The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 5 - January 12, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 3-14)PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP Senior Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 01/12/2022 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: January 7, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Requesting Approval of a Planned Development for Construction of a Senior Living Community, Removal of Large Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R:PD. Located at 110 Wood Road. APN 510-47-038. Planned Development Application PD-20-001 and Environmental Impact Report EIR-21-002. APPLICANT: Rockwood Pacific. PROPERTY OWNER: Covia Communities. PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin. RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to the Town Council on a request for approval of a Planned Development (PD) for construction of a senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit on property zoned R:PD located at 110 Wood Road. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential: 5-12 dwelling units/acre Zoning Designation: Residential-Planned Development, R:PD Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Hillside Specific Plan Parcel Size: 10.84 acres ATTACHMENT 5 PAGE 2 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM PROJECT DATA (continued): Surrounding Area: CEQA: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the project (Exhibits 1 and 2) and are available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad. FINDINGS: ▪ As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for certifying the Final EIR. ▪ That the PD to rezone the property is consistent with the General Plan. ▪ That the project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan. ▪ As required by Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code for adoption of a Planned Development Ordinance. ACTION: ▪ Forward a recommendation regarding Environmental Impact Report EIR-21-002 to the Town Council. ▪ Forward a recommendation regarding Planned Development application PD-20-001 to the Town Council. BACKGROUND: The subject site is approximately 10.84 acres consisting of two underlying parcels at the intersection of Wood Road and South Santa Cruz Avenue (Exhibit 3). The site has been occupied by the Los Gatos Meadows since 1971, a senior living development operating under a PD approved in 1968. The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) reviewed a Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Single- and Multi-Family Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D East Office-Professional and Commercial Central Business District C-2 and C-2:PD South Office-Professional and Single-Family Residential Hillside Residential and Central Business District HR-5 West Single-Family Residential and Vacant Hillside Residential HR-5 PAGE 3 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM BACKGROUND (continued): preliminary proposal for redevelopment of the subject property on April 9, 2008. The Staff Report and minutes of the CDAC meeting are attached as Exhibits 6 and 7. In February 2019, the Los Gatos Meadows facility initiated a month’s long closure and transition process to relocate all residents. By September 2019, the facility was vacant. While the property owner, Covia Communities, has completed the closure process, the property continues to be staffed to provide on-going maintenance and to ensure security of the property. An application was filed by Frank Rockwood of Rockwood Pacific requesting a new PD zoning for the property for the purpose of building a new senior living development (Exhibit 15). The existing zoning is Residential, Planned Development (R:PD) and the General Plan Land Use designation is Medium Density Residential. A Draft EIR for the project was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public review period from May 28, 2021, through July 12, 2021 (Exhibit 1). The Final EIR, which includes the Response to Comments, was previously provided on September 3, 2021 (Exhibit 2). Future required approvals include an Architecture and Site application, Certificate of Lot Merger, Building Permits, a Grading Permit, and a Tree Removal Permit. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject site is approximately 10.84-acres consisting of two underlying parcels at the intersection of Wood Road and South Santa Cruz Avenue (Exhibit 3). The property rises east-to-west approximately 240 feet, and approximately 95 feet across the area of development. The subject property is characterized by a hillside setting, and is in the Hillside Specific Plan area, but it is not located within the hillside area as defined by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). The site has been occupied by the Los Gatos Meadows, a senior living development, since 1971. The existing development includes 10 residential buildings with 205 independent care and support units; a dining and commons building; an infirmary, garage, and services building; a multi-purpose building; two cottages; and 130 parking spaces (Exhibit 15B, Sheet C101). Site access is currently taken from a driveway off Wood Road at the southern end of the property and from the south side of Broadway via Farwell Lane. An additional access road served from Wood Road provides access to the area uphill of the existing buildings, traversing to the center of the property, where it dead ends. PAGE 4 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM PROJECT DESCRIPTION (continued): The surrounding area contains a mix of uses with single- and multi-family residential uses located to the north; office and commercial uses to the east; office and single-family residential uses to the south; and single-family residential uses to the west. B. Project Summary The applicant is proposing a new PD to allow for the demolition of all existing buildings, construction of a new senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit. The senior living community would operate as a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) and will be licensed as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) under the California Department of Social Services. The project would be restricted to persons age 62 and older, providing 24/7 assisted living services to the residents. The senior living community would provide coordinated health care services, including 17 supporting care units. These proposed services would be similar to the uses offered in the previous community that closed in 2019. DISCUSSION: A. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee The CDAC reviewed a preliminary proposal for redevelopment of the subject property on April 9, 2008 (Exhibits 6 and 7). The CDAC provided comments on the proposal related to: • The need for senior housing and to modernize the existing facility; • Inclusion of Below Market Price units; • LEED certification; • Height and visibility; • Appropriate architectural style; • Hillside setting; and • Traffic, grading, and tree impacts. The applicant’s Letter of Justification responds to the feedback provided by the CDAC in 2008 (Exhibit 8). B. Existing Planned Development Comparison As noted in the Letter of Justification (Exhibit 8), the applicant is proposing a new PD to replace the PD approved in 1968, under which the Los Gatos Meadows has been operating since 1971. The proposed PD would retain the existing R:PD zoning for the subject property. Approval of the PD application would establish the regulations through an PAGE 5 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): ordinance (which would include the development plans) under which the following actions would be allowed: • Demolition of all existing buildings on the site; • Construction of a new senior living community; • Removal of 192 trees, including 8 large protected trees; and • Site improvements requiring a Grading Permit. A comparison of the existing and proposed PD conditions is provided in the table below. Comparison of Planned Development Conditions Original 1968 PD Proposed PD Site Coverage 24.6 percent 22.5 percent Total Number of Independent Living Units 184 174 Total Units Permitted 222 191 Open Space 75.4 percent 77.5 percent Building Setbacks from Property Line Front: 20 feet Side: 15 ft and 27 feet Rear: 15 feet Front: 34.83 feet Side: 40.83 feet and 60 feet Rear: 32.92 feet Parking 111 spaces 78 standard spaces 122 tandem spaces Height Predominantly 2-story with some basement or below grade space for infirmary, parking, storage, and mechanical. Heights vary between 30’-9” and 55’-2” ±. 3-5 stories with below grade space for parking, storage, and mechanical. Heights vary between 59’-0” and 85’- 6” ±. Future required approvals include an Architecture and Site application, Certificate of Lot Merger, Building Permits, a Grading Permit, and a Tree Removal Permit. C. Proposed Project Analysis The proposed PD includes demolition of all existing structures and redevelopment of the site with a ground floor podium and eight separate buildings constructed above the podium level (Exhibit 15). PAGE 6 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): As summarized in the following table, the podium would include a ground floor level and a subterranean lower-level parking garage with 29 parking spaces. The ground floor level would include the main entrance, 17 supporting care units, dining facilities, offices, fitness center, indoor swimming pool, mechanical areas, and a parking garage accommodating 49 cars in single parking spaces and 122 cars in tandem parking spaces. Summary of Podium Height Above Low Grade (+477’) Gross Floor Area Parking Area Parking Spaces Lower Level Garage 11 ft (+488’) 0 sf 22,136 sf 29 (standard) Ground Floor Level 28 ft (+505’) 52,904 sf 66,691 sf 49 (standard) 122 (tandem) An outdoor terrace would be located above the podium providing common space amongst the eight villas. This landscaped terrace area would offer amenities including walkways, gardens, seating areas, courtyards, lawns, bocce ball courts, outdoor dining, and multiples trellises and gazebos (Exhibit 15B, Sheet LS-6). The eight villas would rise three to five stories above the terrace level, with heights from 42 feet, one inch, to 68 feet, seven inches above the terrace. The eight villas would include 174 one- and two-bedroom independent living units with a variety of floor plans. The characteristics of each villa are summarized in the table below. Summary of Villas Number of Stories Height Above Terrace (+505’) Height Above Ground Floor (+488’) Gross Floor Area Villa A 5 68.58 ft 85.58 ft 157,054 sf Villa B 3 56.00 ft 73.00 ft 41,483 sf Villa C 5 65.08 ft 82.08 ft 56,891 sf Villa D 4 53.58 ft 70.58 ft 31,426 sf Villa E 5 65.00 ft 82.00 ft 40,712 sf Villa F 5 67.50 ft 84.50 ft 40,712 sf Villa G 4 53.50 ft 70.50 ft 31,426 sf Villa H 3 42.08 ft 59.08 ft 31,112 sf Sheets A201, A202, and A203 of the development plans include typical elevations for the podium and the villas but do not provide full elevations of all structures. Full elevations will be required during the future Architecture and Site application review process. PAGE 7 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): In their Letter of Justification, the applicant indicates that the materials for the proposed development were selected based on their ability to blend with the natural setting and minimize the visual impact of the proposed building heights (Exhibit 8). A materials board is included on Sheet A204 of the development plans and the typical locations of the proposed exterior materials are shown on the exterior elevations on Sheets A201 through A203 (Exhibit 15B). Typical exterior materials include: • Standing seam metal roof in dark gray; • Stone veneer tile; • Brushed stainless steel window frames and railings; • Concrete panel siding in tan/brown; • Metal panel siding in olive green; • Vertical standing seam siding in beige; • Horizontal metal panel wood veneer; and • Aluminum soffit with wood appearance. The eight villas would be situated on the terrace level to frame two large outdoor spaces separated by Villa A: the Village Green and Town Square. These outdoor spaces would be connected through the common area located on the bottom floor of Villa A. A network of paths and walkways would provide circulation between the various amenities within the outdoor spaces. Proposed hardscape materials are included on Sheet LS-13 of the development plans (Exhibit 15B) and include: • Stained sawcut concrete walkways; • Seeded glass paving; • Stone veneer retaining walls; • Vegetated green walls; and • Toned asphalt paved trail. The proposed PD includes access and circulation improvements serving the development. The primary access point would be similar to the existing driveway off Wood Road at the southern end of the property (Exhibit 15B, Sheet C102). At the southwest elevation, vehicles could access the main entrance at the ground floor level or enter the lower level parking garage, which connects internally to parking on the ground floor level. Deliveries, trash collection, and other services would be accommodated through a receiving dock just north of the main entrance on the ground level. The existing access road off Wood Road uphill of the development area would be improved and extended to connect to the driveway on the east side of the development area. This extension would provide a fire PAGE 8 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): access ring road around all sides of the development. The fire access ring road would provide ladder access to the podium and each of the eight villas. Farwell Lane would be closed off to vehicle and pedestrian access and would be retained exclusively for Fire Department access from Broadway and autonomous vehicular access for the residents to the downtown area. The proposed project, including the circulation improvements, has been reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. D. Architectural Review The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed project and noted that the project is well designed with a lot of thought given to the facilities’ layout and building design (Exhibit 9). The Consulting Architect also noted that the increased building heights and proposed tree removal have the potential to create visual impacts to adjacent properties and other portions of the Town. The Consulting Architect made no recommendations for changes to the building design, but noted that the proposed materials are largely faux simulations of natural materials. Based on this feedback, the applicant revised portions of the plans to clarify the screening impact of the landscaping, updated the color of the roof material, and provided justification for the selected materials (Exhibit 8). The applicant’s response to the recommendations of the Town’s Consulting Architect is included in Exhibit 10. An application for Architecture and Site review is required by Performance Standard 3 of the Planned Development Ordinance (Exhibit 15). E. Visibility The subject property is not located within the hillside area and is not subject to the visibility regulations as defined by the HDS&G. The applicant installed story poles and provided renderings of the proposed project to represent the visual impact of the project from several view corridors (Exhibit 15B, Sheets A406 through A408). Further, the applicant provided a discussion of the building heights and visibility in the Letter of Justification (Exhibit 8). F. Grading The proposed project is located primarily in the areas of the property with existing development. Grading and excavation activities are required for the new podium and villas, subterranean parking garages, adjustments to the site plan, and circulation improvements (Exhibit 15B, Sheet C103). Preliminary earthwork quantities and cut and fill depths are summarized in the table on the following page. The proposed site grading exceeds the 50 PAGE 9 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): cubic yard (cy) threshold for requiring a Grading Permit. The areas with the most intense site grading are adjacent to the edges of the podium, and the new and widened roadway around the site. Preliminary Earthwork Quantities Type Cut (cy) Fill (cy) Net (cy) Max Cut Depth (ft) Max Fill Depth (ft) Buildings* 113,000 1,000 112,000 <Cut> 61.5 3.5 Driveways 9,900 2,300 7,600 <Cut> 21.0 14.0 Sidewalk 3,700 700 3,000 <Cut> 20.5 10.5 Landscape 13,100 2,400 10,700 <Cut> 27.0 13.5 Utility Spoils 7,000 -- 7,000 <Cut> GRADING PERMIT TOTAL* 33,700 5,400 18,300 <Cut> TOTAL 146,700 6,400 140,300 <Cut> * Excavation within building footprints does not count toward a Grading Permit G. Retaining Walls New retaining walls are proposed to allow for the necessary slope transitions between the podium and the improved roadways (Exhibit 15B, Sheets C103, and C103.1). The heights of these retaining walls vary by location, having a maximum height of approximately 24 feet northwest of Villa D (Exhibit 15B, Sheet C103.1, Section A-A). Proposed retaining walls on the western edge of the site would be largely screened by the podium and villas, while those on the eastern edge of the development may be visible. The primary function of the proposed retaining walls is improve and extend the fire access ring road. In the Letter of Justification, the applicant discusses the need for the retaining walls, efforts to reduce wall heights, and strategies for mitigating the visual impact of taller retaining walls (Exhibit 8). A summary of the proposed retaining walls is provided in the table below. Summary of Maximum Retaining Wall Heights Section (C102 and C103.1) Location Maximum Heights (ft) A–A NW of Villa A 24 B–B N of Villa A 11 C–C N of Villa A 10 D–D NE of Villa C 10 E–E NE of Villa C 20 F–F SE of Villa H 3 G–G SW of Villa G 13 H–H NW of Villa H 10 PAGE 10 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): H. Parking The Town Code parking requirement for convalescent homes is one parking space for every two and one-half beds. While this senior living community differs from convalescent homes for which this parking requirement was developed, it can be used to guide the determination of an appropriate parking requirement for this project, that would be enforced through the PD. The proposed project includes 174 continuing care living units and 17 supporting care units, totaling 191 units. Applying the convalescent home parking requirement per living unit, the project requires 77 parking spaces. The project includes 78 standard parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement. However, some of the proposed 174 continuing care living units would be two-bedroom units, as detailed in the “Unit Data” table on the cover sheet of the development plans (Exhibit 15B). According to this table, the 174 continuing care living units would include a total of 291 bedrooms. When including the 17 supporting care units, the project includes 308 bedrooms. Using the convalescent home parking requirement and applying it per bedroom, rather than per unit, the project would require 124 parking spaces for the 308 bedrooms. In addition to the 78 standard parking spaces, the project includes 122 tandem parking spaces that would be managed under a valet parking program, for a total of 200 parking spaces. Typically, tandem parking spaces do not count toward the required parking; however, these spaces can be counted if approved under the proposed PD. If approved, details of the proposed valet parking program would be required during review of the Architecture and Site application. I. Traffic A Transportation Analysis was prepared for the Initial Study by Kimley-Horn (Exhibit 1, Appendices). This analysis compared the trip generation of the existing development (708 daily trips) to the anticipated trip generation of the proposed project (718 daily trips). This analysis concluded that the proposed project would result in a net increase of 10 daily trips for the proposed project relative to the baseline use, and a net decrease for AM peak (-2 trips), midday peak (-3 trips) PM peak (-4 trips), and Saturday midday peak (-3 trips). J. Trees and Landscaping The subject property includes thousands of existing trees. Details on the location, size, species, health, suitability, and disposition of the trees in the project area are included on Sheets T-1 through T-5 of the development plans (Exhibit 15B). The provided information PAGE 11 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): indicates that 44 trees were removed in 2019 under permit T19-167, 36 of which were protected trees. These trees were removed due to being invasive species and/or fire concerns. The project proposes removal of 213 additional trees, 192 of which are protected trees requiring a permit for removal. Eight of these trees are large protected trees. The proposed tree removal is due to their location within the development area, risk/poor health, sudden oak death carrier, and/or fire risk. An Arborist Report was prepared by Hort Science and submitted with the application materials. The Town’s Consulting Arborist conducted a peer review of this report and provided recommendations to align the information with the requirements of the Town Code. The applicant submitted a revised report dated October 12, 2020 (Exhibit 11), which was deemed sufficient by the Town’s Consulting Arborist on February 12, 2021 (Exhibit 12). All recommendations identified in the Arborist Report for the project have been included as performance standards in the draft PD Ordinance (Exhibit 15). The applicant has provided details of the proposed landscape plan on Sheets LS-1 through LS-13 (Exhibit 15B). Proposed landscape plantings have been separated into two areas: the ground level areas adjacent to the roadways and podium buildings, and the terrace level. The landscape plan includes 242 new trees at the ground level and 131 new trees at the terrace level. Additionally, shrubs, groundcover, and other ornamental plantings are included on both levels, the majority of which are listed as either native or indigenous species, and drought tolerant. K. Hillside The subject property is characterized by a hillside setting, but it is not located within the hillside area as defined by the HDS&G. In 2008, the CDAC recognized the hillside context of the site and recommended that the spirit and intent of the HDS&G should be applied (Exhibit 7). In response, the applicant has provided details in the Letter of Justification of how the spirit of the HDS&G has been integrated into the project (Exhibit 8). The site is located in Sub-area 6 of the Hillside Specific Plan area. The site has served as a senior living facility since 1971 and would continue to do so under the proposed PD. The project includes modernization of the facility, circulation system, and safety characteristics; an increase in the open space area; and would include a similar number of living units, staff levels, and traffic generation to the existing facility. The proposed project is consistent with the provisions of the Hillside Specific Plan. PAGE 12 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): L. General Plan The existing General Plan land use designation is Medium Density Residential. The 2020 General Plan Land Use Element focuses on maintaining a “full-service” Town that provides a range of goods and services that support economic vitality, while limiting adverse impacts on the quality of life of all the residents. The applicant’s Letter of Justification provides a detailed discussion of the project’s compatibility with the 2020 General Plan including applicable goals, policies, and actions; and compatibility with individual elements (Exhibit 8). Applicable goals and policies of the 2020 General Plan include, but are not limited to the following: • Policy HOU-5.3: Work with existing senior lifestyle living and assisted living facilities in Los Gatos, and support the development of new senior housing that includes continuum of care facilities within the Town. • Policy LU-1.3: To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well-designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments. • Policy LU-6.7: Continue to encourage a variety of housing types and sizes that is balanced throughout the Town and within neighborhoods, and that is also compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. • Policy CD-1.3: Buildings, landscapes, and hardscapes shall follow the natural contours of the property. • Policy CD-1.4: Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town’s ambiance. Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods. • Goal CD-4: To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments. • Policy CD-7.1: Maximize quality usable open space in all new developments. M. Zoning Compliance The proposed use is not allowed by-right under the base zoning designation of Residential. The proposed project would provide a public benefit to the Town by providing much needed senior housing and continuing care services. One of the stated purposes of a PD in the Town Code is to promote projects that provide a public benefit to the Town. While the proposed project is not consistent with the by-right uses allowed under the base zoning PAGE 13 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): designation, it does meet the criteria for a PD overlay by providing a public benefit to the Town through senior housing services and is thus consistent with the Zoning Code. N. Planned Development Application The PD application is requesting to replace the existing PD zoning approved in 1968, maintaining the R:PD zoning of the property. The Town Code states that the purpose of a PD is to preserve, enhance, and/or promote: • The Town's natural and historic resources; • The production of affordable housing; • The maximization of open space; and/or • A project that provides a public benefit to the Town. The applicant’s Letter of Justification provides details on the relationship of the proposed project to the findings required to approve a PD application (Exhibit 8). The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation regarding the merits of the PD application to the Town Council, who will be the final deciding body. If adopted by the Town Council, the proposed PD Ordinance (Exhibit 15) would allow redevelopment of the site including demolition of all existing buildings, construction of a new senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit. O. Environmental Review An EIR was prepared for the project. As part of the environmental review process a number of technical reports were prepared, including species lists and database reviews, tree evaluations and arborist reports, geotechnical investigations, and traffic analyses. Reports that were prepared by outside consultants were peer reviewed by Town consultants. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on February 1, 2021, for a 30-day comment period. Comments received on the NOP are included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR (Exhibit 1). The Notice of Completion and Availability for review of the Draft EIR was released on May 28, 2021, with the 45-day public review period ending on July 12, 2021. On June 23, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to accept comments on the Draft EIR. No comments were received at this meeting. Written comments on the Draft EIR were received from the applicant, one public agency, and three individuals. The Final EIR, with Response to Comments, was completed in August 2021 (Exhibit 2). PAGE 14 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM DISCUSSION (continued): Through the Initial Study/EIR process, no significant and unavoidable impacts were identified. All identified significant impacts that would result from the project can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that has been prepared for the project as required by CEQA (Exhibit 2). The MMRP includes a list of all mitigation measures and the department(s) responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are properly implemented. All mitigation measures are included as performance standards within the draft PD Ordinance (Exhibit 15). PUBLIC COMMENTS: As detailed in the Letter of Justification, the applicant has been engaged with the surrounding neighborhood, business community, Town officials, and the greater Los Gatos community since 2018 through open house meetings, focus groups, individual in-person and video meetings, and maintenance of a project website (Exhibit 8). The applicant also provided a supplemental community engagement letter summarizing their outreach efforts that have taken place since the Letter of Justification was submitted (Exhibit 13). Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property. Story poles and flagging were installed on the site and certified by a licensed surveyor in coordination with mailing of the written notice. Project signs were also installed at the primary entrance on Wood Road and at the intersection of Farwell Lane and Broadway. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m. on Friday, January 7, 2022, are included as Exhibit 14. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The applicant is proposing a new PD to allow demolition of all existing buildings, construction of a new senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit. The senior living community would be restricted to persons age 62 and older, providing 24/7 assisted living services to the residents. The facility would provide coordinated health care services, including 174 independent living units and 17 supporting care units. These proposed services would be similar to the services offered in the previous community that closed in 2019. The proposal would maintain the R:PD zoning of the property and the new PD would provide new performance standards for the project. The project complies with the General Plan, the Planned Development requirements in the Town Code, Hillside Specific Plan, and would provide a public benefit to the Town. PAGE 15 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM CONCLUSION (continued): B. Recommendation Based on the summary above, if the Commission finds merit in the proposal, the Commission can take the following actions to forward the Final EIR and PD applications to the Town Council, recommending that the Town Council: 1. Make the required findings included in Exhibit 4; 2. Make the required CEQA Findings of Fact (Exhibit 5), certify the Final EIR (Exhibit 2), and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 2); and 3. Adopt the Planned Development Ordinance (Exhibit 15) and approve the proposed project. C. Alternatives Alternatively, if the Commission has concerns with the proposed project, it can: 1. Forward a recommendation for approval of the applications with modified performance standards to the Town Council; or 2. Forward a recommendation of denial of the applications to the Town Council; or 3. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction. PAGE 16 OF 16 SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002 JANUARY 7, 2022 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 3 - 110 Wood Road\Staff Report.110 Wood Road.docx 1/7/2022 1:50 PM EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1.May 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad) 2.September 2021 Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad) Received with this Staff Report: 3.Location Map 4.Required Findings 5.Required CEQA Findings of Fact 6.Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Staff Report, April 9, 2008 7.Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes, April 9, 2008 8.Project Description and Letter of Justification, January 3, 2022 9.Town’s Consulting Architect Report, May 8, 2020 10.Applicant’s response to Town’s Consulting Architect recommendations, May 22, 2020 11.Arborist Report by Hort Science, October 12, 2020 12.Town's Consulting Arborist peer review report, February 12, 2021 13.Supplemental community engagement letter, December 9, 2021 14.Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 15.Planned Development Ordinance with Exhibit A Rezone Area and Exhibit B Development Plans, July 27, 2021 WOOD RD W MA I N S T SB HIGHWAY 17NB HIGHWAY 17S CREEK TRAILBROA D W A Y COLLEGE AVTAIT AVVICTORY LNPARK AVS SANTA CRUZ AVFARWELL LNSB 17 FROM S SANTA CRUZN SANTA CRUZ AVSTATION WYEUCLID AVCLIFTON AV110 Wood Road 0 0.250.125 Miles ° Update Notes:- Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm)- Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label- Updated 10/8/20 to add street centerlines which can be useful in the hillside area- Updated 02-19-21 to link to TLG-SQL17 database (sm) EXHIBIT 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION – January 12, 2022 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 110 Wood Road Planned Development Application PD-20-001 Environmental Impact Report EIR-21-002 Requesting Approval of a Planned Development for Construction of a Senior Living Community, Removal of Large Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R:PD. APN 510-47-038. APPLICANT: Rockwood Pacific. PROPERTY OWNER: Covia Communities. FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: ■ An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed development. The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council make the CEQA Findings of Fact, certify the Final EIR, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Required consistency with the Town’s General Plan: ■ That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements in that the proposed development provides much needed senior housing and continuing care services to the Town. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan: ■ The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the site has served as a senior living facility since 1971 and would continue to do so under the proposed PD. The project includes modernization of the facility, circulation system, and safety characteristics; an increase in the open space area; and would include a similar number of living units, staff levels, and traffic generation. The proposal is consistent with the development criteria included in the plan. Required finding for the adoption of a Planned Development Ordinance: ■ As required by Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code for adoption of a Planned Development Ordinance: 1. The proposed Planned Development complies with Chapter 29, Article VIII, Division 2 of the Town Code. EXHIBIT 4 2. The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan in that the development provides much needed senior housing and continuing care services to the Town. 3. The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the project includes modernization of the existing facility, circulation system, and safety characteristics; an increase in the open space area; and would include a similar number of living units, staff levels, and traffic generation to the existing facility. 4. The proposal is consistent with the development criteria included in the plan. The Planned Development Ordinance provides a public benefit to the Town by providing much needed senior housing and continuing care services. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2022\WOOD ROAD, 110 - 01-12-22 PC.DOCX D R A F T CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT for 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community Planned Development Application PD-20-001 SCH # 2021020007 Town Council Town of Los Gatos October 2021 EXHIBIT 5 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR ii Draft – October 2021 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 iii CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................... 1 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 3 A. Project Location and Current Use ........................................................................ 3 B. Project Objectives ................................................................................................. 3 C. Project Characteristics .......................................................................................... 3 IV. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 3 A. Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 4 B. Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 6 C. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 12 D. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 13 E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 14 F. Wildfire Hazards ................................................................................................. 15 V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. 16 A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative – Existing (Closed) Senior Living Community .................................................................................... 17 B. Alternative 2: No Project - Residential Project Consistent with the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation ............................................ 17 C. Alternative 3: Reduced Scale - Removal of Villas B and C from Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................. 17 D. Environmentally Superior Alternative.................................................................. 18 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .......................... 18 VII. RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................................................................. 18 VII. SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 19 CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR iv Draft – October 2021 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Draft EIR prepared for the 110 Wood Road - Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community Project (also referred to as the Project or proposed Project) identified several potentially significant environmental effects that the proposed project may cause. All of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15090, the Town Council of Los Gatos (Council) hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the 110 Wood Road - Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community project (proposed Project) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), that the Final EIR was presented to the Council, and that the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed Project, as set forth below. As part of this certification, the Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Council and approves the Final EIR. II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of projects for which they have discretionary authority. This document, which has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), sets forth the findings of the Town of Los Gatos (Town), the lead agency under CEQA, regarding the 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community project. The primary source for this document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR; SCH #2021020007) for the proposed Project, and the documents that have been incorporated into the Final EIR directly or by reference. Full descriptions of the proposed Project, associated environmental impacts, mitigation measures, Project alternatives, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed Project, and other features required under CEQA are contained in the Final EIR itself. To determine the scope of the EIR, the Town prepared a Notice of Preparation. On February 4, 2021, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project were distributed to trustee and responsible agencies, members of the public, other interested parties, and the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse. This began the 30-day public review period, which ended on March 8, 2021. These comments were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR (see below) and are included in their entirety in Appendix A to that document. The Draft EIR, with an accompanying Notice of Completion (NOC), was circulated to the State Clearinghouse, trustee agencies, responsible agencies, other government agencies, and interested members of the public for a 45-day review period, extending from May 28, 2021 through July 12, 2021. On June 23, 2021, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive oral comment on the Draft EIR. CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 2 Draft – October 2021 Comments on the Draft EIR, a list of commenters, and the Town’s responses to comments are contained in the Final EIR, dated August 2021. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(b), the Final EIR was made available for review by trustee and responsible agencies that provided written comments on the Draft EIR for a 10-day period from September 3, 2021 through September 13, 2021 The Final EIR for the Project consists of the following: A. Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”), issued May 28, 2021; B. All appendices to the Draft EIR; C. Final EIR, dated August 2021, containing all written comments and responses on the Draft EIR, refinements and clarifications to the Draft EIR, the MMRP, and technical appendices; D. All of the comments and staff responses entered into the record orally and in writing, as well as accompanying technical memoranda or evidence entered into the record. The Final EIR did not provide any significant new information regarding proposed Project or cumulative impacts or mitigation measures beyond that contained in the Draft EIR. In conformance with CEQA, the Town has taken the following actions in relation to the EIR: A. On January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR, and recommended that the Town Council certify the EIR and approve the redevelopment of the 10.84-acre site with a senior living community that would replace the existing Los Gatos Meadows senior living community. The project would include 174 independent residential apartments plus 17 supporting care units. The project, a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), would be licensed as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) under the California Department of Social Services. The project would be restricted to persons age 62 and older and would provide 24/7 assisted living services to the residents. The project would provide coordinated health care services, including 17 supporting care units. These proposed services would be similar to the use offered in the previous community. B. On DATE TBD, at a duly and properly noticed public hearing, the Town Council certified the EIR and adopted findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program related to the Planned Development application filed by the applicant requesting a “Planned Development” overlay be applied to the site’s existing “Residential Planned Development” zoning designation. Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 3 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location and Current Use The project site is located at 110 Wood Road in the Town of Los Gatos. The property is accessed directly off Wood Road (via South Santa Cruz Avenue). The project site’s Assessor’s parcel number is 510-47-038, and is generally located between single family residences along Broadway to the northeast and Wood Road to the south. The site is zoned “Residential Planned Development (R:PD)” and has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential allows for a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. A senior living community has been operating on the site since 1971 with 10 residential buildings and other support facilities and amenities. The site has three access points: two from the south off of Wood Road and one from the north via a driveway (referred to as Farwell Lane) connecting with Broadway. The facility has been closed since February 2019, after a rigorous facilities assessment concluded that continuing operations of the facility in its present form presented too great a risk to its residents. Although the facility has completed the closure process, the facility continues to be staffed to provide on-going maintenance and security of the property. B. Project Objectives The objective of the proposed project is to approve a new/updated Planned Development (PD) to rebuild a state-of-the art senior living community on a 10.84-acre site consistent with the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, Town of Los Gatos zoning code and in the spirit of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines. C. Project Characteristics The Project applicant is requesting approval of the following: ▪ Planned Development (PD) Overlay permit (PD-20-001) A Planned Development application has been filed by the applicant requesting a “Planned Development” overlay be applied to the site’s existing “Residential Planned Development” zoning designation. A subsequent Architecture and Site application will be required if the Planned Development application is approved by the Town Council. In accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.140(d), the Architecture and Site approval is required for purposes of approving the development plan for the new senior living community to ensure conformance with Town regulations related to the height, width, shape, proportion, siting, exterior construction and design of buildings and to ensure that they are architecturally compatible with their surroundings. IV. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Final EIR analyzed proposed Project impacts in the following six environmental topic areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire Hazards. With implementation of proposed Project-specific CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 4 Draft – October 2021 mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts. The following discussion elaborates on potentially significant impacts identified in the 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community Final EIR and mitigation measures proposed for those impacts. A. Air Quality 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 6-5: Construction Activity Would Expose Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants Sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of construction activities would be exposed to construction TAC emissions volumes that exceed the air district significance thresholds for infant/child cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations. These are significant impacts. Implementation of the following Mitigation Measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 6-5a During construction, the project contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions of fugitive dust and engine exhaust DPM, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. These measures shall be included in the project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three (3) times per day and at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; c. Avoid tracking visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with a 6 to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment prior to leaving the site; d. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; e. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to five (5) mph; f. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; g. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 5 airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; h. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends beyond site boundaries; j. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind breaks should have no greater than 50 percent air porosity; k. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established; l. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time; and m. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town of Los Gatos regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure 6-5b Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the project developer shall prepare, and the project contractor shall implement, a demolition and construction emissions avoidance and reduction plan demonstrating a 78 percent reduction of DPM emissions and a 60 percent reduction of PM2.5 exposures at the MEI to meet the air district’s risk thresholds. The plan shall be prepared prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure. The plan shall include the following measures: a. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment operating on-site for more than two days and larger than 50 horsepower shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) particulate matter emissions standards for Tier III engines or better. Prior to the issuance of any demolition permits, the project applicant shall submit specifications of the equipment to be used during construction and confirmation this requirement is met; b. Use alternatively fueled equipment or equipment with zero emissions (i.e., aerial lifts, forklifts, and air compressors, etc., shall be either electrified or fueled by liquefied natural gas/propane); c. Provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of diesel-powered stationary equipment, such as generators; and d. Other demonstrable measures identified by the developer that reduce emissions and avoid or minimize exposures to the affected sensitive receptors. CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 6 Draft – October 2021 Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts on air quality will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 6-5a and 6-5b Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. B. Biological Resources 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 7-2: Potential Effect on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species (San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat) If San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is present within the 0.3 acres of oak/bay woodland or 5.2 acres of mixed woodland within the proposed project impact area, loss or disturbance of woodrats due to midden removal during construction and fire safety activities would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for woodrat middens within the development footprint and fire defensible space. These surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of construction. In the event that construction activities are suspended for 15 consecutive days or longer, these surveys shall be repeated. All woodrat middens shall be flagged for avoidance of direct construction impacts and fire defensible space where feasible. If impacts cannot be avoided, woodrat middens shall be dismantled no more than three days prior to construction activities starting at each midden location. All vegetation and duff materials shall be removed from three feet around the midden prior to dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt to rebuild. Middens are to be slowly dismantled by hand in order to allow any occupants to disperse. Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented by a qualified biologist and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of a demolition and grading permit. Impact 7-3. Potential Effect on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species (Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat) Potential habitat for pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs in mature, hollow trees and around structures present within the project site. If special-status bats are present on the site, tree removal and other construction activities could result in the loss of individual animals. This would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 7 following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7-3 Within 14 days prior to tree removal or other construction activities such as a demolition, the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, within structures proposed for demolition, and in trees and structures within 50 feet of the development footprint. In the event that construction activities are suspended for 15 consecutive days or longer, these surveys shall be repeated. These surveys shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within and 50 feet around the project site. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence shall be submitted by the biologist to the Town of Los Gatos prior to issuance of tree removal and demolition permits and no further mitigation is required. If bats or roosting sites are found, a letter report and supplemental documents shall be provided by the biologist to the Town of Los Gatos prior to issuance of tree removal and demolition permits and the following monitoring, exclusion, and habitat replacement measures shall be implemented: a. If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), they shall be evicted as described under (b) below. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats shall be evicted as described under (b) below. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) shall be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities including tree removal or structure disturbance shall occur until after the nursery season. b. If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a tree or snag scheduled for removal or on any structures within 50 feet of project disturbance activities, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist. If pre- construction surveys determine that there are bats present in any trees or structures to be removed, exclusion structures (e.g. one-way doors or similar methods) shall be installed by a qualified biologist. The exclusion structures shall not be placed until the time of year in which young are able to fly, outside of the nursery CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 8 Draft – October 2021 season. Information on placement of exclusion structures shall be provided to the CDFW prior to construction. If needed, other removal methods could include: carefully opening the roosting area in a tree or snag by hand to expose the cavity and opening doors/windows on structures, or creating openings in walls to allow light into the structures. Removal of any trees or snags and disturbance within 50 feet of any structures shall be conducted no earlier than the following day (i.e., at least one night shall be provided between initial roost eviction disturbance and tree removal/disturbance activities). This action will allow bats to leave during dark hours, which increases their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation. c. Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If roosting habitat is identified, a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring plan will be prepared and implemented to mitigate for the loss of roosting habitat. The plan will include information pertaining to the species of bat and location of the roost, compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts, including specific mitigation ratios and a location of the proposed mitigation area, and monitoring to assess bat use of mitigation areas. The plan will be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to the bat eviction activities or the removal of roosting habitat. Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of grading and demolition permits. Impact 7-4: Potential Effect on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species (Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds) If nesting birds protected by state and federal regulations are present on or adjacent to the site during construction activities including vegetation removal and site preparation including building demolition, the proposed project may directly result in loss of active nests, or indirectly result in nest abandonment and thereby cause loss of fertile eggs or nestlings. This would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7-4 Prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits, to avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) shall be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction occurs during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project activities. If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), or if construction activities are suspended for at least 14 days and recommence during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 9 a. Two surveys for active bird nests shall occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. A report documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g. defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits. Impact 7-5: Effect on Federally- and State-Protected Wetlands or Waters of the U.S. (Intermittent or Ephemeral Drainage) The Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2020 requires for all development to “protect wetlands and riparian corridors, including intermittent and ephemeral streams.” The on-site drainage feature may also fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW. Impacts to jurisdictional wetland and waterway features are considered significant adverse environmental impacts. The following mitigation measures would assure that this potentially significant impact is reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures 7-5a To avoid impacts to a the potentially jurisdictional drainage feature, a minimum 10-foot setback from the drainage shall be maintained during tree removal, demolition, and construction activities. The drainage and setback area shall be shown on all demolition and construction plans. Mitigation Measure 7-5b If disturbance will occur within ten feet of the drainage, prior to issuance of a grading permit within the project boundary, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to determine the extent of potential wetlands and waterways regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. If the USACE claims jurisdiction, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit. If the impacts to the drainage features do not qualify for a Nationwide Permit, the applicant shall proceed CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 10 Draft – October 2021 with the qualified biologist in obtaining an Individual Permit from the USACE. The applicant shall then retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the RWQCB to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If necessary, the applicant shall also retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the CDFW to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement. To compensate for temporary and/or permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S. that would be impacted as a result of the proposed project, mitigation shall be provided as required by the regulatory permits. Mitigation would be provided through one of the following mechanisms: ▪ A Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed that will outline mitigation and monitoring obligations for temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters as a result of construction activities. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would include thresholds of success, monitoring and reporting requirements, and site-specific plans to compensate for wetland losses resulting from the project. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review and approval during the permit application process. ▪ To compensate for permanent impacts, the purchase and/or dedication of land to provide suitable wetland restoration or creation shall ensure a no net loss of wetland values or functions. If restoration is available and feasible, a minimum 1:1 mitigation to impact ratio would apply to projects for which mitigation is provided in advance. Impact 7-6: Damage or Removal of Regulated Trees The Arborist Report Update re-evaluated the potential impacts to trees as a result of the project as shown on the Planning Submittal Set (10/8/2020) and the Preliminary Drainage Plan (6/30/2020). The disposition of each tree is shown in the exhibit attached to the Arborist Report Update, and summarized in Table 7-3, Trees Planned for Removal and Preservation, below. Table 7-3 Trees Planned for Removal and Preservation Protected Large Protected Total Trees Planned for Removal 205 8 213 Trees Planned for Preservation 109 9 118 Source: HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 2020 The proposed project could remove up to 213 regulated trees. This would be a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-than significant level. Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 11 Mitigation Measure 7-6 Prior to issuance of a tree removal permit and/or a grading permit, developers shall retain a certified arborist to develop a site-specific tree protection plan for retained trees and supervise the implementation of all proposed tree preservation and protection measures during construction activities, including those measures specified in the 2018 project arborist report and 2020 arborist report update (HortScience Bartlett Consulting). Also, in accordance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit for proposed tree removals on each development lot prior to tree removals and shall install replacement trees in accordance with all mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements specified in the tree removal permit(s) or otherwise required by the Town for project approvals. Impact 7-8: Effect on Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities potentially present on the site are limited to highly impacted drainage channels and oak woodland. Prior mitigation measures require the developer to determine the extent of potentially regulated drainage channels and regulated trees prior to initiation of ground disturbance or construction activities. To compensate for temporary and/or permanent impacts, mitigation shall be provided as required by regulatory permits. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. General Plan policies ENV-1.5 and ENV-1.7 prohibit the use of invasive species listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) for all new construction and requires new development to use native plants or other appropriate non-invasive plants to reduce maintenance and irrigation costs and the disturbance of adjacent natural habitat. The spread of invasive species is considered a significant potential impact. The following mitigation measure would assure that this potentially significant impact is reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 7-8 On-site landscaping shall be limited to drought-tolerant species, fire-resistant species, and species capable of increasing soil stability; with preference to plant species endemic to Santa Clara County. Species from the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2020) shall be removed if present and not included in any new landscaping. The plant palette used for on-site landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos to confirm no invasive species shall be planted. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos prior to occupancy of the residential buildings. CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 12 Draft – October 2021 Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5a, 7-5b, 7-6, and 7-8 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. C. Cultural Resources 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 8-2: Potential Destruction of a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site During Construction While it is possible that unknown unique paleontological resources could be uncovered during site preparation and/or other site disturbance activities, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measure 8-2 The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit: If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other on- site excavation activities, construction shall stop until appropriate mitigation is implemented, to be approved by the Community Development Director. Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 8-2 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 13 D. Geology and Soils 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact Geologic impacts associated with fault surface rupture, expansive soils, and land sliding and slope instability. The geotechnical report noted several potential geologic impacts that are to be addressed through several design recommendations for the proposed project. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, providing a 25-foot setback from a mapped surface trace of a fault along the eastern edge of the property; underlaying the foundation by ground improvement or deepening the foundation to bedrock to avoid soil instability; removing alluvial fan deposits down to bedrock and replacing with engineering fill along the proposed retaining wall along the eastside of Farwell Lane for a minimum of 15 feet; removing and replacing all undocumented fill; and designing for sufficient reinforcement for slabs-on-grade. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, as articulated in the February 2021 geotechnical peer review conducted by the Town’s geotechnical consultant, would ensure potential geologic impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 13-1 The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans, ground improvement plans, shoring design criteria from a geotechnical perspective, and supporting structural details and calculations (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, etc.,) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The project geotechnical consultant should review and approve appropriate performance testing for proposed ground improvement measures. The results of the geotechnical plan review should be summarized by the project geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures 13-2 The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: ▪ site preparation and grading; ▪ ground improvement; ▪ shoring measures and design; ▪ site surface and subsurface drainage improvements; and ▪ excavations for foundations prior to placement of steel and concrete. In addition, the project engineering geologist shall inspect opened excavations to confirm bedrock conditions are consistent with those anticipated. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project, including ground improvement measures and placement of engineered fill, should be described by the CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 14 Draft – October 2021 geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to final (as-built) project approval. Specialty/design-build consultants and contractors (shoring, ground improvement, etc.) shall also submit construction reports confirming satisfactory construction of the specific aspects of the project that they are responsible for. Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to geology and soils will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 13-1 and 13-2 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact Hazardous materials impacts associated with exposure or release of asbestos and/or lead-based paint associated with demolition of existing structures. According to the environmental site assessment, lead-based paint was banned in 1978. The existing senior community was constructed prior to 1978; therefore, lead-based paint may be present in the existing structures on the project site. Lead is a known carcinogen and its release during grading or other ground disturbing activities could pose hazards to public health and safety. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure potential impacts from the release of asbestos and lead-based paint into the environment as a result of demolition activities are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 13-3 The applicant shall consult with Bay Area Air Quality Management District to determine permit requirements. Removal of asbestos-containing building materials is subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. Release of lead into the atmosphere is subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 11, Rule 1: Lead. Prior to the commencement of demolition activities on the site, the applicant shall provide evidence of meeting the permitting requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 15 Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 13-3 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. F. Wildfire Hazards 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 12-1: Short-Term Construction-Related Traffic Activity That Has The Potential to Impair an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan As noted previously, the Town of Los Gatos has, in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara and several other neighboring cities, an adopted EOP, which comprises, along with the 2017 Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, the entirety of emergency planning activities that governs emergency response and evacuation on and around the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, but construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in short-term, temporary impacts on street traffic because of roadway improvements and potential extension of construction activities into the right-of- way. This could result in a reduction in the number of lanes or temporary closure of certain roadway segments near the project site. While any such impacts would be limited to the construction period and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections, the impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 12-1 In order to adequately address any potential conflicts with emergency access or evacuation routes during construction, the applicant shall prepare and implement a site-specific construction traffic management plan for any construction effort that would require work within existing roadways. The traffic management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to issuance of demolition permit(s) and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of Town Public Works and County Fire Department staff. Impact 12-4: Expose People or Structures to Significant Risks, including Downslope or Downstream Flooding or Landslides, as a Result of Runoff, Post- Fire Slope Instability, or Drainage Changes. As noted in Section 13.0, Effects Not Addressed Further in this EIR, the 2007 Draft Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation for Los Gatos Meadows prepared by Cornerstone Earth CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 16 Draft – October 2021 Group (Appendix F of the Draft EIR), the project site and surrounding areas are moderately steep to steep slope with slope inclination up to 40 degrees and noted that portions of the site are located within a State of California Earthquake-Induced Landslide Hazard Zone. However, the 2020 Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazards Evaluation (geotechnical report) (Appendix F) also prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, conducted site-specific subsurface explorations which revealed soil characteristics (alluvial fan deposits underlain by shallow bedrock) that would not suggest the existence of previous landslides through the project site. As noted in the geotechnical report, the proposed project would create relatively deep vertical, retained cuts into the terrace that encompass the developed portion of the site. Localized groundwater seepage may be encountered where the cuts intersect the bedrock surface and installing a network of subdrains and water proofing would address this. The geotechnical report also found the proposed grading plan for the project to be acceptable from a safety standpoint with the exception of a lower slope (below proposed structures) area that may experience a lack of stability with the existing alluvial fan deposit soils there. The geotechnical report recommends removal of these alluvial fan deposits at this location down to bedrock to be replaced by engineered fill. Compliance with this recommendation as incorporated in Mitigation Measures 13-1 and 13-2 found in Section 13.0 of this EIR (under discussion of “Geology and Soils”) would ensure this potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Finding All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to wildfire hazards will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: 12-1, 13-1, and 13-2 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Final EIR evaluated three alternatives to the proposed Project. These were evaluated based on their ability to (1) reduce the significant impacts of the proposed Project, and (2) attain proposed Project objectives. As described earlier in this findings document, the Project applicant’s objectives are to approve a new/updated Planned Development (PD) to rebuild a state-of-the art senior living community on a 10.84-acre site consistent with the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, Town of Los Gatos zoning code and in the spirit of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines. The alternatives evaluated were: 1. Alternative 1: No Project – Existing (Closed) Senior Living Community; Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 17 2. Alternative 2: No Project – Residential Project Consistent with the Project Site’s General Plan Designation; and 3. Alternative 3: Reduced Scale (Removal of Villas B and C from Proposed Site Plan). A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative – Existing (Closed) Senior Living Community This no project alternative investigates if the proposed project were not approved and the existing senior living community facilities were left in place though closed and vacant. The project site is currently developed with 10 residential buildings ranging from one to four stories, which include a total of 205 independent residential apartments and supporting health care units. The existing facility includes a dining and commons building, an infirmary, garage and services building, a multi-purpose building, and two cottages. This alternative does not meet any of the basic project objectives, as it would not allow redevelopment of the project site with a revitalized and enhanced senior living community consistent with the density allowed under the site’s existing PD entitlement. B. Alternative 2: No Project - Residential Project Consistent with the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation This no project alternative investigates what could be reasonably expected to occur on the project site in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The project site has a General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. Under this designation, the project site could be developed with a multi-family, duplex, and/or small single-family residential project with a density range of 5 to 12 dwelling units per net acre with up to 24 persons per acre. Conceivably, such a project could include a range of home product types including townhomes, condominiums, and/or apartments. This alternative project considers the site constraints of the 10.84-acre site, much of which is steep, heavily wooded hillside that could not reasonably accommodate residential buildings. To determine a probable number of Medium Density Residential dwelling units that the site could accommodate, this alternative utilizes approximately 50 percent of the total net acreage or approximately 5.42 acres. Therefore, a Medium Density Residential project with a maximum of 65 units would be possible. Assuming an average of 2.51 persons per household (U.S. Census 2021), such a project would result in 163 new residents, substantially less than the 233 total residents anticipated as part of the proposed project. This alternative does not meet any of the basic project objectives, as it would not allow redevelopment of the project site with a revitalized and enhanced senior living community consistent with the density allowed under the site’s existing PD entitlement. C. Alternative 3: Reduced Scale - Removal of Villas B and C from Proposed Site Plan The reduced scale alternative (“reduced scale alternative”) consists of a reduction in development capacity sufficient to avoid or reduce significant, but mitigable, impacts associated with grading and removal of trees required to accommodate Villas B and C and a CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 18 Draft – October 2021 corresponding area of the grade level below on the northwestern corner of the proposed site plan. The reduced scale alternative would reduce the number of living units by 20 units (Villa B) and 29 units (Villa C), for a total reduction of 49 units, and would result in the reduction of approximately 98,374 square feet of floor space in Villas B and C, approximately 26,000 square feet of floor space from the grade level including portions of the health center, and approximately 26,000 square feet of developed area (building footprints). In addition, this alternative could result in removing approximately 62 fewer trees. Removal of Villa B (70.5 feet in height) and Villa C (81.5 feet in height) would also help reduce visual impacts associated with scenic views from downtown Los Gatos towards the project site and scenic hillside areas beyond as these two buildings would be two of the most publicly visible buildings from multiple vantage points. D. Environmentally Superior Alternative Based on a comparison of the impacts of each alternative, Alternative 1, the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. It would avoid all of the project’s less- than-significant impacts, and significant but mitigable impacts. However, this alternative would not meet the project objectives. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 3, the Reduced Scale alternative, is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. It is the only alternative that could accomplish some of the basic project objectives while minimally reducing some of the less-than-significant and/or significant and mitigable environmental impacts identified for the proposed project. VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Town Council recognizes that any approval of the proposed Project would require concurrent approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which ensures performance of identified mitigation measures. Such an MMRP would need to identify the entity responsible for monitoring and implementation, and the timing of such activities. The Town will use the MMRP to track compliance with proposed Project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP is included as part of the Final EIR, and is hereby incorporated by reference. VII. RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the Council bases the Findings are located at the Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California 95030. The custodian for these documents and materials that constitute the record is the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15091(e). Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 19 The environmental analysis provided in the EIR and these findings are based on and are supported by the following documents, materials and other evidence, which constitute the administrative record for the approval of the Project: A. All application materials for the Project and supporting documents submitted by the applicant, including but not limited to those materials constituting the Project and listed in Section III of these findings. B. The NOP, comments received on the NOP and all other public notices issued by the Town in relation to the EIR (e.g., Notice of Availability). C. The Draft EIR, the Final EIR, all appendices to any part of the EIR, all technical materials cited in any part of the EIR, comment letters, oral testimony, responses to comments, as well as all of the comments and staff responses entered into the record orally and in writing between May 28, 2021 to July 12, 2021. D. All non-draft and/or non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the Town and consultants related to the EIR, its analysis and findings. E. Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings or scoping meetings held by the Planning Commission and the Town Council. G. Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and Council Meetings on the Project and supporting technical memoranda and any letters or other material submitted into the record by any party. H. Matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and Town Council which they consider, such as the Los Gatos General Plan, any other applicable specific plans or other similar plans, and the Los Gatos Municipal Code. VII. SUMMARY A. Based on substantial evidence in the foregoing Findings and in the information contained in the record, the Town Council has made the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the proposed Project identified in the Final EIR: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment. 2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that: CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 20 Draft – October 2021 All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the proposed Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible. EXHIBIT 6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOW OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6872 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COCEPTUAL DEVELOPMET ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR APRIL 9, 2008, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M. ATTEDACE Members Present: Absences: Barbara Spector Mike Wasserman (replaced by Diane McNutt) Diane McNutt Marico Sayoc Stephen Rice Joanne Talesfore Staff Present: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Randy Tsuda, Assistant Director of Community Development ITEM 1: 110 Wood Road Conceptual Development Application CD-08-002 Requesting preliminary review of an amendment to a Planned Development to demolish an existing senior complex (Los Gatos Meadows) to construct a new 455,000 square foot senior continuing care complex with a total of 256 units on a property zoned R:PD. APN 510-47-038 PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Episcopal Senior Communities Comments: General Comments: •There is clearly a need to modernize and improve the Los Gatos Meadows complex. The Committee believes it is possible to design a successful project. •Senior housing should be regarded as an essential service to the Town. There is a great need for this type of project. •The challenge will be how to evaluate a unique project such as this. •The walkability of the Farwell Lane connection should be improved. The current connection is overly steep for seniors. •The applicant should clarify how the project will be phased and how existing residents will be accommodated. Applicant should provide a narrative explaining their relocation strategy. Residents should not be displaced unless it is supported by the residents. •Below Market Price units should be provided. •Project should obtain LEED certification. EXHIBIT 7 Conceptual Development Advisory Committee—Summary of Discussion Meeting of April 9, 2008 Page 2 Height and Visibility: • The Committee expressed significant concerns with the height, visibility and mass of the project. Do not want the project to loom over Downtown. • Four stories may be acceptable is visibility is addressed. • The existing project, while large, is hidden from the Town. • Consolidation of the buildings is good. • Buildings should be stepped with the hillside. • The garages should be pushed below grade. • The use of technology to illustrate the visibility of the project was appreciated. It will be necessary to clearly illustrate the visibility of the project. Architecture: • ot sure if the architecture fits with the Town. • Design theme is attractive but does not trump concerns with height and mass. Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • The Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G) cannot be directly applied; the Guidelines were developed for single family homes. • The spirit and intent of the Guidelines should be applied. Impacts: • Concerns with traffic, both from the project and construction-related traffic. • Concerns with grading and tree impacts. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday, May 14, 2008. Prepared by: _________________________________________ Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development cc: Planning Commission Chair N:\DEV\CDAC\MINUTES\2008\4-9-08.cdacmin.doc 36 Southwood Drive | Orinda, California | 94563 www.RockwoodPacific.com January 6, 2022 Ms. Melanie Hanssen, Chair Los Gatos Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Letter of Justification Rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows Dear Ms. Hanssen: Included in this letter is the justification for the efforts of Covia Communities to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows (the “project”), the 10.84-acre site located at 110 Wood Road (APN 510-47- 038) at the intersection of Wood Road and S. Santa Cruz Avenue in Los Gatos. Due to the amount of material covered, for ease of navigation, this letter has been organized by major topics. We have also attached the following documents to assist in your review: Listing of specific applicable goals/policies in the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Related to the Project (Appendix A); Planned Development Ordinance Findings (Appendix B); Project Compatibility with General Plan and Zoning Code (Appendix C); Listing of Meetings with Neighbors and Community (Appendix D); and Listing of Communications (Appendix E). I.Overview of the Process Our Los Gatos Meadows rebuild efforts were initiated in 2008. We engaged in preliminary review with Town Staff and the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (“CDAC”) during this time. As such our justification letter includes responses to comments we received at the “CDAC” and Town Staff review meetings held in 2008. Shortly following these meetings, Covia made the difficult decision to put the project on-hold given uncertain economic and market conditions stemming from the Great Recession. From 2008-2018, the project was inactive. EXHIBIT 8 P a g e | 2 In 2018, Covia re-initiated discussions with the Town staff about proceeding with redevelopment of the project site. Other than the declining physical condition of its buildings, no substantive site conditions had changed, and no further site planning had commenced since 2008. Site development topics and challenges identified by Town Staff and CDAC are as similar today as those expressed in 2008. Thus, re-initiation focused on respectfully addressing applicable prior CDAC and Town Staff comments; picking up where we left off, and not starting the process anew.1 To this end, we have spent the last three years participating in community outreach efforts with our former residents, neighbors, stakeholders, local business community members, and community residents to understand the concerns and needs specific to senior housing on this site (see Appendix D and E for details). Covia Communities has carefully considered and integrated this input as we have developed our site plan to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows. Furthermore, we have focused on how our project complies with the Town’s 2020 General Plan, the Sustainability Plan (2012), and the direction of the current General Plan Update process (2040). Responses to CDAC Feedback on Prior Site Proposals In 2008, when rebuild efforts were initiated, Covia met with the Town Planning Staff and CDAC Committee Members. This allowed for introduction, exploration, and feedback of the proposed rebuild project, creating an open discussion for comments and concerns. During the CDAC meeting, the committee members provided valuable feedback regarding project compatibility with the General Plan, building height and massing, architectural design, impacts on trees, and construction impacts. The feedback on these items was taken with great seriousness and the project has since been redesigned in accordance with the committee’s concerns. Specifically, the CDAC recognized the need to modernize the Los Gatos Meadows complex and supported the senior residential use of the facility. The CDAC hoped to improve the walkability of the Farwell Lane connection, since the current connection is overly steep for seniors. As part of the project, Covia has included an autonomous vehicle alternative transportation solution as the means by which to address the steep slope at Farwell Lane, while enhancing connectivity and mobility between Los Gatos Meadows and Broadway. This project feature enables both safe and convenient access for residents to connect to downtown Los Gatos. The project would also incorporate a below grade parking level, a reflection of the CDAC comments regarding potential parking garages. The CDAC also expressed concerns with traffic. Covia has studied the site circulation and access accordingly, and as a result has made some substantial modifications to site circulation and parking. The proposed site plan 1 CDAC recommended that the project include below market price units. In our assessment, California Health and Safety Code section 1569.147(b) is applicable to the proposed rebuild project and prohibits the imposition of rent regulations or controls for licensed care facilities for the elderly. Furthermore, we note the current proposal does not involve an increase in the number of units or staffing levels above those reflected in the current entitlements, and therefore does not result in impacts generating an increased need for affordable housing. P a g e | 3 provides for an efficient on-site circulation pattern and increases the availability of parking to minimize the likelihood of spillover parking onto neighboring streets. While the property is not located in the area subject to the hillside ordinance, the CDAC suggested that the spirit and intent of the hillside guidelines should be applied within the design of the project. To that end, the project would result in the reduction of the development pad of over a fifth of an acre and a corresponding increase in overall open space (from 75.4% to 77.5% of the project site), which would generally be consistent with the hillside design guidelines. In addition to this, the proposed buildings would not be visible from any viewing platforms and would be stepped with the hillside slope, limiting overall visual impacts throughout the Town of Los Gatos. The project would align building roof lines with the contour of the hill and incorporate smaller roof components, minimizing the contrast between buildings and the existing environment. The project would also conserve the natural features of the topography. To that end, the project would have generous replacement of mature trees and vegetation and would use natural materials for drainage and retaining walls. Additional Outreach Since re-initiating our rebuilding efforts in 2018, there have been several meetings with various Planning and Public Works staff to clarify and confirm the proposed architectural concepts and treatment of off- and on-site conditions, and to address specific technical challenges. In March of 2018, the project team hosted the first of eight neighborhood open house meetings at Los Gatos Meadows to inform neighbors about the rebuilding process and to solicit their input and feedback. To further facilitate dissemination of information to the community, the project team produced a video summary update and circulated the link to this video update. The video update can be accessed from the Los Gatos Meadows page of the Covia web site: https://covia.org/los-gatos-meadows/ From 2018 through early 2021, the project team met with each council member at least once. Furthermore, in the spirit of community engagement and to commence the development of a “Town Integration” project, over the last two years, the project team has conducted over twenty in-person meetings with local businesses, associations, and interest groups (see Appendix D and E for details). Feedback from neighbors, council members, and other community leaders included concerns and comments on building/site design, parking and circulation, visual impacts, and safety, which were accounted for during the formation of the site plan and project. The project design reflects the concerns of not only the Town, but also the broader Los Gatos community. II. Summary of Key Proposed Project Attributes The proposed rebuild project involves the redevelopment of the 10.84-acre site with a senior living community that would replace the existing Los Gatos Meadows senior living community. The project would include a total of 174 independent residential apartments plus 17 supporting care units. The project, a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), will be licensed as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) under the California Department of Social Services. The project would be restricted to persons age 62 and older P a g e | 4 and would provide 24/7 assisted living services to the residents. The project would provide coordinated health care services, including 17 supporting care units. These proposed services would be similar to the use offered in the previous community. An estimated 120 full time equivalent (FTE) employees would be anticipated with the project; this is commensurate with the number of employees onsite prior to the closure of the facility in late 2019. Site improvements would include on-site amenity areas, an enhanced fire access (loop) road, parking, new landscaping, a variety of energy efficient and sustainable interior and exterior building elements and improved emergency access. Parking for residents, staff, and visitors would be provided within a new structure which would include 78 standard, non-tandem parking spaces of which approximately 30 would be near the garage entrance and the balance on the main parking level. All surface parking is proposed to be eliminated, improving fire circulation. If needed, Covia would be able to increase the parking capacity to 220 spaces by implementing a valet parking service. Approximately 77.5 percent of the site would remain as open space, which is greater than the 75.4 percent under the existing permit condition. The project site layout, building orientation and articulation, use of open space and building materials have been designed to focus on being visually compatible with the surrounding area and to inspire a natural biophilic environment. Site improvements would require demolition of all existing site improvements. The project is anticipated to be built over a period of approximately 26 to 30 months. Demolition of the existing improvements is expected to require approximately four (4) months. As described in the paragraphs that follow, the project would fully comply with all applicable Town General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as applicable standards and guidelines established by the Municipal Code. III. Current Improvements / Current Residential Planned Development Approval Los Gatos Meadows, a CCRC owned and operated by Covia Communities, was originally developed as a CCRC and opened in 1971. The objective then, and now, is to provide seniors a place to age in place, living independently in the Los Gatos Community. The site is currently developed with 10 residential buildings, which include a total of 205 independent residential apartments and support care units. The facility includes a dining and commons building, an infirmary, garage and services building, a multi-purpose building, and two cottages. There are 130 existing parking spaces onsite (85 within the existing structure and 45 surface parking spaces) and staff and visitors also use nearby neighborhood street parking, leased commercial space parking, and a public parking lot due to lack of parking availability on-site. In March 1968, the Town of Los Gatos adopted Ordinance NO. 938, which rezoned the 10.84 project site to Residential Planned Development (R:PD). In 2018, the R:PD Ordinance was amended (Ordinance 2273). The Town Code 29.80.120 provides that amendments to a PD P a g e | 5 approved both prior to and after the adoption of this Division may only be considered under this Division and its provisions and must meet the requirements set forth in the amended Ordinance. A R:PD ordinance was in effect prior to the adoption of the amendments to the Town’s PD regulations in 2018; that prior ordinance will continue to apply. However, as part of our request to rebuild the existing Los Gatos Meadows facility, Covia Communities seeks a new Planned Development permit. While our current PD Permit remains valid, per Section 29.80.120 of the Town Municipal Code, we recognize the need to update the permit to reflect our desire to rebuild on the current site2. The site’s proposed density of 16 dwelling units per acre is below the General Plan’s maximum density limit of 24 dwelling units per acre allowed for the site3. The term “dwelling units” relates to independent residential apartments, not to the supporting care units, consistent with the interpretation of dwelling units under the original PD Permit. A comparison of the proposed project to the existing PD permit conditions is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Comparison of Planned Development (PD) Permit Conditions Permit Condition Original 1968 PD Permit Condition Proposed Rebuild Project Site Coverage 24.6% 22.5% Dwelling Unit Density 18 units per acre 16 units per acre Total Number of Residential Apartment Units4 184 174 Total Units Permitted 222 191 Open Space 75.4% 77.5% Building Setbacks from property line5 Front: 20’-0” Side: 15’-0”, 27’-0” Rear: 15’-0” Front: 34’-10” Side: 40’-10”, 60’-0” Rear: 32’-11” Parking6 111 parking spaces 78 non-tandem spaces 2 Section 29.80.125 of the Town Municipal Code states that any change in the activities conducted on, or any new construction in such PD or RPD zone, is subject to the regulations of this division. 3 The General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential allows for a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. However, consistent with density bonus laws in the State of California, General Plan Action HOU-1.3 provides up to a 100 percent density bonus for developments that include housing for elderly households. Further, according to the existing entitlement (adopted by Ordinance No.938 on March 4, 1968), the project site has an allowed maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre. As such, the 10.84-acre site would allow for up to 240 dwelling units. 4 184 units is the number of residential apartment & cottage units allowed; total unit count including skilled nursing beds permitted is 222 total units. 5 Minimum building setbacks are not specified under the 1968 entitlement. Table 1 includes setbacks under the current and proposed condition. 6 Prior to closure, Covia utilized a valet parking service and a portion of vehicles were parked in a tandem configuration. If needed, Covia would be able to increase the parking capacity to 220 spaces by implementing a valet parking service. P a g e | 6 Table 1: Comparison of Planned Development (PD) Permit Conditions Permit Condition Original 1968 PD Permit Condition Proposed Rebuild Project Height7 Predominantly 2-story with some basement or below grade space for infirmary, parking, storage and mechanical. Heights vary between 30’-9” and 55’-2” ±. 3-5 stories with below grade space for parking, storage and mechanical. Heights vary between 59’-0” and 85’- 6” feet. Architecture Residential Residential Recent Site Closure In February 2019, after undertaking a rigorous facilities assessment by a third-party firm on the condition and physical status of its buildings, Covia concluded that continuing operations of the 48-year+ old facility in its present form presented too great a risk to its residents. Of the numerous conditions reviewed during the assessment, compromised accessibility for fire response services and other fire safety issues, inadequate building systems, aging infrastructure, and the accumulated risk of all other operational and structural factors led to this decision. Thus, Covia initiated a months-long closure and transition process to ensure that these risks would not cause harm to the residents of Los Gatos Meadows. As of September 30, 2019, all residents of Los Gatos Meadows had found new homes, with a vast majority of life care residents either moving to another community owned and operated by Covia Communities or moving to a non-Covia community but retaining their life care contract with Covia. Covia initiated wind down procedures and provided relocation and transition assistance in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, and in a manner consistent with its philosophy of care and sensitivity to all residents. Though Covia has completed the closure process, Los Gatos Meadows continues to be staffed to provide on-going maintenance and security of the property. The Planned Development Permit for the site remains in effect, and the existing facilities legally could be re-occupied after completion of seismic and fire safety retrofit work. Covia prefers, however, to rebuild on the site to provide modern facilities that will include the types of amenities that benefit seniors and better serve the Los Gatos community. To further mitigate the existing fire safety issues, Covia submitted a Tree Management Plan and request for Tree Removal Permit to the Town of Los Gatos on September 26, 2019. The tree management recommendations are based on fire safety, sudden oak death (SOD), species invasiveness and tree risk. Phase 1 of the Tree Management Plan identified recommendations for removal of 44 trees based on the following criteria: (1) they disproportionately contribute to fire risk or are invasive and (2) based on their health, structure, and condition, they do not contribute to site screening between properties. Fire risk and invasive trees are the most 7 At the main entrance, the proposed elevation (in feet above mean sea level) is 488.0 in comparison to existing elevation of 491.2 (3.2 feet lower); the terrace level of the proposed project is at an elevation of 505.0 in comparison to the existing elevation 512.8 (7.8 feet lower). P a g e | 7 imminent risk for the site. Los Gatos Meadows has been closed, in part, due to fire risk. Limiting the spread of invasive species to other portions of the site and neighboring sites is time sensitive as well. The permit, which is independent from the proposed rebuild project, was approved on December 5, 2019; applicable trees were removed in early 2020. IV. Analysis of Specific Project Attributes The project is expected to provide numerous benefits to the community. Furthermore, in response to comments from the Town from the January 22, 2020 application, we have provided additional information on several specific attributes of the project. This section is organized into the following subsections: A. Relationship to Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines B. Building Massing, Open Space and Views C. Building Materials D. Building Heights and Visibility E. Landscape Character F. Distances to Immediate Neighbors G. LEED Certification H. Parking I. Height of Retaining Walls J. Fire Safety A. Relationship to Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) In 2008, CDAC noted that the HDS&G are not directly applicable to this site, but requested that the site be rebuilt in the spirit of the HDS&G. The spirit of the HDS&G is best defined by the Vision Statement found in the bullets of the introduction in the HDS&G, page 6:  Maintains the existing open, wooded, rural character;  Is in harmony with the natural setting;  Conserves landforms and other features of the natural landscape;  Preserves wildlife habitat and movement corridors; and  Protects and preserves viewsheds and the ridgelines of the mountains. While the project site is not within the Hillside Zone, the spirit of the HDS&G is integrated into the project by incorporation of the following:  The buildings step up the hillside so that the building mass responds to the topography of the site.  Breaking the project into individual buildings of varying heights with space between each building allows the community to best achieve a residential scale to fit within the open, wooded setting.  Selecting a muted and varied natural toned palette of exterior materials allows the project to harmonize with the natural setting.  Minimizing the overall construction footprint with compact building forms and the placement of all parking underground allows for an exceptionally efficient site P a g e | 8 coverage ratio, thereby maximizing the retention of undisturbed sensitive landforms and native vegetation.  Replacing an obsolete land/building plan with a new community of lesser overall footprint, enhanced storm water management systems, state-of-the-art building materials/systems, and sufficiently scaled underground parking will minimize impacts to wildlife habitat and movement corridor.  Stepping the buildings into the hillside, minimizing the dimensions of the Town- facing buildings, investing in saving existing trees per the arborist plan, and presenting a carefully developed scale to the Town, residents, and visitors will preserve viewsheds and have no impact on hillside ridgeline profiles. In 2008, the CDAC also requested that the buildings step with the hillsides. To this end, and in keeping with the spirit of the Hillside Guidelines, the proposed Ground Level is three feet lower than existing, which serves to minimize the impact on the community when viewed from Town. Furthermore, by placing all parking underground and with buildings grouped above and around green roof courtyards, the resulting compact footprint of the community minimizes the disturbed area of the special hillside setting. Additionally: • The building in the northeast corner that cantilevers over the hillside is being replaced by a building that sits 45 feet further from Broadway. • The increased distance to the neighbors and loss of the two buildings along the east side of Farwell Lane will allow for planting of additional trees that will help shelter the building mass with a strong tree canopy. B. Building Massing, Open Space and Views • New buildings are designed as a series of separate buildings surrounding courtyards rather than a monolithic building mass. This design breaks up the massing visible from public vantage points in Town. Additionally, the building facades step in and out to eliminate the potential for a large unbroken facade.  The overall development footprint is smaller than the existing building footprint; the buildings closest to the neighboring properties have been pulled back to create greater physical distance between buildings.  The design protects the oak woodland at the rear of the site thus respecting the spirit of the Town’s hillside and tree preservation policies; to achieve this, greater heights are necessary to achieve a similar number of units. • The massing of the new community steps up the hillside and, as a result, the buildings at the rear of the site will not be visible from the Town below. In addition to the buildings stepping up the hillside, individual buildings also respond to the views from the Town by pulling the top floor of the buildings back from the façade facing the Town to reduce the impact on the views from the Town. See Section D. Building Heights and Visibility. P a g e | 9 • The distance between many of the existing buildings is 15 – 24 feet; separation between new buildings varies between 27 – 38 feet with a few buildings placed even further apart. This allows for views to be created between the buildings to the hillside. These views do not exist today. • Airflow and breezes up and down the hillside will be facilitated by these breaks between buildings. • The utility of the open space for residents in the courtyards is improved in part due to the dimensions of the Village Green and Town Square and in part due to the elimination of the existing “light well” that is currently situated near the proposed Village Square.  There is a visual and experiential quality to the design that is articulated through the building placement and open space layout. This quality is best expressed by:  Better views extending out from all directions so that the natural setting and environmental systems are brought into and integrated with the building clusters;  Orientation of the eight villas respects the natural setting. The villas are surrounded by either the Village Green or Town Square where residents can come together as one community to interact, socialize or to simply enjoy the site environs;  The absence of long-term surface automobile parking spaces facilitates a greater visual focus on the oak woodlands and the surrounding landscape; and,  The creation of varying open spaces accommodates a wide range of activities, from large areas for large group gatherings to smaller, more intimate spaces cultivating individual passions, and reinforcing the feeling of a community. C. Building Materials The materials used on the building facades have been selected based on their ability to blend with the natural setting and minimize the visual impression of the building heights. Qualities of materials important to emphasize: • Materials are darker in tone to blend with the natural environment of the hillside and trees, moving from the current, reflective color palate to one that is visually absorptive. • The colors are varied with natural browns, greens, and tans to evoke a natural palette of soft colors, which mimic their natural setting.  The materials vary in type both horizontally and vertically along the facade to help break up the mass of the building. P a g e | 10  Stone is used at the base of the building facing Los Gatos to root the building in the natural landscape. D. Building Heights and Visibility Aesthetically and architecturally, the heights of buildings are varied based on their location in relationship to visibility from Town, neighboring properties, and site topography.  Building heights are varied to create more architectural/visual interest and variety when viewed from publicly visible vantage points. The variation created by individual villas reflects a more residential character rather than an institutional character conveyed by a single structure with long, unbroken roof lines.  Building units and heights are sized to provide greater “independent” living space.  Market research has shown that larger units with usable balconies are most desired. The square footage that can fit into the Town’s residential or commercial height limit(s) would either result in one long uninterrupted building mass, or far fewer units. We believe that the view of one continuous building when viewed from the Town or from neighboring properties does not fit the spirit of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines or the character of Los Gatos. In senior living communities, a minimum number of units are necessary to provide operational efficiencies, programming, and a sense of community; the project is at the lower end of this critical number. Reducing the number of units neither works operationally or socially, nor does it meet with the intent of providing a similar number of units that existed prior to closure.  Unit configurations and corresponding heights allow for appropriate COVID- 19 protective measures. The smaller, but taller buildings (with fewer units in each building) vs a long continuous shorter building are better suited in a post-COVID world for several reasons:  Fewer residents using the same common elevators: the design includes an elevator for every building. This allows buildings to be separated functionally, providing for fewer residents in any single building and allows the units to become the place where residents can self-quarantine.  Most units have usable balconies, providing residents a place to be outside during a pandemic, thus providing natural ventilation and mental/emotional relief from quarantine restrictions.  The increased square footage of common space allows for multiple dining venues which are critical to allow for socially distanced dining. P a g e | 11  The most visible building from public view is at the corner of Wood Road and Farwell Lane. It is the shortest building on the site and is only 12 feet higher than the existing building in this location.  Heights of buildings above the terrace level vary from 3 stories to 5 stories. The height of the new terrace is 7 feet lower than the existing terrace which reduces overall building heights.  Buildings along the front of the site visible from the Town are the lower 3 and 4 story buildings on all front facades, (though some step up to 5 stories away from the front façade).  To minimize the number of stories visible from Town, buildings step down a story in height on the side facing Town. This means that the upper floors of the buildings are hidden from the views below, and only the shorter side is visible from the Town.  The buildings in the back of the site are nestled into the hillside. Three of these buildings have two stories benched into the hillside. The roofs of those buildings are effectively one story above the access road immediately behind them.  With the buildings stepped into the hillside only the top three floors of many of the buildings are visible from Wood Road above. The hillside behind these buildings continues to slope up so the roofs of the buildings are only slightly higher than the level of the access road above.  The corners of the buildings have balconies which serve to erode the mass of the buildings when viewed from the Town. This results in the front elevation appearing more narrow than actual dimensions.  While the increased building height will affect what some neighbors will see, the buildings are not expected to cast shadows on neighbors nor materially affect their vistas. [Refer to Project Application Plan Sheets A406-A408, Visual Simulations for exhibits specifically related to the above comments]. E. Landscape Character The landscape character has been carefully articulated to highlight, enhance, and nurture a strong sense of community.  The landscape builds on and celebrates the existing character of the site. The layout plan and corresponding plant palette have been carefully designed and selected to increase habitat benefits, improve water quality, and integrate with the existing horticultural character, creating a better environmental fit and fitness than exists today. It is what Covia has been referring to as “biophilia”. P a g e | 12  The landscape creates a far superior environment for fire resistant conditions. Unlike existing conditions, the genus species, the location, and the landscape pattern will be designed for fire protection.  The landscape offers experimental value for the resident such as seasonal color changes, shade from the sun, and opportunities to pick an orange from a citrus tree. F. Distances to Immediate Neighbors Buildings are placed further from the neighbors than current buildings.  The buildings closest to the neighbors are now set back much further from the adjacent, neighboring buildings.  The building closest to Wood Road would be 18 feet further away from Wood Road than the current Los Gatos Meadows buildings, thereby reducing the effect of the increased height. Also, the distance from the neighboring townhouses to the north of the improvements is 30 feet further than to the existing Los Gatos Meadows buildings.  The two buildings along the east side of Farwell Lane (closest to Town) are to be removed and are not being replaced.  The building in the northeast corner that cantilevers over the hillside is being replaced by a building that sits 45 feet further from Broadway.  The increased distance to the neighbors and the loss of the buildings along Farwell Lane will allow for planting of additional trees that will help shelter the building mass with a strong tree canopy. The combination of new trees and landscaping in the additional setback from the neighboring buildings will shield much of the new buildings when viewed from the neighboring properties. G. LEED Certification In 2008, CDAC indicated that the project should obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. Since 2008, there have been many changes to environmental standards. As in many areas related to environmental regulation and stewardship, the State of California’s environmental standards generally surpass those of many other regions of the country in terms of regulations, standards and practices related to sustainability. Notably, many of the policy goals of the California Green Building Code, as well as the mandatory code requirements, overlap with those of independent certification systems such as the LEED certification system. The project will be subject to the most recent and rigorous update to the Cal Green Code, the 2019 Cal Green Building Standards Code (effective Jan 1, 2020), or the standard code in effect at the time of project entitlement. The project is also subject to applicable communitywide greenhouse gas emission reduction measures in conformance with the Los Gatos Sustainability Plan. P a g e | 13 The project has been designed to be highly responsive to site context and to some of the specific sustainability priorities of the Town.  In line with the community wide goals of the Town Sustainability Plan, Green Building Certification may utilize either the GreenPoint Rating System or LEED. The GreenPoint Rating Checklist submitted with our development application package clearly demonstrates that the project comfortably exceeds the required point totals for all five of the rating categories, including: Community, Energy, IAQ/Health, Resources and Water.  As detailed above, the project adheres to the spirit of the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines by minimizing site disruption and vehicle impacts, and use of compact, energy efficient building forms demonstrates a heightened commitment to sustainability and environmental goals on this sensitive site.  A commitment to sustainable innovation is woven into the project in ways both subtle and apparent including the electric autonomous vehicle supplemental transportation system that will connect the community to the Town, a state-of-the-art care model for greater resident and staff satisfaction and health, noncombustible construction materials, and enhanced fire access and life safety systems that benefit both residents and surrounding neighbors. Based on the sustainability components integrated into the project design, coupled with those elements required as part of the Cal Green Building Code, providing LEED certification would be both redundant, and prohibitively costly given third-party requirements to verify and monitor LEED compliance. In discussions with neighbors and potential residents, strong interest was expressed for recycling, access to natural light and energy efficiency. Accordingly, the design team has prioritized sustainability attributes that are not only compliant with the California Green Building Code but are also highly responsive to site context and the specific priorities of the local community. We are confident that our sustainability approach to the site achieves the overarching goals of the LEED program without triggering a redundant and costly certification process. H. Parking Seventy-Eight (78) standard parking spaces as required by the Town Code are indicated on Sheets A100 and A101 (A-C) included in Covia’s current application submittal package. If necessary, by employing a valet parking service approach, the current design readily permits Covia to park up to 220 cars on the parking level. I. Height of Retaining Walls Planning staff has requested that we provide greater justification for why our retaining walls will need to be taller than 5 feet. We have added sheet C103.1 to our resubmittal that illustrates detailed site sections with wall heights up to 24 feet to show that we are using grading to the extent practical to reduce wall heights. The walls in excess of 5 feet in height are required to create flat areas to provide bioretention and in some cases are required for P a g e | 14 the express purpose of reducing grading that would impact trees and otherwise undisturbed areas. Proposed walls are stepped with shorter walls under 5 feet adjacent to useable areas. The shorter walls incorporate planter pockets that will reduce the perceived scale of the taller walls and will include taller plants for additional screening. J. Fire Safety Covia has reviewed the Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report Action Items, as presented to Town Council on November 20, 2020. Fire safety and minimizing fire risk are one of the primary goals of the project as expressed in our Project Description, dated January 21, 2020. Based on the Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report Action items, the project is consistent with the five goals identified in the Ad Hoc Committee’s Report related to minimizing the wildfire risks and impacts associated with those risks to the Los Gatos community, including:  Emergency Communication • Emergency Evacuation • Roadside Fuel Reduction • Open Space and Residential Land Management • Emergency Partnerships In furtherance of the above Wildfire Ad Hoc Committee goals, the Project Applicant has committed to assisting the Town in achieving its prioritization of the following action items:  Maximizing the use of an emergency alert system to ensure that communication systems are fully utilized; the project would utilize technology platforms to ensure Los Gatos Meadows stays connected during possible emergencies.  Increasing the use of social media platforms for emergency communications.  Exploring additional non-cell/internet reliant emergency communication onsite (such as a siren system) in furtherance of enhanced emergency communication.  Assisting SCCFD with their Ready, Set, Go Programs in Town.  Assisting the Town by providing an additional alternative evacuation route via Farwell Lane and provision of a continuous loop road around the project site.  Incorporating annually simulated evacuations within the Emergency Evacuation Plan once operational.  Mapping private roadways within the project pursuant to the Roadside Fuel Reduction goal.  Utilizing appropriate planting including fire retardant xeriscape plant species, particularly in recommended defensible spaces.  In conjunction with residents, implement an appropriate vegetation management plan. P a g e | 15  Assisting the Town with exploring partnerships with SCCFD fuels crews and defensible space inspectors.  