REVISION 1 01/15/243 ENTITLEMENT SET - REVISION 2 03/13/244 ENTITLEMENT SET - REVISION 3 06/05/245 ENTITLEMENT SET - REVISION 4 09/23/24

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
212 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 11 20 Protected/St. tree $ 1,650 Remove - Severe 9 Street tree, within multi-use path. 213 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 11 20 Protected/St. tree $ 1,650 Remove - Severe 9 Street tree, within multi-use path. 214 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 8 20 Protected/St. tree $ 950 Remove - Severe 7 Street tree, within multi-use path. 215 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 12 20 Protected/St. tree $ 1,900 Remove - Severe 10 Street tree, within multi-use path. 216 Monterey cypress Hesperocyparis 22,4,4,3 25 Protected $ 4,700 Remove - Severe 28 Within construction footprint. 217 Strawberry tree Arbutus unedo 12,10,9 20 Protected $ 3,350 Remove - Severe 26 Within construction footprint. 218 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 8,7 20 Protected $ 800 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 219 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 9,4 20 Protected $ 850 Remove - Severe 11 Within construction footprint. 220 Avocado Persea americana 10,9 20 Protected $ 950 Remove - Severe 16 Within construction footprint. 221 Pin oak Quercus palustris 6 10 Protected $ 500 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 222 London plane Platanus x hispanica 6,6,2,2 20 Protected $ 700 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 223 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 8,7 15 Protected $ 1,200 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 224 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 8,7,6,4,4 15 Protected $ 800 Remove - Severe 24 Within construction footprint. 225 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 15 Protected $ 300 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 226 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7 15 Protected $ 450 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 227 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 10,8,7,7 15 Protected $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 27 Within construction footprint. 228 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7,2 15 Protected $ 450 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 229 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 10 15 Protected $ 700 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 230 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 9 10 Protected $ 600 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 231 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 5,4,4,3,2 10 Protected $ 400 Remove - Severe 15 Within construction footprint. 232 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 10,8,5 10 Protected $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 19 Within construction footprint. 233 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 5,5,2 10 Protected $ 350 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 234 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 6 8 Protected $ 350 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 235 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 4,4 8 Protected $ 350 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 236 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 4 8 Protected $ 250 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 237 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 5 8 Protected $ 300 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 238 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 4 8 Protected $ 200 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 239 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 5 10 Protected $ 300 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 240 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 9,7 20 Protected $ 850 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 241 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14 30 Protected $ 1,550 Remove - Severe 12 Within construction footprint. 242 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 5 10 Protected $ 250 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 243 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6,3,3,3,3 20 Protected $ 300 Remove - Severe 15 Within construction footprint. 244 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 9 10 Protected $ 500 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 245 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 9 10 Protected $ 500 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint.

North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024
246 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 6 10 Protected $ 300 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 247 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 5 10 Protected $ 250 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 248 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 5 10 Protected $ 250 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 249 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 8,6 20 Protected $ 550 Remove - Severe 12 Within construction footprint. 250 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 8,6 20 Protected $ 550 Remove - Severe 12 Within construction footprint. 251 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 9 20 Protected $ 500 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 252 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 253 English walnut Juglans regia 10 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 254 English walnut Juglans regia 9 15 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 255 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 5 8 Protected $ 250 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 256 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12,10,9 40 Large Protected $ 1,900 Remove - Severe 26 Within construction footprint. 257 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14,10,7,5 20 Large Protected $ 1,450 Remove - Severe 30 Within construction footprint. 258 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 28,6 50 Large Protected $ 12,450 Remove - Severe 28 Within construction footprint. 259 Xylosma Xylosma congestum 6,3 10 Protected $ 500 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 260 Xylosma Xylosma congestum 6,5 10 Protected $ 650 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 261 Olive Olea europaea 16,12,10 40 Protected $ 3,050 Remove - Severe 32 Within construction footprint. 262 Orange Citrus sinensis 5,5,4,3 15 Exempt - Fruit $ 550 Remove - Severe 14 Within construction footprint. 263 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 34 60 Protected $ 8,400 Remove - Severe 28 Within construction footprint. 264 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 23 40 Protected $ 3,950 Remove - Severe 19 Within construction footprint. 265 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 20 40 Protected $ 3,050 Remove - Severe 17 Within construction footprint. 266 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 24 50 Protected $ 4,500 Remove - Severe 20 Within construction footprint. 267 Cider gum Eucalyptus gunnii 42,10,10,
9,7,7
50 Large Protected $ 28,350 Remove - Severe 71 Within construction footprint. 268 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 21 50 Protected $ 4,100 Remove - Severe 18 Within construction footprint. 269 African fern-pine Afrocarpus falcatus 21 40 Protected $ 6,850 Remove - Severe 18 Within construction footprint. 270 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 30,24 40 Large Protected $ 10,700 Remove - Severe 45 Within construction footprint. 271 Western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 15 20 Protected $ 2,200 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 272 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 22 50 Protected $ 4,500 Remove - Severe 18 Within construction footprint. 273 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 17 40 Protected $ 3,650 Remove - Severe 14 Within construction footprint. 274 Mulberry Morus sp. 15 30 Protected $ - Remove - Severe 13 Dead Tree. 275 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 15 20 Protected $ 2,900 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 276 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 15,14 40 Protected $ 5,250 Remove - Severe 24 Within construction footprint. 277 Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 29,28 50 Large Protected $ - Remove - Severe 48 Storm damaged tree, split at base. 278 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 18 40 Protected $ 3,650 Remove - Severe 15 Within construction footprint.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024
279 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 25,25,15 60 Large Protected $ 22,050 Preserve 54 Off-site, outside construction footprint. 280 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 40 50 Protected $ 14,450 Preserve 33 Off-site, outside construction footprint. 281 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 13,13 20 Protected $ 2,000 Preserve 22 Off-site, outside construction footprint. 282 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 18 15 Protected $ 1,900 Preserve 15 Off-site, outside construction footprint. 283 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10 20 Protected $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 284 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15,9,9 40 Large Protected $ 2,350 Remove - Severe 28 Within construction footprint. 285 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 5 10 Protected $ 300 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 286 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 5,4,2 10 Protected $ 350 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 287 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 48 60 Large Protected $ 16,600 Remove - Severe 40 Within construction footprint. 288 English walnut Juglans regia 18 30 Protected $ 3,650 Remove - Severe 15 Within construction footprint. 289 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 9 20 Protected/St. tree $ 1,150 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 290 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 7 10 Protected/St. tree $ 750 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 291 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 5 10 Protected/St. tree $ 500 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 292 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 8 10 Protected/St. tree $ 950 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 293 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 10 20 Protected/St. tree $ 1,400 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 294 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 8 15 Protected/St. tree $ 950 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 295 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 6 15 Protected/St. tree $ 600 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 296 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 9 15 Protected/St. tree $ 1,150 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 297 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 9 10 Protected/St. tree $ 750 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 298 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 10 15 Protected/St. tree $ 1,400 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 299 Australian willow Geijera parviflora 10 15 Protected/St. tree $ 1,400 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 300 English walnut Juglans regia 21 30 Protected $ 4,900 Remove - Severe 18 Within construction footprint. 301 Olive Olea europaea 13,12,12,
7,7,4
40 Large Protected $ 3,500 Remove - Severe 44 Within construction footprint. 302 Olive Olea europaea 7,6,5,4,3, 25 Protected $ 1,100 Remove - Severe 23 Within construction footprint. 303 Olive Olea europaea 16,13,7,4 40 Protected $ 4,700 Remove - Severe 33 Within construction footprint. 304 Olive Olea europaea 18,11,9 40 Protected $ 4,950 Remove - Severe 32 Within construction footprint. 305 Olive Olea europaea 22,12,8,7,
5,5
50 Large Protected $ 6,900 Remove - Severe 49 Within construction footprint. 306 Olive Olea europaea 8,6,6,5,5 20 Protected $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 25 Within construction footprint. 307 Olive Olea europaea 9,9,5,5 20 Protected $ 1,900 Remove - Severe 23 Within construction footprint. 308 Olive Olea europaea 10,10,7,6 40 Protected $ 2,300 Remove - Severe 28 Within construction footprint. 309 Olive Olea europaea 11,10,6 40 Protected $ 2,550 Remove - Severe 23 Within construction footprint. 310 Olive Olea europaea 16,11,9,8,
4 50 Large Protected $ 4,200 Remove - Severe 40 Within construction footprint.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024
311 Olive Olea europaea 17,10 50 Protected $ 4,350 Remove - Severe 23 Within construction footprint. 312 Olive Olea europaea 15,9,8,7,6 50 Protected $ 3,450 Remove - Severe 38 Within construction footprint. 313 Olive Olea europaea 5,5,5,4 50 Protected $ 500 Remove - Severe 16 Within construction footprint. 314 Olive Olea europaea 11,11,9,7,
4 40 Protected $ 1,750 Remove - Severe 35 Within construction footprint. 315 Olive Olea europaea 10,10,9,6,
5 40 Protected $ 2,300 Remove - Severe 33 Within construction footprint. 316 Olive Olea europaea 16,10,9,9 40 Protected $ 4,000 Remove - Severe 37 Within construction footprint. 317 Olive Olea europaea 10,10,9,8,
8,7,5
40 Protected $ 2,300 Remove - Severe 48 Within construction footprint. 318 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10,9 30 Protected $ 2,450 Remove - Severe 16 Within construction footprint. 319 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 20 Protected $ 1,450 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 320 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 11,5,3,3 25 Protected $ 2,000 Remove - Severe 18 Within construction footprint. 321 English walnut Juglans regia 12 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,950 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 322 English walnut Juglans regia 11 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,700 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 323 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 500 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 324 English walnut Juglans regia 16 25 Exempt - Nut $ 3,350 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 325 English walnut Juglans regia 4 10 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 326 English walnut Juglans regia 10 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,400 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 327 English walnut Juglans regia 12 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,950 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 328 English walnut Juglans regia 12 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,950 Remove - Severe 10 Outside construction footprint. 329 English walnut Juglans regia 8 10 Exempt - Nut $ 650 Remove - Severe 7 Outside construction footprint. 330 English walnut Juglans regia 14 20 Exempt - Nut $ 2,600 Remove - Severe 12 Outside construction footprint. 331 English walnut Juglans regia 8,7 15 Exempt - Nut $ 1,000 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 332 English walnut Juglans regia 9 10 Exempt - Nut $ 1,200 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 333 English walnut Juglans regia 11 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,700 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 334 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 32 50 Large Protected $ 10,400 Remove - Severe 27 Within construction footprint. 335 English walnut Juglans regia 8 10 Exempt - Nut $ 650 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 336 California pepper Schinus molle 11 20 Protected $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 337 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 11 25 Protected $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 338 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 10,9 30 Protected $ 4,000 Remove - Severe 16 Within construction footprint. 339 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 25 50 Large Protected $ 8,000 Remove - Severe 21 Within construction footprint. 340 Avocado Persea americana 6 10 Exempt - Fruit $ 350 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 341 Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 12 10 Protected $ 1,500 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024
342 Persimmon Diospyros kaki 12 15 Exempt - Fruit $ 2,150 Preserve - Moderate 10 5' off Meadow path. 343 Goldenrain tree Coelentera paniculata 12 10 Protected $ 1,500 Preserve - Moderate 10 8' off walkway. 344 Japanese privet Ligustrum japonicum 10 10 Protected $ 1,400 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 345 English walnut Juglans regia 14 25 Exempt - Nut $ 2,250 Remove - Severe 12 6' off Pavilion A. 346 English walnut Juglans regia 11 10 Exempt - Nut $ 800 Remove - Severe 9 In Pavilion A footprint. 347 Avocado Persea americana 17 15 Exempt - Fruit $ 3,800 Remove - Severe 14 Within construction footprint. 348 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 16 20 Protected $ 4,650 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 349 English walnut Juglans regia 14 20 Exempt - Nut $ 2,600 Preserve - Moderate 12 10' bed by Garden Plaza; 5' off walkway. 350 English walnut Juglans regia 9 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,200 Preserve - Moderate 8 10' bed by Garden Plaza; 5' off walkway. 351 English walnut Juglans regia 16 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 13 10' bed by Garden Plaza; 5' off walkway. 352 Lime Citrus aurantifolia 4,4,3,2,2 10 Exempt - Fruit $ 400 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 353 Lime Citrus aurantifolia 5,5 10 Exempt - Fruit $ 700 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 354 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 23 40 Protected $ 8,100 Remove - Severe 19 Within construction footprint. 355 English walnut Juglans regia 11 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,450 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 356 English walnut Juglans regia 6,6 25 Exempt - Nut $ 950 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 357 English walnut Juglans regia 11 20 Exempt - Nut $ 950 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 358 English walnut Juglans regia 9,9,8 30 Protected $ 1,900 Remove - Severe 22 Within construction footprint. 359 English walnut Juglans regia 12 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,700 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 360 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 361 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 362 English walnut Juglans regia 6 15 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 363 English walnut Juglans regia 5 15 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 364 English walnut Juglans regia 13 15 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 11 Within construction footprint. 365 English walnut Juglans regia 10 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 366 English walnut Juglans regia 7 10 Exempt - Nut $ 500 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 367 English walnut Juglans regia 4 10 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Preserve - Moderate 3 Within construction footprint. 368 English walnut Juglans regia 8,9 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,750 Preserve - Low 14 Preserved in open space. 369 English walnut Juglans regia 4 20 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Preserve - Low 3 Preserved in open space. 370 Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 33 50 Protected $ 11,850 Remove - Severe 28 Within construction footprint. 371 Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 20 30 Protected $ 4,450 Remove - Severe 17 Within construction footprint. 372 Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 28 40 Protected $ 5,750 Preserve - Severe 23 5' from edge of play area. 373 Cork oak Quercus suber 16 25 Protected $ 1,700 Preserve - Moderate 13 5' from edge of walkway. 374 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 5 10 Protected $ 300 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 375 English walnut Juglans regia 16 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,550 Preserve - Moderate 13 5' off walkway.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024
376 Almond Prunus dulcis 5,5,2,2 20 Exempt - Nut $ 800 Remove - Severe 12 Within construction footprint. 377 English walnut Juglans regia 10 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,400 Preserve - Moderate 8 3' off play structure. 378 English walnut Juglans regia 9 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,200 Preserve - Moderate 8 4' off walkway. 379 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 800 Preserve - Moderate 6 4' off walkway. 380 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 23 40 Protected $ 8,100 Preserve - Moderate 19 5' from edge of walkway. 381 Cork oak Quercus suber 30,27,24 70 Large Protected $ 27,750 Preserve - Moderate 68 8' off walkway. 382 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 4,3,2 10 Protected $ 350 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 383 Cabbage palm Cordyline australis 7,3 10 Protected $ 350 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 384 Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 10 20 Protected $ 900 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 385 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 12 20 Protected $ 700 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 386 Hollyleaf cherry Prunus ilicifolia 6 10 Protected $ 400 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 387 Carob Ceratonia siliqua 20,13 30 Protected $ 7,300 Remove - Severe 28 Within construction footprint. 388 Cork oak Quercus suber 20 15 Protected $ 3,800 Remove - Severe 17 Within construction footprint. 389 Cork oak Quercus suber 63 70 Large Protected $ 36,200 Remove - Severe 53 Grading in meadow, poor condition. 390 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 8 8 Protected $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 391 Shore pine Pinus contorta 8,5,5,4,4,
4 10 Protected $ 1,900 Remove - Severe 25 Within construction footprint. 392 Japanese black pine Pinus thunbergiana 6 10 Protected $ 350 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 393 Japanese maple Acer palmatum 5,3,1 10 Protected $ 500 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 394 Cork oak Quercus suber 43 60 Large Protected $ 54,950 Remove - Severe 36 Within construction footprint. 395 Cork oak Quercus suber 32 60 Large Protected $ 30,500 Remove - Severe 27 Within construction footprint. 396 Cork oak Quercus suber 22 30 Protected $ 7,500 Remove - Severe 18 Within construction footprint. 397 Cork oak Quercus suber 38 60 Large Protected $ 42,950 Remove - Severe 32 Within construction footprint. 398 Cork oak Quercus suber 32 60 Large Protected $ 30,500 Remove - Severe 27 Within construction footprint. 399 English walnut Juglans regia 10 25 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 400 English walnut Juglans regia 9 15 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 401 English walnut Juglans regia 6 4 Exempt - Nut $ 250 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 402 English walnut Juglans regia 10 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 403 English walnut Juglans regia 9 15 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 404 English walnut Juglans regia 14 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,450 Remove - Severe 12 Within construction footprint. 405 English walnut Juglans regia 12 10 Exempt - Nut $ 500 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 406 English walnut Juglans regia 9 8 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 407 English walnut Juglans regia 10 8 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 408 English walnut Juglans regia 6 12 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024
409 English walnut Juglans regia 11 15 Exempt - Nut $ 1,450 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 410 English walnut Juglans regia 6 15 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 411 English walnut Juglans regia 11 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,450 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 412 English walnut Juglans regia 10 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 413 English walnut Juglans regia 6 20 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 414 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 415 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 416 English walnut Juglans regia 8,7 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,400 Remove - Severe 13 Within construction footprint. 417 English walnut Juglans regia 6 8 Exempt - Nut $ 400 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 418 English walnut Juglans regia 4 8 Exempt - Nut $ 200 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 419 English walnut Juglans regia 7 10 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 420 English walnut Juglans regia 8 20 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 421 English walnut Juglans regia 8 15 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 422 English walnut Juglans regia 10 15 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 423 English walnut Juglans regia 4 8 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 424 English walnut Juglans regia 9 15 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 425 English walnut Juglans regia 6 15 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 426 English walnut Juglans regia 7 15 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 427 English walnut Juglans regia 4 15 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 428 English walnut Juglans regia 6,5 20 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 9 Within construction footprint. 429 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 430 English walnut Juglans regia 6 20 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 431 English walnut Juglans regia 6 18 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 432 English walnut Juglans regia 4 18 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 433 English walnut Juglans regia 7 18 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 434 English walnut Juglans regia 4 10 Exempt - Nut $ 300 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 435 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 436 English walnut Juglans regia 6 10 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 437 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 438 English walnut Juglans regia 6 15 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 439 English walnut Juglans regia 9 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 440 English walnut Juglans regia 6 10 Exempt - Nut $ 400 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 441 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 442 English walnut Juglans regia 8 20 Exempt - Nut $ 600 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024
443 English walnut Juglans regia 6 20 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 444 English walnut Juglans regia 6 20 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 445 English walnut Juglans regia 10 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 446 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 14 30 Protected $ 3,150 Remove - Severe 12 Within construction footprint. 447 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica 10,9,8,7,6
,4
35 Protected $ 2,350 Remove - Severe 37 Within construction footprint. 448 Japanese maple Acer palmatum 4,4,3,3,2,
2 10 Protected $ 400 Remove - Severe 15 Within construction footprint. 449 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 38 40 Protected $ 8,400 Remove - Severe 32 Within construction footprint. 450 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 30 60 Large Protected $ 17,500 Remove - Severe 25 Within construction footprint. 451 Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis 5 10 Protected $ 200 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 452 Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis 7 20 Protected $ 350 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 453 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 454 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 455 English walnut Juglans regia 6 10 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 456 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 457 English walnut Juglans regia 6 10 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 458 English walnut Juglans regia 7 15 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Preserve - Moderate 6 4' off walkway. 459 English walnut Juglans regia 5 15 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 460 English walnut Juglans regia 6 10 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 461 English walnut Juglans regia 7 15 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 462 English walnut Juglans regia 4 10 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 463 English walnut Juglans regia 7 10 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 464 English walnut Juglans regia 5 10 Exempt - Nut $ 450 Remove - Severe 4 Within construction footprint. 465 English walnut Juglans regia 4 8 Exempt - Nut $ 300 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 466 English walnut Juglans regia 7 15 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 467 English walnut Juglans regia 8 15 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 468 English walnut Juglans regia 7 15 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 469 English walnut Juglans regia 9 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Preserve - Moderate 8 4' off walkway. 470 English walnut Juglans regia 9 30 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Preserve - Moderate 8 6' off walkway. 471 English walnut Juglans regia 4 8 Exempt - Nut $ 300 Remove - Severe 3 Outside construction footprint. 472 English walnut Juglans regia 8 15 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Outside construction footprint. 473 English walnut Juglans regia 8 18 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Preserve - Moderate 7 6' off Amphitheater. 474 English walnut Juglans regia 7 12 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Preserve - Moderate 6 3' off walkway. 475 English walnut Juglans regia 8 20 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint.

