Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, February 8, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, February 08, 2022
via Teleconference
AMENDED (2.04.2022)
Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the City Council will meet via Telephone/Video Conference Only.

Telephone: 1-650-242-4929 Meeting ID: 147 155 9988
https://webinar.ringcentral.com/j/1471559988
TO PARTICIPATE VIA VIDEO: Follow the link above. Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of Ringcentral installed (available at http://www.ringcentral.com/download.html). To request to speak, please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.

TO PARTICPATE VIA TELEPHONE: Members of the public may also participate via telephone by calling the number listed above. To request to speak, press *9 on your telephone.

TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emails sent to this email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council. Please include a subject line in the following format:

PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE
Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper must be received by 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Correspondence received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record. Please follow this link for more information on submitting written comments.

Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor, and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
1 2/8/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 3

SPECIAL PRESENTATION
A. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Recipients of the Los Altos Emergency Preparedness Volunteers of the Year Award from the Santa Clara County Emergency Managers’ Association

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Speakers are generally given two or three minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period. According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.

B. Public Comments

CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion unless any member of the Council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. City Council Minutes: Approve the Minutes of the January 25, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting. (A. Chelemengos)

2. Extension of Local Emergency: Adopt Resolution extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (J. Maginot)

3. Investment Policy Update: Adopt the revised Investment Policy for 2022 (J. Furtado)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

4. D21-0003 and TM21-0001 - 355 1st Street LLC - 355 First Street: The City Council will consider the Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map applications and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new 79,885 square-foot four story fifty (50) unit condominium building with two levels of underground parking at 355 First Street. The Planning Commission and Complete Streets Commission recommended approval of the project. (S.Gallegos)

5. 2022 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan: Hold Public Hearing and Introduce and waive further reading of the 2022 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) an update to the 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) and make findings that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15308 as an action that will not have a significant impact on the environment, specifically, for the protection of the climate. (L. Simpson)

6. Fiscal Year 21/21 Fee Schedule: Hold Public Hearing to consider Additions of New Fees and Corrections to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 City of Los Altos Fee Schedule (approved October 26, 2021). The following new fees are proposed to be added to the Los Altos Fee Schedule: Recreation and Community Services Department Fees- Facility Rentals: Additional Facility Attendant Fee; Facility Rentals: Linen Cleaning Fee. (J. Sandoval) 2 2/8/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 3

DISCUSSION ITEMS

7. Off-Leash Fenced-in Dog Parks: Introduce, as read by title only, and waiving further reading, of an ordinance amending Los Altos Municipal Code Section 5.08 authorizing off-leash fenced-in dog parks in certain designated areas within Los Altos, affirming the off leash dog park locations at Hillview and McKenzie and making findings that the projects are exempt pursuant to CEQA and direct the City Manager or designee to prepare and file a notice of exemption in connection with this ordinance, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062 and increase the current fiscal year budget by $100,000. (D. Legge)

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY

8. Tentative Council Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
(Council Norms: It will be the custom to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Prior to the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.)

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610.

Agendas Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/online/index.html.

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk’s Office, City of Los Altos, located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. 3 CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
The City Council of the City of Los Altos
hereby presents this certificate to
Harry Guy
In recognition of being named a Los Altos Emergency Preparedness Volunteer of the Year by the Santa Clara County Emergency Managers’ Association Thank you for your contributions to our community!
Presented on the 8th day of February, 2022.
________________________________________________________ Anita Enander, Mayor
4 Agenda Item # A.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
The City Council of the City of Los Altos
hereby presents this certificate to
Nico Brémeau
In recognition of being named a Los Altos Emergency Preparedness Volunteer of the Year by the Santa Clara County Emergency Managers’ Association Thank you for your contributions to our community!
Presented on the 8th day of February, 2022.
________________________________________________________ Anita Enander, Mayor
5 Agenda Item # A.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

The following is public comment received by the City Clerk’s Office. Members of the public may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Please be advised that, according to State law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period.

Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. 6 Agenda Item # B.

From: Ken Girdley
To: Public Comment
Subject: Rewarding The Privileged With More Privilege
Date: Sunday, February 6, 2022 8:39:51 AM
I drove by our beautiful new community center this afternoon and noticed something quite odd. There are about 20 reserved spaces right in the front of the building close to the entrance reserved for electric vehicles and EV van pool vehicles plus 2 EV charging stations. I'd love to know who approved reserving the best parking spaces for EVs and EV charging stations.

Owning an electric vehicle is a privilege, not a handicap. The City Of Los Altos should not make owning an EV even more of a privilege by allowing EV drivers to park in the best parking spaces in the lot.