Assisting the Town with pursuing Firewise USA® site status to satisfy homeowner insurance requirements. While the Project Applicant recognizes that the actions noted above have not yet been memorialized in Town policy, but rather, are being considered as part of the General Plan Update process, the above action items have been contemplated as part of the overall project design, site layout, project features and elements and/or overall Project operations. V. Benefits to the Community We believe the benefits of the project to the Los Gatos community are substantial, and critical in meeting the needs of the broader senior community. The project would further the Town’s Human Services Element by revitalizing Los Gatos Meadows and continuing its role as a healthy, contemporary independent senior living community that connects seniors with existing resources in the community, encourages social interaction, improves mobility, and ensures a safe environment for Los Gatos seniors. The project would provide a mix of different unit sizes and varying levels of care that respond to the needs of an active, aging community. The project would incorporate outstanding health care services, recycled and sustainable building materials, and energy efficient operational systems. The proximity to nearby stores and services, such as the US Postal Service, Old Town Los Gatos Shopping Center, and Los Gatos Theatre, provides residents with opportunities to participate in social, recreational, educational, and shopping activities all within a close distance. The dining area would include a demonstration kitchen for local restaurants to showcase their offerings on a rotating basis, facilitating greater Town integration with the Los Gatos Meadows community. The project would result in no increase in the number of total units currently entitled or occupied up through September 2019. As a result, the project would not generate substantial new vehicle trips. There would be a modest redistribution of trips from Farwell Lane to Wood Road and Santa Cruz Avenue, though even with this redistribution, level of service would remain at an acceptable level of service (LOS B). Furthermore, the project would improve on-site circulation and alleviate spillover parking experienced under the prior site plan by creating additional parking spaces and decreasing the need for on-street parking in nearby neighborhoods. Importantly, the project would provide enhanced fire access in the area for fire personnel/equipment for fighting on-site and nearby fires and enhanced emergency access for neighbors living uphill of the Meadows in the event that Wood Road is closed to access. The project would also improve the integration of the site with the broader Los Gatos community by closing Farwell Lane to through traffic and transitioning this pathway connecting Los Gatos Meadows and Broadway into a naturally landscaped, pedestrian- P a g e | 16 friendly connection to downtown Los Gatos. The conversion of Farwell Lane into a pedestrian and bicycle lane would improve safety for vehicle and pedestrian interaction at the intersection of Farwell Lane and Broadway. The project would continue to use the existing driveway on Wood Road for access to the parking entrance, main entrance, and loading entrance, providing safe and efficient access to the site. The project would result in the construction of a parking structure that would include 78 standard parking spaces. If needed, by employing a valet parking service, the parking capacity in the parking structure could be increased to 220 parking spaces. Furthermore, the project would incorporate a dedicated area for fire access, which would be located on the western side of the property. One of the extraordinary elements of the project is the planned implementation of an autonomous vehicle alternative transportation solution along Farwell Lane to enable a safe, convenient, and alternative means of transporting residents between the Meadows and Town retail, entertainment, and civil services. This element of the project will enable both safe and convenient access for residents to connect to Downtown Los Gatos. The project would consider Aurrigo, a vendor of autonomous vehicles, to provide this alternative transportation solution. While difficult to gauge precisely, the combined effect of facilitating pedestrian, bicycle and self-driving vehicles on Farwell Lane is expected to materially reduce the number of total vehicle trips to and from the community. From an environmental perspective, the building design would provide a more energy efficient and healthy environment for prospective residents. Upgraded and energy efficient buildings would assist in further reducing the current carbon footprint by minimizing energy load, enhancing the number of large shade trees, modernizing energy operations/systems, increasing the amount of landscaped space, and improving irrigation efficiency. VI. Request for Planned Development (PD) Entitlement This project request is for approval of a new Planned Development Overlay permit. The project complies with the Town’s existing PD zoning for the property, as shown in Table 1. The project does not require any variance or exception to any rule, code, or regulation and meets the basic requirements under the existing zoning permit related to site coverage, density, open space, and parking. The project would not impair the integrity or character of the zoning district and would not result in any additional independent residential apartments, additional supporting care units nor additional staff. The operations of the Project would have hours and staffing consistent with the most recent prior use and would result in an estimated 120 full time equivalent (FTE) employees. As noted above, proposed site coverage, unit count, open space and parking are all consistent with the current PD permit in place today (refer to Table 1). Project building heights have been articulated to protect views from adjacent properties ensuring compatibility with the neighborhood (refer to Visual Simulations, Section “C” of the project development application submittal). P a g e | 17 The project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. The project would provide state-of-the-art health care services for residents who would have access to health care facilities, open 24/7, to ensure consistent and reliable care. The project would have a dedicated fire access road, located on the western side of the property, improving fire access to the entire site, which would improve safety on-site. Because the project is a rebuild of the prior use, it will also include an updated Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) and evacuation plan to address the new facilities and ensure a safe environment for all residents and staff, commensurate with Covia’s Risk Assessment Policy. In compliance with Covia’s Risk Assessment Policy, these two plans already exist for the prior facility, but would be updated in accordance with the applicable federal, state, and local requirements in effect at the time of building occupancy. The project would result in the reconfiguration of the existing “exit only” driveway, located on Broadway, and would convert the driveway into a pedestrian and bicycle lane, thereby creating safer conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as serve as the fixed route for an autonomous vehicle connection from the main entrance to the Broadway frontage. This would provide for safer modes of transportation between the project site and downtown Los Gatos. The project would ensure that seniors have convenient access to social and medical services, commercial areas, and transportation by providing on-demand shuttle and/or car service to the residents. The proposed uses of the project would be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning ordinance. As discussed above, the project is consistent with several of the aspects of the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan (refer to “Letter of Justification Appendix A”). The project is consistent with the Town’s Sustainability element and would implement best practices both in design and operations through the adoption of biophilic design principles and sustainable design measures to best fit into the unique site while minimizing initial and ongoing environmental impacts. In addition to this, the site plan of the project incorporates environmentally appropriate design attributes, utilizing the site’s topography and natural setting to create a synergy between the design and the hillside that does not exist today. The project would allow seniors in the Town of Los Gatos to age in place with state-of-the-art health and living facilities. In addition, the proposed CCRC would continue to make a significant contribution to the Town, both as a major employer, as well as a vital resource for residents who want to remain a part of the community. We believe that the project will be a tremendous asset to the Town of Los Gatos, extending a historical legacy of quality residence and care to the broader senior community. In consideration of all the points outlined above, we welcome your review and appreciate your timely consideration of our request. As per Town Planning Division Staff request, we have provided an analysis of how the project meets the findings required to grant a Planned Development Ordinance request as detailed in Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code. Given its length, this analysis is included as Appendix B to this letter. P a g e | 18 VII. Justification For all the many reasons articulated in detail throughout this letter (and appendices hereto), the rebuild project would be both essential and desirable to the Los Gatos community. The rebuild project furthers the Town’s General Plan by revitalizing the existing site and continuing provision of a healthy, contemporary independent senior living community that connects seniors with existing resources in the community, encourages social interaction, improves mobility, and ensures a safe environment for Los Gatos seniors. The project would result in the construction and/or provision of many service facilities including, but not limited to, a health center, dining venues, fitness services, and supplemental transportation services that would be located throughout the property. These services and amenities would help provide social interaction for the residents. The project would provide a wide variety of senior services and programs, including daily opportunity for health care, physical activity and recreation, and mental stimulation. In addition, the project would provide coordinated health care services, specializing in assisted living care, memory care and respite care, meeting the wide range of needs for seniors as they age. The feedback on the proposed uses of the project from local prospects and neighbors and local leadership has been very positive. The 174 independent residential apartments would assist in the implementation of the Town’s 2015-2035 Goals for providing housing opportunities, lifestyle living, and assisted living facilities for seniors. The project would provide a mix of different size apartments and varying levels of care and amenities that respond to the needs of the active, aging community found in the Town of Los Gatos. The functional site layout, floor plans, and site architecture have been specifically designed to align with the local market, providing larger apartments and on-site amenities desired by seniors. We are confident that you will find the proposed uses of the project to be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, the purposes of the zoning ordinance and in concert with the feedback we have received from our extensive outreach to the Community. The project would implement best practices both in design and operations through the adoption of biophilic and sustainable design measures to best fit into the unique environs of the site while reducing environmental impacts. Our rebuild project incorporates environmentally appropriate design attributes, utilizing the site’s topography and natural setting to create a synergy between the design and the hillside that does not exist today and would not exist in the absence of the project. P a g e | 19 Finally, the project would allow seniors in the Town of Los Gatos to age in place with state- of-the-art health and living facilities. The rebuild project would continue to make a significant contribution to the Town, both as a major employer, as well as a vital resource for residents who want to remain an integrated and valued part of the community. We believe that the project will be a tremendous and valuable asset to the Town of Los Gatos, extending a historical legacy of quality residence and care to the broader senior community. Respectfully, ___________________________________ Francesco J. Rockwood Rockwood Pacific Inc. Applicant Appendix A Page 1 Appendix A Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Related to Project Housing Element: HOU-5.3 Work with existing senior lifestyle living and assisted living facilities in Los Gatos and support the development of new senior housing that includes continuum of care facilities within the Town. Land Use Element: LU-1.3 To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well-designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments. LU-1.4 Infill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. LU-6.7 Continue to encourage a variety of housing types and sizes that is balanced throughout the Town and within neighborhoods, and that is also compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Community Design Element: CD-1 Preserve and enhance Los Gatos’ character through exceptional community design. CD-1.1 Building elements shall be in conformance with those traditionally in the neighborhood. CD-1.2 New structures, remodels, landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area. CD-1.3 Buildings, landscapes, and hardscapes shall follow the natural contours of the property. CD-1.4 Development on all elevations shall be of high equality design and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town’s ambiance. Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods. CD-2 To limit the intensity of new development to a level that is consistent with surrounding development and with the Town at large. Appendix A Page 2 CD-3.2 Street and structural lighting shall be required to minimize its visual impacts by preventing glare, limiting the amount of light that falls on neighboring properties, and avoiding light pollution of the night sky. CD-3.5 All landscaping shall be carefully reviewed to ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing, compatible with its neighborhood and natural environment, and water conserving. CD-4 To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments. CD-4.5 New development shall promote visual continuity through tree planting, consistent use of low shrubs and ground cover. CD-4.7 Landscaping plans should maximize the use of trees for energy efficiency, climate control, screening, shading (especially of parking lots), and aesthetics. CD-7 To preserve the quality of the private open space throughout Los Gatos. CD-7.1 Maximize quality usable open space in all new developments. CD-7.3 All residential developments shall include private open space in proportion to the building size. CD-15 To preserve the natural topography and ecosystems within the hillside area by regulating grading, landscaping, and lighting. CD-15.4 Hillside landscaping shall be designed with the following goals in mind: a. Minimizing formal landscaping and hardscape. b. Siting formal landscaping and hardscape close to the house. c. Following the natural topography. d. Preserving native trees, native plant and wildlife habitats, and migration corridors. CD-16 Promote and protect view sheds and scenic resources. Human Services Element: HS-8 To ensure programs and facilities for social interaction for senior citizens. HS-8.3 Encourage the Los Gatos-Saratoga Recreation District and other service providers to provide a wide variety of senior services and programs, including daily opportunities for seniors to have physical activity, social interaction, and mental stimulation. HS-8.5 Encourage new development to include intergenerational spaces, such as cafés or family- Appendix A Page 3 oriented outdoor spaces. HS-8.6 Encourage the establishment and operation of a dedicated space for seniors. HS-8.5 Connect seniors with existing resources in the community. HS-9 To improve mobility and access to care and services for seniors. HS-9.1 Ensure that seniors have convenient access to social and medical services, commercial areas, and transportation by coordinating with senior shuttle service providers. HS-9.2 Encourage all new senior housing developments to provide transportation services. HS-10 To encourage a wide variety of types of senior housing, including independent living, residential care facilities, and affordable housing within the Town. HS-10.1 Encourage new development or substantial remodels to incorporate barrier-free design principles to ensure access for people of all ages and abilities. HS-10.1 Identify incentives for the development of a variety of types of senior housing, including independent living and residential care facilities. HS-11 To ensure safe environments for Los Gatos seniors. Transportation Element: TRA-2.6 Street improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalks, bus stop turnouts, bus shelters, light poles, traffic signals, benches, and trash container shall be planned as an integral part of development projects to ensure safe movement of people and vehicles and minimize disruption to the streetscape. TRA-3 To prevent and mitigate traffic impacts from new development (all policies under Goal TRA-3). TRA-5 To ensure that Los Gatos streets are safe for all users, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. TRA-8.4 Coordinate with appropriate agencies to provide transit service in the Town for seniors, school children, low-income people, the physically disabled, and other groups with special needs. Appendix A Page 4 TRA-9.6 Require development proposals to include amenities that encourage alternate forms of transportation that reduce pollution or traffic congestion as a benefit to the community (e.g., bicycle lockers/racks, showers, dedicated vanpool or car-pool parking areas, dedicated shuttle services, innovative bus shelter designs). TRA-13 To provide adequate parking for existing and proposed uses, and to minimize impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Environmental and Sustainability Element: ENV-1 To preserve and protect native plants and plant communities in the Town, and promote the appropriate use of local, native plants in habitat restoration and landscaping. ENV-9 To minimize the amount of storm water runoff, as well as to protect and improve the water quality of runoff. ENV-10 To promote recycling and reuse as well as reduction in demand. ENV-12 To conserve the air resources of the Town and maintain and improve acceptable air quality in Los Gatos. ENV-13 To promote a sustainable community that protects environmental resources and the climate to prevent negative impacts to future generations. ENV-14 To reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ENV-17 To promote green buildings that minimize consumption of energy and natural resources Los Gatos Sustainability Plan (2012): TR-1 Support for Pedestrians, Bicyclists and Transit. Promote walking, bicycling, and transit through the following: a. Require all new buildings, excluding single-family homes, to include a principal functional entry that faces a public space such as a street, square, park, paseo or plaza, in addition to any entrance from a parking lot, to enc ourage pedestrian foot traffic. b. Require new projects, excluding single-family homes, to include pedestrian or bicycle through-connections to existing sidewalks and existing or future bicycle facilities, unless prohibited by topographical conditions. c. Seek grant funding to establish a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program to increase more student walking and biking trips. d. Design and implement affordable traffic-calming measures on specific streets to Appendix A Page 5 dissuade Highway 17 cut-through traffic and attract pedestrian and bicycle traffic. e. Implement transit access improvements through sidewalk/crosswalk safety enhancement and bus shelter improvements. GB-4 Solar Orientation. Require measures that reduce energy use through solar orientation by taking advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sunscreens. RE-5 Solar Ready Features. Where feasible, require that all new buildings be constructed to allow for the easy, cost-effective installation of future solar energy systems. “Solar ready” features should include proper solar orientation (i.e., south facing roof area sloped at 20 to 55 degrees from the horizontal); clear access on the south sloped roof (i.e., no chimneys, heating vents, or plumbing vents); electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring; plumbing installed for solar hot water system; and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank. EC-1 Energy-Efficient Appliances and Lighting. Require new development to use energy- efficient appliances that meet Energy-Star standards and energy-efficient lighting technologies that exceed Title 24 standards by 30 percent. EC-3 Energy-Efficient Outdoor Lighting. Require outdoor lighting fixtures to be energy- efficient. Require parking lot light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings to be on full cut- off- fixtures, except emergency exit or safety lighting, and all permanently installed exterior lighting shall be controlled by either a photocell or an astronomical time switch. Prohibit continuous all night outdoor lighting in construction sites unless required for security reasons. Revise the Town Code to include these requirements. EC-10 Heat Gain Reduction. Require all new development and major rehabilitation (i.e. additions or remodels of 20,000 square feet of office/retail commercial or 100,000 square feet of industrial floor area) projects to incorporate any combination of the following strategies to reduce heat gain for 50 percent of the non-roof impervious site landscape, which includes roads, sidewalks, courtyards, parking lots, and driveways: shade within five years of occupancy; paving materials with a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of at least 29, open grid pavement system; and parking spaces underground, under deck, under roof, or under a building. Any roof used to shade or cover parking must have an SRI of at least 29. WW-1 Water Use and Efficiency Requirements. For new development, require all water use and efficiency measures identified as voluntary in the California Green Building Standards Code, and consider more stringent targets. California Green Building Standards Code requirements include: 1) reduce indoor potable water use by 20 percent after meeting the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements, and 2) reduce outdoor potable water use by 50 percent from a calibrated mid-summer baseline Appendix A Page 6 case, for example, through irrigation efficiency, plant species, recycled wastewater, and captured rainwater. WW-3 Bay Friendly Landscaping. Require new development to use native plants or other appropriate non-invasive plants that are drought-tolerant, as described in the Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines, available at StopWaste.Org and BayFriendlyCoalition.Org. SW-3 Salvage, Recycled-Content and Local Construction Materials. Encourage the use of salvaged and recycled-content materials and other materials that have low production energy costs for building materials, hard surfaces, and non-plant landscaping. Require sourcing of construction materials locally, as feasible. Appendix B Page 1 Appendix B Planned Development Ordinance Findings In the Planning Division Staff Technical Review Comment letter dated May 22, 2020, Planning staff requested the following: 1) Address in the letter of justification for the project how the project meets the findings required to grant a Planned Development Ordinance as detailed in Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code. While the main body of this Justification Letter provides significant detail as to how the project meets the requirements of the PD Ordinance (refer to Section IV of this Letter of Justification), the following describes how the project meets the findings required to grant a Planned Development Ordinance as detailed in Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code, as requested. • Sec. 29.80.095. - Findings. (1) The proposed PD is in compliance with all sections of this division. The proposed rebuild project (or “project”) is in compliance with section 29.80.075 as it clearly meets the purpose and intent of the PD zone by enhancing and promoting the Town’s natural resources, maximizing open space and providing a public benefit to the citizens of the Town. The project will result in a slight reduction in the overall development pad, increasing the amount of common open space available for all to enjoy, consistent with the Community Design Goal - 7. The project would further the Community Design Goal CD- 1, CD-4 and CD - 15, by preserving and enhancing Los Gatos’ character through exceptional community design features including, but not limited to: buildings that shall follow the natural contour of the surrounding hillside; promoting visual continuity through tree planting; and designing new structures to harmonize and blend with the natural features of the area. The project is in compliance with section, 29.80.080 of this division as it meets both the purpose and intent of this division and meets the following criteria: it provides a public benefit to the citizens of the Town, and is a property that has a current PD zone based on the combination of uses not otherwise permitted under the Town’s existing zoning Ordinance. The project similarly is consistent with section 29.80.085 as it does not seek to deviate from general plan provisions, guidelines adopted by the Town Council, standards contained in any existing land use regulation or any other provision of the Town Code Appendix B Page 2 otherwise applicable to the property except as otherwise provided for in section 29.080.095. Finally, the project is in compliance with all the requirements set forth in section 29.080.090 as the PD application includes text and plans/figures and/or diagrams that demonstrate (1) compliance with all sections of this division; (2) conformity of the PD to the goals, policies, applicable land use designations(s) and standards of the general plan; (3) includes the characteristics existing on the property which warrant application of the PD overlay zone; (4) shows the distribution, location and extent of the land uses on the site, including open space; (5) includes the proposed standards and criteria by which development will proceed; (6) includes proposed deviations from the land use regulations and development standards applicable to the underlying zoning district; and (7) describes the public benefit of the proposal. Further, as noted in our Letter of Justification, the project site is zoned as Residential Planned Development (R:PD) which is typically applied to areas where residential development is planned in the future. However as noted earlier, this project site secured its Planned Development permit entitlements in 1968 and has operated under this permit until late September 2019. The project has been designed in conformance with the Town of Los Gatos zoning requirements for Planned Development (PD) overlay zones as described further below. As per the Municipal Code, Development in a PD zone must be in accordance with the approved “development plan”. The Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code provides that the development plan must contain: _ a land use plan locating all proposed uses, a tentative site plan, _ schematic architectural elevations of all buildings and structures in relationship to each other, _ a schedule for any phasing of development, _ a tabulation of land area including the entire planned development, _ the floor area of each occupancy, _ the proposed number of off-street parking, and grading, soils and geologic information Our project application includes each of these “development plan” requirements as documented in the full project application submittal. (2) The proposed PD is in conformance with the goals, policies, and applicable land use designation(s) and standards of the Town's general plan. The project is in conformance with the applicable goals, policies and applicable land use designations(s) and standards of the Town’s general plan as described in this Letter of Justification and the Design Principles section of the Project Description. Appendix B Page 3 This project request is for approval of a new Planned Development Overlay permit. The project complies with the Town’s existing PD zoning for the property, as shown in Table 1 of the Letter of Justification. The project does not require any variance or exception to any rule, code, or regulation and meets the basic requirements under the existing zoning permit related to site coverage, density, open space, and parking. Further, though the project is not located within the boundaries of the Hillside Zone, we have made every attempt to meet the spirit and intent of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines as identified in Section IV. A of this Letter of Justification. Where we do not meet the spirit of the guidelines (e.g. retaining wall height), we have identified why and how our deviations to this non-applicable standard are needed for this site (see Section IV. I of this Letter of Justification). (3) The proposed PD is in conformance with all other applicable land use regulations, including but not limited to Town Council adopted guidelines, except as otherwise provided in section 29.80.095(4). The proposed PD is in full conformance with all other applicable land use regulations, including but not limited to Town Council adopted guidelines. The project seeks no exceptions, variances or deviations/modifications from any Town goals, policies, regulations, standards or guidelines applicable to the project site. (4) Any proposed use or development standards that deviate from the underlying zoning district(s) result in innovative and creative site planning to develop: a. Housing with a minimum of forty (40) percent of the units affordable to households of very low, low, or moderate income; or b. Mixed commercial, or mixed residential, or mixed commercial and residential development; or c. A development designed and sited to protect, preserve and enhance conservation and enrichment of hillsides, natural and/or historic resources, ridgelines, a tree or stand of trees, creek and riparian corridors, geologic hazard or fault zone, and open space; or d. A project that maximizes open space Approximately 77.5% of the site would be open space, contributing to the visual compatibility of the surrounding hillsides as well as to create a natural environment for residents (see Section IV. B for additional discussion related to open space). The project results in a slight decrease in the overall development pad, increasing the amount of common open space available for all to enjoy. e. The proposed PD provides a public benefit to the citizens of the Town. Appendix B Page 4 The project would allow seniors in the Town of Los Gatos to age in place with state-of- the-art health and living facilities. The project would further the Town’s General Plan by revitalizing the existing site and continuing provision of a healthy, contemporary independent senior living community that connects seniors with existing resources in the community, encourages social interaction, improves mobility and ensures a safe environment for Los Gatos seniors. The proposed uses of the project would be essential and desirable to the community. The project would result in the construction and/or provision of many service facilities including, but not limited to, a health center, dining venues, fitness services, and supplemental transportation services that would be located throughout the property. These services and amenities would help provide social interaction for the residents. The project would provide a wide variety of senior services and programs, including daily opportunity for health care, physical activity and recreation, and mental stimulation. In addition, the project would provide coordinated health care services, including 17 supporting care units with sections specializing in assisted living care, memory care and respite care, meeting the wide range of needs for seniors as they age. The project would also improve the integration of the site with the broader Los Gatos community by closing Farwell Lane to through traffic and transitioning this pathway connecting Los Gatos Meadows and Broadway into a naturally landscaped, pedestrian friendly connection to downtown Los Gatos. The conversion of Farwell Lane into a pedestrian and bicycle lane would improve safety for vehicle and pedestrian interaction at the intersection of Farwell Lane and Broadway. The project would continue to use the existing driveway on Wood Road for access to the parking entrance, main entrance, and loading entrance, providing safe and efficient access to the site. One of the extraordinary elements of the project is the integration of one or more autonomous vehicles and control systems deployed along Farwell Lane to enable a safe, convenient and alternative means of transporting residents between the project and Town retail, entertainment, and civil services. This element of the project will enable both safe and convenient access for residents to connect to Downtown Los Gatos. The project would consider Aurrigo, a vendor of autonomous vehicles, to provide this alternative transportation. As consistently stated in our Project Application submittal and responses to Town staff comments thereto, the project would continue to make a significant contribution to the Town, both as a major employer, as well as a vital resource for residents who want to remain an integrated and valued part of the community. We believe that the project will be a tremendous and valuable asset to the Town of Los Gatos, extending a historical legacy of quality residence and care to the broader senior community. Appendix C Project Compatibility with General Plan and Zoning Code Project Compatibility with Los Gatos 2020 General Plan The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The Medium Density Residential designation allows for multi-family residential, duplex, and/or small single-family homes and a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would result in 16 dwelling units per acre, which is above the 12 dwelling units permitted for the Medium Density Residential land use designation. However, consistent with density bonus laws in the State of California, General Plan Action HOU-1.3 provides up to a 100 percent density bonus for developments that include housing for elderly households. Since the proposed project’s residential uses would be restricted to seniors 62 years and older, it qualifies for the density bonus up to 100 percent. Therefore, the proposed 16 dwelling units per acre would be well within the 24 dwelling units per acre allowed for by the land use designation. In accordance with the Town’s General Plan 2020 Land Use recommendations, the project would also promote the appropriate use of local, native plants in its landscaping. The project would promote the efficient use of water and would minimize the amount of storm water runoff. Energy systems would be new, and thus offer the benefit of far more efficient systems than those currently in place. The project would result in a slight reduction in the overall development pad and would include tree replacement and retention/preservation of mature onsite trees, a Village Green area, and passive gardens to ensure aesthetic consistency with the surrounding hillside area. Finally, there are a number of features incorporated into the project design, including provision of a new loop road that will serve to improve fire safety and minimize fire risk. Among other benefits noted above, the project would further the Town’s General Plan by revitalizing the existing site into a healthy, contemporary independent senior living community that connects seniors with existing resources in the community, encourages social interaction, improves mobility, and ensures a safe environment for Los Gatos seniors. In addition, the project would provide seniors with an alternative mode of transportation by incorporating autonomous vehicle technology into the project to assist in enhanced connectivity between Los Gatos Meadows and proximate Town services such as the Library, Civic Center, and entertainment and retail establishments. A more detailed description of how these goals/policies are incorporated into the project is included in below. Housing and Health Services Elements The project furthers many of the Housing and Health Services plan element goals. The project would be consistent with Goal HS-8, by providing a wide variety of senior services and programs, including daily opportunities for seniors to have physical activity, social interaction, and mental stimulation. The project would further Policy HOU-5.3, to work with existing senior lifestyle living and assisted living facilities in Los Gatos and support the building of Los Gatos Meadows in a manner that includes a continuum of care facilities within the Town. The project would bring a new state-of-the-art CCRC, incorporating outstanding health care services, recycled and sustainable building materials, and energy efficient operational systems. The project would further Health Services Goal HS – 9, providing seniors with an alternative mode of transportation by incorporating autonomous vehicle technology into the project to assist in enhanced connectivity between Los Gatos Meadows and proximate Town services such as the Library, Civic Center, and retail and entertainment establishments. Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element The current architecture, with its substantial concrete façades, is not harmonious with its surroundings, nor does it provide an inviting or healthy environment sought by the senior community. The site plan of the project incorporates environmentally appropriate design attributes, utilizing the site’s topography and natural setting to create a synergy between the design and the hillside that does not exist today. This attention to design detail is consistent with Goal OSP-6 to consider the provision of open space in all development decisions, and both supports and reinforces Policies OSP 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4 which are all focused on consideration of health, welfare and public safety in the design of open spaces, including the effects on watershed areas, plant and wildlife habitat. The project will result in a slight reduction in the overall development pad, increasing the amount of common open space available for all to enjoy. The proposed residential buildings would be arranged around shared courtyards. They would be oriented to blend into the hillside and natural landscape to minimize the impact of views to the site while also maximizing views from the site to surrounding hillsides and across the valley. The peer review by the Town Architect was generally favorable and the project team has or will incorporate the design recommendations of this report into the project design. In addition, the project will include generous tree replacement and use of mature trees and a Village Green area, to ensure consistency with the surrounding hillside area. Transportation Element The project would improve bicycle and pedestrian access for seniors to downtown Los Gatos and would improve vehicular traffic circulation at the project site. As a part of the project, Farwell Lane at Broadway, the exit-only driveway, would be closed to through traffic. Farwell Lane would be constructed into an improved pedestrian and bicycle connection, as well as serve as the fixed route for an autonomous vehicle connection from the main entrance to the Broadway frontage. This reconfiguration of Farwell Lane will further Transportation Policy TRA-5 by ensuring that project streets are safe for all uses, including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy TRA-13 and would provide adequate parking for the proposed uses, thereby minimizing impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Previously, many staff members were forced to park on nearby residential streets due to the lack of on-site parking, which is a less than ideal situation for the neighborhood residents. Further, the project would provide seniors with an alternative mode of transportation by incorporating autonomous vehicle technology that will facilitate safe and reliable connections to Downtown Los Gatos. As such, the project would further the Transportation goal to provide transit services in the Town for seniors by incorporating autonomous vehicle technology for residents. Community Design and Land Use Elements The project will result in a slight reduction in the overall development pad, increasing the amount of common open space available for all to enjoy, consistent with the Community Design Goal - 7. The project would further the Community Design Goal CD-1, CD-4 and CD - 15, by preserving and enhancing Los Gatos’ character through exceptional community design features including, but not limited to: buildings that shall follow the natural contour of the surrounding hillside; promoting visual continuity through tree planting; and designing new structures to harmonize and blend with the natural features of the area. In addition, the proposed residential buildings would be arranged around shared courtyards. They would be oriented to blend into the hillside and natural landscape to minimize the impact of views to the site, while also maximizing views from the site to surrounding hillsides and across the valley, furthering the Town’s Land Use Element. In addition, the project would be consistent with Policy LU – 1.3, and would incorporate high quality, well-designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping. Project Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed project site is zoned as Residential Planned Development (R:PD) which is typically applied to areas where residential development is planned in the future. However as noted earlier, this project site secured its Planned Development permit entitlements in 1968 and has operated under this permit until late September 2019. The project has been designed in conformance with the Town of Los Gatos zoning requirements for Planned Development (PD) overlay zones as described further below. As per the Municipal Code, Development in a PD zone must be in accordance with the approved “development plan”. The Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code provides that the development plan must contain: • a land use plan locating all proposed uses, • a tentative site plan, • schematic architectural elevations of all buildings and structures in relationship to each other, • a schedule for any phasing of development, • a tabulation of land area including the entire planned development, • the floor area of each occupancy, • the proposed number of off-street parking spaces, and • grading, soils, and geologic information.1 Our project application includes each of these “development plan” requirements. As per the intent of the PD Ordinance, the PD zoning allows uses not ordinarily possible, only if the use and development are in compliance with the complete development plan. Further, all uses in the PD zone are permitted to the extent specified in the development plan2. All uses identified in the rebuild project, are in compliance with the current PD zoning permit approved by Ordinance NO. 938 in 1968. As per the Municipal Code, any ordinance that would rezone land to a PD zone must incorporate the development plan3. In addition, changes in the approved development plan must be made by ordinance4. Planned Development overlay zones also include projects that i) provide a public benefit to the citizens of the Town, ii) are designed to preserve and enhance conservation and enrichment of hillsides and ridgelines, iii) produce affordable housing and iv) maximize open space. The proposed project would also increase the amount of onsite open space from 75.4% to 77.5%, consistent with the prevailing Planned Development zoning overlay requirement, of maximizing 1 Section 29.80.080 of the Town Municipal Code 2 Section 29.80.110 of the Town Municipal Code 3 Section 29.80.125 of the Town Municipal Code 4 Section 29.80.145 of the Town Municipal Code open space5. The open space would be controlled by topography, use of underground parking, and specific building location, in order to preserve and enhance the hillsides and ridgeline. The proposed project will also include a development plan that includes all the requirements provided. The project would provide seniors with care housing that is subject to comprehensive statewide regulatory controls and oversite. The California Community Care Facilities Act and associated regulations establish a robust regulatory system relating to matters such as rates and refunds, personnel and administration, financing, admission agreements, and eviction proceedings. The project would not be subject to the Town’s inclusionary housing requirements because state law prohibits local agencies from imposing rent controls on licensed residential care facilities for the elderly. (Health & Safety Code § 1569.147(b).) As a practical matter, it is not possible to operate a facility such as this under two different regulatory systems affecting rent and pricing. (See Ocean House Corp. v. Permanent Rent Control Board of the City of Santa Monica, 147 Cal. App. 3d 395 (1983).) However, the project would provide intrinsic housing benefits and it would not result in any housing impacts. Onsite employment and indirect demand for professional and other services is expected to be consistent with that of the existing care facility. Thus, the project would not contribute to any increased need for affordable housing in the community. 