ITEM NO. 1.

Tree Disposition & Estimated Values
Tree
No.

Common name Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Canopy
Spread
(ft.)
Status (Protected,
Large Protected,
Exempt)
Estimated
Value
Expected Impact Calculated
Tree
Protection
Zone (ft.)
Disposition Comments
North 40 Phase II
Los Gatos, CA
September 2024
476 English walnut Juglans regia 6 10 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 477 English walnut Juglans regia 9 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Preserve - Moderate 8 5' off walkway. 478 English walnut Juglans regia 9 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Preserve - Moderate 8 5' off walkway. 479 English walnut Juglans regia 7 18 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 480 English walnut Juglans regia 8 20 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 481 English walnut Juglans regia 9 25 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Preserve - Moderate 8 4' off walkway. 482 English walnut Juglans regia 12 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,700 Remove - Severe 10 Within construction footprint. 483 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 484 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 485 English walnut Juglans regia 8 20 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 486 English walnut Juglans regia 8 20 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 487 English walnut Juglans regia 4 20 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 488 English walnut Juglans regia 6 20 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 489 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 490 English walnut Juglans regia 8 20 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 491 English walnut Juglans regia 7 20 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 492 English walnut Juglans regia 8 20 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 493 English walnut Juglans regia 9 20 Exempt - Nut $ 1,050 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 494 English walnut Juglans regia 7 18 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 495 English walnut Juglans regia 10 25 Exempt - Nut $ 1,250 Remove - Severe 8 Within construction footprint. 496 English walnut Juglans regia 6 18 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 497 English walnut Juglans regia 8 15 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 498 English walnut Juglans regia 7 15 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 499 English walnut Juglans regia 8 18 Exempt - Nut $ 850 Remove - Severe 7 Within construction footprint. 500 English walnut Juglans regia 4 12 Exempt - Nut $ 350 Remove - Severe 3 Within construction footprint. 501 English walnut Juglans regia 7 12 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint. 502 English walnut Juglans regia 6 10 Exempt - Nut $ 550 Remove - Severe 5 Within construction footprint. 503 English walnut Juglans regia 7 12 Exempt - Nut $ 700 Remove - Severe 6 Within construction footprint.

Total $ 771,050

ITEM NO. 1.
page 1 of 15
(1) Australian Willows #289-293 (2) Australian Willows #294-299 (3) Olives #301-304 (4) Olives #305-310
(5) Coast Live Oaks #318-320
(6) Walnut #322
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 2 of 15
(7) Walnuts #325 (8) Walnuts #322-327 (9) Walnuts #331-333 (10) Walnuts #328-330
(11) Coast Live Oak #334
(12) Trees #337, 338, 339
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 3 of 15
(13) Jacaranda #338
(14) Black Locust #341 (15) Persimmon #342
(16) Goldenrain Tree #343 (17) Japanese Flowering Apricot #344 (18) Walnut #345
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 4 of 15
(19) Trees #346-348 (20) Walnuts #349,350 & 368
(21) Walnut #351
(22) Limes #352 & 353
(23) Coast Live Oak #354
(24) Walnuts #355-366
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 5 of 15
(25) Atlas Cedars #370-372 (26) Oak #373 & Deodar Cedar #374 (27) Walnut #375
(28) Walnuts #377-379
(29) Coast Live Oak #380 (30) Cork Oak #381
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 6 of 15
(31) Cabbage Palm #383 &
Sweetgum #384
(32) Chinese Elm #385 (33) Hollyleaf Cherry #386
(34) Carob #387 (35) Cork Oak #388 (36) Cork Oak #389
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 7 of 15
(37) Shore Pine #391
(38) Japanese Maple #393 & Pine #392 (39) Cork Oak #394 (40) Cork Oak #395 (41) Cork Oak #396 & 397 (42) Cork Oak #398 Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 8 of 15
(43) Incense Cedars #281 And 282
(44) Siberian elm #277
(45) Cider Gum #267
(46) Coast Live Oak #268 (L) and
African Fern-pine 269 (R)
(47) Deodar Cedar #266 (48) Aleppo Pine #263
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 9 of 15
(49) Olive #261 (50) Pin Oak #221 (L) And
London Plane
(51) Avocado #220
(52) Strawberry Tree #217 (53) Australian Willows #212 - 215 (54) Monterey Cypress #216 Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 10 of 15
(55) Coast Live Oak #283
(56) Arizona Cypress #223 (R) (57) Trees #225 - 233
(58) Trees 229 - 239 (59) Coast Live Oak #240
(60) Coast Live Oak #257
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 11 of 15
(61) Coast Live Oak #241 And 242 (62) Victorian Box #244 - 251 (63) Coast Live Oak #243 (64) Dead Mulberry #274
(65) Walnuts #252 - 254 (66) Coast Live Oaks #254 - 256 Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 12 of 15
(67) Canary Island Pine #264 (L) And
Aleppo Pine #265 (R)
(68) Coast redwood #270 (69) Coast Live Oak #278
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 13 of 15
(70) Chinese Pistache #452
(71) Coast Live Oak #279 and Aleppo
pine #280
(72) Coast Live Oak #450
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 14 of 15
(73) Monterey Pine #449 and Trees
#447 & 448
(74) Ginkgo #446
(75) Walnuts #406 - 423
(76) Walnuts #424 - 437 (77) Walnuts #438 - 445 (78) Walnuts #399 - 405 Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company August 2023

ITEM NO. 1.
page 15 of 15
(79) Coast Live Oaks #285 And 286 (80) Coast Live Oak #287 (81) Walnut #288 (82) Walnut #300
August 2023
Arborist Report - Tree Photos
North 40 Phase II. Los Gatos, CA
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the Bartlett Tree Expert Company

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

March 28, 2025
Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Final Application Submittal for 14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road (APN 424- 07-009, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, -116, and -052)
Architecture and Site Application S-23-031
Subdivision Application M-23-005
Dear Ms. Shoopman:

I am writing to you to outline the project history and community engagement Grosvenor has undertaken since we first began envisioning the future of North 40 Phase II. As outlined in the letter addressed to Jennifer Armor from Steve Buster, dated June 14, 2024, Grosvenor has been involved with the North 40 since 2008. While Grosvenor ultimately transferred its interests in the first phase of the North 40 to our partner, SummerHill Homes, it has maintained control of the development rights to the remaining land owned by the Yuki family, which is commonly referred to as Phase II. Note that there are at least four other property owners on the remaining portion of the North 40 outside of the 15.65 acres that are part of the Project.

Grosvenor has taken community input very seriously and has continuously made adjustments to our plan to adjust to stakeholder feedback. We began the process of re-envisioning this portion of the North 40 in early 2021 by embarking on an extensive community outreach process (consistent with 2020 General Plan Policy LU1.1 and CD-17.6). Based on the feedback we received, stakeholders indicated a desire for a robust gathering space with retail and open space on the north side of town that felt accessible to everyone, not just those that lived or worked at the North 40. This Project application achieves this desire by providing nearly 8.5 acres of open space, of which 6.5 acres are publicly accessible. A large, heavily landscaped “Meadow” for community gatherings of all types anchors the center of the project plan and is complimented by neighborhood serving retail to support the residents on the north end of Town.

Grosvenor initially received suggestions during the outreach program for a more commercial-weighted mixed-use project, including office uses. However, later in 2021 the Town’s Housing Element process was well underway, as well as the Town’s General Plan 2040 update, and it became apparent that the Town preferred a more residential-weighted mixed-use project versus a predominately commercial / office program. Grosvenor was committed to evaluating options to help support the Town in meeting the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Housing Element requirements while Grosvenor – Property Americas
T +1 (415) 434-0175
www.grosvenor.com
One California Street
Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94111
USA
EXHIBIT 6

ITEM NO. 1.
continuing to create vibrancy and placemaking on Los Gatos Boulevard. Our team listened to the Housing Element Advisory Board, Planning Commission and Town Council’s desire to increase the number of housing units on the North 40 Phase II and have been able to meet this requirement in our development application for the Project.

During the draft Housing Element process, Grosvenor was on record that we would commit to no more than 200 residential units on the Project property due to the financial infeasibility of any additional density on the site. We continued, however, to listen to the community during presentations to stakeholder groups, such as Democracy Tent and interaction with the Los Gatos Community Alliance, as well as opinions shared by members of the Town Council, the Planning Commission, and the Housing Element Advisory Board. It was clear that the Town wanted the North 40 Phase II to absorb a higher number of housing units within the Housing Element. By increasing the total residential units on the North 40 Phase II to 450 units, from the original 200 units, through the addition of a traditional rental multifamily building in the development program, we have been able to meet the Town’s objectives for the Project.

We are also proud to be partnering with Eden Housing to develop nearly 67 low-income apartments for individuals and families earning up to 60% of the area’s median income (plus an additional unit reserved for the property’s on-site manager). The units will be developed on approximately one and a quarter acres of land that will be transferred to Eden Housing, helping the Town offer a diverse portfolio of housing options which would otherwise be very difficult to attain.

Since the submission of our final application in September 2023, we’ve continued our outreach efforts with local and regional stakeholders. Attached to this letter as Exhibit A is a comprehensive list of groups and individuals we’ve met with since the beginning of 2021. The input we’ve received from our conversations with stakeholders over the last four years has helped shape the project we are presenting to the Town today.

We look forward to the Planning Commission’s and Town Council’s review of the Project application and continuing to work with the Town to meet the community’s housing needs.

Yours sincerely,
Steve Buster (Mar 28, 2025 12:46 PDT)
Steve Buster
Senior Vice President
[email protected]
Enclosure

ITEM NO. 1.

Exhibit A
North 40 Phase II – Community Outreach
Date Group
March 1, 2021 County Supervisor Mike Wasserman
March 15, 2021 Meeting with Town of Los Gatos Staff
March 17, 2021 Vice Mayor Rob Rennie
March 18, 2021 Council Member Maria Ristow
March 22, 2021 Mayor Marico Sayoc
March 22, 2021 Council Member Matthew Hudes
March 24, 2021 Council Member Mary Badame
April 12, 2021 Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition
April 12, 2021 Democracy Tent
April 15, 2021 Plant Based Advocates
April 21, 2021 Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Leadership April 22, 2021 Campbell Union HS District Supervisor Robert Bravo May 2021 Rod Teague with Town Not City
May 12, 2021 LGUSD Superintendent Paul Johnson
May 18, 2021 Community Gardens
June 17, 2021 LGUSD District Office Meeting
June 30, 2021 Los Gatos Northern Neighborhoods
July 28, 2021 Los Gatos Lions
August 9, 2021 Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition
August 31, 2021 Council Member Mary Badame
September 27, 2021 Santa Clara Audubon Society
September 30, 2021 Democracy Tent
October 20, 2021 Los Gatos Community Wide Meeting
January 26, 2022 Meeting with Rob Moore
January 26, 2022 Los Gatos Community Alliance
March 9, 2022 Los Gatos Conceptual Design Advisory Committee Presentation April 13, 2022 Monthly Virtual Coffee Session
May 11, 2022 Monthly Virtual Coffee Session
June 6, 2022 Meeting with Town of Los Gatos Staff
June 16, 2022 Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce
August 10, 2022 Monthly Virtual Coffee Session
August 17, 2022 Los Gatos Community Alliance
May 23, 2023 SV@Home
November 26, 2024 Housing Choices
December 6, 2024 Housing Advisory Committee

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II - Los Gatos, CA
View 1
1 EXHIBIT 7

ITEM NO. 1.