Most EV owners are active middle aged professionals who could easily walk from a reserved EV space in the back of the lot. Leave those prime spaces up front for the elderly who may have trouble walking but don't qualify for a Handicap Parking license plate or placard. Don't reward privileged drivers with more privileges. If the city feels it must allocate spaces for EV parking, put them on the back row. Personally, I'm against reserving spaces for anyone except handicapped drivers.

I hope our city council will address what I consider a slap in the face to those residents who can't afford an expensive EV. As I said, don't reward privileged drivers with more privileges.

Ken Girdley
Los Altos
7 Agenda Item # B.

To: City Council Date: February 04, 2022
From: Joan Muhlfelder, Laver Court, Los Altos
WHAT? Over the past 10 years my adjacent neighbors on Laver had been saying they wanted to remodel their home. Last year I was told that they now planned to remove their house and replace it with two pre-fab structures. One house for the family and the other house for perhaps another family member. I was concerned, but felt the process of review by the City and code issues would determine the end product. I learned that a single story construction needed no neighbor input, approval or hearings. When I was later given noticed that two large trees on my property were to be significantly pruned by the neighbor’s contractor, in order to allow a crane to place the two houses, it became clear to me that the two house project was approved and was moving forward.

IT WAS HAPPENING. The original single-story house and foundation were removed.

All the landscaping, and trees on the property were removed. The lot was graded, as parts of Laver Court lie on a significant slope. Two new foundations were constructed.

The foundation nearest to my lot was quite high, at 52 inches above the ground. How high would the structure be?
IT HAPPENED. In January of this year trucks came and brought two pre-fab houses. A crane was used to place the structures onto the two foundations. The structures are both the same shape; rectangular with flat roofs. The houses are parallel to each other and are facing the street. One garage only.

So What? Due to the height of the structures and their proximity to my home, I lost most of my outdoor privacy. The garden in my rear area is now completely exposed; height of new structure, facing windows and sliding glass door allow full view of my garden. Height of the new structure is overpowering. From the front and street view, there are now two closely set structures that bear no resemblance to the neighborhood.

As one moves up the street, the new roofs are glaring and intrusive. These roofs appear stark and reflect onto and into neighbors’ properties.

Now. Are not Building Departments and City Council/Commissions of our City responsible to all its residents? New and modern designed houses are welcomed and can revitalize a neighborhood. ‘ADUs’ are allowed. However, projects that go beyond evolving styles and configurations become eye sores and have negative results for neighboring homes.

What can now be done to minimize the results of this project now? AND, how can the City of Los Altos prevent similar situations? Addition of an Agenda Item to address this project?
8 Agenda Item # B.

From: Ken Girdley
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Must We Also Pay To Charge A Privileged Person"s EV? Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 2:27:46 PM
To add insult to injury, I just learned that the two EV charging stations in front of our community center are free. That means residents who can't afford an EV are paying to charge an EV that a rich person can afford. Hopefully I'm not the only one who sees the irony is all of this.

If the city wants to pay to fill up vehicles at the taxpayers' expense, maybe they should install a gas pump for the other 99.9% of the Los Altos residents.

Ken Girdley
Los Altos
9 Agenda Item # B.

AMENDED

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
Held Via Video/Teleconference Per California Executive Order N-29-20.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Enander called the meeting to order.

ESTABLISH QUORUM

Present: Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows, Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, and Weinberg

Absent: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Myrah and Sancia Hoog. of Girl Scout Troops 60145 and 60435, respectively, led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Enander reported that there was no closed session on which to report.

SPECIAL ITEMS
• Proclamation In Recognition Of The Lunar New Year
Mayor Enander presented the Proclamation in Recognition of Lunar New Year • Recognition of Santa Clara Valley Science and Engineering Fair Association’s 2021 Synopsys Championship Participants and Award Winners from the City of Los Altos
Mayor Enander recognized and congratulated the following Los Altos youth for their participation in the 2021 Synopsys Championship and presented each with certificates of recognition: Elizabeth Barnett, Vivek Bharati, Saanvi Bhargava, Andy Chung, Olivia Colace, Ori Gillai, Kinjal Govil, Prakrit Jain, Thomas Lilygren, Tara Pande, Saloni Shah and Kallie Wang.

The following students provided information on their projects: Elizabeth Barnett, Saanvi Bhargava, Olivia Colace, Ori Gillai, Kinjal Govil, and Katherine Lilygren on behalf of Thomas Lilygren.

Forrest Williams, Board Member, Santa Clara Valley Science and Engineering Fair Association, thanked the Council for their support, encouragement, and recognition of the students’ efforts. 10 Agenda Item # 1.