5 Section 29.80.075 of the Town Municipal Code Appendix D Listing of Meetings with Neighbors and Community Type of Meeting Date Time Location Attendee Notes from Meeting Outcome Open House 1 03/08/18 7:30-9PM Los Gatos Meadows Maria Ristow, Irving & Evelyn Mitsunaga, Robert Mullan(Toll House) General introduction of intent to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows Kicked-off neighborhood communications plan Open House 2 04/18/18 7-8PM Los Gatos Meadows Julie Ritter Southern, Maria Ristow, Claire Leclaire, Cathy Colgan General introduction of intent to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows; similar material to first meeting Kicked-off neighborhood communications plan Open House 3 05/03/18 7-8PM Los Gatos Meadows Karen Kurtz, Linda Iversen, Sue Fairley Attendees interested in architecture and supplemental transportation options Design team elevated analysis of supplemental transportation alternatives Open House 4 05/20/18 3-4PM Los Gatos Meadows John and Jean Richardson, Stanford Stickney and 3 other family members Questions related to timeline, storm drainage, and fire risk Resolved current storm drain issue and initiated planning to mitigate fire risk through brush removal Focus Groups (3 Sessions) 10/2/2018 - 10/3/2018 Varies Toll House 36 older adults participated in 3 sessions. Participants were drawn from the local area. Participants were promised confidentiality. Sensitive to how various attributes or requirements may drive cost, supplemental transportation system very important, limited enthusiasm for LEED certification but recycling and energy efficiency important, limited enthusiasm for facilitating non-residents/non-guests on campus, preference for larger, more spacious units, recommendation to minimize long corridors, preference for multiple dining venues and ample on-site amenities such as fitness center, walking trails, access to town, casual dining, library, coffee shop, and access to on-site support care. Design team made applicable refinements to concept plan Open House 5 12/06/18 7-8PM Los Gatos Meadows Julie Ritter Southern, Matt and Marlena Hood and friend, Mike Wasserman Question about timing, policy related to relocation of existing residents, impact on visibility to neighbors above, use of solar panels and roof color, impacts on traffic (with specific concerns about summer traffic), site security during closure, parking, noise impacts and construction parking. Requested advance notifications of all construction work that could affect access. Some residents on Wood Road would prefer that Farwell Lane continue to support regular vehicle traffic. A video summary of the meeting was posted at: https://vimeo.com/278024461 Feedback informed further refinement to concept plan. With regard to Wood Road traffic impacts, design team is prioritizing minimizing errant trips up Wood Road past the main entrance, and more importantly, further prioritizing the supplemental transportation system to convert more trips to autonomous vehicle, pedestrian or bike trips. Also, currently planning to include solar panels. Open House 6 10/10/19 7-8PM Toll House Julie Ritter Southern, Maria Ristow, Jamie Garcia & Friend, Irving & Evelyn Mitsunaga Questions about Wood Road traffic, availability of Wood Road for evacuation, potential impact of project on housing element, and recommendation to deploy goats to further reduce fire risk. Request for copy of facts and figures table. Confirmed that project not expected to affect housing element. Planning to deploy goats on property this spring; planning to make commitment to make Wood Road available for evacuation during emergencies. Open House 7 03/05/20 7-8PM Los Gatos United Methodist Church None General heightened sensitivity due to COVID-19 may have been a factor in suppressing turnout. Produced and circulated video update; available at Covia/Los Gatos Meadows website https://covia.org/los-gatos- meadows/ Open House 8 12/03/20 7-8PM Zoom Meeting Julie Ritter Southern, Fred Lester, Matt Wood, Zane Rowe, Gary/Jamie Garcia, Clair LaClair, Evelyn/Irving Mitsunaga, Robert Macartney, Matthew Bigge Green roof (Fred), Solar (Julie), incline elevator (Fred), security current through construction (Matt), views from 135 Wood and story pole modification request (Julie), visualization from 100 Wood Rd (Matt), Condo v. CCRC (Julie), fire evacuation (Matt), parking for construction (Fred), construction traffic (Matt) Provided advance notice of intent to seek modification to Town's Story Pole Policy 7/27/2021:1:24 PM Appendix D Listing of Meetings with Neighbors and Community Type of Meeting Date Time Location Attendee Notes from Meeting Outcome Public Hearing - Story Pole Exception Request 01/19/21 7-9PM Zoom Meeting Town Council and Town Staff (in advance of meeting, staff received letters from Claire Southern, Matthew Southern and Mark Rigoli (via Council Member Maria Ristow) No public comments; council members discussed merits and concerns regarding proposal Consideration for request continued to future council meeting NOP Meeting 02/25/21 7-7:15PM Zoom Meeting Presenters: Joel Paulson, Jocelyn Shoopman, Sean Mullin, Terri Wissler Adam (EMC Planning). Public Attendees: Matt Hood Matt Hood inquired about availability of video recording of the NOP meeting Open House 9 (Future Meeting) 08/09/21 7-8PM TBD 7/27/2021:1:24 PM Appendix E Listing of Communications DATE DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENCY COMM_TYPE INDIVIDUALS COVIA_TEAM_REPRESENTATIVES 10/23/2017 Meeting with Town Attorney and Planning Town In-Person Meeting Laurel Prevetti, Joel Paulson, Robert Schultz Frank Rockwood, Laura Worthington-Forbes, Barbara Schussman 2/7/2018 Meeting with Fire Department Town In-Person Meeting Fardean Amadhani, Tracy Staiger Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout 2/27/2018 Open House 1 Invitation Neighbors Letter [Sent to neighborhood distribution list] Letter from Kevin Gerber 3/8/2018 Tour with Town Staff Town Tour Laurel Prevetti, Joel Paulson Frank Rockwood, Kevin Gerber, Chris Ichien, Eric Morley 3/8/2018 Open House 1 meeting Neighbors In-Person Meeting Maria Ristow, Irving & Evelyn Mitsunaga, Robert Mullan (Toll House) Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Eric Morley, Kevin Gerber, Ron Schaefer 3/8/2018 Resident Council 1 Meeting Residents In-Person Meeting [Los Gatos Meadows residents] Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Eric Morley, Kevin Gerber, Ron Schaefer 4/2/2018 Open House 2 Invitation Neighbors Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien 4/8/2018 Open House 2 Next Door Posting by Ristow Neighbors NextDoor 4/13/2018 Meeting with Toll House Hotel Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan, Robert Mullan Frank Rockwood 4/18/2018 Open House 2 meeting Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern, Maria Ristow, Claire LeClair, Cathy Colgan Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Eric Morley 4/18/2018 Resident Council 2 Meeting Residents In-Person Meeting [Los Gatos Meadows residents] Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Eric Morley 4/23/2018 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Barbara Spector Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin, Eric Morley 4/23/2018 Meeting with Town Attorney Town In-Person Meeting Robert Schultz, Joel Paulson Bill Tobin, Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Barbara Schussman 4/24/2018 Open House 3 & 4 Invitation Neighbors Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood 4/30/2018 Meeting with Toll House Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan Frank Rockwood 4/30/2018 Meeting with Town Official Town In-Person Meeting Monica Renn Frank Rockwood 4/30/2018 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Marico Sayoc Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Diana Jamison, Eric Morley 5/1/2018 Open House 3 Next Door Posting by Ristow Neighbors NextDoor 5/3/2018 Meeting with Toll House business Organizations In-Person Meeting Fred Lester, Dave Lazzarini (at the beginning) Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley 5/3/2018 Open House 3 meeting Neighbors In-Person Meeting Kurtz, Fairey, Iversen (and Mike Vrevich resident) David Gates, Chris Ichien, Ron Schaefer, F Rockwood, Mark Falgout, E Morley 5/3/2018 Resident Council 3 Meeting Residents In-Person Meeting [Los Gatos Meadows residents] David Gates, Chris Ichien, Ron Schaefer, Frank Rockwood 5/3/2018 Meeting with Fire Town In-Person Meeting Fardean Amadhani, Tracy Staiger Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Eric Morley 5/3/2018 Meeting with Planning Town In-Person Meeting Joel Paulson Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout 5/4/2018 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Rob Rennie Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Kevin Gerber, Eric Morley 5/3/2018 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Marcia Jensen Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin, Eric Morley 5/4/2018 Meeting with Public Works Town In-Person Meeting Jessy Pu, Lisa Pedersen Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Eric Morley 5/4/2018 Tour with Mayor Town Tour Rob Rennie Chris Ichien, Frank Rockwood, Kevin Gerber, Eric Morley 5/10/2018 Open House 4 Invitation Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood 5/17/2018 Emailed Director of Chamber of Organizations Email Joe Pirzynski Email from Frank Rockwood 5/20/2018 Open House 4 meeting Neighbors In-Person Meeting John and Jean Richardson, Stanford Stickney and 3 other family members David Gates, Chris Ichien, Bill Tobin, F Rockwood, Mark Falgout 5/22/2018 Emailed Julie Ritter Southern Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Email from Frank Rockwood 6/4/2018 Emailed Los Gatos Roasting Company Organizations Email Teri Hope Email from Frank Rockwood 6/4/2018 Emailed McCarthy Ranch Organizations Email Joey McCarthy Email from Frank Rockwood 6/4/2018 Emailed Time Out Clothing Organizations Email Ginger Rowe Email from Frank Rockwood 6/10/2018 Emailed Julie Ritter Southern Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Email from Frank Rockwood 6/11/2018 Emailed Time Out Clothing Organizations Email Ginger Rowe Email from Frank Rockwood 6/15/2018 Meeting with Los Gatos Roasting Organizations In-Person Meeting Teri Hope Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/15/2018 Meeting with McCarthy Ranch Organizations In-Person Meeting Joey McCarthy Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/15/2018 Stopped Rural Supply Hardware Organizations In-Person Meeting Ken Nelson Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/15/2018 Stopped by Cucina Bambina Organizations In-Person Meeting Met with receptionist (Izzy) Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/15/2018 Stopped by The Spa - Los Gatos Organizations In-Person Meeting Met with receptionist Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/25/2018 Meeting with Time Out Clothing Organizations In-Person Meeting Ginger Rowe Frank and Susan Rockwood 6/25/2018 Meeting to review views of neighbor Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern Frank Rockwood and Chris Ichien 6/26/2018 Call with Town Not City Representative Organizations Call Rod Teague Frank Rockwood 6/27/2018 Emailed UMC and Live Oak Organizations Email Jennifer Murdock, Trudy Burling Email from Frank Rockwood 7/13/2018 Meeting with Chamber Organizations In-Person Meeting Joe Pirzynski Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien 7/13/2018 Meeting with The Spa - Los Gatos Organizations In-Person Meeting Patti Rice Frank Rockwood 7/17/2018 Open House 5 & 6 Invitation and Open House 4 Video Link Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood 7/18/2018 NextDoor Posting about video Neighbors/Organizations NextDoor 7/19/2018 Meeting with Live Oak and LGUMC Organizations In-Person Meeting Jennifer Murdock, Trudy Burling, Kathy Mlinarich Frank Rockwood and Laura Worthington-Forbes 7/20/2018 Emailed neighbor who reached out Neighbors Email James Holtz Email from Frank Rockwood 7/23/2018 Emailed meeting invitation Organizations Email Ron Tate Email from Frank Rockwood 7/23/2018 Emailed meeting invitation Organizations Email Shelly Blanchard Email from Frank Rockwood 7/24/2018 Call with Shelly Blanchard Organizations Call Shelly Blanchard/Cucina Bambina Frank Rockwood 7/24/2018 Meeting with Fred Lester Organizations In-Person Meeting Fred Lester Frank Rockwood 7/24/2018 Meeting with Jason Bogan Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan Frank Rockwood 7/27/2021:1:34 PM Appendix E Listing of Communications DATE DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENCY COMM_TYPE INDIVIDUALS COVIA_TEAM_REPRESENTATIVES 7/30/2018 Email from Maria Ristow Neighbors Email Maria Ristow Email from Frank Rockwood 8/1/2018 Email from Joe Pirzynski Organizations Email Joe Pirzynski Email from Frank Rockwood 8/28/2018 Announcement re: rescheduling Open House 5 & 6 and commencement of focus groups Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood 8/30/2018 James Holtz emailed re: focus group Neighbors Email James Holtz Email from Frank Rockwood 9/25/2018 Survey mailed to people in Town and vicinity Neighbors/Vicinity Letter [Sent to neighborhood distribution list + mailing list for vicinity] Brook Adams 10/2/2018; 10/3/2018 Focus Groups Neighbors/Vicinity In-Person Meeting 3 focus groups of about 12 each Brook Adams 10/29/2018 Meeting with Town Staff Town In-Person Meeting Laurel Prevetti, Joel Paulson, Robert Schultz Frank Rockwood, Laura Worthington-Forbes, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien, Barbara Schussman 11/9/2018 Open House 5 Invitation Neighbors Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood 12/6/2018 Open House 5 Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Southern, Matt and Marlena Hood and friend, Mike Wasserman D Gates, C Ichien, A Pelley, F Rockwood, M Falgout, E Morley, M McMullin, L Darling 12/6/2018 Resident Council #5 Meeting Residents In-Person Meeting [Los Gatos Meadows residents] D Gates, C Ichien, A Pelley, F Rockwood, M Falgout, E Morley, K Gerber, M McMullin, L Darling 12/7/2018 Public Works Meeting Town In-Person Meeting Jessy Pu, Lisa Pedersen Frank Rockwood, Susan Rockwood, Mark Falgout 12/11/2018 Meeting with Town Staff Town In-Person Meeting Laurel Prevetti, Joel Paulson Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien, Mark Falgout 12/11/2018 Meeting w/Town Not City Organizations In-Person Meeting Rod Teague Frank and Susan Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien 12/12/2018 Meeting with Council Member Marico Sayoc Town In-Person Meeting Marico Sayoc Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien 12/12/2018 Meeting with Council Member Steve Leonardis Town In-Person Meeting Steve Leonardis Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien 12/12/2018 Meeting with Chamber Organizations In-Person Meeting Joe Pirzynski, Catherine Somers Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Chris Ichien 12/13/2018 Meeting with Toll House Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan Frank and Susan Rockwood, Victor Ceron 12/13/2018 Meeting with Council Member Rob Town In-Person Meeting Rob Rennie Frank Rockwood, Eric Morley, Kiran Kaur 12/14/2018 Meeting with Council Member Barbara Spector Town In-Person Meeting Barbara Spector Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin 12/18/2018 Emailed link to Open House 5 Video Town/Org/Neighbors Email [sent to email distribution list] Frank Rockwood 1/29/2019 Meeting with Council Member Marcia Jensen Town In-Person Meeting Marcia Jensen Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin, Chris Ichien 2/19/2019 Emails from Maria Ristow and Matt Hood Neighbors Email Maria Ristow, Matt Hood Frank Rockwood 2/21/2019 Phone Conversation with Rod Teague Organizations Call Rod Teague Frank Rockwood 2/22/2019 Emails with Fred Lester re: Oak Trees Organizations Email Fred Lester Frank Rockwood 3/15/2019 Meeting with Caroline and Marc Philippe Neighbors In-Person Meeting Caroline and Marc Philippe Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron 3/15/2019 Meeting with Julie Ritter Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron 5/15/2019 Julie Ritter Emailed re: project status Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Email from Frank Rockwood 7/8/2019 Email with Caroline Phillippe re: ADU/vineyard Neighbors Email Caroline and Marc Philippe Frank Rockwood 7/25/2019 Meeting with Toll House Hotel Organizations In-Person Meeting Jason Bogan Frank Rockwood 8/5/2019 Conversation with John Richardson re: status Neighbors Call John Richardson Frank Rockwood 8/15/2019 Meeting with Joel Paulson and Laurel Prevetti Town In-Person Meeting Joel Paulson, Laurel Prevetti Frank Rockwood, Laura Worthington-Forbes, David Gates, Chris Ichien 8/15/2019 Meeting with Catherine Somers from Chamber Organizations In-Person Meeting Catherine Somers Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien 8/15/2019; 8/17/2019 Open House 6 Invitation and FAQ's Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood 9/24/2019 Meeting with Toll House Hotel Organizations In-Person Meeting Abel Veloz Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron 9/24/2019 Meeting with Fred Lester Organizations In-Person Meeting Fred Lester and his wife Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron 9/24/2019 Meeting with Senior Commission Town In-Person Meeting Arn Andrews, Commission Members Frank and Susan Rockwood 10/1/2019 Meeting with Julio Hernandez, SDA Town In-Person Meeting Julio Hernandez, SDA Church Victor Ceron 10/10/2019 Open House 6 at Toll House Hotel Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern, Jaime Garcia & friend, Irving & Evelyn Mitsunaga, Maria Ristow F Rockwood, M Falgout, D Gates, C Ichien, V Ceron, V Troncosco, P Hillan 10/14/2019 Response re: OH 6 Questions re: schedule and security and goats Neighbors Email Maria Ristow, Julie Ritter Southern, Irving and Evelyn Mitsunaga, Jaime Garcia Frank Rockwood 10/25/2019 Email Intro to New Neighbor Neighbors Email Zane Rowe (bought Phillipe property) Frank Rockwood 12/18/2019 Meeting with Town Town In-Person Meeting Joel Paulson, Sally Zarnowitz, Jocelyn Shoopman Frank Rockwood, Laura Worthington-Forbes, David Hance 2/6/2020 Site Visit with Town Staff Town In-Person Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman, Sally Zarnowitz, Mike Weisz, Robert Gray, Corvell Sparks Frank Rockwood, Victor Ceron, Chris Ichien, Vincent Troncoso 2/11/2020 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re: Broadway Neighbor/Town Letter Julie Ritter Southern NA 2/12/2020 Technical Review Town In-Person Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman, Sally Zarnowitz, Bob Gray, Tracy Staiger Frank Rockwood, Arch Pelley, Mark Falgout, Kimmy Chen 2/13/2020 Open House 7 Invitation and FAQ's Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood 3/5/2020 Open House 7 at Los Gatos United Methodist Church Neighbors In-Person Meeting None Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Victor Ceron, Mark Falgout, David Gates 7/27/2021:1:34 PM Appendix E Listing of Communications DATE DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENCY COMM_TYPE INDIVIDUALS COVIA_TEAM_REPRESENTATIVES 3/6/2020; 3/10/2020 Maria Ristow inquired re: Open House 7; response addressed possible alternatives to in-person meetings; communicated that Covia is targeting distribution of video summary in May; appreciative of goats Neighbors Email Maria Ristow Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 4/2/2020 John Richardson inquired re: status; resent February FAQ; communicated that Covia is targeting distribution of video Neighbors Email John Richardson Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 4/14/2020; 4/16/2020 Julie Ritter Southern inquired re: status; complained re: unsightly trash bin; appreciative of goats; responded that Covia is targeting distribution of video summary; committed to removal of unsightly trash bin Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 5/31/2020 Sent link to summary video to neighbors; updated Covia website with link to summary video Neighbors Email [Sent to neighborhood] Frank Rockwood 6/3/2020 Meeting with Town Staff Town Video Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman Frank Rockwood, Arch Pelley, Melissa Destout 6/3/2020 Meeting with Fire Department Town Video Meeting Tracy Staiger, Kathy Baker Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Matt Lissak 6/7/2020 Zane Rowe acknowledged receipt of May 31st email; interested in meeting in person when things return to normal Neighbors Zane Rowe Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 6/10/2020 Meeting with Town Staff re: Land Use CEQA Path Town Video Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman, Sally Zarnowitz, Joel Paulson, Robert Schultz Frank Rockwood, Barbara Schussman, Laura Worthington-Forbes 6/11/2020 Julie Ritter Southern forwarded link to video to Justin Draa and Brend Neudecker; requested consideration of another in-person presentation Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 6/12/2020 Meeting with Town Staff re: Story Pole Visualization Town Video Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman, Sally Zarnowitz, Joel Paulson Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, David Gates, Melissa Destout 6/29/2020 Maria Ristow inquired re: status general and tagged trees behind 65 Broadway; tagged trees related to trimming project Neighbors Email Maria Ristow Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 6/29/2020 Margaret Bielski called about trees at 19 Clifton that appear to be marked for removal; understands that there is a proposal to add two units Neighbors Phone Call Margaret Bielski Call to/from Frank Rockwood 11/17/2020 Open House 8 Invitation Neighbors/Organizations Letter/Email [Sent to neighborhood & local businesses distribution list] Letter from Chris Ichien; email from Frank Rockwood 12/2/2020 Meeting with Council Member-Elect Maria Ristow Town Video Meeting Maria Ristow Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Laura Worthington- Forbes 12/3/2020 Open House 8 Neighbors Video Meeting Julie Ritter Southern, Fred Lester, Matt Wood, Zane Rowe, Gary/Jamie Garcia, Claire LeClair, Evelyn/Irving Mitsunaga, Robert Macartney, Matthew Bigge Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, David Gates, Victor Ceron, Laura Worthington-Forbes, Mark Falgout, Laura Darling 12/3/2020 Meeting with Council Member Marico Sayoc Town Video Meeting Marico Sayoc Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Laura Worthington- Forbes 12/4/2020 Meeting with Jocelyn Shoopman Town Video Meeting Jocelyn Shoopman Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, Laura Worthington- Forbes 12/9/2020 Meeting with Council Member Rob Rennie Town Video Meeting Rob Rennie Frank Rockwood, Mary McMullin, Laura Worthington- Forbes 1/11/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re: Story Poles and Fire Evacuation Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Matthew Southern N/A 1/12/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re: Story Poles Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Clare Southern N/A 1/12/2021 Meeting with Council Member Matthew Hudes Town Video Meeting Matthew Hudes Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Laura Worthington- Forbes 1/12/2021 Meeting with Council Member Mary Badame Town Video Meeting Mary Badame Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, Laura Worthington- Forbes 1/15/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re: Story Poles and Farwell Lane Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Mark Regoli N/A 1/19/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re: Story Poles and View Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Julie Ritter Southern N/A 1/19/2021 Town Council Hearing re: Story Pole Town/Neighbors Video Meeting Matthew Hudes, Mary Badame, Jocelyn Shoopman, Rob Rennie, Marico Sayoc, Maria Ristow (recused) Frank Rockwood, Mark Falgout, David Gates, Laura Worthington-Forbes 2/1/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re: Story Poles Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Bernd Neudecker N/A 2/1/2021 Meeting with Julie Ritter Southern and Andrew Ghofrani Neighbors In-Person Meeting Julie Ritter Southern (123/135 Wood Rd) and Andrew Ghofrani ( 121 Wood Rd) Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien, David Gates 2/2/2021 Julie Ritter Southern conveyed that Bernd Neudecker would be sending letter to staff Neighbors Email Julie Ritter Southern (123/135 Wood Rd) and Berne Neudecker (109 Wood Rd) Emails to/from Frank Rockwood 2/8/2021 Letter from Neighbor to Town Staff re: View and Building Height Neighbor/Town Letter_to_Town Andrew Ghofrani N/A 2/8/2021 Tour with Council Member Town Tour Matthew Hudes Frank Rockwood, Chris Ichien 7/27/2021:1:34 PM Appendix E Listing of Communications DATE DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENCY COMM_TYPE INDIVIDUALS COVIA_TEAM_REPRESENTATIVES 2/22/2021 Letter recap of meeting with Arn Andrews regarding Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee; Jocelyn Scoopman directed project team to incorporate contents of letter in updated Justification Letter Town Email Arn Andrews Laura Worthington Forbes 3/14/2021 Neighbor reached out about people cutting plants on property Neighbors Email Cathy Colgan Frank Rockwood, Alex Gerasimov 3/18/2021 Owner of business located at the corner of Wood Rd and S. Santa Cruz Ave reached out about construction start and length - concern of holistic tenant Neighbor/Town Email Shayna Orr, Exec Asst for Owner of business located at the corner of Wood Rd and S. Santa Cruz Ave Frank Rockwood 4/22/2021 Letter to Neighbor re: Visualizations Neighbor Letter Andrew Ghofrani Frank Rockwood 4/28/2021 Emailed Visualizations from Ghofrani Property Neighbor Email Andrew Ghofrani, Julie Ritter Frank Rockwood 5/3/2021 Email to Neighbor re: project status and tree Neighbor Email John Richardson Frank Rockwood 5/12/2021 Communication with Neighbor about Trees - to be taken down 5/15/21 Neighbor Email John Richardson Alex Gerasimov 5/15/2021 Communication with Town Council Member Who Reached Out For Update Town Email Maria Ristow Frank Rockwood 5/17/2021 Communication with Neighbor about Tree Taken Down - Neighbor Said Looked Great Neighbor Email John Richardson Alex Gerasimov 5/24/2021 Communication with Neighbor re: Visualizations from House Neighbor Email Andrew Ghofrani Frank Rockwood 6/5/2021 Neighbor Reached Out Regarding Annual Clearing of Brush by 50 Clifton Ave. Neighbor Email Michael Walton Alex Gerasimov 6/14/2021 Communicate with Neighbor re: Request for Project Update Neighbor Email Julie Ritter Southern Frank Rockwood 6/14/2021 Communication with Neighbor re: Upcoming DEIR Meeting 6/23/21 Neighbor Email Julie Ritter Southern and Andrew Ghofrani Frank Rockwood 7/6/2021 Communication with Neighbor re: Upcoming Open House - Checking on Aug 9 Date Neighbor Email Julie Ritter Southern Frank Rockwood 7/27/2021:1:34 PM This Page Intentionally Left Blank May 8, 2020 Ms. Jocelyn ShoopmanCommunity Development DepartmentTown of Los Gatos110 E. Main StreetLos Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 110 Wood Road Dear Jocelyn: I reviewed the drawings and evaluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows: Neighborhood Context The site is located on a hillside parcel near Downtown Los Gatos. The proposed Los Gatos Meadows continuing retire- ment care facility is similar in use to the existing care facility on the site. The site is surrounded by substantial mature landscaping. A single family residential neighborhood bounds the site to the north, and a hotel and retail structures are also nearby on South Santa Cruz Avenue. Otherwise, the remainder of the site perimeter is less developed. Additional aerial photos are shown on the following page for further site context. EXHIBIT 9 110 Wood Road Design Review Comments May 8, 2019 Page 2 Aerial view of site from the south Aerial view of site from the east 110 Wood Road Design Review Comments May 8, 2019 Page 3 ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed project would largely be developed within the same plan area as the existing care facility on the site - See site plan over aerial photo and the building layout plan with individual building identification letters below. 110 Wood Road Design Review Comments May 8, 2019 Page 4 Potential visual impacts largely relate to height and proximity of a few new structures to the adjacent residential and commercial areas to the north and east and to the broader downtown area. 1. There are two specific areas where the removal of substantial mature landscaping and the increase in nearby build- ing heights might create some visual impacts - adjacent to the Toll House Hotel and some of the adjacent residen- tial neighborhood. 110 Wood Road Design Review Comments May 8, 2019 Page 5 There was not enough usable information regarding location and size of the trees that are proposed for retainion to be able to visualize for sure their poten- tial visual impacts on adjacent properties or public spaces.. However. the simulation photo below sug- gests that without adequate tree buffering, the build- ing height and bulk might seem very much out of character with the Town. While there are no specific guidelines which I can apply to this unique project, I would note the both the Town’s Commercial and Residential Guidelines emphasize a respect for and adherence to designing to fit into the Town’s small scale character. Note that the photo simulation above is located at the Farwell Lane secondary exit street at Broadway which is about 300 feet east of Clifton Avenue where the single family home closest to this site is located. Recommendation: Request the applicant to provide additional plan and section drawings to clarify the location and scale of both the trees to be retained and any proposed new buffer landscaping. Tree removal areas of concern 110 Wood Road Design Review Comments May 8, 2019 Page 6 2. Since the proposed buildings would be substantially taller than those currently on the site, more of the project would be seen from East Main Street in the vicinity of Town Hall - see applicant’s simulation photos below. The evaluation of this potential impact will require a judgment as to whether the larger scale and increased building visibility is consistent with the Town’s past emphasis on small scale character throughout the community. The applicant’s design team has been sensitive in designing the buildings to blend into the hillside as much as they can given their height. Deep roof overhangs, set back upper floors and the separation of individual Villa structures are intended to reduce the visual impact. Recommendation: As noted above, this will be a community expectation issue. However, if the Town is comfortable the project scale and massing, my only recommendation would be to assure that the metal roofing selected is similar to the subdued color shown on the simulation and not the bright silver shown on the materials sheet. ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION The project is well designed with a lot of thought given to the facilities’ layout and building design. Some features are shown below on the partial east elevation and sketches showing the exterior and interior courtyard scale and character. 110 Wood Road Design Review Comments May 8, 2019 Page 7 Recommendations: I have no recommendations for changes to the building designs. Staff, however, may wish to discuss the materials palette with the applicant. The materials are of high quality, but they are largely, with the exception of the stone veneer, metal and concrete faux simulations of natural materials. In the Town’s Commercial and Residential Design Guidelines, natural materials are strongly encouraged although provisions are made in the Residential Design Guidelines for use of synthetic materials under some circumstances (Guideline 3.8.1: Use high quality materials). Jocelyn, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon ENTRY SKETCH COURTYARD SKETCH This Page Intentionally Left Blank Perkins Eastman Architects DPC PERKINSEASTMAN.COM Boston Charlotte Chicago Costa Mesa Dallas Dubai Guayaquil Los Angeles Mumbai New York Oakland Pittsburgh San Francisco Shanghai Stamford Toronto Washington DC RESPONSE TO TOWN OF LOS GATOS STAFF TECHNICAL REVIEW Department:PLANNING DIVISION Community Development Department Item:110 Wood Road Planned Development Application PD-20-001 Project Name: Los Gatos Meadows Covia Community Property Owner: Covia Communities Applicant:Rockwood Pacific Inc. Description: Requesting approval of a Planned Development for a senior living community on property zoned R:PD. APN 510-47-038. Date of Staff Review Comments: May 22, 2020 (Second Review) Project Planner:Jocelyn Shoopman This letter is the response to the comments submitted to the Town by the consulting architect, Larry L. Cannon in his letter of May 8, 2020. Tree Removal Area of Concern, (page 5) Response: This view on sheet A303 is missing landscape, we have revised this section to include landscaping as part of our resubmission. Recommendation: Request the applicant to provide additional plan and section drawings to clarify the location and scale of both the trees to be retained and any proposed new buffer landscaping. (page 5) Response: We have coordinated with the landscape architect and have revised this view to clarify the location and scale of both the trees to be retained and proposed new buffer landscaping as shown on Sheet A406 as part of the resubmission. Recommendation: As noted above, this will be a community expectation issue. However, if the Town is comfortable the project scale and massing, my only recommendation would be to assure that the metal roofing selected is similar to the subdued color shown on the simulation and not the bright silver shown on the materials sheet. (page 6) Response: As recommended, we have revised the color of the roof on the material sheet A204 as part of the resubmission to the subdued color shown in the visualization. Recommendations:I have no recommendations for changes to the building designs. Staff, however, may wish to discuss the materials palette with the applicant.The materials are of high quality, but they are largely, with the exception of the stone veneer, metal and concrete faux simulations of natural materials. (page 7) Response: Due to building occupancy type and current building code requirements, certain natural materials, especially wood or other combustible materials, are not permitted. Therefore high quality alternatives with similar qualities were selected. These materials were chosen to keep within the spirit of the Town’s Commercial and Residential Design Guidelines as well as to conform to the current building codes. EXHIBIT 10 We believe we have answered all of the recommendations and concerns in the letter of May 8, 2020. Please let us know if any concerns remain. Sincerely, Arch Pelley AIA Associate Principal T: 412 894 8306 E:a.pelley@perkinseastman.com Arborist Report Update Los Gatos Meadows Los Gatos, CA PREPARED FOR Covia 2185 N. California Blvd. Suite 215 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 PREPARED BY: HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 94566 October 12, 2020 EXHIBIT 11 Arborist Report Update Los Gatos Meadows Los Gatos, CA Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Introduction and Overview 1 Tree Assessment Methods 2 Description of Trees 2 Suitability for Preservation 7 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 9 Appraisal of Value 10 Sudden Oak Death 10 Tree Preservation Guidelines 11 List of Tables Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 3 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 9 Exhibits Tree Assessment Plan Tree Assessment Tree Disposition Tree Appraisal Arborist Report Update Los Gatos Meadows Los Gatos, CA Executive Summary Covia is planning to re-develop the Los Gatos Meadows property in Los Gatos, CA. Trees were assessed on June 26 and 27, 2018. The assessment included all trees 4” and greater in diameter, located within and adjacent to the project area. Three hundred seventy-five (375) trees representing 57 species were evaluated (Table 1). For all species combined, trees were in fair (42% of population) to poor (36% of population) condition with 22% of trees in good condition. One off-site tree (#251) was included in the assessment. No street trees had canopies over the project area. The Town of Los Gatos protects all trees 4” and larger on sites being developed (Municipal Code Section 29.10). Certain species of designated sizes are excepted per Section 29.10.0970. Based on this definition, 338 of the original 375 trees were protected. These trees cannot be removed or pruned more than 25% without a permit. Based on my evaluation of the plans: • Two hundred twelve (213) trees will be removed (205 Protected, 8 Large Protected). • One hundred eighteen (118) trees will be preserved (109 Protected, 9 Large Protected) In 2019, selected trees were removed in response to a Wildland Urban Interface fire management review and the resulting Tree Management Plan prepared by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (3/27/19). This Arborist Report incorporates the data on trees removed and responds to a Arborist’s Review letter prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists (July 6, 2020). Forty-four (44) trees were removed and three hundred thirty-one (331) trees remain. The primary impacts of the proposed project to trees were expected to be from re-grading the slopes, reorienting and creating new roads, and re-configuring the buildings. I recommend carefully considering how future landscapes will be used before retaining trees with a low suitability for preservation. Impacts to trees being preserved can be minimized by following the Tree Preservation Guidelines (below). Introduction and Overview Covia is planning to re-develop the Los Gatos Meadows property in Los Gatos, CA. Currently the property is a senior living community with associated landscapes and natural areas. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting was asked to prepare an Arborist Report for the site as part of the application to the City of Los Gatos. This report provides the following information: 1. Assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground. 2. Evaluation of the impacts to trees based on development plans. 3. Appraisal of value of each tree using the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisal methodology. 4. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 2 Tree Assessment Methods Trees were assessed on June 26 and 27, 2018. The assessment included all trees 4” and greater in diameter, located within and adjacent to the project area. Off-site trees with canopies extending over the property line were included in the assessment and viewed from the subject property. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the tree as to species; 2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map; off-site trees were not tagged; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade; for off-site trees diameters were estimated. 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 10%-90% based on a visual inspection from the ground: 90% - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptom of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 70%- Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 50%- Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 30% - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 10% - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects that can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category. Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use areas. Description of Trees Three hundred seventy-five (375) trees representing 57 species were evaluated (Table 1). For all species combined, trees were in fair (42% of population) to poor (36% of population) condition with 22% of trees in good condition. One off-site tree (#251) was included in the assessment, and no street trees had canopies over the project area. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment, and approximate locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits). Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 3 The site was notable for several reasons. The site was on the edge of Los Gatos downtown area where it transitioned into forest. Tree species diversity was high (57 species). Over half of the trees (53%, 7 species) were locally native species generally growing in natural conditions. In addition to the locally native species were: • California species that are not native to the site such as coast redwood, Monterey pine and incense cedar; • Common ornamental trees such as purpleleaf plum, eucalyptus and Italian cypress and, • Less common ornamental trees such as blue blossom, Sitka spruce and white willow. Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees Los Gatos Meadows, Los Gatos, CA Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total Poor (10-30%) Fair (50%) Good (70-90%) Bailey acacia Acacia baileyana 5 - - 5 Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon 4 1 2 7 Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 1 - - 1 Japanese maple Acer palmatum - 1 - 1 Red maple Acer rubrum - - 1 1 California buckeye Aesculus californica - 2 - 2 Red horsechestnut Aesculus x carnea 2 1 1 4 African fern-pine Afrocarpus falcatus 3 - 1 4 Marina madrone Arbutus 'Marina' - - 1 1 Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens - - 1 1 Blue blossom Ceanothus thyrsiflorus 1 - - 1 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara - - 1 1 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 2 - - 2 New Zealand cabbage palm Cordyline australis 1 - - 1 Flowering dogwood Cornus florida - - 1 1 Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens - 1 10 11 Bronze loquat Eriobotrya deflexa 2 1 - 3 Loquat Eriobotrya japonica - - 1 1 Sugar gum Eucalyptus cladocalyx 3 1 - 4 Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus 7 5 - 12 Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 5 1 - 6 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba - 1 - 1 Silk oak Grevillea robusta - 1 - 1 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia - 1 - 1 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia - 1 - 1 California black walnut Juglans hindsii 1 - - 1 Hollywood juniper Juniperus chinensis 'Kaizuka' - 9 2 11 Grecian laurel Laurus nobilis 3 - - 3 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum - 1 - 1 Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua - 1 1 2 Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 4 Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total Poor (10-30%) Fair (50%) Good (70-90%) Crabapple Malus sylvestris 2 5 4 11 Mayten Maytenus boaria 1 - - 1 Bottlebrush Melaleuca citrina - - 1 1 Olive Olea europaea 1 7 - 8 Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis - - 1 1 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 1 1 10 12 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 1 - - 1 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea - 2 - 2 Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 5 1 6 Victorian box Pittosporus undulatum 1 2 - 3 Cherry Prunus avium 1 - - 1 Purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 2 - - 2 Plum Prunus domestica 1 1 - 2 Portugal laurel Prunus lusitanica 1 - - 1 Japanese flowering cherry Prunus serrulata - 1 - 1 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 3 2 7 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 25 40 14 79 Blue oak Quercus douglasii 1 1 - 2 Valley oak Quercus lobata 8 10 6 24 African sumac Rhus lancea 3 1 - 4 White willow Salix alba - - 1 1 Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis 1 - - 1 Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius - 1 - 1 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 2 2 13 17 Windmill palm Trachycarpus fortunei - - 1 1 California bay Umbellularia californica 38 46 5 89 Sawleaf zelkova Zelkova serrata 3 1 - 4 Total 135 158 82 375 The most common species was California bay (89 trees, 24% of population). The bays were in fair (46 trees) to poor (38 trees) condition with five trees in good condition. They varied in development from young (4” trunk diameter) to mature (22, 12” trunk diameter). Twenty-eight (28) California bays had multiple trunks (31%). The single stem trees had an average trunk diameter of 9”. The bays were generally growing in dense stands with oaks in undeveloped natural areas (Photo 1). Seventy-nine (79) coast live oaks were assessed (21% of population). The coast live oaks were in fair condition (40 trees) with 25 trees in poor condition and 14 trees in good condition. They ranged from young (4” trunk diameter) to mature (26, 25, 17” trunk diameter). Thirteen (13) of the coast live oaks had multiple trunks (16%). The single stem trees had an average trunk diameter Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 5 of 15”. Several of the oaks were declining in health. I have provided additional information on Sudden Oak Death which is somewhat of a concern in this area. Twenty-four (24) valley oaks were assessed (6% of population). The valley oaks were in poor (8 trees) to good (6 trees) condition with 10 trees in fair condition. They ranged from relatively young (11” trunk diameter) to mature (37” trunk diameter) with an average trunk diameter of 22”. Valley oaks were growing both in the natural areas and in the planted landscape. Some of the more important trees on the site were valley oaks. Valley oaks #30 and 72 were large trees in good condition growing on the eastern slope. Valley oak #206 was a mature tree in good health growing in the courtyard. Valley oak #350 was in decline and had broken two of the 6 cables installed (Photo 2). Tree #349 was a mature oak preserved in a 15x15’ raised planter at the edge of a courtyard. Seventeen (17) coast redwoods were assessed (5% of population). The redwoods were in good condition (13 trees) with two trees in fair condition and two trees in poor condition. The coast redwoods were predominantly young (average trunk diameter 11”) and ranged from 4” to 40” in trunk diameter. The majority of the young redwoods still had staking which should be removed before it girdles the trees. Twelve (12) Canary Island pines were assessed (3% of population). The pines were in good condition (10 trees) with one tree in fair condition and one in poor condition. They were mature with an average trunk diameter of 23”. Most of the Canary Island pines were located just east of the road that cuts through the lower half of the property. Twelve (12) blue gum eucalyptus trees were assessed (3% of population). The blue gums were in poor (7 trees) to fair (5 trees) condition with no trees in good condition. They were the largest trees assessed with an average trunk diameter of 44”. Blue gum #62 was the largest tree assessed with a trunk diameter of 62”. Blue gums #7-12 had been harshly topped with poorly attached regrowth (Photo 3). Eleven (11) crab apples were assessed (3% of population). The crabapples were in good (4 trees) to poor (2 trees) condition with five trees in fair condition. Crabapples are typically small trees; an average trunk diameter of 10” is relatively mature for the species. Crabapple #203 was an iconic piece of the landscape. Eleven (11) Hollywood junipers were assessed (3% of population). The junipers were in fair condition (9 trees) with two trees in good condition and no trees in poor condition. The junipers had their typical chaotic, bushy form. They were planted in a narrow location high above the walkway providing minimal benefits to the landscape (Photo 4). Eleven (11) Italian cypresses were assessed (3% of population). The cypresses were in good condition (10 trees) with one tree in fair condition. They had the typical dense, narrow crown of their species. The remaining 29% of trees included 48 species. Some particularly notable trees or groups of trees were: • Douglas firs #147-153 had an 18” average trunk diameter and were growing on the southern edge of the property (Photo 5). • Four sawleaf zelkovas were growing in the central courtyard and were declining in health. • Sugar gums #309 and 310 were mature trees in decline with large trunk wounds. • White willow #288 was a large mature single-stemmed tree in good condition growing in the courtyard. • Bailey acacia seed production was impressive along the northern property boundary (Photo 6). Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 6 The Town of Los Gatos protects all trees 4” and larger on sites being developed (Municipal Code Section 29.10). Certain species of designated sizes are excepted per Section 29.10.0970. Based on this definition, 338 of the original 375 trees were protected. Some Protected trees of certain species and sizes are designated Large Protected. Protected trees cannot be removed or pruned more than 25% without a permit. Designations for individual trees are provided in the Tree Assessment (see Exhibits). Photo 1 (upper left) – California bays and native oaks were the dominant species especially across the natural areas within the site. Photo 2 (upper right) – Valley oak #250 was declining and had been over-pruned. Two of the six cables in the tree had broken. Photo 3 (lower left) – Blue gums #7-12 had been topped with poorly attached regrowth. Photo 4 (lower right) – The Hollywood junipers (#197 shown) were growing in raised planter beds next to covered sidewalks. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 7 Suitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or injury if they fail. However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure and death should be allowed to continue. Photo 5 – Douglas firs #147 and 148 were growing near the southern boundary of the site. Photo 6 – Bailey acacias #366-370 were growing near the northern boundary of the property and produced an extreme amount of seed. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 8 Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: • Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. For example, sawleaf zelkova #208 was declining and unlikely to survive regardless of construction impact. • Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. For example, Valley oak #350 had a large decaying cavity and had broken cables. • Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For instance, coast live oaks are more tolerant of root pruning than valley oak. • Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. • Species invasiveness Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database http://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/ lists species identified as being invasive. Los Gatos is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Blackwood acacia, New Zealand cabbage palm, blue gum, glossy privet, olive and purpleleaf plum are listed as limited invasiveness, and Brazilian pepper is listed as moderate invasiveness. Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment in Exhibits, and Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 9 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation Los Gatos Meadows, Los Gatos, CA High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Fifty-three (53) trees had high suitability for preservation. Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Ninety-seven (97) trees had moderate suitability for preservation. Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Two hundred twenty-five (225) trees had low suitability for preservation. Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations In 2019, selected trees were removed in response to a Wildland Urban Interface fire management review and the resulting Tree Management Plan prepared by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (3/27/19). This Arborist Report incorporates the data on trees removed, and responds to a Arborist’s Review letter prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists (July 6, 2020). Forty-four (44) trees were removed and 331 trees remain. The Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree health, condition, and suitability for preservation. I used the Planning Submittal set (10/8/20) created by Gates + Associates and the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (6/30/20) created by Kimley-Horn to estimate impacts to trees. The plans show a nearly complete demolition of the site within between the two roads and additional grading outside of the roads in some areas. The disposition of each tree is shown in Tree Disposition Exhibit. Based on my evaluation of the plans: • Two hundred twelve (213) trees will be removed (205 Protected, 8 Large Protected). • One hundred eighteen (118) trees will be preserved (109 Protected, 9 Large Protected) The primary impacts of the proposed project to trees were expected to be from re-grading the slopes, reorienting and creating new roads, and re-configuring the buildings. Impacts to trees being preserved can be minimized by following the Tree Preservation Guidelines (below). I estimate that 118 trees can be preserved because construction would not be occurring in their area, all of them around the perimeter of the site, and many of these on the east slope of the property downhill of the project area. Of all the trees recommended for preservation, approximately 37% have low suitability for preservation. I generally do not recommend preserving trees with low suitability for preservation in use areas. I consider the trees being preserved to be in non-use areas, but the occupancy rates may increase post construction. If current non-use areas change after development, I recommend carefully considering how future landscapes will be used before retaining trees with a low suitability for preservation. Impacts to trees being preserved can be minimized by following the Tree Preservation Guidelines (below). Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 10 Appraisal of Value The Town of Los Gatos requires establishing the value of all assessed trees. To accomplish this, I used the standard methods found in Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition (published in 2000 by the International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign IL). In addition, I referred to Species Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a publication of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. These two documents outline the methods employed in the tree appraisal. In 2019, the ISA published a new (10th) edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, which revised the methods for estimating tree values using the reproduction cost and specifically the trunk formula technique. For the sake of consistency, I have not updated the estimated the value of the trees in this report to the 10th edition. This report estimates values using the 9th edition, which was the most recently published at the time. The value of landscape trees is based upon four factors: size, species, condition and location. Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54" above grade. The species factor considers the adaptability and appropriateness of the plant in the south bay area. The Species Classification and Group Assignment lists recommended species ratings and evaluations. Condition reflects the health and structural integrity of the individual, as noted in the Tree Assessment. Location considers the site, placement and contribution of the tree in its surrounding landscape. The appraised value of the 375 trees assessed in this report is $991,050. The appraised value of each tree is shown in the Tree Appraisal attachment. The appraised value of the: • 44 trees already removed is $129,650. • 213 trees to be removed is $483,750. • 118 trees to be preserved is $377,650. Sudden Oak Death Sudden Oak Death (SOD) is caused by Phytophthora ramorum, a fungal pathogen (actually a water mold) affecting oaks in the red oak group, including coast live oak. Valley oak, in the white oak group, is not affected. The disease was first recognized in Santa Cruz and Marin counties in the mid 1990’s. Research indicates it was likely introduced through the nursery industry and may have been in the environment for many years before it ‘escaped’ into the forest. The disease requires water to grow and spread and has many host species that are not affected by the disease but play a critical role in its spread. The disease has been shown to move from plant to plant via wind-driven rain, water, plant material and human activities. The disease typically lands on the foliage of a susceptible plant and migrates with water movement onto the trunk. Trunk lesions and foliar dieback ensue, eventually girdling the trunk, but the tree may remain green for several months or even years before it suddenly turns brown (hence the name). Bleeding cankers and dieback are not sufficient to make a positive SOD identification. Lab analysis of plant material is required before the suspected case can be confirmed. There are thousands of confirmed cases of SOD in Santa Clara County (mostly in the forested areas). I did not see any indications of SOD on any trees being preserved, but I consider this a relatively high likelihood of outbreak area. Several precautions are recommended to help limit the possibility of infection. A detailed list of susceptible and host species, management and monitoring guidelines and prophylactic treatments are provided on the California Oak Mortality Task Force website (http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/). Of particular concern in this situation is the combined effect of construction impact and SOD on mature oak trees. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 11 Tree Preservation Guidelines The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts. The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. All tree protection measures to comply with Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Sec.29.10.1005-Protection of Trees During Construction. Tree Protection Zone 1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be identified for each tree to be preserved. The TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree shall be the dripline of the tree. In most cases, groups of trees can be protected collectively. 2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with 2-inch diameter galvanized iron posts driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more than 10-foot spacing, or equivalent as approved by the Town. Tree #75 shall be fenced at the edge of construction. Trees to remain in the sequences of #19-102 and 101-127 can be fenced along the western edge of their collective dripline. All other trees to remain can be protected by the perimeter fencing at their collective driplines at the limit of grading on the northern, eastern, and southern edges of the project. 3. Fences must be installed before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and must remain in place until construction is complete. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the Consulting Arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4. No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Excavation within the dripline of tree #75 shall be approved by and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 5. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 6. Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating: "Warning—Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025". 7. The attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree is prohibited. Design recommendations 1. Any changes to the plans affecting the trees should be reviewed by the consulting arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site plans, improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and demolition plans. 2. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved. This is the TREE PROTECTION ZONE: No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 3. Consider the vertical clearance requirements near trees during design. Avoid designs that would require pruning more than 20% of a tree’s canopy. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 12 4. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading plans, drainage plans, utility plans, and landscape and irrigation plans. 5. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching severs roots larger than 1” in diameter will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 6. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all plans. 7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. 8. Do not lime the subsoil within 50’ of any tree. Lime is toxic to tree roots. 9. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area. Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement. 10. Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in some cases occasional irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees. Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations 1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures. 2. Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or TREE PROTECTION ZONE around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 3. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied back and protected from damage. 4. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattling around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks. 5. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1” and larger in diameter, raise canopies as needed for construction activities. a. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). b. The Consulting Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition. c. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied back and protected from damage. d. While in the tree the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify any defects, weak branch and trunk attachments and decay not visible from the ground. Any additional work needed to mitigate defects shall be reported to the property owner. 6. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) or located within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE of tree(s) to remain shall be removed by a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and not by the demolition contractor. The Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker shall remove the trees in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Stumps shall be ground below grade. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 13 7. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall away from TREE PROTECTION ZONE and avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the Consulting Arborist may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees, or grinding the stump below ground. 8. All down brush and trees shall be removed from the TREE PROTECTION ZONE either by hand, or with equipment sitting outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding across the ground. Brush shall be chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE 9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall use equipment that will minimize damage to trees above and below ground, and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Tie back branches and wrap trunks with protective materials to protect from injury as directed by the Project arborist. The Project arborist shall be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity. 10. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests. Recommendations for tree protection during construction 1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist. The Consulting arborist shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project Consulting Arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. 2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved. 3. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist. 4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION ZONE at all times. 5. Construction activities within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree are prohibited, unless approved by the Director, per Sec.10.29.1005. 6. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Project Arborist. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and smooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2” in diameter should be avoided. 7. If roots 2” and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, the Project Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment. 8. Any brush clearing required within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be accomplished with hand-operated equipment. 9. All down brush and trees shall be removed from the TREE PROTECTION ZONE either by hand, or with equipment sitting outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding across the ground. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 14 10. Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of, and be supervised by, the Project Arborist. 11. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently. 12. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 13. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3 to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 30”. 14. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. The Director and Consulting Arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. 15. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree are prohibited. 16. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel. 17. Trees that accumulate a sufficient quantity of dust on their leaves, limbs and trunk as judged by the Consulting Arborist shall be spray-washed at the direction of the Project Arborist. Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 15 Maintenance of impacted trees Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety. Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner. Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority. If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Ryan Gilpin, M.S. Certified Arborist #WE-10268A Pam Nagle Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester Certified Arborist #WE-9617A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Arborist Report Update, Los Gatos Meadows HortScience | Bartlett Consulting October 12, 2020 Page 16 Exhibits Tree Assessment Plan Tree Assessment Tree Disposition Tree Appraisal Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationComments1 Coast redwood 40 Protected 50% Moderate Slight sweep in lower trunk; poor color; water stressed.2 California bay 8,8,7 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy form; decay in stem; crown one sided west.3 California bay 6,5 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy form; crown one sided east; covered in ivy.4 Valley oak 17 Protected 50% Moderate Leaning south; crown one sided west; covered in ivy and another vine.5 Valley oak 14 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; small crown; crown one sided south.6 Coast live oak 23 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet with seam; dense crown; pruning wound at 5 feet; trunk wound at 2 feet; both healed.7 Blue gum 40 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; yellow jacket at base.8 Blue gum 38 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth.9 Blue gum 20,7 Exception 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; old retaining wall at base; decay in base.10 Blue gum 54 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; base at old retaining wall.11 Blue gum 28 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet with dead main stem decaying into attachment; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; base at old retaining wall.12 Blue gum 39 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; topped at 20 feet; tall, narrow poorly attached regrowth; base at old retaining wall; curb bumps out around base.13 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% High Strong central leader; crown one sided east; minor dieback.Tree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update14 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Low Crook in trunk at 3 feet; crown one sided south; dense crown; supporting retaining wall.15 California bay 10 Protected 50% Moderate Lower trunk sweeps east; holding up retaining wall; minor dieback.16 California bay 10 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow upright form; sinuous trunk; interior tree.17 California bay 9,9 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from base with decay running up inside of trunks; narrow upright form; small crown.18 California bay 5 Protected 10% Low Main stem dead.19 California bay 13,8 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; one stem bowed east; larger stem upright, narrow form.20 California bay 11 Protected 30% Low Codom in upper crown; thin crown; narrow form.21 California bay 13 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise in upper crown; poor form and structure; dense chaotic crown.22 California buckeye 9 Protected 50% Moderate Leans heavily east; suppressed by neighboring trees.23 California bay 7 Protected 30% Low Main stem bowed heavily east with vertical epicormic stems.24 California bay 17,16 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from base; wide spreading crown; dominant tree.25 California bay 11 Protected 30% Low Narrow form; sinuous trunk; cavity in base.26 California bay 12 Protected 50% Low Leaning heavily east; codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; small dense crown.27 California bay 7 Protected 10% Low Leaning east, closer to horizontal than vertical; epicormic sprouts.28 California bay 8 Protected 10% Low Main stem totally hollow.29 California bay 12,7,6 Protected 10% Low Stump sprout; can see through base.30 Valley oak 34 Large Protected70% High Codominant trunks arise from 25 feet; minor dieback; dominant tree; crown above building.31 California bay 16 Protected 50% Low Leaning east; narrow upright form cabled wrapped around tree; 8 inch trunk wound on south side. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update32 California bay 8 Protected 50% Low Leaning east; narrow upright form; edge tree.33 California bay 14,6 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; leaning east; wrapped around coast live oak.34 California bay 8 Protected 30% Low Bowed heavily east; epicormic growing vertically.35 California bay 11,10,7 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; sinuous trunks; minor dieback.36 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown one sided east; edge tree.37 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Leaning heavily east; topped; dense epicormic growth.38 Blue oak 19 Protected 30% Low Sinuous trunk; low live crown ratio; thin, small crown; bark peeling off base.39 Coast live oak 27 Large Protected50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; leaning east; swollen, bleeding base.40 Valley oak 17 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet with dead stem; other stem bowed over other trees, difficult to see.41 California bay 8,5,4 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy, interior tree.42 California bay 5 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light.43 Valley oak 14 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 30 feet; difficult to see crown above other canopy.44 Coast live oak 22 Protected 50% Low Lost codominant trunks arise from 5 feet decaying into trunk; dense wide spreading crown.45 California bay 6,5 Protected 50% Low Bushy interior tree.46 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light.47 Valley oak 17,13 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet; trunks bow away form each other; wide spreading crown, difficult to see.48 California bay 22,12 Protected 10% Low Dead stump resprouting.49 California bay 7 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light; swollen base.50 California bay 7 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light; swollen base. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update51 California bay 7 Protected 30% Low Bowed horizontal to east; epicormic growing vertical.52 California bay 9 Protected 30% Low Bowed horizontal to east; epicormic growing vertical; topped at property line.53 California bay 10 Protected 50% Low Narrow upright form; cavities at base; edge tree.54 California bay 13,9 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; swollen base; leaning east; headed at property line.55 California bay 6,5,5,4 Protected 50% Low Bushy interior tree bowed to east.56 California bay 7 Protected 30% Low Bowed horizontal to east; epicormic growing vertical; topped at property line.57 California bay 9,8 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from base; sinuous trunks; interior tree.58 California bay 12 Protected 30% Low Cavities in base; bowed horizontal east; vertical epicormic sprouting.59 Coast live oak 27,16 Large Protected50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; all stems bowed east; dense chaotic crown; base at 2 bay trees.60 California bay 14 Protected 10% Low Cavities in base; broken top with epicormic resprouting.61 California bay 15 Protected 30% Low Bowed to east; epicormic growing vertical.62 California bay 13 Protected 30% Low Bowed to east; epicormic growing vertical; headed at property line.63 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light.64 California bay 10,9 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from base; trunk sweeping east; edge tree; headed at property line.65 California bay 9 Protected 30% Low Bowed horizontally to east; epicormic growing vertical.66 California bay 11 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 20 feet where it perfectly props coast live oak stem.67 Olive 5,4,3,2 Exception 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; volunteer; thin crown; interior tree.68 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Young interior tree searching for light. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update69 California bay 7 Protected 30% Low Narrow form; thin crown; dieback.70 Coast live oak 6 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; dense crown, one sided east.71 California bay 17,8 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; swollen base; dense chaotic crown.72 Valley oak 33 Large Protected70% High Dominant tree; codominant trunks arise from 6 feet with seam; wide spreading crown.73 Olive 5 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; narrow crown.74 Coast live oak 6 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; dense crown, one sided south.75 Coast live oak 30 Large Protected50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet crown one sided south; dense crown; minor dieback.76 Monterey pine 15 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; thin crown; gray blue color.77 Monterey pine 17 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; thin crown; gray blue color.78 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% High Good young tree; remove staking.79 Coast redwood 13 Protected 90% High Good form and structure; dense crown.80 Blue oak 12 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; thin crown; upright form.81 Coast redwood 5 Protected 90% High Good young tree; remove staking.82 Coast redwood 7 Protected 30% Low Dead top.83 Monterey pine 14 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; thin crown; gray blue color.84 Bigleaf maple 9 Protected 30% Low 2 foot basal wound with decay; good form and structure; dense crown.85 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% High Good young tree; remove staking.86 Valley oak 19 Protected 70% Moderate Dominant tree; codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; crown one sided east.87 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% High Good form and structure; dense crown.88 Monterey pine 8 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; leaning south; thin crown; gray blue color. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update89 Monterey pine 8 Protected 50% Moderate Strong central leader; crown one sided south; thin crown.90 Blackwood acacia 10,6 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; invasive.91 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; invasive.92 Blackwood acacia 8,7,4 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; invasive.93 Blackwood acacia 5,5,5,4 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; invasive.94 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Huge basal cavity; lost half of tree.95 California bay 16 Protected 30% Low Lost top; epicormic resprouting; dieback.96 California bay 5 Protected 10% Low Base decayed and failed; leaning on neighboring tree.97 California bay 10,6,5,4,4 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; base at valley oak; bushy, wrapping around valley oak.98 Valley oak 17,16 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; surrounded by bays; crown one sided south; dieback throughout crown.99 California bay 7,6,6,5 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; base at valley oak; bushy, wrapping around valley oak.100 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Base at valley oak; bushy, wrapping around valley oak.101 California bay 5 Protected 70% High Good young tree.102 California bay 5,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2Protected 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; short wide spreading bushy form.103 Coast redwood 9 Protected 50% Moderate Lost top; remove staking.104 Coast redwood 8 Protected 90% High Good young tree.105 Coast redwood 9 Protected 90% High Good young tree.106 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% High Good young tree.107 Coast redwood 8 Protected 90% High Good young tree.108 Coast redwood 4 Protected 90% High Good young tree; remove staking.109 Grecian laurel 10,9,9 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; upright form; thin crown; previously topped. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update110 Grecian laurel 6,6,5,5,4,3,3,2Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; upright form; thin crown; previously topped.111 Grecian laurel 5,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; upright form; thin crown; previously topped.112 Olive 6 Exception 50% Moderate Sinuous trunk; small crown; interior tree; healing trunk wound.113 Olive 12,7 Exception 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; sinuous trunk; dieback; interior tree; healing trunk wound.114 Olive 10,6,5,4,3,2,2,2Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; sinuous trunk; dieback; interior tree.115 Valley oak 21 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet; chaotic form; thin crown; weeping.116 Blue gum 47,32,17 Large Protected50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 2 feet; dominant tree; history of branch failure; growing on slope; previously topped.117 Bronze loquat 6 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; half of crown dead.118 Coast live oak 19,15 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from base; dense crown; growing on slope.119 Coast live oak 19 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet with seam; crown bowed south; dense crown.120 Valley oak 14 Protected 50% Moderate Crook in trunk at 5 feet; crown one sided east.121 Valley oak 19 Protected 50% Low Dominant tree; dieback to 5 inches; declining.122 Coast live oak 11 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet with wide attachment; chaotic form.123 Olive 7,7,5,4,4,3 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 1 foot; dense crown; 3 foot long trunk wound.124 Coast live oak 25 Large Protected10% Low Mostly dead.125 Coast redwood 19 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update126 Coast live oak 7,7 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.127 Coast live oak 8 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.128 Canary Island pine 28 Protected 70% Moderate Strong central leader; heavy sap flow; difficult to see top.129 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet with seam; bowed south, on slope.130 Canary Island pine 23 Protected 70% High Strong central leader; difficult to see top.131 Canary Island pine 26 Protected 30% Low Sinuous trunk difficult to see top.132 Coast redwood 7 Protected 90% Moderate Good young tree; growing into pines crown.133 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; difficult to see top.134 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet; dense crown; minor dieback.135 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise in upper crown; dense crown; difficult to see top.136 Canary Island pine 23 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; difficult to see top; base 4 inches from curb.137 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; difficult to see top.138 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; difficult to see top; prune drooping branch.139 Bronze loquat 5,3,3,3 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 2 feet; growing in dense bushes.140 Bronze loquat 6,4,2 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; declining141 Crabapple 8 Exception 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; wide spreading crown.142 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; wide spreading crown; base covered in ivy.143 Coast live oak 16 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; wide spreading crown; base covered in ivy.144 Canary Island pine 18 Protected 50% Moderate Lost top; dense crown; base in ivy.145 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 70% High Good form and structure; dense crown; base in ivy. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update146 Canary Island pine 26 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise in upper crown; dense crown; base in ivy.147 Douglas fir 18 Protected 70% Moderate Good form and structure; minor dieback; epicormic growth.148 Douglas fir 29 Protected 70% Moderate Good form and structure; dominant tree; root collar buried.149 Hollywood juniper 9,5 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; low branching dorm; dense crown.150 Douglas fir 15 Protected 50% Moderate Good form and structure; minor dieback; thin crown.151 Douglas fir 15 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet where lost top; narrow form; dense crown.152 Douglas fir 18 Protected 50% Low Good form and structure; minor dieback; lost top.153 Douglas fir 14 Protected 50% Moderate Good form and structure; minor dieback; thin crown.154 Valley oak 11 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet with seam; crown one sided south.155 Silk oak 11 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 25 feet; dense crown.156 Coast live oak 17 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown; buried root collar.157 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet with seam; very non circular trunk; extensive dieback throughout crown.158 Douglas fir 22 Protected 30% Low Topped at 25 feet; extensive surface roots.159 Coast live oak 21 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; hose embedded in trunk at 6 feet; crown one sided west.160 Valley oak 21 Protected 50% Moderate Trunk bows east; minor dieback.161 Valley oak 16 Protected 30% Low Trunk bows horizontal to north; vertical branch becomes main stem; dieback throughout crown.162 Coast live oak 20 Protected 50% Moderate Leaning west; dense crown.163 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% High Typical upright form; planted at edge of retaining wall.164 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% High Typical upright form; planted at edge of retaining wall. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update165 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% High Typical upright form; planted at edge of retaining wall.166 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% High Typical upright form; planted at edge of retaining wall.167 Monterey pine 4 Protected 90% High Good young tree.168 Red horsechestnut 5,2 Protected 90% High Good young tree; prune codominant.169 Coast live oak 7 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; crown one sided west over parking; dieback.170 California bay 17,10,6 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; base totally hollow; wide spreading crown.171 California bay 7,7,7,6,5,5,5,5Protected 30% Low Stump sprout; decaying base.172 California bay 8,5,5,4 Protected 30% Low Stump sprout; decaying base.173 California bay 16 Protected 50% Moderate Upright form; thin crown; dieback.174 Coast live oak 8 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; dense crown one sided east.175 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet with bleeding seam; poor form and structure; dense crown one sided east.176 Sugar gum 17,16 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; sinuous trunk; dense crown.177 Sugar gum 12,11,11,11Protected 30% Low Stump sprout; decaying base; long levers arms.178 Deodar cedar 6 Protected 90% High Good young tree.179 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown; dieback throughout crown.180 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% High Typical upright form.181 Sitka spruce 6 Protected 70% High Dense narrow weeping form; large surface roots.182 Italian stone pine 22 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; crown one sided east over building; weeping.183 Italian stone pine 19 Protected 50% Moderate Crown one sided east over building; weeping. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update184 Red ironbark 13 Exception 10% Low Mostly dead.185 Incense cedar 11 Protected 90% High Good form and structure; dense crown.186 Italian cypress 5 Protected 50% Moderate Typical upright form; grown around tie.187 Italian cypress 5 Protected 90% High Typical upright form.188 Blackwood acacia 4 Exception 70% Low Young invasive volunteer.189 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 15 with awkward branching angles; dense flat topped crown.190 Red ironbark 13 Exception 10% Low Mostly dead.191 Blackwood acacia 17 Exception 50% Low Sinuous trunk; dense crown one sided north over building; invasive.192 Red ironbark 14 Exception 10% Low Mostly dead.193 Hollywood juniper 17 Protected 70% High Typical chaotic form; dense crown.194 Hollywood juniper 5,5,4,3,3,3 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; decay at base.195 Hollywood juniper 11,7 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 1 foot from building; crown one sided east.196 Blue blossom 5,4,4 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 1 foot with trunk wound; topped harshly.197 Hollywood juniper 18 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 1 foot from building; crown one sided east.198 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 3 foot from building; crown one sided east.199 Hollywood juniper 11 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 6 foot from building; crown one sided south.200 Hollywood juniper 10 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 2 foot from building; crown one sided north.201 Hollywood juniper 12 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 2 foot from building; crown one sided north. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update202 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 1 foot from building; crown one sided east.203 Crabapple 4,3 Exception 70% High Good young tree, iconic part of landscape.204 Sawleaf zelkova 23 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with narrow attachment; wide spreading crown; northern half of tree declining; dieback.205 Sawleaf zelkova 22 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with narrow attachment; wide spreading crown; tree declining; dieback.206 Valley oak 24 Large Protected70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; growing in small space; vase shaped crown; minor dieback.207 Sawleaf zelkova 19 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with narrow attachment; wide spreading crown; tree declining; dieback.208 Sawleaf zelkova 18 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with narrow attachment; wide spreading crown; tree declining; dieback.209 Mayten 7 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; thin crown; yellow foliage; declining.210 Italian cypress 14 Protected 70% Moderate Typical upright form.211 Italian cypress 14 Protected 70% Low Typical upright form; growing into buildings eve.212 Crabapple 12 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; crown one sided north.213 Crabapple 11 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; crown one sided north.214 Crabapple 11 Exception 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet with cavity; crown one sided north.215 Coast live oak 22,22 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with seam; dense wide spreading crown; 2 cables in tree; significant growth around equipment.216 California bay 10 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; dense crown; upright form. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update217 Brazilian pepper 5 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; bushy form; topped at 15 feet; base at deck.218 Loquat 6 Protected 70% Moderate Narrow form; base 1 foot from retaining wall; dense crown.219 Blue gum 36 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow form dense bushy growth; difficult to see upper crown.220 Blue gum 62 Large Protected50% Moderate Dense bushy growth; difficult to see upper crown.221 Blue gum 36 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow form dense bushy growth; difficult to see upper crown; minor dieback.222 African fern-pine 5 Protected 70% Moderate Good young tree; in narrow planting location.223 California bay 13 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; dense crown; upright form; hole at base.224 California bay 13,13 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet; dense crown; upright form.225 Coast live oak 20 Protected 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; crown one sided west; dense crown.226 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; thin crown; dieback.227 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; thin crown; dieback.228 Red horsechestnut 5 Protected 50% Moderate Strong central leader; thin crown.229 Coast live oak 23 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; crown one sided east; dense crown.230 Red ironbark 22 Exception 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; poor form and structure; history of branch failure; dead branches.231 Red ironbark 5,5,5,5,4 Exception 30% Low Stump sprout; long vertical stems from removed base.232 Purpleleaf plum 4 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 4 feet; thin small crown; low vigor; 4 foot long trunk wound.233 Red ironbark 19 Exception 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; thin crown; wide spreading crown. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update234 Coast live oak 10,9 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot with seam; twig dieback throughout dense crown.235 Toyon 6,5,4,4 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy.236 California bay 12 Protected 50% Low Leaning east; codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; one stem vertical one horizontal.237 California bay 11 Protected 50% Moderate Crook in trunk at 4 feet; narrow upright form.238 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; dense crown one sided south; under utility lines; at edge of slope.239 Olive 10,5,5 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; dense crown one sided north.240 Coast live oak 28 Large Protected50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; dead branch; pruned away from utility lines; dense two dimensional crown; exposed roots.241 California bay 6 Protected 50% Low Young tree with exposed roots from eroding slope.242 California bay 5 Protected 50% Low Young tree with exposed roots from eroding slope.243 Coast live oak 27 Large Protected10% Low Mostly dead.244 Valley oak 15 Protected 30% Low Small crown pruned away from utilities; plastic attached to trunk to keep sprouts from growing towards utilities?245 Coast live oak 4,4,4,3,3,2,2,2Protected 30% Low Decaying stump sprout.246 Valley oak 26 Large Protected50% Low Leaning east over building; minor dieback; pruned away from; utilities.247 Coast live oak 16 Protected 50% Low Trunk embedded in fence; multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown one sided east.248 Coast live oak 6,5,3 Protected 30% Low Decaying stump sprout.249 Victorian box 5,4,4,4,4,3,2Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy; decaying stem at attachment. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update250 Blue gum 50 Large Protected30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; heading cuts; pruned harshly; dead branch decaying into branch; poorly attached regrowth.251 Valley oak 28 Large Protected70% High Off-site; base 15 feet from fence; overhangs fence by 20 feet.252 Crabapple 5 Exception 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; crown one sided east; suppressed.253 Plum 6,5,3 Exception 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; crown one sided east; suppressed.254 Crabapple 7 Exception 30% Low Swollen base with cavity; thin two dimensional crown.255 Crabapple 11 Exception 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; poorly pruned; dense wide spreading crown.256 Bottlebrush 4,4 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot; trunks wrapping; dense crown; close to building.257 Aleppo pine 6 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; thin crown.258 Victorian box 4,3 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from base; trunk wound; sweep at base; small crown.259 Victorian box 6,5,2,2 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; basal sprouts; base in ivy; bushy.260 Blue gum 52 Large Protected50% Low Property line tree; no tag; cannot see base; lower 30 feet covered in ivy.261 Jacaranda 7 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; sinuous trunk; attractive flowers.262 Portugal laurel 6,5,4,4,4 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; bushy; declining; dieback.263 Japanese flowering cherry10 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 4 feet; dieback; declining.264 Coast live oak 20 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; dense crown.265 Cherry 12 Exception 30% Low Poorly attached codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; suppressed crown one sided north. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update266 California black walnut8 Protected 30% Low Half dead.267 Coast live oak 7 Protected 50% Low Sinuous trunk; leaning south over path; small crown.268 California bay 5 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; interior tree; narrow upright form.269 African sumac 12 Protected 10% Low Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet with 6 foot long trunk wound; poor form and structure; crown bowed south.270 African sumac 9,9 Protected 10% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with 6 foot long trunk wound; poor form and structure; crown bowed south.271 Coast live oak 11 Protected 50% Low Leaning north over neighboring property.272 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; partially covered in ivy; interior tree.273 African sumac 13,11 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with 6 foot dead branch; crown bowed south.274 Glossy privet 8,5 Exception 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base; partially covered in ivy; dense crown.275 African sumac 9,7 Protected 10% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with 6 foot long trunk wound; crown bowed south.276 Crabapple 13 Exception 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; swollen base; dense crown.277 Crabapple 13 Exception 70% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; base in ivy; dense crown.278 California bay 6,5 Protected 70% Moderate Base covered in ivy; codominant trunks arise from base; dense crown.279 Flowering dogwood 9,4 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; chaotic structure; interior tree.280 Coast live oak 12,10 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from base; interior tree; dieback; base covered in ivy.281 California bay 6,4,3,2 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from base; base in ivy; suppressed to north. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update282 Coast live oak 15 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; dense vase shaped crown.283 Coast live oak 9 Protected 50% Low Covered in ivy; suppressed south.284 Windmill palm Exception 90% Moderate 9 feet brown trunk height; growing in small space.285 African fern-pine 4 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; bent top; planted against wall.286 Hollywood juniper 12,6,5 Protected 50% Low Typical chaotic form; dense crown; base 4 foot from building; crown one sided north.287 Red maple 12 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; dense, spreading crown.288 White willow 24 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown; basal sprout; branch headed.289 Valley oak 28 Large Protected30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; narrow upright form; dieback; 12 inch cavity decaying into trunk.290 Sweetgum 15 Protected 70% High Multiple trunks arise in upper crown; dense crown; slightly sinuous trunk; minor dieback.291 Sweetgum 20 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 4 feet with bulge; dense crown; slightly sinuous trunk; minor dieback.292 Coast live oak 15 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; declining; extensive dieback.293 Ginkgo 5 Protected 50% Moderate Competing with bush; narrow upright form.294 Coast live oak 19 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; dead branch over road; dieback.295 California bay 6 Protected 30% Low Bowed east; covered in ivy.296 Coast live oak 26,25,17 Large Protected50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; wide spreading crown; reduced at perimeter.297 Arroyo willow 18,16 Protected 30% Low Partial failure; dense bushy crown.298 Coast live oak 18 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; crack and cavity in lowest branch; dense crown one sided east.299 African fern-pine 8 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; crown touching building. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update300 African fern-pine 8 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; crown touching building; 8 inch trunk wound.301 Japanese maple 5 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; narrow crown; growing in small space.302 Crabapple 9 Exception 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; cavity with decay at 5 feet.303 Coast live oak 19 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet with seam; dense chaotic crown; headed back on east.304 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 15; narrow upright form; crown one sided east.305 Coast live oak 5 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 4 feet; poor form and structure; suppressed.306 Coast live oak 9 Protected 30% Low Bowed east to horizontal; suppressed.307 Coast live oak 4 Protected 30% Low Small; stunted; suppressed; lost main stem.308 Coast live oak 12 Protected 10% Low Leaning heavily on eucalyptus; declining; dieback.309 Sugar gum 33 Protected 30% Low Dead main stem; 20 foot long trunk wound.310 Sugar gum 33 Protected 30% Low Dead codominant at 30 foot; trunk wound spreading down from there.311 Coast live oak 8 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 4 feet; crown one sided west; narrow form; interior tree.312 Coast live oak 12 Protected 50% Low Leaning west; crown one sided west; dense crown.313 Coast live oak 17 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunk removed at 6 feet; upright form; thin crown; dieback.314 California bay 18,14 Protected 70% High Codominant trunks arise from base; dense crown; growing in ivy.315 California bay 9 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow upright form; leans west; dense crown.316 California bay 11 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow upright form; leans west; dense crown. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update317 Valley oak 18 Protected 30% Low Extremely sinuous trunk; low live crown ratio; difficult to see crown.318 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; intertwined with valley oak; bushy.319 California bay 9,6,5 Protected 50% Moderate Multiple trunks arise from base; base in ivy; leans west; dense crown.320 California bay 9 Protected 50% Low Base in ivy; sinuous trunk crown one sided north.321 Coast live oak 14 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet with seam; narrow crown; leaning heavily east.322 California bay 19 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; swollen base; yellow jacket nest at base.323 Coast live oak 10 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; bushy growth; leaning east.324 Valley oak 13 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; base flipped over root; small crown.325 Coast live oak 8 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; small stunted.326 Coast live oak 13 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; small crown; leaning east.327 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Crook in trunk at 20 feet; dense, narrow crown; decay at base.328 California bay 12 Protected 30% Low Multiple trunks arise from 20 feet; dense, narrow crown; decay at base.329 Coast live oak 8 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; small stunted; leaning east; tangled with 330.330 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Mostly dead; leaning east; tangled with 329.331 Coast live oak 17,14 Protected 70% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; base in ivy; dense crown.332 Purpleleaf plum 8 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; 1/4 dead, dieback.333 Coast live oak 27 Protected 10% Low Only epicormic growth; cabled with no tension. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update334 California bay 12,11 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot; swollen base; poor form and structure; basal decay.335 Coast live oak 10 Protected 30% Low Bowed north to horizontal; suppressed.336 California bay 10 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise in upper crown; dense crown; dieback.337 Coast live oak 22,10 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 2 feet with unusual swelling; declining; cavities in all branches.338 California bay 11 Protected 50% Moderate Narrow upright form; top bowed east; dense crown.339 Coast live oak 15 Protected 50% Low Narrow upright form; epicormic growth; declining.340 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 70% Low Invasive volunteer; bushy upright form.341 California bay 12 Protected 50% Low Narrow upright form; sinuous trunk; dieback.342 California bay 12 Protected 50% Low Narrow upright form; sinuous trunk; dieback.343 Coast live oak 14 Protected 50% Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 25 feet; top bowed east; dead branch.344 Coast live oak 18 Protected 70% Moderate Upright form; crown one sided east; dense crown.345 Coast live oak 8 Protected 10% Low Most of tree removed.346 Olive 9,7 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot; crown bowed east; two 4 foot long trunk wounds.347 Coast live oak 5 Protected 30% Low Small stunted tree; small crown.348 Marina madrone 14 Protected 90% High Nice tree; 5 feet from building.349 Valley oak 34 Large Protected30% Low In 15x15 raised planter; declining; cabled; pruned harshly.350 Valley oak 37 Large Protected50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet with 2 foot bleeding decaying cavity; thin crown; over pruned; 4 cables plus 2 failed to.351 Coast live oak 9 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet with wide attachment; dense crown one sided south.352 Coast live oak 10 Protected 30% Low Codom poor form and structure; crown one sided west. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update353 Coast live oak 13 Protected 50% Moderate Bowed slightly south; dense crown; growing in ivy.354 New Zealand cabbage palm5 Exception 30% Low Poor form and structure; declining.355 Hackberry 6 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.356 Hackberry 9 Protected 30% Low Half dead.357 Italian cypress 6 Protected 90% Moderate Typical narrow form; growing in very small curb cutout.358 Italian cypress 8 Protected 90% Moderate Typical narrow form; growing in very small curb cutout.359 California bay 10 Protected 30% Low Upright form; bushy crown; dieback; declining; yellow jacket nest at base.360 California bay 9 Protected 50% Low Sweep in lower trunk; dense crown; upright form.361 California bay 8 Protected 30% Low Narrow upright form; bowed east over road; dieback; dead branches.362 California buckeye 9 Protected 50% Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; bowed east towards road; dense crown.363 Coast live oak 5,4 Protected 10% Low Mostly dead.364 Coast live oak 4 Protected 50% Low Small, stunted; searching for light; neighboring trees recently removed.365 California bay 4 Protected 50% Low Small stunted; searching for light; neighboring trees recently removed.366 Bailey acacia 5 Protected 10% Low Failed; topped.367 Bailey acacia 7 Protected 30% Low Topped; dead branches and decay.368 Bailey acacia 5 Protected 30% Low Topped; dead branches and decay.369 Bailey acacia 7,7,7,6 Protected 30% Low Poor form and structure; multiple trunks arise from base with poorly attached connections.370 Bailey acacia 10 Protected 30% Low Most of base removed; one stem remaining leaning heavily north.371 Plum 5,4 Protected 30% Low Codominant trunks arise from 3 feet; bowed heavily east. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100%Suitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentLos Gatos MeadowsLos Gatos, CAJuly 2020 update372 Coast live oak 9,8 Protected 50% Low Codominant trunks arise from 1 foot; partially covered in ivy; small crown; interior tree.373 California bay 8 Protected 30% Low Completely covered in ivy.374 Coast redwood 10 Protected 90% High Good young tree.375 Coast redwood 14 Protected 90% High Good form and structure; dense crown. Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) 1Coast redwood 40Protected 50%Preserve Outside of grading ~302 California bay 8,8,7Protected 50%Preserve Outside of grading ~303 California bay 6,5Protected 30%Preserve Outside of grading ~304 Valley oak 17Protected 50%Preserve Outside of grading ~305 Valley oak 14Protected 30%Remove Grading ~206Coast live oak 23Protected 70%Preserve Outside of grading ~307Blue gum 40Protected 30%Remove Road ~308Blue gum 38Protected 30%Remove Road ~309Blue gum 20,7Exception 30%Remove Road ~2010 Blue gum 54Protected 30%Remove Road ~5011 Blue gum 28Protected 30%Remove Road ~3012 Blue gum 39Protected 30%Remove Road ~3013 Canary Island pine 21Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~3014 Coast live oak 15Protected 50%Remove Road ~2015 California bay 10Protected 50%Remove Road ~2016 California bay 10Protected 50%Remove Grading ~2017 California bay 9,9Protected 30%Remove Grading ~2018 California bay 5Protected 10%Remove Grading ~2019 California bay 13,8Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3020 California bay 11Protected 30%Remove Grading ~2021 California bay 13Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3022 California buckeye 9Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3023 California bay 7Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~5024 California bay 17,16Protected 70%Preserve Not developing slope ~5025 California bay 11Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2026 California bay 12Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2027 California bay 7Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~20Tree Disposition Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition28 California bay 8Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~2029 California bay 12,7,6Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~5030 Valley oak 34Large Protected 70%Preserve Not developing slope ~6031 California bay 16Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3032 California bay 8Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2033 California bay 14,6Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2034 California bay 8Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2035 California bay 11,10,7Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3036 Coast live oak 19Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3037 California bay 10Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2038 Blue oak 19Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2039 Coast live oak 27Large Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3040 Valley oak 17Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2041 California bay 8,5,4Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2042 California bay 5Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2043 Valley oak 14Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3044 Coast live oak 22Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~5045 California bay 6,5Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2046 California bay 6Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2047 Valley oak 17,13Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~5048 California bay 22,12Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~5049 California bay 7Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2050 California bay 7Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2051 California bay 7Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3052 California bay 9Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3053 California bay 10Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2054 California bay 13,9Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~30 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition55 California bay 6,5,5,4Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3056 California bay 7Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3057 California bay 9,8Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3058 California bay 12Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3059 Coast live oak 27,16Large Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~6060 California bay 14Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~2061 California bay 15Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3062 California bay 13Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3063 California bay 6Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2064 California bay 10,9Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3065 California bay 9Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3066 California bay 11Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2067 Olive 5,4,3,2Exception 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2068 California bay 6Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2069 California bay 7Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2070 Coast live oak 6Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2071 California bay 17,8Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3072 Valley oak 33Large Protected 70%Preserve Not developing slope ~6073 Olive 5Exception 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~1074 Coast live oak 6Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~2075 Coast live oak 30Large Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~5076 Monterey pine 15Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2077 Monterey pine 17Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2078 Coast redwood 7Protected 90%Remove Road ~1079 Coast redwood 13Protected 90%Remove Grading ~2080 Blue oak 12Protected 50%Remove Road ~2081 Coast redwood 5Protected 90%Remove Grading ~10 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition82 Coast redwood 7Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2083 Monterey pine 14Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2084 Bigleaf maple 9Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3085 Coast redwood 7Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~1086 Valley oak 19Protected 70%Preserve Not developing slope ~5087 Coast redwood 10Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~2088 Monterey pine 8Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2089 Monterey pine 8Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2090 Blackwood acacia 10,6Exception 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2091 Blackwood acacia 5Exception 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2092 Blackwood acacia 8,7,4Exception 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2093 Blackwood acacia 5,5,5,4Exception 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~2094 California bay 10Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~2095 California bay 16Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~3096 California bay 5Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~1097 California bay 10,6,5 4 4Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~3098 Valley oak 17,16Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~5099 California bay 7,6,6,5Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~30100 California bay 6Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20101 California bay 5Protected 70%Preserve Not developing slope ~20102 California bay 5,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2Protected 70%Preserve Not developing slope ~50103 Coast redwood 9Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20104 Coast redwood 8Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~20105 Coast redwood 9Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~20106 Coast redwood 10Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~20107 Coast redwood 8Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~20108 Coast redwood 4Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~10 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition109 Grecian laurel 10,9,9Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~20110 Grecian laurel 6,6,5,5,4,3,3,2Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~20111 Grecian laurel 5,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~20112 Olive 6Exception 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~10113 Olive 12,7Exception 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20114 Olive 10,6,5,4,3,2,2,2Exception 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20115 Valley oak 21Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~30116 Blue gum 47,32,17Large Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~60117 Bronze loquat 6Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~20118 Coast live oak 19,15Protected 70%Preserve Not developing slope ~50119 Coast live oak 19Protected 70%Preserve Not developing slope ~50120 Valley oak 14Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~30121 Valley oak 19Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~30122 Coast live oak 11Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20123 Olive 7,7,5,4,4,3Exception 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20124 Coast live oak 25Large Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~30125 Coast redwood 19Protected 10%Remove Grading ~20126 Coast live oak 7,7Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~20127 Coast live oak 8Protected 10%Preserve Not developing slope ~20128 Canary Island pine 28Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30129 Coast live oak 15Protected 50%Remove Road ~30130 Canary Island pine 23Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30131 Canary Island pine 26Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30132 Coast redwood 7Protected 90%Remove Road ~20133 Canary Island pine 22Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30134 Coast live oak 18Protected 70%Remove Road ~50135 Canary Island pine 22Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition136 Canary Island pine 23Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30137 Canary Island pine 21Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30138 Canary Island pine 21Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30139 Bronze loquat 5,3,3,3Protected 50%Remove Road ~20140 Bronze loquat 6,4,2Protected 30%Remove Road ~20141 Crabapple 8Exception 70%Remove Grading ~30142 Coast live oak 18Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30143 Coast live oak 16Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30144 Canary Island pine 18Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30145 Canary Island pine 22Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30146 Canary Island pine 26Protected 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30147 Douglas fir 18Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30148 Douglas fir 29Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30149 Hollywood juniper 9,5Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30150 Douglas fir 15Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30151 Douglas fir 15Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30152 Douglas fir 18Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30153 Douglas fir 14Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30154 Valley oak 11Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30155 Silk oak 11Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30156 Coast live oak 17Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30157 Coast live oak 15Protected 30%Remove Grading ~50158 Douglas fir 22Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30159 Coast live oak 21Protected 50%Remove Building ~30160 Valley oak 21Protected 50%Remove Building ~50161 Valley oak 16Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30162 Coast live oak 20Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition163 Italian cypress 5Protected 90%Remove Grading ~10164 Italian cypress 6Protected 90%Remove Grading ~10165 Italian cypress 6Protected 90%Remove Grading ~10166 Italian cypress 5Protected 90%Remove Grading ~10167 Monterey pine 4Protected 90%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20168 Red horsechestnut 5,2Protected 90%Remove Building ~20169 Coast live oak 7Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20170 California bay 17,10,6Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~50171 California bay 7,7,7,6,5,5,5,5Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~30172 California bay 8,5,5,4Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~30173 California bay 16Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30174 Coast live oak 8Protected 70%Remove Grading ~20175 Coast live oak 15Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30176 Sugar gum 17,16Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30177 Sugar gum 12,11,11,11Protected 30%Remove Grading ~50178 Deodar cedar 6Protected 90%Remove Grading ~20179 Coast live oak 14Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30180 Italian cypress 5Protected 90%Remove Grading ~10181 Sitka spruce 6Protected 70%Remove Building ~10182 Italian stone pine 22Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30183 Italian stone pine 19Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30184 Red ironbark 13Exception 10%Remove Building ~20185 Incense cedar 11Protected 90%Remove