North40PhaseII-LosGatos,CA
2 View2

ITEM NO. 1.

North40PhaseII-LosGatos,CA
View3
3

ITEM NO. 1.

North40PhaseII-LosGatos,CA
View4
4

ITEM NO. 1.

North40PhaseII-LosGatos,CA
View5 5

ITEM NO. 1.

North40PhaseII-LosGatos,CA
View6 6

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 Obj.

Design
Std.

Yes/No/N
A
Applicant Response,
dated March 7, 2025
Yes/No/N
A
Applicant Response,
dated March 7, 2025
Yes/No/N
A
Applicant Response,
dated March 7, 2025
Yes/No/N
A
Applicant Response,
dated March 7, 2025
Yes No N/A SHEET
A.1.1 G3, C6, L1.00 A.1.1
X
4-foot-wide min. pedestrian pathway
network is provided throughout the side
to all on-site buildings, entries, facilities,
amenities, vehicular & bicycle parking.

See Civil Sections on C6 and note added
to Landscape Site Plan on L1.00
Standard met.

X
4-foot-wide min. pedestrian pathway
network is provided throughout the side
to all on-site buildings, entries, facilities,
amenities, vehicular & bicycle parking.

See Civil Sections on C6 and note added
to Landscape Site Plan on L1.00
Standard met.

X
4-foot-wide min. pedestrian pathway
network is provided throughout the
side to all on-site buildings, entries,
facilities, amenities, vehicular &
bicycle parking. See Civil Sections on
C6 and note added to Landscape Site
Plan on L1.00
Standard met.

X
4-foot-wide min. pedestrian pathway
network is provided throughout the side
to all on-site buildings, entries, facilities,
amenities, vehicular & bicycle parking.

See Civil Sections on C6 and note added
to Landscape Site Plan on L1.00
Standard met.

A.1.2 G3 A.1.2
X
Project Complies Standard met.

X
Project Complies Standard met.

X
Project Complies Standard met.

X
Project Complies Standard met.

YES NO N/A SHEET
L4.02
A.2.1 G12 A.2.1
X
Bike parking is distributed throughtout
the site to consider even distribution and
convenience, while also supporting
active community use. Because a waiver
pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law
has been requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Short-term bicycle parking is distributed
throughout the project site area near
building entrances.

Standard met.

X
Short-term bicycle parking cannot be
accommodated within 50' of each
townhome entry door while
maintaining adequate space for
residential density and proposed
open space. Because a waiver
pursuant to the State Density Bonus
Law has been requested, this
standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Short-term bicycle parking cannot be
accommodated within 50' of each
building entry while maintaining
adequate space for residential density
and proposed open space. Because a
waiver pursuant to the State Density
Bonus Law has been requested, this
standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

A.2.2 G12 A.2.2
X
Long-term bicycle parking is provided at
one space per unit. Short-term bicycle
parking cannot reasonably be provided
at a rate of one space per dwelling unit
while maintaining adequate space for
residential density and proposed open
space. Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable. One space per 2,000 square
feet of non-residential floor area is
provided. See sheet G12 for more
information.

Standard not met.

X
Long-term bicycle parking is provided at
one space per unit. Short-term bicycle
parking cannot reasonably be provided
at a rate of one space per dwelling unit
while maintaining adequate space for
residential density and proposed open
space. Because a waiver pursuant to
the State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable. One space per 2,000 square
feet of non-residential floor area is
provided. See sheet G12 for more
information.

Standard not met.

X
Long-term bicycle parking is provided
at one space per unit. Short-term
bicycle parking cannot reasonably be
provided at a rate of one space per
dwelling unit while maintaining
adequate space for residential
density and proposed open space.

Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable. One space per 2,000
square feet of non-residential floor
area is provided. See sheet G12 for
more information.

Standard not met.

X
One space per 2,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area is provided. See sheet G12 for more information.

Standard met.

A.2.3 L4.02 A.2.3 X Project Complies. See 3/L4.02. Standard met. X Project Complies. See 3/L4.02. Standard met. X Project Complies. See 3/L4.02. Standard met. X Project Complies. See 3/L4.02. Standard met.

X
A.2.4 N/A A.2.4
X
Not applicable, all short-term racks are
less than 20 spaces, and distributed
throughout the site.

Does not apply.

X
Not applicable, all short-term racks are
less than 20 spaces, and distributed
throughout the site.

Does not apply.

X
Not applicable, all short-term racks
are less than 20 spaces, and
distributed throughout the site.

Does not apply.

X
Not applicable, all short-term racks are
less than 20 spaces, and distributed
throughout the site.

Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.3.1 A2.100 A4.011
A4.013
A.3.1
X
Project Complies. See A2.100. Standard met.

X
Project Complies. See A4.011 and
A4.013.

Standard met.

X
Not applicable; Townhomes have
garages.

Does not apply.

X
Not applicable Does not apply.

A.3.2 A2.100 A4.020
A4.011 A4.013
A.3.2
X
Project Complies. See A2.100. Standard met.

X
Project Complies. See A4.020, A4.011
and A4.013.

Standard met.

X
Not applicable; Townhomes have
garages.

Does not apply.

X
Not applicable Does not apply.

A.3.3
N/A A3.3a X Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided Does not apply. X Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided Does not apply. X Not applicable; Townhomes have garages.

Does not apply. X Not applicable Does not apply.

N/A A3.3b X Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided Does not apply. X Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided Does not apply. X Not applicable; Townhomes have garages.

Does not apply. X Not applicable Does not apply.

N/A A3.3c X Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided Does not apply. X Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided Does not apply. X Not applicable; Townhomes have garages.

Does not apply. X Not applicable Does not apply.

A.3.4
A2.100,
A2.300 A4.013
A3.4a X Project Complies. See A2.100 and
A2.300.

Standard met. X Project Complies. See A4.013. Standard met. X Not applicable; Townhomes have garages.

Does not apply. X Not applicable Does not apply.

A2.100,
A2.300 A4.013
A3.4b
X
Project Complies. See A2.100 and
A2.300.

Standard met.

X
Project Complies. See A4.013. Standard met.

X
Not applicable; Townhomes have
garages.

Does not apply.

X
Not applicable Does not apply.
14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116 Applicants are responsible for accurately responding to each objective design standard listed below by indicating whether each standard has been met or does not apply. Applicants shall indicate the sheet(s) within the project plans that show compliance with each objective design standard.

Bicycle rooms with key access minimum requirements:

Staff Response Staff Response Staff Response Staff Response 100% Affordable Housing (Bldg. G1) Mixed Use (Bldg. E1) Commercial Buildings (Bldgs. J and I1) Townhomes (Bldgs. A1 through A4, B1 through
B3, C1 through C3, D1 and D2, F1 through F3,
and H1 and H2)
A.1. Pedestrian Access
A. SITE STANDARDS
Long-term bicycle parking facilities (Class I bicycle parking facility) consists of bicycle lockers or bicycle rooms with key access for use by residents.

Long-term bicycles parking facilities shall be located on the ground floor and shall not be located between the building and the street.

Each short-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of seven feet in length and two feet in width.

If more than 20-short term bicycle spaces are provided, at least 50 percent of the spaces shall be covered by a permanent solid-roofed weather protection structure.

A.3. Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Class I)
Multi-family residential and residential mixed-use buildings shall provide one long-term bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. Developments such as townhomes that include individual garages for each unit shall not be required to provide long-term bicycle parking.

Bicycle locker minimum requirements:

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

Short-term bicycle parking space shall be located within 50 feet of the primary pedestrian building entrance.

Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of one space per dwelling unit and one space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area.

Objective Design Standard
All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and vehicular and bicycle parking areas shall be internally connected with a minimum four-foot-wide pedestrian pathway or pathway network that may include use of the public sidewalk. The pedestrian pathway network shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street.

Pedestrian pathways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip, of at least six inches in height and at least six feet in width. A pedestrian pathway is exempt from this standard where it crosses a parking vehicular drive aisle.
a. Dimensions of 42 inches wide, 75 inches deep, and 54 inches high.

A.2. Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Class II)
Objective Design Standard
b. Must withstand a load of 200 pounds per square foot. c. Opened door must withstand 500-pound vertical load.
a. Bicycle rooms shall have a minimum ceiling height of seven feet. b. Bicycle rooms shall contain racks that support the bicycle frame at two points and allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a U-lock.

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 A2.100,
A2.300 A4.013
A3.4c X Project Complies. See A2.100 and
A2.300.

Standard met. X Project Complies. See A4.013. Standard met. X Not applicable; Townhomes have garages.

Does not apply. X Not applicable Does not apply.

A2.100,
A2.300 A4.013
A3.4d
X
Project Complies. See A1.101 and
A2.100. 10' separation is provided when
loading bikes on both sides (6' aisle + 2'
on each side for maneuvering room). 8'
separation is provided when loading
bikes on one side (6' aisle + 2' on one
side for maneuvering room).

Standard met.

X
Project Complies. See A4.013. Standard met.

X
Not applicable; Townhomes have
garages.

Does not apply.

X
Not applicable Does not apply.

A2.100 A4.013 A3.4e
X
To maintain adequate space for
residential density and proposed open
space, the Affordable Housing proposes
horizontal stacked parking. See sheet
A2.100. Each 78" x 34" clear module can
store (4) bicycles. Although the proposed
bicycle racks would not meet the
Objective Design Standards’ dimensions,
a reduction is necessary to provide
adequate long-term bicycle parking
without reducing the Project’s
residential density. Because a waiver
pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law
has been requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

X
To maintain adequate space for
residential density and proposed open
space, the Multi-family building
provides a mix of two-tier lift assist,
vertical and circular bicycle racks to
provide a higher capacity to meet the
requirements. A variety of bicycle rack
types are proposed to accommodate a
variety of bicycle sizes. See sheet
A4.013. Although the proposed bicycle
racks would not meet the Objective
Design Standards’ dimensions, a
reduction is necessary to provide
adequate long-term bicycle parking
without reducing the Project’s
residential density. Because a waiver
pursuant to the State Density Bonus
Law has been requested, this standard
is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not applicable; Townhomes have
garages.

Does not apply.

X
Not applicable Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.4.1 G3 A4.1
X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.5.1 G3 A.5.1
X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
The project is designed to prioritize the
pedestrian experience and active
ground-floor retail uses where the
buildings have frontage on C1 Street,
D4 Street, and the Pedestrian Paseo,
which is proposed as a Project amenity
serving the public and future Project
residents. It is necessary to locate
surface parking between the buildings
and Los Gatos Boulevard, otherwise the
Project would need to be redesigned to
remove the proposed amenity or
reduce its residential density. Because a
waiver pursuant to the State Density
Bonus Law has been requested, this
standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

A.5.2 G3 A.5.2
X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

X
Project complies, see G3. Standard met.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.6.1 A4.011 A4.301 A.6.1
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Multi-family Building has a Parking
Structure. At the garage entry closest to
D4 Street and going down into level B,
a roll-up door is provided. A minimum
18 feet between this roll up door and
back of sidewalk is provided. At the
garage entry located mid-block along C5
Street and going into level 1, no gates or
roll-up door are provided, so the 18 feet
clearance is not provided at this
location. See sheet A4.011 and
A4.301, detail 2.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A.6.2 A4.011 A.6.2
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Multi-family Building has a Parking
Structure. See sheet A4.011.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.
d. Maneuverability space of at least two feet shall be provided between the aisle and long-term bicycle parking spaces
e. Each horizontal long-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of seven feet in length, two feet in width, four-and one-half feet in height.

Each vertical long-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of threeand one- half feet in length, two feet in width, and seven feet in height.

A.4. Vehicular Access
Objective Design Standard
A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any street-facing façade, and it shall be recessed a minimum of five feet from the street-facing façade of the building.

Objective Design Standard
Surface parking lots and carports shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street.

Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area.

A.6. Parking Structure Access
Objective Design Standard
Off-street parking lots shall have vehicular circulation using an internal vehicular network that precludes the use of a public street for aisle-to-aisle internal circulation.

Any vehicular entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 18 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing.

A.5. Parking Location and Design
c. Long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be served by an aisle with a minimum width of six feet.

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 A.6.3 A4.020 A.6.3
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Multi-family Building has a Parking
Structure, but a pedestrian access gate
cannot be provided without redesigning
the project and affecting its density.

Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Pedestrians can access the exterior by
using elevator, corridor or stairs. See
sheet A4.020.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.7.1 EL100
EL300 EL301
A.7.1
X
Project complies, see sheets EL100,
EL300 and EL301.

Standard met.

X
Project complies, see sheets EL100,
EL300 and EL301.

Standard met.

X
Project complies, see sheets EL100,
EL300 and EL301.

Standard met.

X
Project complies, see sheets EL100,
EL300 and EL301.

Standard met.

A.7.2 EL100 A.7.2
X
Project complies, see sheet EL100 Standard met.

X
Project complies, see sheet EL100 Standard met.

X
Project complies, see sheet EL100 Standard met.

X
Project complies, see sheet EL100 Standard met.

A.7.3 L1.00 through
L1.11
A.7.3
X
Project complies. See L1.00 and
landscape enlargements on sheets L1.01
through L1.11.

Standard met.

X
Project complies. See L1.00 and
landscape enlargements on sheets
L1.01 through L1.11.

Standard met.

X
Project complies. See L1.00 and
landscape enlargements on sheets
L1.01 through L1.11.

Standard met.

X
Project complies. See notes on L1.00
and landscape enlargements on sheets
L1.01 through L1.11.

Standard met.

A.7.4 A2.100-
A2.104
A3.1.1.101,
A3.2.1.101,
A3.3.1.101,
A3.4.1.101,
A3.5.1.101,
A3.6.1.101
A.7.4
X
Affordable housing complies; see sheet
A2.100-A2.104.

Standard met.

X
Multifamily complies; see sheet A4.108. Standard met.

X
Townhomes Comply; See Sheet
A3.1.1.101, A3.2.1.101, A3.3.1.101,
A3.4.1.101, A3.5.1.101, A3.6.1.101
Standard met.

X
Block I and pavilions comply. See
5/A5.202.

Standard met.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.8.1 G4 A.8.1 X Project complies. Note added to L1.00
through L1.11.

Standard met. X Project complies. Note added to L1.00
through L1.11.

Standard met. X Project complies. Note added to
L1.00 through L1.11.

Standard met. X See notes on L1.00 and landscape
enlargements on sheets L1.01 through
Standard met.

A.8.2 L1 series A.8.2
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Project complies. See note added to L1.00.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A.8.3 L1.00 A.8.3
X
Surface parking lots are screened by
primary building or 3-foot height
landscaping. See sheet L1.00.

Standard met.

X
Surface parking lots are screened by
primary building or 3-foot height
landscaping. See sheet L1.00.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable.

X
Project complies. See note on Sheet
L1.00.

Standard met.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.9.1 A2.100 A.9.1
X
100% Affordable Housing complies this
this standard - no fences, walls or gates
witin setbacks.