Amended Minutes
January 25, 2022
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 2 of 5 ends

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes made.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Roberta Phillips (and Jack Levin later in the meeting – noted below) provided comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR

2. City Council Minutes: Approve Minutes of the January 11, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting and January 11, 2022, Joint Study Session with the Planning Commission (A. Chelemengos)

3. 2022 City Council Assignments - Reassignment: Accept the Mayor’s re-assignment of Council Member Weinberg as the Council Liaison to the Los Altos Parks and Recreation Commission and Council Member Fligor as representative to CHAC to resolve meeting schedule conflicts. (A. Chelemengos)

4. Financial Statements and Compliance reports: Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and compliance reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. (J.

Furtado)
Council Member Lee Eng moved to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows and the motion passed 5-0 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

PUBLIC HEARINGS

5. D20-0004 and TM20-0001: GreenTek Homes - 440 First Street: Requests for Design Review Approval and a Tentative Subdivision Map for a three-story building that includes 4 residential condominium units, one level of underground parking for 9 parking spaces and a useable rooftop area. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32), Infill Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Planning Commission and Complete Streets Commission recommended approval of the project with the incorporation of specific design plan modifications. (S. Golden) Interim Planning Services Manager Golden provided a staff report and answered questions from the Council.

Applicant Abbie Bourgan and project architect Chris Hall provided an overview of the project and answered questions from the Council.
11 Agenda Item # 1.

Amended Minutes
January 25, 2022
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 3 of 5 ends

At 9:16 p.m. Mayor Enander called for a recess. At 9:27 p.m., Mayor Enander reconvened the meeting.

Mayor Enander called for public comment.

Phil Underwood commented on the project.

Due to an oversight earlier in the evening, during Public Comments on Items Not On the Agenda, Mayor Enander allowed Jack Levine to provide comments on items not on the agenda.

Mr. Levine commented.

Applicant Bourgan responded to public comment and provided closing remarks.

Following Council discussion, Council Member Fligor moved that the City Council adopt the Resolution making the required findings and also find the project exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approve the Design Review, and Subdivision applications for a four-unit multiple-family project at 440 First Street subject to the conditions outlined in the resolution with the following amendments:
• Correction of the number “100” to “1000” in the 7th and 9th paragraphs on page 1 of the Resolution,
• Exhibit A, 1st paragraph, insertion of the word “documents” following the word “supporting”,
• Exhibit A, 2e, last sentence, the words “and rear” should follow the word “front”, • Condition 25 (Exhibit B) “Emergency Access Easement” be amended to allow for an alternative option (to the first part of the condition) should the project receive approval from the County Roads and Highways Division for ingress/egress access at the rear of the property onto Foothill Expressway.
and the addition of the following conditions of approval:
• Prior to final inspection, vent hoods be installed above the outdoor cook tops located on the roof,
• Additional bike storage areas be incorporated in the garage in conformance with applicable Building Codes,
• Stairwells be prohibited from use as habitable space.

The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows and the motion passed 4-1 with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Fligor, Weinberg, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Enander
NOES: Council Member Lee Eng
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
12 Agenda Item # 1.

Amended Minutes
January 25, 2022
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 4 of 5 ends

DISCUSSION ITEMS

6. Council Legislative Subcommittee: Discuss and consider changes to the format of the Standing Council Legislative Subcommittee (Council Member Fligor) Council Member Fligor provided an introduction of the item. City Attorney Houston also provided information and answered questions relative to Ad Hoc Committees and Standing Committees.

Council discussion commenced.

Due to technical computer issues, Council Member Weinberg was disconnected from the meeting at 10:58 p.m. and returned at 11:00 p.m. This occurred again at 11:02 p.m. and Council Member Weinberg was able to rejoin the meeting again (and for the duration) at 11:05 p.m.

Mayor Enander invited public comment. Roberta Phillips commented.

There was Council consensus that the matter be brought back to the Council for further discussion and to direct the City Attorney to work with Council Member Fligor to prepare a memo providing an overview of the standing committees versus ad hoc committees along with recommendation on the process by which the Council can modify the format of the existing Council Legislative Subcommittee for Council to consider.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
• Tentative Council Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Vice Mayor Meadows and Council Member Lee Eng reported on a recent letter sent by Lehigh Subcommittee to the Board of Supervisors relative to a Lehigh matter on their January 25th agenda. Mayor Enander and Council Member Lee Eng reported that they, each individually, sent a letter on the same matter.

Council Member Lee Eng, with agreement from Mayor Enander and Council Member Fligor, requested an Update from the Housing Element Subcommittee be placed on a future agenda in a way to allow for an update and discussion.

Mayor Enander, with support from Vice Mayor Meadows and Council Member Lee Eng requested a future agenda item to discuss how the City should proceed with regard to its Historical Resource Inventory identification as a result of recent changes in the state law. 13 Agenda Item # 1.