Grading ~20186 Italian cypress 5Protected 50%Remove Grading ~10187 Italian cypress 5Protected 90%Remove Grading ~10188 Blackwood acacia 4Exception 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10189 Coast live oak 19Protected 50%Remove Grading ~50 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition190 Red ironbark 13Exception 10%Remove Grading ~30191 Blackwood acacia 17Exception 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30192 Red ironbark 14Exception 10%Remove Grading ~30193 Hollywood juniper 17Protected 70%Remove Grading ~20194 Hollywood juniper 5,5,4,3,3,3Protected 50%Remove Building ~20195 Hollywood juniper 11,7Protected 50%Remove Building ~20196 Blue blossom 5,4,4Protected 30%Remove Building ~20197 Hollywood juniper 18Protected 50%Remove Building ~20198 Hollywood juniper 13Protected 50%Remove Building ~20199 Hollywood juniper 11Protected 50%Remove Building ~20200 Hollywood juniper 10Protected 50%Remove Building ~20201 Hollywood juniper 12Protected 50%Remove Building ~20202 Hollywood juniper 13Protected 50%Remove Building ~20203 Crabapple 4,3Exception 70%Remove Building ~20204 Sawleaf zelkova 23Protected 50%Remove Grading ~50205 Sawleaf zelkova 22Protected 30%Remove Grading ~50206 Valley oak 24Large Protected 70%Remove Grading ~50207 Sawleaf zelkova 19Protected 30%Remove Grading ~50208 Sawleaf zelkova 18Protected 30%Remove Grading ~50209 Mayten 7Protected 30%Remove Building ~20210 Italian cypress 14Protected 70%Remove Building ~10211 Italian cypress 14Protected 70%Remove Building ~10212 Crabapple 12Exception 50%Remove Building ~20213 Crabapple 11Exception 50%Remove Building ~20214 Crabapple 11Exception 30%Remove Building ~20215 Coast live oak 22,22Protected 50%Remove Road ~50216 California bay 10Protected 50%Remove Road ~20 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition217 Brazilian pepper 5Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20218 Loquat 6Protected 70%Remove Building ~20219 Blue gum 36Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~50220 Blue gum 62Large Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~60221 Blue gum 36Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~50222 African fern‐pine 5Protected 70%Remove Building ~20223 California bay 13Protected 50%Remove Road ~20224 California bay 13,13Protected 50%Remove Road ~30225 Coast live oak 20Protected 70%Remove Road ~50226 Red horsechestnut 8Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20227 Red horsechestnut 8Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20228 Red horsechestnut 5Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20229 Coast live oak 23Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30230 Red ironbark 22Exception 30%Remove Road ~30231 Red ironbark 5,5,5,5,4Exception 30%Remove Road ~20232 Purpleleaf plum 4Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10233 Red ironbark 19Exception 50%Remove Road ~50234 Coast live oak 10,9Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20235 Toyon 6,5,4,4Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20236 California bay 12Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~30237 California bay 11Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20238 Coast live oak 14Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~30239 Olive 10,5,5Exception 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20240 Coast live oak 28Large Protected 50%Remove Grading ~50241 California bay 6Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20242 California bay 5Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~20243 Coast live oak 27Large Protected 10%Remove Grading ~30 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition244 Valley oak 15Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20245 Coast live oak 4,4,4,3,3,2,2,2Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20246 Valley oak 26Large Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30247 Coast live oak 16Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~30248 Coast live oak 6,5,3Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20249 Victorian box 5,4,4,4,4,3,2Protected 30%Remove Road ~20250 Blue gum 50Large Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~50251 Valley oak 28Large Protected 70%Preserve Outside of grading ~50252 Crabapple 5Exception 50%Remove Grading ~20253 Plum 6,5,3Exception 50%Remove Grading ~20254 Crabapple 7Exception 30%Remove Grading ~20255 Crabapple 11Exception 50%Remove Grading ~30256 Bottlebrush 4,4Protected 70%Remove Building ~20257 Aleppo pine 6Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20258 Victorian box 4,3Protected 50%Remove Building ~20259 Victorian box 6,5,2,2Protected 50%Remove Building ~20260 Blue gum 52Large Protected 50%Preserve Outside of grading ~50261 Jacaranda 7Protected 50%Preserve Outside of grading ~20262 Portugal laurel 6,5,4,4,4Protected 30%Preserve Outside of grading ~20263 Japanese flowering cherry10Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20264 Coast live oak 20Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30265 Cherry 12Exception 30%Remove Grading ~20266 California black walnut 8Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20267 Coast live oak 7Protected 50%Remove Grading ~10268 California bay 5Protected 50%Remove Grading ~10269 African sumac 12Protected 10%Remove Grading ~30270 African sumac 9,9Protected 10%Remove Grading ~30 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition271 Coast live oak 11Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20272 Coast live oak 13Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20273 African sumac 13,11Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20274 Glossy privet 8,5Exception 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20275 African sumac 9,7Protected 10%Remove Grading ~20276 Crabapple 13Exception 70%Remove Road ~20277 Crabapple 13Exception 70%Remove Road ~20278 California bay 6,5Protected 70%Remove Building ~20279 Flowering dogwood 9,4Protected 70%Remove Road ~20280 Coast live oak 12,10Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30281 California bay 6,4,3,2Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20282 Coast live oak 15Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30283 Coast live oak 9Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20284 Windmill palm 5Exception 90%Remove Building ~20285 African fern‐pine 4Protected 30%Remove Building ~10286 Hollywood juniper 12,6,5Protected 50%Remove Building ~20287 Red maple 12Protected 70%Remove Building ~30288 White willow 24Protected 70%Remove Building ~50289 Valley oak 28Large Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30290 Sweetgum 15Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30291 Sweetgum 20Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30292 Coast live oak 15Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30293 Ginkgo 5Protected 50%Remove Building ~20294 Coast live oak 19Protected 30%Preserve Outside of grading ~30295 California bay 6Protected 30%Preserve Outside of grading ~20296 Coast live oak 26,25,17Large Protected 50%Remove Grading ~60297 Arroyo willow 18,16Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition298 Coast live oak 18Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30299 African fern‐pine 8Protected 30%Remove Road ~20300 African fern‐pine 8Protected 30%Remove Road ~20301 Japanese maple 5Protected 50%Remove Building ~20302 Crabapple 9Exception 50%Remove Building ~20303 Coast live oak 19Protected 50%Remove Building ~30304 Coast live oak 13Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20305 Coast live oak 5Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20306 Coast live oak 9Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20307 Coast live oak 4Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20308 Coast live oak 12Protected 10%Remove Grading ~20309 Sugar gum 33Protected 30%Remove Grading ~50310 Sugar gum 33Protected 30%Remove Grading ~50311 Coast live oak 8Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20312 Coast live oak 12Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30313 Coast live oak 17Protected 50%Remove Road ~30314 California bay 18,14Protected 70%Remove Road ~30315 California bay 9Protected 50%Remove Road ~20316 California bay 11Protected 50%Remove Road ~20317 Valley oak 18Protected 30%Remove Road ~30318 Coast live oak 14Protected 50%Remove Road ~20319 California bay 9,6,5Protected 50%Remove Road ~20320 California bay 9Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20321 Coast live oak 14Protected 30%Remove Road ~20322 California bay 19Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30323 Coast live oak 10Protected 50%Remove Road ~20324 Valley oak 13Protected 30%Remove Road ~30 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition325 Coast live oak 8Protected 30%Remove Road ~20326 Coast live oak 13Protected 30%Remove Road ~20327 California bay 10Protected 30%Remove Road ~20328 California bay 12Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20329 Coast live oak 8Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20330 California bay 10Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20331 Coast live oak 17,14Protected 70%Remove Grading ~30332 Purpleleaf plum 8Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20333 Coast live oak 27Protected 10%Remove Grading ~30334 California bay 12,11Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30335 Coast live oak 10Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20336 California bay 10Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20337 Coast live oak 22,10Protected 30%Remove Grading ~30338 California bay 11Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20339 Coast live oak 15Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20340 Blackwood acacia 5Exception 70%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20341 California bay 12Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20342 California bay 12Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20343 Coast live oak 14Protected 50%Remove Grading ~30344 Coast live oak 18Protected 70%Remove Road ~30345 Coast live oak 8Protected 10%Remove Grading ~10346 Olive 9,7Protected 50%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20347 Coast live oak 5Protected 30%Remove Grading ~10348 Marina madrone 14Protected 90%Remove Building ~20349 Valley oak 34Large Protected 30%Remove Building ~30350 Valley oak 37Large Protected 50%Remove Grading ~50351 Coast live oak 9Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20 Tree No.SpeciesTrunk Diameter (in.)Protected StatusCondition out of 100% Disposition Comment Approx. crown diameter (feet) Tree Disposition352 Coast live oak 10Protected 30%Remove Grading ~20353 Coast live oak 13Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20354 New Zealand cabbage pal 5Exception 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10355 Hackberry 6Protected 10%Remove Road ~10356 Hackberry 9Protected 30%Remove Road ~20357 Italian cypress 6Protected 90%Remove Road ~10358 Italian cypress 8Protected 90%Remove Road ~10359 California bay 10Protected 30%Remove Road ~20360 California bay 9Protected 50%Remove Road ~20361 California bay 8Protected 30%Remove Road ~20362 California buckeye 9Protected 50%Remove Road ~20363 Coast live oak 5,4Protected 10%Remove Grading ~20364 Coast live oak 4Protected 50%Preserve Not developing slope ~10365 California bay 4Protected 50%Remove Grading ~10366 Bailey acacia 5Protected 10%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~10367 Bailey acacia 7Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20368 Bailey acacia 5Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~20369 Bailey acacia 7,7,7,6Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30370 Bailey acacia 1Protected 30%REMOVED Removed 2019 ~30371 Plum 5,4Protected 30%Preserve Not developing slope ~20372 Coast live oak 9,8Protected 50%Remove Grading ~20373 California bay 8Protected 30%Remove Grading ~10374 Coast redwood 10Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~20375 Coast redwood 14Protected 90%Preserve Not developing slope ~20 Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value 1Coast redwood 40 Protected 14,800$ 2 California bay 8,8,7 Protected 3,000$ 3 California bay 6,5 Protected 650$ 4 Valley oak 17 Protected 6,200$ 5 Valley oak 14 Protected 2,550$ 6Coast live oak 23 Protected 9,400$ 7Blue gum 40 Protected 2,950$ 8Blue gum 38 Protected 2,750$ 9Blue gum 20,7 Exception 900$ 10 Blue gum 54 Protected 4,300$ 11 Blue gum 28 Protected 1,600$ 12 Blue gum 39 Protected 2,850$ 13 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 7,850$ 14 Coast live oak 15 Protected 2,900$ 15 California bay 10 Protected 1,700$ 16 California bay 10 Protected 1,700$ 17 California bay 9,9 Protected 1,650$ 18 California bay 5 Protected 100$ 19 California bay 13,8 Protected 3,900$ 20 California bay 11 Protected 1,250$ 21 California bay 13 Protected 1,200$ 22 California buckeye 9 Protected 950$ 23 California bay 7 Protected 350$ 24 California bay 17,16 Protected 8,750$ 25 California bay 11 Protected 850$ 26 California bay 12 Protected 2,100$ 27 California bay 7 Protected 150$ 28 California bay 8 Protected 150$ 29 California bay 12,7,6 Protected 650$ 30 Valley oak 34 Large Protected 23,150$ 31 California bay 16 Protected 2,950$ 32 California bay 8 Protected 950$ 33 California bay 14,6 Protected 3,350$ 34 California bay 8 Protected 450$ 35 California bay 11,10,7 Protected 3,100$ 36 Coast live oak 19 Protected 3,950$ 37 California bay 10 Protected 900$ 38 Blue oak 19 Protected 3,100$ Tree Appraisal Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 39 Coast live oak 27 Large Protected 7,950$ 40 Valley oak 17 Protected 3,200$ 41 California bay 8,5,4 Protected 1,250$ 42 California bay 5 Protected 300$ 43 Valley oak 14 Protected 2,900$ 44 Coast live oak 22 Protected 4,250$ 45 California bay 6,5 Protected 750$ 46 California bay 6 Protected 450$ 47 Valley oak 17,13 Protected 6,750$ 48 California bay 22,12 Protected 1,450$ 49 California bay 7 Protected 600$ 50 California bay 7 Protected 600$ 51 California bay 7 Protected 350$ 52 California bay 9 Protected 700$ 53 California bay 10 Protected 1,450$ 54 California bay 13,9 Protected 3,600$ 55 California bay 6,5,5,4 Protected 1,500$ 56 California bay 7 Protected 350$ 57 California bay 9,8 Protected 1,000$ 58 California bay 12 Protected 1,000$ 59 Coast live oak 27,16 Large Protected 8,600$ 60 California bay 14 Protected 450$ 61 California bay 15 Protected 1,550$ 62 California bay 13 Protected 1,450$ 63 California bay 6 Protected 550$ 64 California bay 10,9 Protected 2,600$ 65 California bay 9 Protected 600$ 66 California bay 11 Protected 850$ 67 Olive 5,4,3,2 Exception 250$ 68 California bay 6 Protected 450$ 69 California bay 7 Protected 450$ 70 Coast live oak 6 Protected 450$ 71 California bay 17,8 Protected 6,750$ 72 Valley oak 33 Large Protected 36,300$ 73 Olive 5 Exception 350$ 74 Coast live oak 6 Protected 600$ Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 75 Coast live oak 30 Large Protected 13,000$ 76 Monterey pine 15 Protected 750$ 77 Monterey pine 17 Protected 1,000$ 78 Coast redwood 7 Protected 1,000$ 79 Coast redwood 13 Protected 2,200$ 80 Blue oak 12 Protected 2,450$ 81 Coast redwood 5 Protected 550$ 82 Coast redwood 7 Protected 250$ 83 Monterey pine 14 Protected 450$ 84 Bigleaf maple 9 Protected 150$ 85 Coast redwood 7 Protected 700$ 86 Valley oak 19 Protected 7,500$ 87 Coast redwood 10 Protected 1,300$ 88 Monterey pine 8 Protected 150$ 89 Monterey pine 8 Protected 150$ 90 Blackwood acacia 10,6 Exception 250$ 91 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 50$ 92 Blackwood acacia 8,7,4 Exception 250$ 93 Blackwood acacia 5,5,5,4 Exception 150$ 94 California bay 10 Protected 700$ 95 California bay 16 Protected 1,800$ 96 California bay 5 Protected 50$ 97 California bay 10,6,5 4 4 Protected 2,250$ 98 Valley oak 17,16 Protected 13,300$ 99 California bay 7,6,6,5 Protected 2,800$ 100 California bay 6 Protected 750$ 101 California bay 5 Protected 750$ 102 California bay 5,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2 Protected 2,500$ 103 Coast redwood 9 Protected 1,000$ 104 Coast redwood 8 Protected 1,450$ 105 Coast redwood 9 Protected 1,800$ 106 Coast redwood 10 Protected 1,500$ 107 Coast redwood 8 Protected 1,450$ 108 Coast redwood 4 Protected 450$ 109 Grecian laurel 10,9,9 Protected 2,050$ 110 Grecian laurel 6,6,5,5,4,3,3,2 Protected 950$ 111 Grecian laurel 5,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3 Protected 600$ 112 Olive 6 Exception 450$ 113 Olive 12,7 Exception 2,200$ Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 114 Olive 10,6,5,4,3,2,2,2 Exception 2,050$ 115 Valley oak 21 Protected 10,800$ 116 Blue gum 47,32,17 Large Protected 11,950$ 117 Bronze loquat 6 Protected 400$ 118 Coast live oak 19,15 Protected 11,850$ 119 Coast live oak 19 Protected 6,450$ 120 Valley oak 14 Protected 4,850$ 121 Valley oak 19 Protected 8,850$ 122 Coast live oak 11 Protected 1,600$ 123 Olive 7,7,5,4,4,3 Exception 1,600$ 124 Coast live oak 25 Large Protected 1,800$ 125 Coast redwood 19 Protected 850$ 126 Coast live oak 7,7 Protected 300$ 127 Coast live oak 8 Protected 200$ 128 Canary Island pine 28 Protected 13,900$ 129 Coast live oak 15 Protected 3,300$ 130 Canary Island pine 23 Protected 10,700$ 131 Canary Island pine 26 Protected 5,850$ 132 Coast redwood 7 Protected 1,000$ 133 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 9,800$ 134 Coast live oak 18 Protected 6,600$ 135 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 8,600$ 136 Canary Island pine 23 Protected 9,400$ 137 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 7,850$ 138 Canary Island pine 21 Protected 7,850$ 139 Bronze loquat 5,3,3,3 Protected 900$ 140 Bronze loquat 6,4,2 Protected 600$ 141 Crabapple 8 Exception 1,200$ 142 Coast live oak 18 Protected 5,800$ 143 Coast live oak 16 Protected 3,550$ 144 Canary Island pine 18 Protected 3,200$ 145 Canary Island pine 22 Protected 6,650$ 146 Canary Island pine 26 Protected 9,300$ 147 Douglas fir 18 Protected 2,600$ 148 Douglas fir 29 Protected 6,650$ 149 Hollywood juniper 9,5 Protected 850$ 150 Douglas fir 15 Protected 1,300$ 151 Douglas fir 15 Protected 750$ Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 152 Douglas fir 18 Protected 1,850$ 153 Douglas fir 14 Protected 1,150$ 154 Valley oak 11 Protected 3,700$ 155 Silk oak 11 Protected 300$ 156 Coast live oak 17 Protected 3,550$ 157 Coast live oak 15 Protected 1,200$ 158 Douglas fir 22 Protected 1,150$ 159 Coast live oak 21 Protected 3,850$ 160 Valley oak 21 Protected 6,500$ 161 Valley oak 16 Protected 2,300$ 162 Coast live oak 20 Protected 3,500$ 163 Italian cypress 5 Protected 400$ 164 Italian cypress 6 Protected 500$ 165 Italian cypress 6 Protected 500$ 166 Italian cypress 5 Protected 400$ 167 Monterey pine 4 Protected 100$ 168 Red horsechestnut 5,2 Protected 950$ 169 Coast live oak 7 Protected 700$ 170 California bay 17,10,6 Protected 4,250$ 171 California bay 7,7,7,6,5,5,5,5 Protected 1,850$ 172 California bay 8,5,5,4 Protected 1,300$ 173 California bay 16 Protected 4,300$ 174 Coast live oak 8 Protected 1,200$ 175 Coast live oak 15 Protected 1,750$ 176 Sugar gum 17,16 Protected 1,850$ 177 Sugar gum 12,11,11,11 Protected 1,050$ 178 Deodar cedar 6 Protected 900$ 179 Coast live oak 14 Protected 2,550$ 180 Italian cypress 5 Protected 400$ 181 Sitka spruce 6 Protected 450$ 182 Italian stone pine 22 Protected 2,950$ 183 Italian stone pine 19 Protected 2,000$ 184 Red ironbark 13 Exception 50$ 185 Incense cedar 11 Protected 1,550$ 186 Italian cypress 5 Protected 200$ 187 Italian cypress 5 Protected 400$ 188 Blackwood acacia 4 Exception 100$ 189 Coast live oak 19 Protected 4,600$ 190 Red ironbark 13 Exception 50$ 191 Blackwood acacia 17 Exception 950$ Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 192 Red ironbark 14 Exception 50$ 193 Hollywood juniper 17 Protected 2,250$ 194 Hollywood juniper 5,5,4,3,3,3 Protected 550$ 195 Hollywood juniper 11,7 Protected 1,200$ 196 Blue blossom 5,4,4 Protected 450$ 197 Hollywood juniper 18 Protected 2,250$ 198 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected 1,200$ 199 Hollywood juniper 11 Protected 850$ 200 Hollywood juniper 10 Protected 700$ 201 Hollywood juniper 12 Protected 1,000$ 202 Hollywood juniper 13 Protected 1,200$ 203 Crabapple 4,3 Exception 600$ 204 Sawleaf zelkova 23 Protected 7,950$ 205 Sawleaf zelkova 22 Protected 4,350$ 206 Valley oak 24 Large Protected 21,850$ 207 Sawleaf zelkova 19 Protected 3,250$ 208 Sawleaf zelkova 18 Protected 2,950$ 209 Mayten 7 Protected 300$ 210 Italian cypress 14 Protected 1,500$ 211 Italian cypress 14 Protected 1,500$ 212 Crabapple 12 Exception 1,450$ 213 Crabapple 11 Exception 1,200$ 214 Crabapple 11 Exception 750$ 215 Coast live oak 22,22 Protected 12,250$ 216 California bay 10 Protected 1,700$ 217 Brazilian pepper 5 Protected 350$ 218 Loquat 6 Protected 650$ 219 Blue gum 36 Protected 3,250$ 220 Blue gum 62 Large Protected 6,350$ 221 Blue gum 36 Protected 3,250$ 222 African fern‐pine 5 Protected 650$ 223 California bay 13 Protected 2,850$ 224 California bay 13,13 Protected 5,650$ 225 Coast live oak 20 Protected 7,150$ 226 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected 850$ 227 Red horsechestnut 8 Protected 850$ 228 Red horsechestnut 5 Protected 600$ 229 Coast live oak 23 Protected 7,300$ Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 230 Red ironbark 22 Exception 700$ 231 Red ironbark 5,5,5,5,4 Exception 150$ 232 Purpleleaf plum 4 Protected 50$ 233 Red ironbark 19 Exception 850$ 234 Coast live oak 10,9 Protected 2,350$ 235 Toyon 6,5,4,4 Protected 750$ 236 California bay 12 Protected 2,450$ 237 California bay 11 Protected 2,050$ 238 Coast live oak 14 Protected 2,550$ 239 Olive 10,5,5 Exception 1,500$ 240 Coast live oak 28 Large Protected 9,900$ 241 California bay 6 Protected 650$ 242 California bay 5 Protected 450$ 243 Coast live oak 27 Large Protected 1,850$ 244 Valley oak 15 Protected 2,900$ 245 Coast live oak 4,4,4,3,3,2,2,2 Protected 450$ 246 Valley oak 26 Large Protected 14,450$ 247 Coast live oak 16 Protected 3,300$ 248 Coast live oak 6,5,3 Protected 500$ 249 Victorian box 5,4,4,4,4,3,2 Protected 800$ 250 Blue gum 50 Large Protected 3,400$ 251 Valley oak 28 Large Protected 20,200$ 252 Crabapple 5 Exception 300$ 253 Plum 6,5,3 Exception 750$ 254 Crabapple 7 Exception 300$ 255 Crabapple 11 Exception 1,200$ 256 Bottlebrush 4,4 Protected 500$ 257 Aleppo pine 6 Protected 150$ 258 Victorian box 4,3 Protected 400$ 259 Victorian box 6,5,2,2 Protected 1,000$ 260 Blue gum 52 Large Protected 5,950$ 261 Jacaranda 7 Protected 300$ 262 Portugal laurel 6,5,4,4,4 Protected 600$ 263 Japanese flowering cherry 10 Protected 1,050$ Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 264 Coast live oak 20 Protected 6,150$ 265 Cherry 12 Exception 950$ 266 California black walnut 8 Protected 200$ 267 Coast live oak 7 Protected 600$ 268 California bay 5 Protected 400$ 269 African sumac 12 Protected 400$ 270 African sumac 9,9 Protected 450$ 271 Coast live oak 11 Protected 1,350$ 272 Coast live oak 13 Protected 1,900$ 273 African sumac 13,11 Protected 3,750$ 274 Glossy privet 8,5 Exception 300$ 275 African sumac 9,7 Protected 400$ 276 Crabapple 13 Exception 2,350$ 277 Crabapple 13 Exception 2,350$ 278 California bay 6,5 Protected 1,450$ 279 Flowering dogwood 9,4 Protected 1,200$ 280 Coast live oak 12,10 Protected 2,150$ 281 California bay 6,4,3,2 Protected 950$ 282 Coast live oak 15 Protected 2,800$ 283 Coast live oak 9 Protected 950$ 284 Windmill palm 5 Exception 800$ 285 African fern‐pine 4 Protected 200$ 286 Hollywood juniper 12,6,5 Protected 1,450$ 287 Red maple 12 Protected 2,100$ 288 White willow 24 Protected 3,450$ 289 Valley oak 28 Large Protected 12,700$ 290 Sweetgum 15 Protected 4,750$ 291 Sweetgum 20 Protected 6,050$ 292 Coast live oak 15 Protected 1,700$ 293 Ginkgo 5 Protected 200$ 294 Coast live oak 19 Protected 2,750$ 295 California bay 6 Protected 400$ 296 Coast live oak 26,25,17 Large Protected 20,050$ 297 Arroyo willow 18,16 Protected 1,000$ 298 Coast live oak 18 Protected 4,150$ 299 African fern‐pine 8 Protected 500$ 300 African fern‐pine 8 Protected 500$ 301 Japanese maple 5 Protected 350$ Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 302 Crabapple 9 Exception 800$ 303 Coast live oak 19 Protected 3,550$ 304 Coast live oak 13 Protected 1,700$ 305 Coast live oak 5 Protected 150$ 306 Coast live oak 9 Protected 450$ 307 Coast live oak 4 Protected 100$ 308 Coast live oak 12 Protected 250$ 309 Sugar gum 33 Protected 1,500$ 310 Sugar gum 33 Protected 1,500$ 311 Coast live oak 8 Protected 600$ 312 Coast live oak 12 Protected 1,300$ 313 Coast live oak 17 Protected 2,550$ 314 California bay 18,14 Protected 8,350$ 315 California bay 9 Protected 950$ 316 California bay 11 Protected 2,050$ 317 Valley oak 18 Protected 4,200$ 318 Coast live oak 14 Protected 2,550$ 319 California bay 9,6,5 Protected 1,650$ 320 California bay 9 Protected 1,400$ 321 Coast live oak 14 Protected 1,500$ 322 California bay 19 Protected 4,150$ 323 Coast live oak 10 Protected 1,300$ 324 Valley oak 13 Protected 2,200$ 325 Coast live oak 8 Protected 500$ 326 Coast live oak 13 Protected 1,300$ 327 California bay 10 Protected 1,000$ 328 California bay 12 Protected 1,000$ 329 Coast live oak 8 Protected 350$ 330 California bay 10 Protected 700$ 331 Coast live oak 17,14 Protected 5,950$ 332 Purpleleaf plum 8 Protected 200$ 333 Coast live oak 27 Protected 1,250$ 334 California bay 12,11 Protected 1,850$ 335 Coast live oak 10 Protected 550$ 336 California bay 10 Protected 1,200$ 337 Coast live oak 22,10 Protected 3,050$ 338 California bay 11 Protected 1,400$ 339 Coast live oak 15 Protected 2,000$ 340 Blackwood acacia 5 Exception 100$ 341 California bay 12 Protected 1,700$ Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Status Appraised Value Tree Appraisal 342 California bay 12 Protected 1,700$ 343 Coast live oak 14 Protected 1,750$ 344 Coast live oak 18 Protected 5,800$ 345 Coast live oak 8 Protected 150$ 346 Olive 9,7 Protected 1,300$ 347 Coast live oak 5 Protected 150$ 348 Marina madrone 14 Protected 5,900$ 349 Valley oak 34 Large Protected 11,150$ 350 Valley oak 37 Large Protected 21,450$ 351 Coast live oak 9 Protected 750$ 352 Coast live oak 10 Protected 550$ 353 Coast live oak 13 Protected 2,200$ 354 New Zealand cabbage pal 5 Exception 50$ 355 Hackberry 6 Protected 100$ 356 Hackberry 9 Protected 500$ 357 Italian cypress 6 Protected 500$ 358 Italian cypress 8 Protected 850$ 359 California bay 10 Protected 1,000$ 360 California bay 9 Protected 1,400$ 361 California bay 8 Protected 650$ 362 California buckeye 9 Protected 1,400$ 363 Coast live oak 5,4 Protected 100$ 364 Coast live oak 4 Protected 250$ 365 California bay 4 Protected 250$ 366 Bailey acacia 5 Protected ‐$ 367 Bailey acacia 7 Protected 50$ 368 Bailey acacia 5 Protected ‐$ 369 Bailey acacia 7,7,7,6 Protected 150$ 370 Bailey acacia 1 Protected 100$ 371 Plum 5,4 Protected 250$ 372 Coast live oak 9,8 Protected 1,600$ 373 California bay 8 Protected 550$ 374 Coast redwood 10 Protected 1,650$ 375 Coast redwood 14 Protected 3,150$ Total 991,050$ This Page Intentionally Left Blank 110 Wood Road Arborist’s Review -2 February 12, 2021 February 12, 2021 Jocelyn Shoopman Associate Planner Community Development Department 110 E Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 The report contains the required information and the judgments are accurate. The report and plans have been reconciled with proper disposition and updated after recent tree removals and the recommendation requests. The T-1 sheets were enclosed updated to indicate the trees removed in 2019 with a red “X” symbol and a new column in the table provided. The sheets also indicate the tree protection guidelines and fence locations around those to be retained and protected. The following recommendations were rectified as indicated. 1.Revise the report and plan sheets to reflect the current conditions and trees removed this year by updating the existing tables, data, and removing those trees from the plans. Complete 2.Revise the disposition table to display the trees that are Protected, Large Protected, Exceptions, or Heritage based on the Town definitions and include a condition percentage (this may require a large format document). Complete 3.Include crown diameters for at least all the trees indicated for removal to account for the Canopy Replacement Standard. Complete 4.Reconcile the number of trees to be removed between the report and the T-1 sheets. Complete Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 1 2 EXHIBIT 12 110 Wood Road Arborist’s Review -2 February 12, 2021 5.Place tree protection measures and the municipal code 29.20.1005 Protection of trees during construction. in both the report and the T-1 sheet. Develop tree protection measures and fence locations for the T-1 sheet. and any other tree protection notes or recommendations. Replace the “Tree Protection Notes” with appropriate information that is either in the Municipal Code or provided by the arborist. Complete Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 2 2 EXHIBIT 13 This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Andrew Ghofrani <> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:11:19 PM To: Sally Zarnowitz <SZarnowitz@losgatosca.gov>; Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov>; Andrew Ghofrani <>; Feri Ghofrani <> Subject: Los Gatos Meadows- Reconstruction / expansion Dear Mrs. Zarnowitz, I am currently a resident of Town of Los Gatos, residing at . I have been a resident of Santa Clara County for the past 42 years. I have been an active member of this community, currently a Vice President at Granite Construction Company, responsible for the Heavy Construction Division for the Western United States. It is has come to my attention that the Meadows of Los Gatos is proposing to increase the existing building heights from 55’ to 88.5’. My property is directly situated behind the Meadows on Wood Road, and this increase in elevation will directly block my view. We primarily chose this property because of its view of downtown and the valley in front of our house. Since we don’t have a usable front yard, our front deck serves as our primary entertainment area and considered a special amenity with added value to our property. Last week we had a visit by the architect, the project manager along with his assistant of the reconstruction project, asking to take a picture from our front deck point of view. In the same visit, the architect admitted that our view will be affected by the additional height. I have also learned that for some reason the Meadows management has asked for a waiver on putting up story poles in its application process. It is really disturbing that the Meadows is planning to block our view completely without sharing its plan and the bulk of the intended buildings. A lot of my property value is directly correlate to its view and the possible blockage is totally unacceptable. I have a serious objection to the height increase of this construction directly in front of my property and want to be on record to that effect. Please advise about the application process as I along with my neighbors want to share our opposition to this increase in elevation. I can be reached at or my email Thank you for your attention. Andrew Ghofrani P.E EXHIBIT 14 From: Joseph Gemignani <> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 12:08 PM To: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 110 Wood Road Hi Jocelyn, the project proposed at 110 Wood road just seems to tall and too dense. Also, can we get a more traditional style of architecture? Joseph (amateur weatherman) From: Esther Grant <> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 7:11:28 PM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Removoal of large procted trees Property zoned R:PD APN 510-47-038, If you are removing these tree's for the purpose of having more land to build on, than I would have a Tree Surgeon, give their professional opinion! As a concerned neighbor, I would not want to see the destruction of gorgeous protected tree's for selfish reasons. Esther Grant From: Matthew Southern <> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 9:57 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 110 Wood Road Hello Mr. Mullin - Thank you for your service to the town of Los Gatos. I'm writing to you as a resident of Wood Road concerned about the plans for 110 Wood Rd. According to the town website, the planned development at 110 Wood Road is happening as the current "Los Gatos Meadows facility presented too great a safety risk to our residents and employees" (see screenshot). On that note, were there any specific risks that were provided? I'm curious as to how a larger and taller Los Gatos Meadows facility will be safer for residents and employees - especially if the Broadway access road is to be closed as part of the plans. Considering the previous issues the Meadows has had with evacuation during the 1997 Cats fire, I would think a larger building with less access roads would be less safe than what is currently standing. Thanks for listening to my concerns. Please let me know if there is any additional information you may need. Thanks, Matthew Southern Los Gatos From: Julie Southern > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 1:35 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 145 Wood Road - new build Hello Mr Mullin, I live at and received the green notice about site application s-21-003. I met with the new neighbors several months ago when the story poles went up. I have no specific issues with their plan, just the usual: increased noise and road traffic from the build, keeping their build traffic from using my driveway to park or turn around, will it be restricted to 8-5pm, M-F like it was when I built 135 Wood? In fear of sounding like a broken record, the concern of more traffic on Wood road is that the Meadows is proposing to close one alternative access point - the only access point, except from Wood Road. I lived thru the 1997 fire and access was KEY. Again, this is a general comment to anything going on at Wood Road. And lastly, it would be nice if the town would repair the town retaining wall adjacent to my driveway - do let me know if I should submit this to someone else! See picture below. It will only get worse with the traffic on Wood. Thank you Julie Southern From: Andrew Ghofrani <> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:52 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Andrew Ghofrani <>; Julie Southern >; Bernd Neudecker <> Subject: 110 Wood Rd LG EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Sean, It has come to my attention that the developer is asking for an exception about putting up the complete story poles for full visualization. In a joint zoom meeting in early June, I was assured that they fully intend to install story poles & orange netting in early October. I want to be on record again about my objection to a waiver of this requirement as i have previously stated as well. The only way to truly realized the full visual impact of this massive project is to see the story poles and orange netting. The story poles are needed for full transparency and any waiver to that will not be the right approach. Please acknowledge the receipt of this email and adding my objection to the record. Thank you, Andy Ghofrani From: Andrew Ghofrani <> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 10:40 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Bernd Neudecker >; C So <c >; Julie Southern >; Andrew Ghofrani <> Subject: Re: 110 Wood Rd LG EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Sean Attached please find a current view from my front deck showing the story poles. In the first file you see the story poles and the second view shows the proposed building in darker shading. As you can see there is a major impact to my view. Please advise what is my recourse for objecting to this situation and if there are any remedies to reducing the impact. Please add these pictures to your public project folder. Thank you Andy Ghofrani From: Todd Johnson <> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 10:16 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Wood Rd. EXTERNAL SENDER The story poles indicate this will be a massive project. The buildings will not fit into the surrounding hillside area whatsoever. Given how the town has tried to preserve the hillsides I am just shocked that someone would even propose such a development. Thus, I’m opposed to the development is it is story poles. Todd Johnson From: Michael Kennedy <> Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2022 1:39 PM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Janette Judd <jjudd@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed construction project, height blocking hillside views - site of former Los Gatos Meadows EXTERNAL SENDER Adding Joel Paulson and Janette Judd to distribution. It appears that the building height has been increased by 2-3X, see photos below. In a recent proposed commercial development, building heights at the north entrance of town were limited to protect hillside views. One would expect the same policy also applies for the south entrance of town. Is there an easy way to limit building height to the structures currently in place and still satisfy the needs of the community? Mike Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 21, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Michael Kennedy <> wrote: > I’m also concerned about increased hillside fire risk and especially loss of privacy from proposed project views into my bathroom and bedroom windows. Mike > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 21, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Michael Kennedy <> wrote: >> >> Attaching photo from E. Main St, see below. Mike >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Dec 21, 2021, at 1:27 PM, Michael Kennedy <> wrote: >>> Dear Mr. Rennie, >>> I’m writing to ask you and other councilmembers to kindly consider reducing the size and scale of the proposed hillside construction project on the site of former Los Gatos Meadows. >>> I woke up the other day and saw tall story polls from my bedroom window on . I was astonished that the proposed building height would actually extend above the nearby hillside ridge tree line, see photo below. >>> I’ve provided another photo of the project returning home from the library today on the east side of town, see below. The width of the project from this perspective could be reduced in size to scale other buildings on the hillside to blend more uniformly with the surrounding landscape. >>> I respectfully object to approval of this project as it is proposed. Can you please ask the developer to kindly scale back the project to an a more appropriate size to avoid diminishing the beautiful hillside views of our lovely town? >>> Best regards, >>> Mike Kennedy >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone From: Michael Kennedy <> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 8:28 AM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Janette Judd <jjudd@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed construction project, height blocking hillside views - site of former Los Gatos Meadows EXTERNAL SENDER Understood and agreed. One wonders if the community would be better served by establishing moderate building height limits to protect neighbor privacy and hillside beauty from aggressive development projects. The sudden unsightly appearance of a sprawling and tall building complex towering above all others in a scenic bucolic landscape seems wrong. Mike Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2021, at 6:45 AM, Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov> wrote: Mike, The 1st step is planning commission. They have the authority to ask for changes or they will not approve. The council puts high consideration on planning commission work when approving projects or asking for changes. I recommend helping to make sure there is a robust discussion at the planning commission about this project. Thank You, Rob Rennie Los Gatos Town Mayor Help me prevent brown act violations. Please do not forward this email From: Chad <> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:24 PM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Lauren Kutting <> Subject: Regarding 110 Wood Road Application PD-20-001 EXTERNAL SENDER Hello, my name is Chad Kutting, resident of in Los Gatos. I received notice of the upcoming planning meeting to discuss the 110 Wood Road application. To date, we have been supportive of the revitalization of the Wood Road property but have grown concerned after the most recent story poles went up. Our home faces south towards one of the proposed buildings and the bulk and mass appears to be significantly larger than appropriate for the hillside. The unobstructed view of the trees and hillside is now covered end to end with the proposed massive structure. In the attached photos you can see how the new structure would dwarf the surrounding homes. Photos attached below. Our hope is that this section can be reduced in mass to better fit within the guidelines for our town. Sincerely - Chad and Lauren Kutting Source: Planning Website (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W) This Page Intentionally Left Blank