Standard met.

X
No fences, walls, or gates within
setbacks.

Standard met.

X
No fences, walls, or gates within
setbacks.

Standard met.

X
No fences, walls, or gates within
setbacks.

Standard met.

A.9.2 N/A A.9.2 X Project complies. Standard met. X Project complies. Standard met. X Project complies. Standard met. X Project complies. Standard met.

A.9.2 N/A A.9.2 X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A.9.4 A4.011 A4.201 A.9.4
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
The multi-family building complies. The
overhead roll up open grill door at the
basement entry is greater than 50%
open free area and view as noted on
sheet A4.011 and A4.201.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.10.1 C7-C12 A.10.1
X
Project complies. Standard met.

X
Project complies. Standard met.

X
Project complies. Standard met.

X
Project complies. Standard met.

A.10.2 C7-C12 A.10.2
X
Project complies. Standard met.

X
There is a new retaining wall between
C5 street and the neighboring property.

Adjacent neighbor existing grade is
lower than this project site. Because a
waiver pursuant to the State Density
Bonus Law has been requested, this
standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
There is a new retaining wall
between C5 street and the
neighboring property. Adjacent
neighbor existing grade is lower than
this project site. Because a waiver
pursuant to the State Density Bonus
Law has been requested, this

Standard not met.

X
Project complies. Standard met.

YES NO N/A Objective Design Standard SHEET
A.10. Retaining Walls
Objective Design Standard
Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used.

Terraced walls shall set back at least three feet from the lower segment.

Retaining walls shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without including the following:
a. A break, offset, or landscape pocket in the wall plane of at least three feet in length and two feet in depth; and
b. Landscaping at a minimum height of three feet at the time of installation along a minimum of 60 percent of the total length of the retaining wall.

A.11. Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot when not already screened by a primary building. When located in a street-facing setback, screening may not exceed a height of three feet.

A.9. Fencing
Objective Design Standard
Fences, walls, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages are prohibited unless used to screen on-site parking spaces from view from the street.

Chain link fencing is prohibited.

Perimeter barrier gates for vehicles and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet.

Objective Design Standard
At least 50 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped.

A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the full length of the shared property line between multi-family or Residential Mixed- Use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following:
a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback where walls are not permitted; and
b. Trees planted at a rate of at least one tree per 30 linear feet along the shared property line. Tree species shall be selected from the Town of Los Gatos Master Street Tree List and shall be a minimum 15-gallon size.

A.7. Utilities
Objective Design Standard
Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided along all pedestrian paths in community recreation spaces. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 12 feet in height. Light fixtures shall be placed along the pedestrian path at a spacing of no more than 30 linear feet.

Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly on lands of adjacent residential zoned properties. Uplighting is prohibited.

Street-level views of ground level utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from sight with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall, as allowed by the Town Code. The screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and screening that is not landscape material shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building.

Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view.

Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement.

A.8. Landscaping and Screening
For projects with five or more residential units and that have a vehicle access gate to the parking structure, a pedestrian gate shall also be provided.

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 A.11.1 G11 A.11.1
X
Recreational and landscaped spaces are
annotated alongside Open Space on
Sheet G11.

Standard met.

X
Recreational and landscaped spaces are
annotated alongside Open Space on
Sheet G11.

Standard met.

X
Recreational and landscaped spaces
are annotated alongside Open Space
on Sheet G11.

Standard met.

X
Recreational and landscaped spaces are
annotated alongside Open Space on
Sheet G11.

Standard met.

G11 A.11.a. X Project complies. See Sheet G11. Standard met. X Project complies. See Sheet G11. Standard met. X Project complies. See Sheet G11. Standard met. X Project complies. See Sheet G11. Standard met.

A1.101 A4.030-
A4.031
A.11.b.

X
100% Affordable Housing Building
cannot accommodate balconies and
cannot meet the private open space
requirements while maintaining the unit
count. See sheet A1.101. Because a
waiver pursuant to the State Density
Bonus Law has been requested, this
standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
49% of the units (126 units) comply
with private recreation space
requirement. The remainder of the
units cannot accommodate balconies
while maintaining the unit count.

Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
All Townhome units comply as
currently designed, see Townhome
plan sheets. Note that to reduce
construction costs, it may be
necessary for the Project to remove
some or all of the roof decks before
submitting for building permits,
which would cause the Project to fall
short of the open space standard.

Therefore, the Project has requested
a concession pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law to have the
option to remove private roof decks
from the design, which would make
this standard not applicable.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

G3 A.11.b.i.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable. See sheet
G3.

Standard not met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable. See
sheet G3.

Standard not met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable. See sheet G3.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2 Series A3
Series
A4.030-
A4.031
A.11.b.ii.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
49% of the units (126 units) comply.

Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
All Townhome units comply, see
Townhome plan sheets.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

G11 A.11.c.

X
Residential community recreation space
(100 sf x 255 units = 25,500 sf) is
provided as part of the site-wide open
space. See sheet G11.

Standard met.

X
Residential community recreation space
(100 sf x 255 units = 25,500 sf) is
provided as part of the site-wide open
space. See sheet G11.

Standard met.

X
Residential community recreation
space (100 sf x 255 units = 25,500 sf)
is provided as part of the site-wide
open space. See sheet G11.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

G11 A.11.c.i.

X
For the purposes of this calculation, the
Meadow and the Paseo meet the
Community Recreation space
requirement. Please see sheet G11 for
more information.

Standard met.

X
For the purposes of this calculation, the
Meadow and the Paseo meet the
Community Recreation space
requirement. Please see sheet G11 for
more information.

Standard met.

X
For the purposes of this calculation,
the Meadow and the Paseo meet the
Community Recreation space
requirement. Please see sheet G11
for more information.

Standard met.

X
For the purposes of this calculation, the
Meadow and the Paseo meet the
Community Recreation space
requirement. Please see sheet G11 for
more information.

Standard met.

A1.101 G11 A.11.c.ii.

X
100% Affordable Housing building
complies. Recreation space
requirements are indicated on sheet
A1.101. Total site community recreation
space is indicated on G11 alongside site
Open Space requirements.

Standard met.

X
For the purposes of this calculation, the
Meadow and the Paseo meet the
Community Recreation space
requirement. Please see sheet G11 for
more information.

Standard met.

X
For the purposes of this calculation,
the Meadow and the Paseo meet the
Community Recreation space
requirement. Please see sheet G11
for more information.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

N/A A.11.c.iIi. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X For the purposes of this calculation, the Meadow and the Paseo meet the

Standard met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

G11 A.11.c.iv.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Project complies without counting the
Mixed Use Multi-Family landscaped
roof. See sheet G11.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.12.1 A1.100 A.12.1
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
The Project proposes a Paseo to
connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the
Meadow, which would house the
ground floor retail consistent with the
Project’s first concession request and
serve as a Project amenity serving the
public and future Project residents.

Providing 75 percent of any streetfacing façade would require a Project redesign to remove the proposed
amenity and conflict with its concession
request. Because a waiver pursuant to
the State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
The Project proposes a Paseo to
connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the
Meadow, which would house the
ground floor retail consistent with the
Project’s first concession request and
serve as a Project amenity serving the
public and future Project residents.

Providing 75 percent of any streetfacing façade would require a Project redesign to remove the proposed
amenity and conflict with its concession
request. Because a waiver pursuant to
the State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

Objective Design Standard
To ensure buildings provide a continuous frontage along sidewalks, development in commercial zones shall place at least 75 percent of any ground floor street-facing façade on or within five feet of the setback line designated in the Town Code.
ii. Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit.
iii. A project with four or less residential units is exempt from community recreation space requirements.
iv. Landscaped roof space can satisfy both required landscaping requirements and community recreation space requirements. Landscaped roof space may not be used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the required landscaping for the site.

A.12. Building Placement
The landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces listed below are required for all qualifying projects. Community recreation spaces and private recreation spaces are calculated independent of each other.

Landscaped areas within community recreation spaces can contribute to required minimums for both landscaped area and community recreation space.
a. Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped.
b. Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimension is six feet in any direction and a minimum area of 60 square feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. Landscaped sections of private recreation space shall not count towards required landscaping requirements.
i. Each ground floor dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 120 square feet of usable private recreation space.
ii. Each dwelling unit above the ground floor shall have a minimum of 60 square feet of usable private recreation space. Where multiple balconies are provided for a single unit, the 60-square-foot minimum can be an aggregate of all balconies, provide each balcony meets the requirements for minimum horizontal dimensions.
c. Community recreation space: The minimum dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. A minimum of 60 percent of the community recreation space shall be open to the sky and free of permanent solid-roofed weather protection structures. Community recreation space shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of the community recreation space by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature.
i. Community recreation space shall be provided in Residential Mixed-Use developments at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the non-residential square footage.

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 A.12.2 L1.11 A4.011 A.12.2
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Project Complies with all elements
utilized. Refer to sheet A4.011 for
location of commercial storefront.

Amenities below are detailed all along
the commercial storefront and shown
on L1.11.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

L1.11 A.12.2.a. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X See note above. Standard met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

L1.11 A.12.2.b. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X See note above. Standard met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

L1.11 A.12.2.c. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X See note above. Standard met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

L1.11 A.12.2.d. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X See note above. Standard met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
B.1.1 See below B.1.1
X
100% Affordable Housing - Complies, as
noted below.

Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-Family - Complies, as
noted below.

Standard met.

X
The primary street-facing façade of
townhomes complies with B1.1.1b, c,
and f. However, since each facade of
the townhomes faces a street,
depending on siting, the Townhomes
do not comply. Because a waiver
pursuant to the State Density Bonus
Law has been requested, this
standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A4.102 B1.1a
X
Not Utilized for 100% Affordable
Housing.

Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-Family - complies, See
Sheet A4.102.

Standard met.

X
Not utilized for Townhomes. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A3 Series B1.1b
X
Not Utilized for 100% Affordable
Housing.

Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized for Mixed Use MultiFamily.Does not apply.

X
The primary street-facing façade of
the townhomes complies, however,
since each facade of the townhomes
faces a street, depending on siting, it
is not possible for the townhomes to
comply with this requirement.

Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.100-
A2.104 A4.101
B1.1c
X
100% Affordable Housing - complies, See
Sheets A2.100-A2.104.

Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-Family - complies, See
Sheet A4.101
Standard met.

X
The primary street-facing façade of
the townhomes complies, however,
since each facade of the townhomes
faces a street, depending on siting, it
is not possible for the townhomes to
comply with this requirement.

Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

N/A B1.1d
X
Not Utilized for 100% Affordable
Housing.

Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized for Mixed Use MultiFamily.Does not apply.

X
Not utilized for Townhomes. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.100-
A2.104 A4.101
B1.1e
X
100% Affordable Housing - complies, See
Sheets A1.101, A2.100-A2.104.

Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-Family - complies, See
Sheets A4.101
Standard met.

X
Not utilized for Townhomes. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.100-
A2.104
B1.1f
X
100% Affordable Housing - complies, See
Sheets A2.100-A2.104.

Standard met.

X
Not Utilized for Mixed Use MultiFamily.Does not apply.

X
The primary street-facing façade of
the townhomes complies, however,
since each facade of the townhomes
faces a street, depending on siting, it
is not possible for the townhomes to
comply with this requirement.

Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.1.2 N/A B.1.2
X
Not Utilized for 100% Affordable
Housing. Because a waiver pursuant to
the State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Utilized for Mixed Use MultiFamily. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not utilized for Townhomes. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
B.2.1 A4.011 B.2.1
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Yes, the ground floor facades of the
parking structure facing the streets will
be fenestrated on a minimum 40% of
the facade as noted on sheet A4.011.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.2.2 N/A B.2.2
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
N/A, there are no upper levels of
parking
Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened at Not Applicable. Does not apply. a minimum 10 percent and up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure.

Objective Design Standard
Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the combined façade area of all primary buildings facing the street:
a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet; A Residential Mixed-Use project with a ground-floor non-residential use shall provide site amenities on a minimum of 15 percent of the ground plane between the building and the front or street-side property line. The site amenities shall be comprised of any of the following elements:
a. Landscape materials or raised planters;
b. Walls designed to accommodate pedestrian seating, no higher than 36 inches;
c. Site furnishings, including fountains, sculptures, and other public art; or d. Tables and chairs associated with the ground floor use.

B. BUILDING DESIGN
B.1. Massing and Scale
b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet;
c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. Where an awning or entry covering is provided, it can extend beyond the wall plane; d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet. For a façade 50 feet or greater, the arcade must be a minimum length of 65 percent of the full building façade; for a facade less than 50 feet, the arcade must be a minimum of 80 percent of the full building façade.
e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or
f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater.

Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the ground-floor façade.

B.2. Parking Structure Design
Objective Design Standard
The ground-floor façade of a parking structure facing a street or pedestrian walkway shall be fenestrated on a minimum of 40 percent of the façade.

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 B.2.3 N/A B.2.3
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
N/A, there are no portions of the
parking structure façade facing a street
longer than 40 feet in length.

Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

N/A B.2.3.a.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
N/A, there are no portions of the
parking structure facade facing a street
longer than 40 feet in length.

Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

N/A B.2.3.b.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
N/A, there are no portions of the
parking structure facade facing a street
longer than 40 feet in length.

Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
B.3.1 A2.104 B.3.1
X
100% Affordable Housing complies, See
sheet A2.104
Standard met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Townhomes comply - see A3.1.2.200
through A3.7.2.200.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.104 B3.1.a.

X
100% Affordable Housing complies, See
sheet A2.104
Standard met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Townhomes comply. Please see
sheets A3.1.2.200, A3.2.2.200,
A3.3.2.200, A3.4.2.200, A3.5.2.200,
A3.6.2.200, A3.7.2.200.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.104 B.3.1.b.

X
YES,MIN 2' PROJECTION are indicated to
demonstrate compliance, See sheet
A2.104 AND A2.200-A2.201.

Standard met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.104 B3.1.c.

X
YES,MIN 2' CHANGE IN HEIGHT are
indicated to demonstrate compliance,
See sheet A2.104 AND A2.200-A2.201.

Standard met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
All townhomes comply. See sheets
A3.1.2.200, A3.2.2.200, A3.3.2.200,
A3.4.2.200, A3.5.2.200, A3.6.2.200.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.104 B3.1.d.

X
YES, CHANGE IN PITCH are indicated to
demonstrate compliance, See sheet
A2.104 AND A2.200-A2.201.

Standard met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.104 B3.1.e.

X

YES, PARAPET ANNOTATIONS ARE
INDICATED TO demonstrate compliance,
See sheet A2.104 AND A2.200-A2.201.

Standard met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.3.2 N/A B.3.2 X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.3.3 A2.104 B.3.3
X
Not Applicable, as there is no dormer on
the 100%Affordable Building
Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.3.4 N/A B.3.4 X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO N/A SHEET
B.4.1 A2.200-
A2.201
A3 Series
A4.400-
A4.401
B.4.1
X
100% Affordable Housing complies. See
sheet A2.200-A2.201
Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies with
two of the solutions, items b and d.

Standard met.

X
Townhomes comply at Front Facade
of each building, but redesigning the
Project to differentiate the base of
the buildings at the Rear/Garage or
Side Facades would affect the overall
residential capacity by reducing the
building form and floor area for the
Project’s residential uses. Because a
waiver pursuant to the State Density
Bonus Law has been requested, this
standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.200-
A2.201
A3 Series
B4.1.a.

X
100% Affordable Housing complies. See
sheet A2.200-A2.201
Standard met.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A3 Series
A4.200 A4.104
B4.1.b.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies. For
the balcony length calculations, see
sheet A4.104
Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.200 A2.201 B4.1.c.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.200-
A2.201
A3 Series
B4.1.d.