Amended Minutes
January 25, 2022
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting

Page 5 of 5 ends

ADJOURNMENT
At 11:21 p.m., Mayor Enander adjourned the meeting.
____________________________
Anita Enander MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Andrea M. Chelemengos MMC, CITY CLERK
14 Agenda Item # 1.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Resolution No. 2022-xx
Initiated by:

Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

March 12, 2020 (Declaration of Emergency); March 17, 2020; August 24, 2021; October 12, 2021; November 9, 2021; December 7, 2021; January 11, 2022
Fiscal Impact:

None. However, a local emergency declaration is a prerequisite for requesting state or federal assistance.

Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
• Does the Council wish to renew its existing declaration by adopting a resolution declaring a local emergency to emphasize the need for continued adherence to public health guidance?
Summary:
• AB 361 requires the City to adopt a resolution every 30 days extending a local emergency declaration to continue to allow legislative bodies to meet virtually Staff Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2022-xx extending the declaration of a local emergency due to the COVID19 pandemic 15 Agenda Item # 2.

Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
February 8, 2022 Page 2
Purpose
To adopt a resolution extending the existing declaration of emergency Background
On March 12, 2020, the City Manager issued an Emergency Declaration in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-08 ratifying the Emergency Proclamation. The City Council most recently adopted a resolution on January 11, 2022 continuing the declaration of the existence of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The threat posed by COVID-19 continues to pose a serious risk to the public health and safety of the City of Los Altos.

Discussion/Analysis
Resolution No. 2021-46 states that the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager) is to report to the City Council within sixty (60) days on the need for further continuing the local emergency.

AB 361, signed into law on September 15, 2021, allows a public agency to continue to hold virtual City Council and Commission meetings while under a declaration of emergency without complying with certain elements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The bill requires that a legislative body renew the declaration of emergency every 30 days in order to continue meeting in this matter.

AB 361 applies to local agencies until January 1, 2024.

Recommendation
The staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution extending the declaration of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
16 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency relating to the respiratory illness known as COVID-19, which is caused by the novel corona virus SARS-CoV02; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the existence of a pandemic due to the global spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the Los Altos City Manager, in his capacity as the City’s Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency in response to the escalation of COVID-19 to a pandemic, and on March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-08 ratifying and continuing the proclamation of local emergency; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued the first of successive orders requiring all individuals residing in the County to shelter in their places of residence as specified, to socially distance, and to take other measures to prevent community spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, the Governor issued a statewide shelter-in-place order; and on August 28, 2020, the Governor announced a “Blueprint for a Safer Economy,” which provided protocols for slowly reopening the state’s economy following the initial shelter-in-place mandate; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2021; October 12, 2021; November 9, 2021; December 7, 2021 and January 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolutions extending the declaration of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, by the beginning of January 2022, over 1,900 Santa Clara County residents had dies of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, due to the diligence of Los Altos residents in complying with health guidance, Los Altos has one of the lowest rates of reported incidence of COVID-19 infection in Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, vaccines provide proven protection against COVID-19; and WHEREAS, by the beginning of January 2022, approximately 86 percent of Santa Clara County residents over the age of 5 had been vaccinated, and statewide vaccination rates were higher than the national average; and
17 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 2
WHEREAS, the Governor lifted the Blueprint for a Safer Economy on June 15, 2021, and local health restrictions have also been lifted due to sharp declines in COVID-19 case counts since vaccines first became available; and
WHEREAS, despite progress in addressing the pandemic, not all eligible individuals are fully vaccinated, and new, more virulent variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are spreading in California and throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, according to the Santa Clara County Health Department, by July 1, 2021, the 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases reported in Santa Clara County was down to 37 cases per day, but three weeks later on July 22, 2021, the 7-day average was up to 188 cases per day; and
WHEREAS, as a result of rising case counts, on August 2, 2021, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued a new health order requiring the use of face coverings indoors by all persons; and
WHEREAS, despite significant progress, COVID-19 remains a threat to public health and safety in the Los Altos community; and
WHEREAS, throughout the pandemic, the City of Los Altos has taken steps to address the health crisis, for example, by facilitating outdoor dining within the City; and WHEREAS, AB 361 requires the City Council make findings every thirty (30) days reaffirming the existence of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, in view of the ongoing health crisis, the City Council now desires to affirm its existing declaration of local emergency.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Los Altos that:

1. The City Council has reviewed the need for continuing the declaration of local emergency and finds, based on substantial evidence, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and that the public interest and necessity require the continuance of the proclamation of local emergency related to COVID-19.

2. Said local emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until terminated by the City Council of the City of Los Altos.

3. The Director of Emergency Services is hereby directed to report to the City Council within thirty (30) days on the need for further continuing the local emergency and, if deemed appropriate, the City Council may take further action. 18 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 3
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea Chelemengos, MMC, CITY CLERK
19 Agenda Item # 2.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Subject: 2022 Update of City Investment Policy
Prepared by: John Furtado, Finance Director
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Investment Policy (with track changes to highlight edits) Initiated by:

Staff and the Financial Commission
Previous Council Consideration:

June 11, 2019
Fiscal Impact:

None
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
• Does the Council wish to adopt the recommended investment strategies contained within the revised Investment Policy?
Summary:
• Revised investment strategies have been recommended by the Financial Commission Staff Recommendation:

Move to adopt the revised Investment Policy for 2022.

City Manager
Reviewed By:

City Attorney Finance Director

GE JH JF
20 Agenda Item # 3.
2 Subject: 2022 Update of City Investment Policy
Purpose
The City Council’s primary responsibilities over the investment function include approving the Policy, annually reviewing such policy, reviewing investment reports issued by the City Treasurer, authorizing bond documents and other unique financing transactions, and authorizing any deviations from the City’s investment policies.

Background
The City’s Investment Policy sets forth guidelines that ensure the City’s funds are invested in compliance with State law and in a prudent manner. The Policy is reviewed on an annual basis by the Financial Commission. The Policy was reviewed by the Financial Commission on January 24, 2022.

At the commission meeting of August 22, 2021, the City’s investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFM), presented recommended changes to the Policy. PFM’s recommendation was to include the senate Bill 998 a summary of which is in the following paragraph.

On September 28, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 998 (Moorlach) – Local Government Investments (“SB 998”). SB 998, which took effect on January 1, 2021, and is in effect until January 1, 2026, made several amendments to certain sections of the Code which govern the investment of public funds, including

1. Allowing investment in securities issued or backed by the U.S. government that could result in zero or negative interest accrual if held to maturity, in the event of, and for the duration of, a period of negative market interest rates.

2. Allowing local agencies that have more than $100 million of investment assets under management to invest up to 40% in commercial paper (existing limit is 25% for all agencies, other than a county or a city and county).

No Change recommended; The City does not have $100 million in investments

3. Establishing a 10% issuer limit on commercial paper and corporate notes for all agencies, other than a county or a city and county.

No Change recommended; current Policy is more restrictive with an allowable limit of 5%

4. Adding permission for federally recognized Indian tribes to invest and participate in investment Joint Power Authorities (JPAs).

No Change recommended; The City does not have any JPA’s 21 Agenda Item # 3.
3 Discussion/Analysis
On an annual basis, the Financial Commission reviews the Investment Policy to ensure there is diversity, while still fiscally prudent when investing the City’s funds. The recommended changes by the Financial Commission to the Investment Policy January 2022 includes the following:

While both staff and PFM hope the market will not put us in a position to have to buy a security that results in zero or negative interest accrual, PFM recommended and thought it was appropriate to have the option in case it is necessary. This will remain in place till January 1, 2026, or sooner if SB 998 is repealed. Our investment manager PFM will not be allowed to invest in zero or negative interest accrual without the prior permission of the City Manager.

2. LAIF Deposit Limit increase.

State treasurer Fiona Ma announced that effective January 1, 2020, she will increase the Local Agency Investment Fund’s deposit limit for regular accounts to $75 million from the current $65 million. Previously, the most recent deposit limit increase to $65 million from the previous $50 million occurred in January 2016.

Staff recommends increasing the limit in the policy to $75 million.

Recommendation
The staff recommends the City Council adopt the revised investment policy as presented in this report. 22 Agenda Item # 3.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

INVESTMENT POLICY
JANUARY 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
23 Agenda Item # 3.

A. INTRODUCTION
This document sets forth policies designed to ensure that the City’s public funds are invested prudently, efficiently, and in compliance with legal requirements. It was developed in accordance with California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. and is reviewed by the Financial Commission and adopted by City Council each fiscal year.

This document discusses the most important elements of investment management in one comprehensive centralized format and is organized into the following areas of discussion:

A. Introduction
B. Scope
C. Prudent Investor Standard
D. Objectives
E. Guiding Principles
F. Delegation of Authority
G. Financial Commission Oversight
H. Ethics and Conflict of Interest
I. Safekeeping and Custody
J. Reporting Requirements
K. Maximum Maturity
L. Permitted Investment Instruments
M. Prohibited Investment Instruments
N. Glossary of Investment Terms
B. SCOPE
This policy covers all public funds under the direction of the Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor within the following fund types:
• Governmental Funds
• Proprietary Funds
• Fiduciary Funds
The investment of bond proceeds is governed separately by the provisions of the relevant bond documents.