X
100% Affordable Housing complies. See
Notes on sheet: A2.200, A2.201
Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies.

See sheets A4.200-A4.201
Standard met.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A3 Series B4.1.e.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.2 A2.200-
A2.201
A3 Series
B.4.2
X
100% Affordable Housing complies. See
sheet A2.200-A2.201
Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies.

See sheets A4.200-A4.202
Standard met.

X
All Townhomes comply. See A3
Series.

Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO SHEET
B.4.
3 B.4.3
X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family - complies, see
below for point break-down and total
points summary.

Standard met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building. b. A different building material covering the entire façade articulation.

B.3. Roof Design
Objective Design Standard
e. The upper floor shall implement a façade height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the façade height of the floor immediately below.

The greater façade height shall be made evident by taller windows or arrangement of combined windows.

Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points:

B.4. Façade Design and Articulation
Objective Design Standard
Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions:
a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet;
b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing façade;
d. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, or
At intervals of no more than 40 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies:
a. Gables;
b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet; All façade materials, such as siding, window types, and architectural details, used on the street-facing façade shall be used on all other building façades.

B.4. Façade Design and Articulation (continued)
Objective Design Standard
c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of two feet; d. Change in roof pitch or form; or
e. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices.

Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed.

The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the total roof length at the street-facing façade. The dormer width shall be measured at dormer roof fascia, or widest part of the dormer.

Parking structures facing a street and greater than 40 feet in length shall include landscaping between the building façade and the street, or façade articulation of at least 25 percent of the façade length. The façade articulation shall be implemented by one of the following solutions:
a. An offset of the façade plane with a depth of at least 18 inches for a minimum of eight feet in horizontal length; or

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 pts B.4.3 X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. o Awnings or canopies on all ground floor windows of
commercial space;
6 pts A4.200 A4.201 B.4.3 X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Mixed Use Multi-family complies, 6 points
Standard met. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. o Building cornice; 5 pts A4.200 A4.201
A4.400 A4.401
B.4.3
X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, 5
points. Building cornices are used on
street-facing facades as shown on
sheets A4.200-A4.201 and A4.400-
A4.401
Standard met.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.
o Façade sconce lighting at a minimum of one light
fixture per 15 linear feet.
3 pts A4.200 A4.201 B.4.3
X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, 3
points. Refer to sheets A4.200-A4.201
for sconce lighting spacing calculations.

Standard met.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.
 Bay or box windows projecting a minimum of 18 inches from the façade plane and comprising a minimum of 20 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade;
6 pts B.4.3
X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
All Townhomes comply, 6 points Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.
 Balconies or Juliet balconies provided on a minimum of 40 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 5 pts B.4.3
X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
All Townhomes comply, 5 points Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.
 Landscaped trellises or lattices extending across a minimum of 65 percent of any level of the facade;
5 pts B.4.3 X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.  Materials and color changes; 3 pts A2.200-
A2.202 A4.200-
B.4.3 X 100% Affordable Housing complies, 3
points
Standard met. X Mixed Use Multi-family complies, 3
points
Standard met. X All Townhomes comply, 3 points Standard met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.  Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets;
3 pts B.4.3 X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.  Window boxes or plant shelves under a minimum of 60 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; or 3 pts B.4.3
X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Utilized. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.
 Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels 3 pts B.4.3 X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Utilized. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

TOTAL 6 Points (G)
14 Points (TH)

B.4.3 X 100% Affordable Housing Total = 6
Points
Standard not met. X Mixed Use Multifamily Total = 17 Points Standard met. X Townhomes Total = 14 Points Standard not met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.
4 Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the façade plane and along the street-facing façade shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the building façade.

A4.011 B.4.4
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Mixed Use Multi-family complies. See sheet A4.011.

Standard met. X The Project proposes the Meadow as
an amenity serving the public and
future Project residents. Townhomes
H1 and H2 are designed to face the
Meadow rather than the street to
activate this project amenity. As a
result, the garage doors on these two
townhomes exceed 40 percent of the
length of the façade; otherwise, the
Project would need to be designed to
modify the proposed amenity or
reduce its residential density.

Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.
5 Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners. A2.200 A2.201 A3.2 Series
A4.4 Series
B.4.5
X
100% Affordable Housing complies, see
sheets A2.200-A2.201
Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, See
A4.4 Series
Standard met.

X
All Townhomes Total complies, See A

3.2 Series
Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.
6 A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or community recreation space. Additionally, all development shall meet the following requirements:

A2.200-
A2.201 A4.101
B.4.6
X
100% Affordable Housing complies, see
sheets A2.200-A2.201
Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, See
A4.101.

Standard met.

X
All Townhomes: N/A Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.
a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor nonresidential uses shall meet at least one of the following standards:A2.200- A2.201 A4.101
B4.6.a.

X
100% Affordable Housing: N/A - units
accessed through main entry
Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, See
A4.101 and A4.200-A4.202
Standard met.

X
All Townhomes: N/A Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.
i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plane at least three feet in depth; or
B4.6.a.i. X 100% Affordable Housing: N/A - units
accessed through main entry
Does not apply. X Mixed Use Multi-family - not required, other 1 standard met.

Does not apply. X All Townhomes: N/A Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet.

A4.101 A4.101-

4.102
B4.6.a.ii.

X
100% Affordable Housing: N/A - units
accessed through main entry
Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, See
A4.101 and A4.102.

Standard met.

X
All Townhomes: N/A Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

YES NO SHEET
A4.200-
A4.201
B4.6.b.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see
sheet A4.200-A4.201
Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
The Project proposes a Paseo to
connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the
Meadow, which would house the
ground floor retail consistent with the
Project’s first concession request and
serve as a Project amenity serving the
public and future Project residents. To
activate the Paseo and accommodate
the design of this Project amenity
consistent with the Project’s concession
request, the commercial buildings
deviate from the façade requirements.

Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.
b. For ground-floor commercial uses, façades facing a street shall include Standard not met. windows, doors, or openings for at least 60 percent of the building façade that is between two and 10 feet above the level of the sidewalk.

Architectural features, such as:

B.4. Façade Design and Articulation (continued)
Objective Design Standard

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 B.4.7 A2.200-
A2.201
A3.2 Series
A4.2 Series
A 5.202-
A5.203
B.4.7
X
100% Affordable Housing complies, see
sheets A2.200-A2.201
Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see
A4.101
Standard met.

X
All Townhomes Comply, see A3.2
Series
Standard met.

X
Complies. See A5.202-A5.203 Standard met.

A3.2
Series
B.4.7.a. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X All Townhomes Comply Standard met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.200-
A2.201 A4.101
B.4.7.b.

X
100% Affordable Housing complies, see
A2.200-A2.201 or A2.100
Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies. See
sheet A4.101
Standard met.

X
All Townhomes: N/A Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A2.200-
A2.201 A4.101
B.4.7.c.

X
100% Affordable Housing complies, see
A2.200-A2.201 or A2.100
Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies. See
sheet A4.101
Standard met.

X
All Townhomes: N/A Does not apply.

X
Complies. See A5.202-A5.203 Standard met.

B.4.8 N/A B.4.8 X No mirrored windows proposed. Standard met. X No mirrored windows proposed. Standard met. X No mirrored windows proposed. Standard met. X No mirrored windows proposed. Standard met.

B.4.9 A2.200-
A2.201
A3.2 Series
A4.2
B.4.9
X
100% Affordable Housing complies, see
A2.200-A2.201.

Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see
A4.2
Standard met.

X
All Townhomes comply, see A3.2
Series
Standard met.

X
Complies. See A5.202-A5.203 Standard met.

A2.200-
A2.201
A3.2 Series
A4.200-
B.4.9.a.

X
100% Affordable Housing - vertical
height of awning + canopies is indicated
to demonstrate compliance, See sheet
A2.200.

Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-Family complies -
see A4.200-A4.201.

Standard met.

X
Townhomes comply. Dimensions
added to townhome elevation
sheets: A3.1.2.200, A3.2.2.200,
A3.3.2.200, A3.4.2.200, A3.5.2.200,
Standard met.

X
Complies. See A5.202-A5.204 Standard met.

A2.200-
A2.201
A3.2 Series
A4.200-
A4.201
B.4.9.b.

X
100% Affordable Housing complies, see
A2.200-A2.201.

Standard met.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see
A4.2
Standard met.

X
All Townhomes comply, see A3.2
Series
Standard met.

X
Complies. See A5.202-A5.205 Standard met.

A2.200-
A2.201

B.4.9.c. X 100% Affordable Housing complies, see
A2.200-A2.201.

Standard met. X Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see
A4.400-A4.401.

Standard met. X All Townhomes comply, see A3.2
Series
Standard met. X Complies. See A5.202-A5.206 Standard met.

B.4.10 A2.200-
A2.201
B.4.10
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family Complies. Standard met.

X
All Townhomes comply Except for F3.

Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.11
A2.200-
A2.201
A3.2 Series
B.4.11
X
100% Affordable Housing complies, see
A2.200-A2.201.

Standard met.

X
Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,
this standard is not applicable.

Standard not met.

X
All Townhomes comply Except for F3.

Because a waiver pursuant to the
State Density Bonus Law has been
requested, this standard is not
applicable.

Standard not met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.12 B.4.12
X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Mixed Use Multi-family complies. Standard met.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

X
Not Applicable. Does not apply.

A4.101 B.4.12.a. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see A4.101.

Standard met. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.12.b. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Utilized Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.12.c. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Utilized Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply. X Not Applicable. Does not apply.

B.4.13 B.4.13 X 100% Affordable Housing complies, see
A2.200.

Standard met. X Because a waiver pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law has been requested,

Standard not met. X All Townhomes comply, see
A3.1.2.200, A3.2.2.200, A3.3.2.200,

Standard met. X Complies. See A5.202-A5.206 Standard met.

Pedestrian entries to buildings shall meet minimum dimensions to ensure adequate access based on use and development intensity. Building entries inclusive of the doorway and the facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions:
c. Common open space, such as a plaza, outdoor dining area, or other spaces.

Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street.
c. Shall not be patterned or striped.

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

Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing non-residential uses on abutting parcels. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint.

Residential Mixed-Use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along street-facing façades where the façade exceeds 50 feet in length:
a. A minimum five-foot offset from the façade plane for a length of at least 10 feet;
b. Multiple pilasters or columns, each with a minimum width of two feet; or
b. Single entry to multiple residential unit building, including Residential Mixed-Use buildings: eight feet in width
c. Storefront entry: six feet in width
Mirrored windows are prohibited.

Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements:
a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway;
b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Reva Cuthbertson < >
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 5:34 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Please reject any plans for high rises in Los Gatos Dear Mr. Mullin,
We are wri�ng to you as one of the mul�tudes of ci�zens in Los Gatos that are concerned about the housing development plans submited under SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy where high density housing with buildings exceeding 3 stories are planned. Specifically, we are concerned about the planned high rises at New Town, Ace Hardware, and across from Good Samaritan Hospital. As a home owner and ci�zen of North Los Gatos for over 26 years we have seen beau�ful orchards turn into the North 40 development with ugly and overpriced homes. We have also been duped by Ne�lix where we were promised funds for schools that didn’t happen. All that resulted was more traffic conges�on and a decrease in road safety on Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. The increased traffic has caused our litle street, Oakpark Drive, to become a raceway for cars trying to get around the traffic on Lark Avenue.

My husband has almost been hit several �mes walking the dogs crossing Los Gatos Boulevard. We pe��oned the Town for a single speed bump on Oakpark Drive which was rejected.

With the new planned developments that do not conform to our town’s housing plan we will see even more traffic, overcrowding of schools, and a mul�tude of safety concerns especially for those living around the planned developments. We will also see beloved businesses like Ace Hardware being forced out. There is a way out. The town need not approve these plans. More affordable housing is great but could builders design townhouses with 3 stories that can meet the state’s requirements? Developers are planning to RUIN the charm and beauty of Los Gatos that make people want to live here in the first place! There have to be other op�ons to sa�sfy SB 330.

Thank you!
John & Reva Cuthbertson
EXHIBIT 9

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Marc Blakeney < >
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:28 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposi�on to 14925 Los Gatos Boulevard (North40 Phase 2) Hello Jocelyn,
I'm a long-�me homeowner in Los Gatos and live close to Los Gatos Blvd.

The proposed development for 14925 Los Gatos Blvd (aka the North40 Phase 2) is completely out of character for the town of Los Gatos and this site loca�on, especially the monster building right next to Los Gatos Blvd.

All other buildings in the vicinity are not nearly as tall as this behemoth! The proposal is a proposed eye sore that will be seen from miles away that will block daylight, mountain views, right at the entrance to our town. It’s just too big!
This greedy developer proposal shows complete and reckless disregard for the impact to the neighboring area and our town.

How and where can opposi�on to this proposal be filed?
Respec�ully,
Marc Blakeney

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Steve Damron < >
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 9:19 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: North 40 phase 2 �meline
Hello Jocelyn,
My name is Steve Damron. I rent a house on Burton Rd. that is not part of this development.

I was just curious if you can share a �meline of the next steps towards the development of phase 2.

I no�ced there was a sign posted at the end of the street explaining the plan, but it has been 6 months since the proposal was submited with no updates.

Thank you!

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Gladys Chan < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 4:39 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Development Considera�on
To whom it may concern
I'm writing to oppose any dense development in Los Gatos, especially in the current Ace Hardware on Lark/Los Gatos Blvd and at the McDonalds lots. Here are the reasons why I'm against it:

1. The traffic on Lark and on Los Gatos Blvd is already very bad even without any additional new development. Long lines of cars lining up on Lark Ave trying to turn right onto Los Gatos Blvd. The line goes beyond Oka Road in peak hours. The heavy traffic on Los Gatos Blvd not only makes it very stressful for drivers but also very dangerous to bike riding on the road along with the traffic.

2. The new North 40 development has already added strains on the traffic, schools, fire, policy, and all public services. North 40 has not yet fully occupied and they have not even finished building, which means more is going to be added to our infrastructure before any more additional development.

3. Los Gatos is all about its characters. Tall monstrous building does not belong here. Please don't make the same mistakes as the North 40. We hate to see buildings that's taller than two stories. Please keep Los Gatos charming and beautiful!
I urge the council members to carefully consider any project proposed motions and only allow developments that's comparable to the existing business models and capacity.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Gladys Chan

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Jenny Rafia < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 3:29 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposi�on to Proposed Housing Developments
Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well.

I am wri�ng to express my deep concern and opposi�on to the proposed housing developments currently under considera�on in the Town of Los Gatos. These developments pose a significant threat to our town’s unique character, quality of life, and infrastructure. As predicted, the approval of the North 40 project has opened the door to mega developments that disregard sensible and conforming planning.

Here are a few alarming projects currently on the table:
• ACE Hardware
• New Town Development (LG BLVD McDonalds)
• North 40 expansion
These developments will undoubtedly strain our town’s infrastructure, schools, fire and police departments, and exacerbate exis�ng traffic conges�on. More importantly, they threaten to erode the dis�nct character that makes Los Gatos a cherished place to live.

It is crucial that we priori�ze developments that are sound, conforming, and considerate of our community’s needs and values.

I urge you to reconsider these projects and advocate for development plans that preserve the essence of Los Gatos. Please take into account the voices of concerned residents who value our town’s unique character and quality of life. As it is already during "beach traffic days" we cannot leave our house freely.

A simple trip to Los Gatos WholeFoods or Trader Joes could take upwards of 45 minutes to get back home. Worse, I've seen emergency responders trying to navigate their way around all the traffic.

Imagine if you are on the receiving end and every minute counts for emergency responders to get to you. I do understand the need to build housing but not on this mass scale. Approving these large developments will take away from the town feel of Los Gatos and turn it into just another over built city.