C. PRUDENT INVESTOR STANDARD
All persons involved in investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing the City’s investment portfolio shall act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the City, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the City.

D. OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives, in order or their priority, of the City’s investment program shall be:

Safety - The preservation of the principal of the City’s overall investment portfolio is the foremost objective of the investment program.

Liquidity - The City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to meet its cash flow requirements.

Return on Investment - The City’s investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a reasonable and prudent rate of return consistent with the risk constraints and liquidity demands imposed by its safety objective and cash flow requirements.

ATTACHMENT 1
24 Agenda Item # 3.

E. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The following guiding principles are important in the pursuit of such objectives:

Minimizing Liquidity, Credit and Market Risks: Investment decisions should minimize liquidity, credit or market risks in the following ways:

Liquidity Risk - The risk that the investment portfolio will not provide adequate cash liquidity for operations shall be mitigated by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature at the same time that major cash outflows occur, thus minimizing the need to sell securities prior to their scheduled maturity date unless market conditions present favorable repositioning opportunities.

Credit Risk - The risk of loss of principal associated with the failure of any one security issuer shall be mitigated by investing in only very safe highly-rated securities and prudently diversifying the investment portfolio to avoid concentrating investments in specific security types, maturity durations, or in individual financial institutions.

Market Risk - The risk of market value fluctuations arising from overall changes in the general level of interest rates shall be mitigated through maintaining prudent duration levels, staggering investment maturity dates evenly over a desired overall duration target and prohibiting the taking of short positions (selling securities that the City does not own) and interest rate sensitive derivative instruments. It is explicitly recognized herein, however, that in a diversified portfolio occasional measured losses are inevitable and must be considered within the context of the overall portfolio's structure and expected investment return, with the proviso that adequate diversification and credit analysis have been implemented.

Market Average Rate of Return: The investment portfolio shall be managed to attain a market average rate of return based upon a benchmark that is appropriate for a fund of like character and aims and commensurate with the portfolio’s current investment strategy.

Non-Speculative Approach: This policy specifically prohibits all speculative investment practices, including, but not limited to, those that seek to gain or profit through transactions of high and unusual risk, or that utilize securities whose price is dependent upon or derived from one or more underlying assets (Derivatives).

Professionalism and Public Trust: The City’s investment portfolio is subject to public review and evaluation and shall be designed and managed with the high degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust.

F. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The management responsibility for the City’s investment program has been delegated to the Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor. The Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor shall monitor and review all investments for consistency with this policy, and may delegate investment decision-making and execution authority to investment advisors in accordance with an agreement as authorized by the City Council. The investment advisor shall follow and comply with this policy and all other written instructions provided by the City. The Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor may, in writing, further delegate such investment authority to designated management staff in the Executive and/or Finance Department in the event of the Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor’s absence or other unavailability. The Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor shall prepare and file documents with all financial institutions with which the City conducts investment activities certifying the names of those persons authorized to effect transactions on behalf of the City.

G. FINANCIAL COMMISSION OVERSIGHT
The Financial Commission consists of citizen members appointed by the City Council. The Financial Commission shall meet periodically, at least quarterly, to review general investment strategies and monitor the results of the City’s investment portfolio in coordination with the Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor or finance staff designee. The Financial Commission shall also review any proposed changes to this policy before they are submitted to the City Council for final adoption.

ATTACHMENT 1
25 Agenda Item # 3.

H. ETHICS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
All persons involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activities that could conflict with proper execution of the City’s investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial decisions.

I. SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
All investments of the City’s investment portfolio shall have the City of Los Altos as the registered owner, and all interest and principal payments and withdrawals shall indicate the City of Los Altos as the payee.

All securities shall be safely kept with a qualified financial institution, contracted independently by the City as a third party. All securities shall be acquired by the safekeeping institution on a "delivery-vs.-payment" (DVP) basis. In other words, the security must be delivered before funds are released. The DVP basis for delivery applies also to the delivery and safekeeping of repurchase agreement collateral.

J. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Finance/Andre Director will present to the City Council quarterly investment reports, which will present an overall summary of investment performance and include the following type of information:
• Description of investment instruments held
• Interest rate and yield to maturity
• Maturity dates
• Purchase price
• Par value
• Current market value as of the date of the report, including the source of such valuation • Overall portfolio yield based on cost
• Total return (Quarterly)
• Benchmark comparisons
• Detailed transaction reports shall be made available upon request by any governing member or member of the public
K. MAXIMUM MATURITY
The City may not invest in a security with a maturity date that exceeds five years from the date of purchase.

L. PERMITTED INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS
The California Government Code in section 53600 et seq. sets certain limits on the investment instruments, credit criteria, maximum maturity dates, concentration percentages and other conditions of eligibility in which a government agency’s funds may be invested. However, this policy sets limits on the investment of the City’s investment portfolio that are more restrictive than such California law. The California Code limits and the more restrictive limits applicable to this policy are listed and summarized in the attached Exhibit A (City of Los Altos Allowable Investments). The City’s investment portfolio may be invested only in those instruments permitted in Exhibit A.

It is important to note that from time to time the City may be invested in a security whose rating is downgraded subsequent to the original date of purchase. The Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor, directly or indirectly through the delegation of authority to the investment advisor, shall monitor the status of security ratings. When the City uses the services of outside investment advisors and a rating of a prior-purchased security drops below the minimum allowed rating category for that given investment type, the investment advisor shall immediately notify the Finance/Administrative Services Director or their successor and recommend a plan of action.

ATTACHMENT 1
26 Agenda Item # 3.

M. PROHIBITED INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS
Investment of the City’s investment portfolio in any of the following identified instruments is specifically prohibited:
• Reverse Repurchase Agreements - Differs from a Repurchase Agreement in the sense that a reverse repurchase agreement is one that sells security positions in return for cash with an agreement to repurchase the securities for an agreed upon price.
• Derivatives - Financial instruments whose values are based on or determined by another security, financial instrument or index, including instruments used for hedging. • California State and Local Agency Obligations - Obligations of the State of California or any local agency within the state, including bonds payable solely out of revenues from a revenue producing property owned, controlled or operated by the state or any local agency or by a department, board, agency or authority of the state or any local agency. Nothing in this section shall be construed to exclude the City’s participation in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) operated by the State of California Treasurer’s Office. • Other State Obligations - Registered debt obligations of any of the other 49 United States beyond California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority. • Prohibited Investments Cited in California Government Code Section 53601.6 including, but not limited to:
o Inverse Floaters
o Range Notes
o Mortgage Derivatives or other similar asset backed securities o Interest Only Strips
o Zero Interest Coupon Securities*
*Additionally, the City shall not invest in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity, except as provided in the subsequent paragraph.

Notwithstanding the prohibitions stated in the above paragraph, effective January 1, 2021, the City may invest in securities issued by, or backed by, the United States government that could result in zero- or negative-interest accrual if held to maturity, in the event of, and for the duration of, a period of negative market interest rates.

The City may hold these instruments until their maturity dates. Securities described in this paragraph shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed.

N. GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS
Exhibit B contains a glossary of key investment terms that may be used in this policy.

ATTACHMENT 1
27 Agenda Item # 3.

Exhibit A
City of Los Altos Allowable Investments
ATTACHMENT 1
28 Agenda Item # 3.

Exhibit A
City of Los Altos Allowable Investments
Investment Instruments Calif. Code
Limitation
City Policy Limitation
Collateralized Bank Deposits No term
100% of portfolio
No term
100% of portfolio
State of California - Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF)
No term
100% of portfolio
Max $765 million
No term
100% of portfolio
Max $765 million
Money Market Mutual Funds (SEC
Rule 2a7)
No term
20% of portfolio
10% per issuer
Overnight
20% of portfolio
US owned Calif. institution 10% of
portfolio per issuer
U.S. Treasuries 5 years
100% of portfolio
5 years
100% of portfolio
Federal Agencies (including,
mortgage-backed securities, callable
securities)
5 years
100% of portfolio
5 years
100% of portfolio
20% of portfolio per issuer
35% of portfolio in callables
Municipal Obligations (including
notes issued by the State of
California, California local agencies,
and the other 49 states)
5 years
100% of portfolio
5 years
30% of portfolio
Credit rating category of “A” or its
equivalent or higher by a nationally
recognized statistical-rating organization
(NRSRO)
Other1
Bank /Time Certificates of Deposit 5 years
100% of portfolio
3 years
50% of portfolio
10% of portfolio per issuer
US owned Calif. institution
FDIC/NCUA Insured and/or
collateralized in Treasuries and Agencies
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years
30% of portfolio
5 years
30% of portfolio
3% of portfolio per issuer
Credit rating category of “A” or its
equivalent or higher by a NRSRO
Corporate Medium Term Notes 5 years
30% of portfolio
Credit rating of no
less than A by any
NRSRO
5 years
30% of portfolio
3% of portfolio per issuer
Credit rating category of “A” or its
equivalent or higher by a NRSRO
1Municipal bonds must also be either (1) a general obligation bond whose principal and interest payments are secured by the full faith and credit of the issuer and supported by either the issuer’s unlimited or limited taxing power, or (2) an essential service bond secured with revenue from a water, sewer, power or electric system.

ATTACHMENT 1
29 Agenda Item # 3.