Thank you for your aten�on to this mater. I hope you will consider these concerns seriously and act in the best interest of our community.

Best
Jenny

ITEM NO. 1.

From: charlene Lemann < m>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Our Town
I wish to express my thoughts on the development of the North 40 and of Ace Hardware land on Los Gatos Boulevard. I am vehemently opposed to these developments. We are a town and not a CITY and we live here for just such a reason. We have been in our home for 43 years and have been proud of the small town experience. The traffic is horrific these days any �me of the day. Please vote NO on these developments.

Charlene Lemann

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Garret Brown < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:05 AM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: I oppose the upcoming large development projects Dear Council Members and Mayor of Town of Los Gatos,
I write to you today to share my opinion of the various proposed large developments that the Town is entertaining. I'm specifically speaking to "New Town Development", Ace Hardware proposed development, and the addi�onal 450 units on the North 40 Project.

I'm very concerned about the addi�onal impacts that these large developments will have on the Town as a whole AND the infrastructure, schools, roads, parking and Hospital impacts that will come from this type of development. This town already has an adequate tax basis, and I don't see the schools, libraries, parks and roads in dire need of repair or retrofit. This town has been and is currently a great place to live and raise a family, with good schools, vibrant downtown, and a �ght knit community. There is no real reason to further develop this town into more than it is. Why is there a rush to degrade the feel and charm of something that seems to not need sweeping change? All this development will do is bring more people and more problems. What is the need to turn Los Gatos into San Jose? Why do we feel obsessed with packing folks in here to overtax our infrastructure, schools, and lessen the overall quality of life?
I'm very concerned with the intersec�on of Lark and LGB already. This intersec�on already experiences bad grid lock... so adding another couple thousand people is the answer? Mark my words, that increased gridlock and conges�on will eventually see people en route to the hospital die in transit due to the extra traffic... the same traffic council seems to be rolling out a red carpet for.

There is no need for huge, high density projects here. Watching the Town change like this is sickening, and is exactly the opposite of what current town's people want. We have what we need here, and that does not include an extra 5000 people and the gridlock and crowding they will bring.

If these projects go through, you can rest assured there will be wholesale turnover with council members... the residents will use the ballot box to get proper Town stewards on board to steer this ship. You have my word that I'll be someone who will help to lead that charge if these events come to pass.

I understand that change in inevitable in the long run... but high density developments in a quaint town are not the answer and it doesn't take a special visionary type of person to see or know this.

Please think long and hard about changing the beloved dynamic of this town... you will NEVER be able to go back once you open the flood gates, and this town will erode into a cesspool like so many other nice places that decide the lure of a couple extra tax dollars is worth the trade off of changing the feel and character of a great place to live.

Please take this into considera�on before you alter this town in an irreparable way.

Sincerely from a 40+ year resident on Pine Av.

Garret Brown

ITEM NO. 1.

From: J Savage < >
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 7:42 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <[email protected]>
Subject: Ques�ons
Why were neighbors who have backyard fences along the businesses that line the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard not advised of the SEVEN STORY residen�al complex that is proposed? When are the public mee�ngs? How is a building that tall even allowed in our town? We have no other such buildings even near exis�ng neighborhoods in town (North 40 has one but no neighborhoods are adjacent.

Please call me at on Monday April 8,2024 to answer these ques�ons.

Yours,
Julianne

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Smita Jain < >
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: STOP over-development of Los Gatos
Hi LG Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Council Members,
My family and I have been proud residents of the beau�ful town of Los Gatos for the past 8 years. We shop locally, par�cipate ac�vely in community events and strive to improve our schools and public facili�es and believe that Los Gatos is a truly wonderful place to live.

That being said, we are horrified at the proposed development projects which will certainly over-develop Los Gatos and which are unnecessarily monstrous in their size and scale. Some of the more egregious ones are listed below:
-ACE Hardware- 182 units, 114 feet high, 3 underground parking in a �ny space! -New Town(the shopping strip surrounding McDonalds) -7 stories high!

-North 40 is already in progress and con�nues to strain the local facili�es

These projects are unnecessarily gargantuan and do not seem to have been well thought through. Such projects are already placing strain and will con�nue to place immeasurable strain on the town infrastructure, schools, fire and police departments, the exis�ng horrific traffic condi�ons, and most importantly our quality of life and loss of our small town charm. We are open to understanding the town's plan for more housing, but we require a plan that is moderate and sensibile so that exis�ng residents can maintain a quality of life.

We intend to share our opinions live in upcoming council mee�ngs so that we can ensure that our elected representa�ves hear from its cons�tuents.

Thanks,
Smita Kanungo

ITEM NO. 1.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:42 PM
To: CodeCompliance <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15562 for Town Contact Form Town Contact Form
First Name Raymond
Last Name Follete
Email Address (Required)
Phone Number
Message (Required) Stop the insanity. Stop all these high rise building plans and 3 Story Condos. The North Forty already looks like tenement slum. That is not only my opinion but the hundreds of people I talk to who are my Riders that I meet while driving for UBER. I have lived in Los Gatos for over 70 years and I remember when the 5 story Penthouse was built on Main St. The uproar it caused, stopping the Lyndon property plans to build another high-raise. The Town Council promised at that �me no
buildings over 2 Stories, and yet here we are!
Now about plans on Oka Rd. I live in Bonny View Park and my home backs up to the 138 planned condos; taking away my southern view of the surrounding mountains and destroying my property value. My neighbor had their home sold twice at over $600k only to have the buyers back out when they found out about the plans for 138 three story condominiums. If we must build build them to be more please to the eye,; like the 2 Story La Rinconada on Pollard Rd. Maintenance in this area is already lacking. Lark Ave has street light that have been out for months. The sidewalks on the North end of Oka Rd have
weeds growing out of them, and the drainage grates under Hwy 85 are covered in debris. If clogged the homes on the north end of Oka Rd will be trapped as a result of flooding waters. I some�me wonder if Los Gatos cares about the North end of Town. So far I am not impressed. Thank you
Which Department do you
want to submit this
message to? (Required)
Community Development: Code Compliance
Add an atachment Field not completed.

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Karen E�nger < >
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2025 7:45 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Mathew Hudes <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]> Subject: SB330 & “Builder’s Remedy” Projects
Please do not succumb to developers with greedy eyes on our sacred local environment under State Bill 330 mandates with their “Builder’s Remedy” projects designated New Town, Ace, Blossom Hill, Capri, Union 76, etc.!
Town residents (& business owners who wisely know that our town’s unique village character draws tourism) are coun�ng on you to disallow such inner-city style density and high-rise structures that close in our beau�ful open skies and mountain vistas.

The imposi�on of universal density across our state is a threat to quality of life in California. The threats to our very existence were made obvious by the disastrous firestorms that have wiped out so much in our state’s southern communi�es recently.

Dense housing increases sta�s�cal risks:
>that more accidents can occur (such as a fire in an apartment kitchen or garage) >that more innocent people can be affected (with closer and more numerous neighbors) >that emergency responses will be more difficult (to reach and provide) >that escape is hampered (by conges�on)
>that illnesses are more likely to spread
>that garbage & sewage can back up
>that water & power supplies can fail
>that air quality can deteriorate
>that natural animal & vegetal environments can be destroyed.

As Los Gatos homeowners since 1969 and town residents since 1968, my family values local uniqueness — as well as the different characters of all communi�es that contribute to our state’s diversity of heritages and lifestyles.

We welcome neighbors of any culture, faith, ethnicity, sexuality or social status; but we ask you to defend local density and design restric�ons that preserve the quality of life in which all of us have invested hard work and resources.

Although homelessness is a serious concern that I share, it has many causes other than “lack of housing supply.” Universal density development will not help those most vulnerable and needy (those disabled by mental illness and/or addic�on, those untrus�ng of offered help, some who dislike structured living, etc.) — they need beter public and charitable assistance programs.

ITEM NO. 1.

For others, I believe the lack of affordable housing supply is caused more by the predominance of ownership by real estate investor groups and individuals — some out of state and country — whose only mo�ve for ownership is to profit by ren�ng or “flipping” sales of mul�ple proper�es at “whatever the market will bear”. In my opinion, such ownerships should be limited by law if we are really to solve the problem of housing monopoly and affordability.

Please stand up to state mandates on local zoning regula�ons and join other local governments in doing so.

With thanks for your service to Los Gatos,
Karen E�nger
Sent from my iPhone

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II
Final Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:

Grosvenor
February 18, 2025
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: 408.971.6100
Hexagon Job Number: 23MH09
Client Name: Grosvenor
EXHIBIT 10

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. i

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Existing Transportation Conditions .............................................................................................. 13

3. Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................. 23

4. Other Transportation Analyses .................................................................................................... 54

5. Recommended Project Improvements ........................................................................................ 69 Appendices
Appendix A North 40 Trip Generation and Development Consistency Appendix B Traffic Counts
Appendix C Volume Summary Sheet
Appendix D Level of Service Calculations
Appendix E List of Approved and Pending Project (Los Gatos) Appendix F List of Approved and Pending Projects Used for Analysis Appendix G Level of Service Calculations for Burton/Turner Access Appendix H Collision Data
List of Tables
Table 1 Phase II Development Consistency .................................................................................... 6 Table 2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay .................... 10 Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay ............... 10 Table 4 Existing Intersection Level of Service ................................................................................ 18 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates ..................................................................................... 25 Table 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service ............................................................ 46 Table 7 Background Plus Project Intersections Levels of Service .................................................. 47 Table 8 Cumulative Plus Project Intersections Levels of Service ................................................... 48 Table 9 Cumulative Plus Project Level of Service (with Improvements) ......................................... 49 Table 10 Intersection Queuing Analysis ...................................................................................... 50-51 Table 11 Burton Road Connection Traffic Control Evaluation .......................................................... 55 Table 12 Parking Requirement ........................................................................................................ 63 Table 13 Left-Turn LOS Analysis ..................................................................................................... 68 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................... 16 Figure 4 Existing Lane Configurations ........................................................................................ 19-19 Figure 5 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 21-21 Figure 6 Project Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................... 26 Figure 7 Project Trip Assignment (without Burton Road Connection) ......................................... 27-27 Figure 8 Pass-By Trip Assignment .................................................................................................. 29 Figure 9 Cumulative Project Trip Assignment (with Connection to Burton Road) ....................... 32-32 Figure 10 Cumulative Project Pass-by Trips (with Connection to Burton Road) ................................ 34

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Figure 11 Existing Plus Project Volumes ...................................................................................... 35-35 Figure 12 Background Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 37-37 Figure 13 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 39-39 Figure 14 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 41-41 Figure 15 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 43-43 Figure 16 Block E Garage Ground Level Site Plan............................................................................ 58 Figure 17 Block E Garage Basement Level Site Plan ....................................................................... 59 Figure 18 Sight Distance at Internal Intersections ............................................................................. 61

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the transportation analysis (TA) conducted for the proposed Master Plan for Phase II of the North 40 development in Los Gatos, California. The project site is located along the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard, between Walker Street and Burton Road.

The project would include up to 450 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail space, and approximately 3,000 s.f. of community/civic space. The Phase II Plan Area would have right-turn-only access to Los Gatos Boulevard via two new streets, C5 Street and C1 Street, and full access via the new signalized intersection at Los Gatos Boulevard and Walker Street that was constructed in Phase I. While the project would not provide vehicular access to and from Burton Road, the project shall accommodate a future through access connection to advance the Town’s circulation goals expressed in the North 40 Specific Plan as follows: provide an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication in fee for the Town to improve Burton Road to an approximately 56 foot right-of-way in the future; and provide an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication as a public service easement to allow the Town or a third party to construct a future through access connection from the project site to Burton Road and then for ongoing vehicular access. The Phase II project would construct a multi-use path running along the west side of Turner Street, where it transitions to the east side of Turner Street, north of C5 Street, to the property line that would connect to any future bicycle and pedestrian facilities that may be constructed along Burton Road. The connection of the multi-use path will also include an easement to allow for the construction of this future connection by others. Furthermore, the Phase II project would construct a sidewalk and landscaping within an eight-foot wide public access easement along the site frontage on Burton Road to conform with the ultimate street cross section to be completed by others. The project will provide bicycle and pedestrian connections identified in the North 40 Specific Plan including multiuse paths along Los Gatos Boulevard, N. Turner Street, and C5 Street. The Paseo will provide an additional bike accessible route through the project site between N. Turner Street and Los Gatos Boulevard.

The proposed Phase II Master Plan land uses are consistent with the approved Housing Element and Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) land use and density designations. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the certified 2040 General Plan EIR, which the Town relied on when it adopted the Housing Element and the HEOZ. Thus, an analysis of the transportation impacts under CEQA is not required. The Town requires a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) to determine whether the project would contribute to any on-site or off-site operational issues based on intersection levels of service (LOS) or queuing. The LTA also includes an evaluation of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access, a site plan review, and parking analysis.

The potential effects of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the Town of Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)’s Congestion Management Program (CMP).

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | ii
CEQA Transportation Analysis
The Phase II Master Plan project proposes a housing development with a density of 31.3 du/ac. This is consistent with the Housing Element and the HEOZ zoning designation applicable to the project site, which assume residential uses at no less than 30 du/ac. The Town determined that development consistent with the Housing Element and zoning ordinance amendments would not have impacts beyond what were analyzed in the certified 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Therefore, development of the project would not result in any new significant transportation effects or increase the severity of previously identified transportation effects as compared with the 2040 General Plan EIR, and no subsequent VMT analysis is required. The 2040 General Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact T-2) related to the increase in VMT associated with the development and population growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. In accordance with the mitigation measure T-1 identified in the EIR, the project would be required to implement one or more VMT reduction strategies.

In addition to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3’s direction regarding VMT impacts discussed above, the CEQA Guidelines call for transportation impacts to be evaluated based on the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy assessing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; and the potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. Each of these issues are addressed in detail in Chapter 4 of this TA. Because the project would be consistent with established Town and regional policies and plans related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit service in the project area, and because the project would meet Town design standards for roadways, intersections, turning movements, and queuing, no new or more severe environmental impacts with respect to transportation would occur as a result of the project, and no subsequent CEQA review is required.

The retail space and community space of the proposed Phase II Master Plan project are consistent with the approved North 40 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was previously prepared. Thus, an analysis of the transportation impacts under CEQA is not required.

Comparison to North 40 Specific Plan EIR
The trips generated collectively by the development of Phases I and II would not exceed the trip generation estimates analyzed in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR Transportation Analysis. Thus, the Phase II project would not increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts or result in any new transportation impacts. Furthermore, the North 40 Phase I and II developments would allow for the other pending and anticipated developments within the North 40 Specific Plan area to also fit within the total daily and peak-hour trip envelope analyzed in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, although the split between inbound and outbound trips would differ. Since the total trips generated by the currently proposed development are less than what was analyzed in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, it’s presumed the conclusions of the EIR remain valid.

Local Transportation Analysis
Project Trip Estimates
Based on the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, and applicable reductions, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 2,968 daily trips, with 225 trips (66 inbound and 159 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 284 new trips (162 inbound and 122 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | iii
Intersection Traffic Operations
Most study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under all scenarios, with the exception of Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road under cumulative conditions. During the PM peak hour, the project would increase the average delay at the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road, which would operate at a substandard LOS E under cumulative no project conditions. The potential future level of service deficiency at this intersection was previously identified in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR. The intersection level of service could be restored to LOS D or better by installing a third northbound lane on Los Gatos Boulevard. This improvement is required to be completed by the approved but yet to be completed Samaritan Medical Complex Phase 2 Project in San Jose. The North 40 Phase II project shall be required to contribute towards eastbound Burton Road traffic signal improvements previously identified at the Los Gatos Boulevard/ Samaritan Drive/Burton Road intersection.

The queuing analysis indicates that the following intersections would have queuing deficiencies caused or exacerbated by the project:
x Westbound left-turn from SR-85 Northbound Ramps to Bascom Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)
x Northbound Los Gatos Boulevard to Burton Road (left- and U-turn) (AM and PM peak hours) x Southbound Los Gatos Boulevard at Walker Street (U-turn) (AM peak hour) x Eastbound Walker Street to Los Gatos Boulevard (left-turn) (PM peak hour) x Southbound Los Gatos Boulevard to Blossom Hill Road (left-turn) (AM and PM peak hours) The westbound left-turn lanes on the SR 85 Northbound off-ramp to Bascom Avenue would exceed its storage length under background and cumulative conditions. The addition of project trips would only lengthen the queue by one vehicle during the PM peak hour under background conditions. It should be noted that although the turn pocket length is exceeded, left-turning vehicles can queue on the no.1 lane of SR-85 off-ramp without impacting vehicles wanting to turn right. The queue would not extend onto the SR-85 freeway; thus, no improvements are recommended at this intersection. The North 40 Specific Plan EIR did not analyze the queue storage needed at this movement.

The northbound left-turn (U-turn) lane on Los Gatos Boulevard to Burton Road provides storage capacity for approximately four vehicles. The addition of trips generated by the project as well as trips associated with other parcels that may be developed in the North 40 Plan area would cause the 95th percentile queue at the northbound left-turn pocket to exceed its storage length during both peak hours with or without the potential future connection to Burton Road. The northbound left-turn pocket could be extended by restriping the northbound direction of Los Gatos Boulevard to provide approximately 125 feet of storage space for the left-turn pocket. Beyond this distance, there is currently a two-way left-turn lane in the median. The project will construct a raised median along Los Gatos Boulevard along the project frontage with dedicated turn lanes at intersections. The turn lane could be extended to a maximum length of approximately 200 feet by making the turn pocket start just north of C5 Street. The potential queuing deficiency at this intersection was previously identified in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR. The project proposes an improvement to extend the turn lane to 200 feet for the northbound leftturn pocket along Los Gatos Boulevard at Burton Road to provide adequate queuing space for the addition of project trips and trips associated with other parcels that may be developed in the North 40 Plan area.

The southbound U-turn lane on Los Gatos Boulevard at Walker Street provides storage capacity for approximately four vehicles. The addition of project trips would cause the 95th percentile queue at the southbound U-turn pocket to exceed its storage length during the AM peak hour under all scenarios.

The southbound U-turn pocket could be extended by reconstructing the median along Los Gatos Boulevard and striping the U-turn pocket to provide at least 125 feet of storage space. The North 40

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | iv
Specific Plan EIR did not analyze the potential queuing issues at this movement. The project proposes an improvement to extend the turn lane to 150 feet for the southbound left-turn pocket along Los Gatos Boulevard at Walker Street to provide adequate queuing space for the addition of project trips and trips associated with other parcels that may be developed in the North 40 Plan area.

The eastbound left-turn lane on Walker Street provides vehicle storage capacity for approximately five vehicles. The addition of project trips would cause the 95th percentile queue at the westbound left-turn pocket to exceed its storage length during the PM peak hour under background conditions. It should be noted that with the addition of project trips, the 95th percentile queue would only exceed the storage capacity by one vehicle. No improvements are needed as vehicles can queue along Walker Street and Mill Street without significantly affecting on-site vehicular operations. The North 40 Specific Plan EIR did not analyze the queue length at this movement.

The southbound left-turn lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard at Blossom Hill Road provide vehicle storage capacity for approximately 12 vehicles. The 95th percentile queue exceeds its storage length during both peak hours under all scenarios. The addition of project trips would only lengthen the queue by at most one vehicle during the AM peak hour under background conditions. Due the space constraints and the intersection’s proximity to Placer Oaks Road, lengthening the turn pocket is not possible.

Southbound Los Gatos Boulevard contains multiple lanes and southbound through vehicles can go around vehicles queued for the left-turn during the heaviest cycles where the queue exceeds the storage length. The North 40 Specific Plan EIR did not analyze this location for queuing.

Recommended Project Roadway Improvements
x Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road: Contribute towards eastbound Burton Road traffic signal improvements previously identified in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR . x Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road: Extend northbound left-turn pocket length on Los Gatos Boulevard. The northbound left-turn pocket should be extended to a maximum length of approximately 200 feet by making the turn pocket start just north of C5 Street. x Los Gatos Boulevard/Walker Street: Extend the southbound left-turn (U-turn) lane on Los Gatos Boulevard to provide at least 150 feet of storage space by modifying the existing landscaped median.
x Accommodate a Future Connection to Burton Road: While the project does not propose a connection to Burton Road, the project is designed to allow for a future connection should the Town desire to make the connection. The westernmost portion of Burton Road directly adjacent to the project site is privately owned. Improvements to this segment of Burton Road and a connection to N. Turner Street could occur when the other properties along Burton Road are developed and the Town of Los Gatos gains control over the full length of Burton Road. The project can function adequately without the Burton Road connection with the recommended improvements to extend turn lane storage on Los Gatos Boulevard.

Other Transportation Issues
The project would not have an adverse effect on the existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities or transit services in the study area. Hexagon has the following recommendations resulting from the site access, circulation, and parking evaluations.

Recommendations
x Street trees and other landscaping plants along Los Gatos Boulevard and all internal streets should be maintained so that the view of drivers exiting the project site or internal driveways are not obstructed.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | v
x “RESIDENTS ONLY” and/or “NO OUTLET” signage should be posted in advance of dead-end drive aisles providing access to townhomes.
x Signage should be posted at the mid-block pedestrian crossings along N. Turner Street and D4 Street.
x Stop signs should be posted at internal intersections, as listed on pages 56-57. x For the Block I parking lot, the project should designate the eastern driveway for ingress only and western driveway for egress only. A sign should be posted at the egress driveway to alert drivers that only egress is permitted.
x Future residents assigned a parking space in the Block E garage should be provided instructions on how to operate the puzzle stackers prior to move in. Clear signage and instructions should be posted outside of each stacker with guidance on how to operate the mechanical stackers.
x A crosswalk should be added to the south leg of the Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road intersection to ensure convenient paths for pedestrians walking to nearby transit stops. Truncated domes should be added at the pedestrian ramp at the southwest corner to ensure the crosswalk meets the needs of people with visual disabilities. The Town may choose to collect funding for this improvement but defer its implementation to coincide with future Burton Road improvements expected when the adjacent properties redevelop since it could affect the location and design of a new crosswalk on the south leg.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the transportation analysis (TA) conducted for the proposed Master Plan for Phase II of the North 40 development in Los Gatos, California. The project site is located along the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard, between Walker Street and Burton Road. The project location and the surrounding area is shown on Figure 1.

The project would include up to 450 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail space, and approximately 3,000 s.f. of community/civic space. The Phase II Plan Area would have right-turn-only access to Los Gatos Boulevard via two new streets, C5 Street and C1 Street, and full access via the new signalized intersection at Los Gatos Boulevard and Walker Street, which was constructed in Phase I. While the project would not provide vehicular access to and from Burton Road, the project shall accommodate a future through access connection to advance the Town’s circulation goals expressed in the North 40 Specific Plan as follows: provide an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication in fee for the Town to improve Burton Road to an approximately 56 foot right-of-way in the future; and provide an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication as a public service easement to allow the Town or a third party to construct a future through access connection from the project site to Burton Road and then for ongoing vehicular access. The Phase II project would construct a multi-use path running along the west side of Turner Street, where it transitions to the east side of Turner Street, north of C5 Street, to the property line that would connect to any future bicycle and pedestrian facilities that may be constructed along Burton Road. The connection of the multi-use path will also include an easement to allow for the construction of this future connection by others. Furthermore, the Phase II project would construct a sidewalk and landscaping within an eight-foot wide public access easement along the site frontage on Burton Road to conform with the ultimate street cross section to be completed by others. The project will provide bicycle and pedestrian connections identified in the North 40 Specific Plan including multiuse paths along Los Gatos Boulevard, N. Turner Street, and C5 Street. The Paseo will provide an additional bike accessible route through the project site between N. Turner Street and Los Gatos Boulevard. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2.

The potential effects of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the Town of Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)’s Congestion Management Program (CMP).

ITEM NO. 1.

San
Jose
Campbell
Los
Gatos
6 20
7 10
11 12
9 22
13 14
21 2
15 16
19 18
17 3
4 5
1 8
University Ave
Los Gatos Blvd
S Bascom Ave
Carlton Ave
W Hacienda Ave
Winchester
Cir
Lark Ave
Winchester Blvd
Los Gatos Almaden Rd
Winchester
Woodard Rd
S Winchester Blvd
Wedgewood Ave
White Oaks Rd
Samaritan Dr
Wimbledon
Dr
Chirco Dr
Garden
Ln
Knowles
Dr
Burton
Rd
Albright
Way
Wimbledon
Dr
Chirco Dr
Garden
Ln
Camino
del Sol
Knowles
Dr
Burton
Rd
Albright
Way
Blossom Hill Rd
Garden Hill
Dr
Highland Highland
Oaks Dr
Camino
del Sol
Garden Hill
Dr
Highland
Oaks Dr
85 85
17 17
White Oaks Ave
National Ave
Walker
St
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
North 40 Phase II TA
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections

ITEM NO. 1.
'675((7
/26*$726%/9'
0,//6675((7
&675((7
&675((7
17851(5675((7
%$57/(77675((7
&675((7
&675((7
&675((7
%8572152$'
7+675((7
'675((7
1257+7851(5675((7
%/2&.(
(
+ +
%/2&.,
%/2&.'
,
'
'
%/2&.+
%/2&.% %/2&.$
$$
% %
&&&
% $
%/2&.&
$
*
%/2&.*('(1
%/2&.)
)
))
08/7,86(3$7+
%8,/',1*
-
'675((7
'675((7
&675((7
'675((7

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/
2$.*529(
7+(0($'2:
7+(3$6(2
3$9,/,21
$
$03+,7+($7(5
/ / /
/ /
/ /
/


7+ 675((7
&$  6287+
&$  6287+
1257+3+$6(,








 



  

 


 

 
  
7 7
*(1(5$
 7+(/$1')857+(5'
$0(1,7,(6
 75((66+ 7+(/$1':,7+25&)257<63( $//3$7+ 675((7/0(&+$1,&6&5((1('7+(6$0(7+$7,61221(250 5 5
5 5
North 40 Phase II TA
Figure 2
Site Plan

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 4
Scope of Study
CEQA Transportation Analysis
The Phase II Master Plan project proposes a housing development with a density of 31.3 du/ac. This is consistent with the newly adopted Housing Element and the HEOZ zoning designation applicable to the project site, which assume residential uses at no less than 30 du/ac. The Town determined that development consistent with the Housing Element and zoning ordinance amendments would not have transportation impacts beyond what were analyzed in the certified 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Therefore, development of the project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified transportation effects related to transportation and circulation as compared with the 2040 General Plan EIR, and no subsequent VMT analysis is required. The 2040 GP EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact T-2) related to the increase in VMT associated with the development and population growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. In accordance with the mitigation measure T-1 identified in the EIR, the project would be required to implement one or more VMT reduction strategies.

In addition to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3’s direction regarding VMT impacts discussed above, the CEQA Guidelines call for transportation impacts to be evaluated based on the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy assessing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; and the potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. Each of these issues are addressed in detail in Chapter 4 of this TA. Because the project would be consistent with established Town and regional policies and plans related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit service in the project area, and because the project would meet Town design standards for roadways, intersections, turning movements, and queuing, no new or more severe environmental impacts with respect to transportation would occur as a result of the project, and no subsequent CEQA review is required.

The retail and community spaces of the proposed Phase II Master Plan project are supportive of the proposed residential uses and are consistent with the approved North 40 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was previously prepared. Thus, further analysis of the transportation impacts under CEQA is not required.

Comparison to North 40 Specific Plan EIR
The North 40 Specific Plan EIR was based on the Draft Plan and analyzed two alternatives: both with 364 housing units, a 150-room hotel, and retail facilities. Alternative A consisted of 269,000 s.f. of retail space and 131,000 s.f. of office space. Alternative B consisted of 400,000 s.f. of retail space. The Town Council later edited the build-out limits included in the Draft Plan and ultimately adopted a North 40 Specific Plan that allows a maximum of 270 residential units, 435,000 s.f. of new non-residential development, and 66,000 s.f. of existing commercial uses including up to 250,000 s.f. of new office/hotel, and up to 400,000 s.f. of other new commercial space.

Subsequent to the adoption of the Specific Plan, the Town of Los Gatos adopted their General Plan Update, which included their Housing Element that supersedes the development limits set forth in the North 40 Specific Plan. Since then, the proposed developments within the Plan area have changed to include more residential development and less non-residential development. North 40 Phase I developments were approved with a density bonus that permits 320 residential units in total including 83 cottage cluster homes (semi-detached), 187 multi-family units, and 50 senior apartment units, as well as 57,500 s.f. of commercial retail space. According to the application submitted by GrosvenorProperty Americas, the proposed North 40 Phase II development would consist of 450 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail space, and approximately 3,000 s.f. of

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 5
community/civic space. The Town has also received a development application for another property within the North 40 Plan area at 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard that proposes 117 residential dwelling units and 19,621 s.f. of commercial retail space. In addition, the following properties within the North 40 Specific Plan area have not yet submitted an application:
x 16245 Burton Road
x 16240 Burton Road
x 16210 Burton Road and 14831 Los Gatos Boulevard
x 14823 Los Gatos Boulevard
Based on the density identified in the Housing Element, the Town estimates the potential for a total of 103 new residential dwelling units on those sites.

Table 1 summarizes the North 40 Specific Plan area trips as presented in the EIR and the remaining allowable number of trips after completion of the Phase I development. The proposed Phase II development would generate a net 2,968 new daily trips, with 225 new trips (66 inbound and 159 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 284 new trips (162 inbound and 122 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour (see Chapter 3), which is well below the Phase II trip allowance of 11,360 new daily trips, with 550 new trips (367 inbound and 183 outbound) in the AM peak hour and 1,249 new trips (544 inbound and 705 outbound) in the PM peak hour. Thus, the trips generated collectively by the development of Phases I and II would not exceed the trip generation estimates analyzed in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR Transportation Analysis. Thus, the Phase II project would not increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts or result in any new transportation impacts. Furthermore, the North 40 Phase I and II developments would allow for the other pending and anticipated developments within the North 40 Specific Plan area to also fit within the total daily and peak-hour trip envelope analyzed in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, although the split between inbound and outbound trips would differ. Since the total trips generated by the currently proposed development are less than what was analyzed in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, it is presumed the conclusions of the EIR remain valid. Additionally, the analysis presented in this report outlines the potential effects of the Phase II development. No new adverse effects were identified beyond what was already identified in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, indicating that the conclusions of the EIR remain valid. The detailed trip generation for the approved, proposed, pending, and anticipated North 40 sites are shown in Appendix A.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 6
Table 1
Phase II Development Consistency
Land Use Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Total North 40 Trip Generation (from North 40 Specific Plan EIR) Alternative A 15,757 422 263 685 690 836 1,526
Alternative B 15,500 229 240 469 761 727 1,488
Maximum of Alternative A & B 15,757 422 263 685 690 836 1,526 Approved Phase I Land Uses (4,397) (55) (80) (135) (146) (131) (277) Single-Family Detached Housing 83 d.u.

Apartments and Townhomes 187 d.u.

Affordable Senior Housing 50 d.u.

Commerical/Retail 57,500 s.f.

Phase II Trip Allowance (Total - Phase I) 11,360 367 183 550 544 705 1,249 Proposed Phase II Trips1 (2,968) (66) (159) (225) (162) (122) (284) Remaining Trip Allowance after Phase II 8,392 301 24 325 382 583 965 Remaining North 40 Specific Plan Development (Pending and Anticipated) 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard (Housing & Retail)2 (944) (31) (44) (75) (64) (53) (117) Housing 117 d.u
Retail 19,600 s.f.

North 40 Undeveloped Sites without an Application3 (468) (9) (29) (38) (24) (16) (40) 16245 Burton Road 50 d.u
16240 Burton Road 7 d.u
16210 Burton Road & 14831 Los Gatos Boulevard 23 d.u
14823 Los Gatos Boulevard 10 d.u
Remaining Trip Allowance at Buildout of Plan Area 6,980 261 (49) 212 294 514 808 Notes:
1 See Table 5 (Project Trip Generation Estimates) for detailed trip generation estimates. 2 Project Size based on Preliminary Application found on the Town's Pending Project List (May 2024) 3 Project sizes estimated by Town of Los Gatos staff based on estimated number of units on each site in the Town's Housing Element
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily Trip Trip
Size

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 7
Local Transportation Analysis
The Town requires a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) to determine whether the project would contribute to any on-site or off-site operational issues based on intersection levels of service (LOS) or queuing. The LTA also includes an evaluation of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access, a site plan review, and parking analysis. The LTA was prepared in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the Town and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP).

The LTA includes an intersection operational analysis to evaluate traffic operational effects of the project on key intersections in the vicinity of the site. The 22 study intersections, as listed below, were selected in accordance with VTA’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (October 2014) and in consultation with Los Gatos staff (see Figure 1). Four study intersections are designated as CMP intersections. Five of the study intersections are subject to the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose or Campbell.

1. Winchester Boulevard & Lark Avenue

2. University Avenue & Lark Avenue

3. SR-17 SB Ramps & Lark Avenue

4. SR-17 NB Ramps & Lark Avenue

5. Highland Oaks Drive & Lark Avenue (unsignalized)

6. Bascom Avenue & SR-85 NB Ramps (CMP) [San Jose]

7. Bascom Avenue & SR-85 SB Ramps (CMP) [San Jose]

8. Los Gatos Boulevard/Bascom Avenue & Samaritan Drive/Burton Road (CMP)[Los Gatos/San Jose]

9. Los Gatos Boulevard & Walker Street

10. Los Gatos Boulevard & Lark Avenue (CMP)

11. Los Gatos Boulevard & Gateway Drive/Garden Lane

12. Los Gatos Boulevard & Village Square

13. Los Gatos Boulevard & Los Gatos Almaden Road/Chirco Drive

14. Los Gatos Boulevard & Blossom Hill Road

15. Winchester Boulevard & Wimbledon Drive

16. Winchester Boulevard & Albright Way

17. Winchester Boulevard & SR-85 SB Ramp

18. Winchester Boulevard & SR-85 NB Ramp

19. Winchester Boulevard & Knowles Drive [Los Gatos/Campbell]

20. Bascom Avenue & White Oaks Avenue/White Oaks Road [San Jose/Campbell]

21. Los Gatos Boulevard & C5 Street (future) (unsignalized)

22. Los Gatos Boulevard & C1 Street (future) (unsignalized) Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

The weekday AM peak hour is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and the weekday PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on a typical weekday.

Intersection traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
x Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new turning-movement counts conducted in April 2022, May 2023, November 2023, and March 2024 and the 2018 CMP monitoring report.
x Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to the existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the Phase II project.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 8
Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions to determine potential adverse project effects.
x Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak-hour volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments in the vicinity of the project. A list of approved but not yet constructed developments was obtained from the Town of Los Gatos and the Cities of San Jose and Campbell (see Appendices E and F). Background conditions assume the completion of all Phase I development in the North 40 Specific Plan area (see Appendix A). x Background Plus Project Conditions. Background plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the Phase II project.

Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions to determine potential adverse project effects.
x Cumulative No Project Conditions. Cumulative conditions represent future traffic volumes on the planned roadway network that would result from traffic growth projected to occur due to the approved developments and other proposed but not yet approved (pending) developments in the study area. The added traffic from pending developments was based on the list of pending projects provided by the Town of Los Gatos and the Cities of San Jose and Campbell.

Cumulative conditions assume buildout of all parcels within the North 40 Specific Plan area outside of the Phase II site, including properties that have not yet submitted development applications. In addition, though not proposed as part of the Phase II project, cumulative conditions reflect the future connection of Burton Road to North Turner Street (formerly known as North A Street in the North 40 Specific Plan), as depicted in the North 40 Specific Plan. x Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the new traffic generated by the Phase II project.

The LTA also includes a vehicle queuing analysis at selected intersections, a trip “fair share” calculation, an internal street intersection analysis, a cut-through evaluation, a review of collisions at nearby major roadways, a review of site access and on-site circulation, an evaluation of potential effects to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and a parking analysis.

Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions at the study intersections. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable intersection level of service standards.

Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of San Jose, the City of Campbell, the 2018 CMP Annual Monitoring Report, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources:
x Existing traffic volumes
x Lane configurations
x Signal timing and phasing
x Lists of approved and pending developments.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 9
Level of Service Analysis Methodology and Standards
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The analysis methods are described below.

Intersections operations were evaluated against the level of service standards set forth by the Town of Los Gatos, City of San Jose, and the City of Campbell.

Signalized Intersections
The Town of Los Gatos evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. This HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection.

The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown on Table 2.

This study utilizes TRAFFIX software to determine intersection levels of service based on the 2000 HCM methodology. Since TRAFFIX is approved by VTA as the level of service analysis software for CMP signalized intersections, the Town employs the CMP defaults values for the analysis parameters.

TRAFFIX software was used to analyze intersection operations and intersection adverse effects based on the increases in critical-movement delay and the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) between no-project and project scenarios.

The Town of Los Gatos has established LOS D as the minimum acceptable intersection operations standard for all signalized intersections, including the CMP study intersections at Los Gatos Boulevard/Bascom Avenue/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road and Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue. The Cities of San José and Campbell have established LOS D as the minimum acceptable intersection operations standard except at CMP intersections where the standard is LOS E.

Unsignalized Intersections
Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all-way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate.

For side street stop-controlled intersections (two-way or T-intersections), operations are defined by the average control delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection from the stop-controlled approaches on minor streets or from left-turn approaches on major streets. The level of service is reported based on the average delay for the worst approach. The level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections are shown on Table 3. This study utilizes the TRAFFIX software to determine intersection levels of service based on the 2000 HCM methodology for unsignalized intersection.

The Town of Los Gatos does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections. However, the Town strives to maintain LOS D for unsignalized intersections.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 10
Table 2
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Table 3
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. up to 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios.

Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 to 55.0
Sources: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines , Santa Clara County Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program, June 2003.

E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

55.1 to 80.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

Greater than 80.0
A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2.

Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.)

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 11
Definition of Adverse Intersection Operational Effects
Adverse operational effects on the study intersections are based on the Town’s Transportation Analysis (TA) Guidelines, the City of San José’s Traffic Impact Analysis (LOS) Guideline, and the VTA’s TIA Guidelines.

Signalized Intersections
According to the Town of Los Gatos, a project is said to create an adverse effect at a signalized intersection if for either peak hour, either of the following conditions occurs:

1. The level of service at the intersection degrades more than one level (e.g., from LOS A to C) overall or at the worst individual approach delay if it is at LOS A, B, or C, or

2. The level of service at the intersection drops at all (e.g., from LOS D to E or F) overall or at the worst individual approach delay if it is at LOS D or below.

For non-CMP intersections located within the Cities of San Jose and Campbell, a project is said to create an adverse effect at a signalized intersection if for either peak hour the level of service falls below LOS D with the addition of project traffic to baseline conditions. For intersections already operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F) under baseline conditions, an adverse effect would occur if either of the following conditions occurs:

1. An increase in average critical delay value by 4.0 seconds or more and an increase in the critical V/C ratio of .01 or more, or

2. A decrease in average critical delay and an increase in the critical V/C ratio of .01 or more.

For designated CMP intersections, a project is said to create an adverse effect at a signalized intersection if for either peak hour the level of service falls below LOS E with the addition of project traffic to baseline conditions. For intersections already operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS F) under baseline conditions, an adverse effect would occur if the addition of project traffic increases the average control delay for critical movements by 4 seconds or more and the project traffic increases the critical v/c value by .01 or more. The exception to this threshold is when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average control delay for critical movements, i.e., the change in average control delay for critical movements are negative. In this case, the threshold is when the project increases the critical v/c value by 0.01 or more.

Unsignalized Intersections
A project is said to create an adverse operational effect on traffic conditions at an unsignalized intersection in the Town of Los Gatos if for either peak hour:

1. The addition of project traffic causes the average intersection delay for all-way stop controlled or the worst movement/approach for side-street stop-controlled intersections to degrade to LOS E or F, and

2. The intersection meets the Caltrans signal warrant criteria.

Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection operations is typically supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis at study intersections where the project would add a substantial number of vehicle trips to the left-turn movements or stop-controlled approaches. The analysis provides a basis for estimating future left-turn pocket storage requirements at the study intersections and is presented for informational purposes only, since the Town of Los Gatos has not defined a policy related to queuing. Vehicle queues were

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 12
estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula:

P (x=n) = On
e – (O

n!
Where:

P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane
O average # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hr per lane * cycle length in seconds/3600 seconds per hr)
The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile queue for a particular left-turn movement; (2) the estimated number of vehicles in the 95th percentile queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated 95th percentile queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the left-turn movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at intersections.

For signalized intersections, the 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. A queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Thus, turn pocket storage designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time for a signalized movement. Vehicle queuing at unsignalized intersections is evaluated based on the delay experienced at the specific study turn movement.

Report Organization
This report has a total of five chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions including the existing roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the vehicle operational analysis including the method by which project traffic is estimated and the project’s traffic effects on the intersection operations and vehicle queueing. Chapter 4 presents the analyses of other transportation-related issues, including site access and on-site circulation, potential effects on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and parking. Chapter 5 summarizes the conclusions and recommended roadway improvements for the project.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 13

2. Existing Transportation Conditions
This chapter describes existing conditions for transportation facilities within and in the vicinity of the project area including the roadway network, transit services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and traffic operations at the study intersections.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional roadway access to the project site is provided via SR-17 and SR-85. Major roadway access to the site is provided via Los Gatos Boulevard. Other major roadways in the project vicinity include Lark Avenue, Samaritan Drive, and Winchester Boulevard. These facilities are described below.

Los Gatos Boulevard is a two-to-six-lane arterial that runs in a north-south direction. A full interchange provides access to and from SR-85. Adjacent to the project site, there are four lanes with a median turn lane. Los Gatos Boulevard transitions from Bascom Avenue in the north at the SR 85 southbound ramps and extends southward to Jackson Street, where it transitions into Main Street. Los Gatos Boulevard includes sidewalks on the west side of the street in the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). On-street parking is prohibited in the project vicinity. Striped bike lanes are present along Los Gatos Boulevard, south of Lark Avenue. Los Gatos Boulevard provides direct access to the project site via the proposed new streets at C1 Street and C5 Street. Other access to the project site is via Walker Street and Turner Street.

Lark Avenue is a four-to-six-lane arterial in an east-west direction. It extends from Winchester Boulevard in the west to Los Gatos Boulevard in the east. A full interchange provides access to and from SR-17.Sidewalks and bike lanes are present along both sides of the street for the full length of Lark Avenue. In addition, an off-street bike path is provided on the north side of Lark Avenue east of SR-17. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. On-street parking is prohibited in the project vicinity. Access to the project site from Lark Avenue is provided via Turner Street, Los Gatos Boulevard, C1 Street, and C5 Street.

Samaritan Drive is a two-to-four-lane connector in an east-west direction. It extends from Los Gatos Boulevard in the west to Union Avenue in the east. Sidewalks and bike lanes are present along both sides of Samaritan Drive. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Access to the project site from Samaritan Drive is provided via Los Gatos Boulevard, C1 Street, and C5 Street.

Winchester Boulevard is a two-to-four-lane arterial in a north-south direction. It extends from San Jose and Campbell in the north to Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos, where it becomes Santa Cruz Avenue. Sidewalks and bike lanes are present along both sides of Winchester Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Access to the project site from Winchester Boulevard is provided via Lark Avenue.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 14
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections.

In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks are present along the project frontage along Los Gatos Boulevard. Sidewalks are also present along both sides of Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive.

Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided at all approaches at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Walker Street and Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersections. The Los Gatos Boulevard/Burton Road/Samaritan Drive intersection has crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons on all but the south approach.

The Los Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in 2017 and updated in 2020, does not list any pedestrian improvements in the project vicinity.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
The existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the vicinity of the project site include bike paths (Class I bikeway), striped bike lanes (Class II bikeway), and protected bike lanes (Class IV bikeway) (see Figure 3).

Class I bikeways include bike paths, which are shared between pedestrians and bicyclists and separated from motor vehicle traffic. Within the project vicinity, the Los Gatos Creek Trail exists parallel to State Route 17, with the nearest entry point on Lark Avenue. A multi-use path also exists along the North 40 Phase I project frontage on Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard.

Class II bike lanes are striped preferential lanes on the roadway for one-way bicycle travel. Some bicycle lanes include a striped buffer on one or both sides to increase separation from the traffic lane or from parked cars. Existing bicycle lanes are present along:
x Los Gatos Boulevard south of Lark Avenue
x South side of Lark Avenue
x North side of Lark Avenue, west of SR-17
x Samaritan Drive
x Bascom Avenue, north of SR-85
x Winchester Boulevard, between Vineland Avenue and Daves Avenue x Los Gatos-Almaden Road
x Blossom Hill Road, between Santa Cruz Avenue and Camino Del Cerro Class III bicycle routes are vehicular roadways designated to be shared with bicyclists. Bike routes are typically designated only with signage or with painted shared lane markings (sharrows) on a road that indicate to motorists that bicyclists may use the full travel lane. Bicycle routes are present along:
x National Avenue
Class IV protected bike lanes are protected by physical barriers such as flexible bollards, raised curb, parking, or planter boxes. Protected bike lanes are present along:
x Winchester Boulevard, between Albright Way and Vineland Avenue x Blossom Hill Road between Roberts Road and Los Gatos Boulevard

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II TA February 18, 2025
Page | 15
The Los Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in 2017 and updated in 2020, lists several proposed bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. The proposed facilities are as follows:
x Class IV bike path on Lark Avenue between Winchester Boulevard and Los Gatos Boulevard x Class IV bike path on Los Gatos Boulevard between Town limits and Shannon Road x Sharrows and Class III bike route on University Avenue between Main Street and Lark Avenue, where Class II bike lanes do not exist
In addition to the Los Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan, adopted in 2022, lists several proposed bicycle facilities in the project vicinity that are not covered in the Los Gatos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The proposed facilities are as follows:
x Class II bike lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard, between Town limits and Lark Avenue x Class IV bike path on Los Gatos Boulevard between Lark Avenue and Shannon Road x Sharrows and Class III bike route on Camino Del Sol
x Sharrows and Class III bike route on Gateway Drive
x Sharrows and Class III bike route on Carlton Avenue
It should be noted that at a minimum, the Town is striving for at least a Class II bike lane along Los Gatos Boulevard within the Town limits.