Investment Instruments Calif. Code
Limitation
City Policy Limitation
Repurchase Agreements 1 year
100% of portfolio
102% Collateral
180 days
20% of portfolio
10% of portfolio per issuer
102% Collateral Treasuries/Agencies
US owned Calif. financial institution
Bankers’ Acceptances 180 days
40% of portfolio
30% per issuer
180 days
20% of portfolio
10% of portfolio per issuer
US owned Calif. institution
Commercial Paper 270 days
25% of portfolio
10% per issuer
270 days
25% of portfolio
5% of portfolio per issuer
Credit rating of no less than “A-1” or
its equivalent or higher by an NRSRO.

Obligations issued by the
International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, International
Finance Corporation, or InterAmerican Development Bank 5 years
30% of portfolio
Credit rating of no
less than AA by an
NRSRO
5 years
10% of portfolio
Credit rating of no less than AAA by an
NRSRO
Asset-Backed Securities25 years
20% of portfolio
Credit rating of no
less than AA by an
NRSRO
5 years (WAM)
20% of portfolio
3% of portfolio per issuer
Security shall be rated AAA by an
NRSRO
Supranationals 5 years
30% of portfolio
Credit rating of no
less than AA by an
NRSRO
5 years
20% of portfolio
Credit rating of no less than AA by an
NRSRO
Local Government Investment Pools 100% of portfolio
Advisor requirements
Not permitted
2 Asset-Backed Securities shall not include mortgage related products issued by commercial entities. Investments in asset-backed securities shall generally be limited to those in “senior” tranches.

ATTACHMENT 1
30 Agenda Item # 3.

Exhibit B
Glossary of Investment Terms
ATTACHMENT 1
31 Agenda Item # 3.

Exhibit B
Glossary of Investment Terms
Agency - See "Federal Agency."
Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) - Securities whose income payments and hence value is derived from and collateralized (or "backed") by a specified pool of underlying assets which are receivables. Pooling the assets into financial instruments allows them to be sold to general investors, a process called securitization, and allows the risk of investing in the underlying assets to be diversified because each security will represent a fraction of the total value of the diverse pool of underlying assets. The pools of underlying assets can comprise common payments credit cards, auto loans, mortgage loans, and other types of assets. Interest and principal is paid to investors from borrowers who are paying down their debt.

Bankers' Acceptance (BA's) - A draft or bill of exchange drawn upon and accepted by a bank frequently used to finance the shipping of international goods. Used as a short-term credit instrument, bankers' acceptances are traded at a discount from face value as a money market instrument in the secondary market on the basis of the credit quality of the guaranteeing bank.

Benchmark - A market index used as a comparative basis for measuring the performance of an investment portfolio. A performance benchmark should represent a close correlation to investment guidelines, risk tolerance, and duration of the actual portfolio's investments.

Certificate of Deposit (CD) - Bank obligation issued by a financial institution generally offering a fixed rate of return (coupon) for a specified period of time (maturity). Can be as long as ten years to maturity, but most CDs purchased by public agencies are one year and under.

Collateral - Investment securities or other property that a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan, secure deposits of public monies, or provide security for a repurchase agreement.

Commercial Paper - Short-term unsecured promissory note issued by a company or financial institution that is issued at a discount and matures for par or face value. This instrument usually matures at a maximum maturity of 270 days and bears a short-term debt rating by one or more Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO).

Corporate Medium Term Notes - A debt instrument issued by a corporation with a maturity of greater than one year and less than ten years. Used frequently to refer to corporate notes of medium maturity (five years and under).

Custody - Safekeeping services offered by a bank, financial institution or trust company, referred to as the “custodian.” Service normally includes the holding and reporting of the customer's securities, the collection and disbursement of income, securities settlement and market values.

Delivery Versus Payment (DVP) - The settlement procedure in which securities are delivered versus payment of cash, but only after cash has been received. Most security transactions, including those through the Federal Reserve Securities Wire system and DTC, are done DVP as a protection for both the buyer and seller of securities.

Depository Trust Company (DTC) - A firm through which members can use a computer to arrange for securities to be delivered to other members without physical delivery of certificates. A member of the Federal Reserve System and owned mostly by the New York Stock Exchange, the Depository Trust Company uses computerized debit and credit entries. Most corporate securities, commercial paper, CDs, and BAs clear through DTC.

ATTACHMENT 1
32 Agenda Item # 3.

Derivative - A financial instrument whose value is based on or determined by another security, financial instrument, or index.

Diversification - Dividing investment funds among a variety of security types, maturities, industries, and issuers offering potentially independent returns.

Federal Agency - These are Federal government sponsored and/or owned entities created by the U.S.

Congress, generally for the purpose of acting as a financial intermediary by borrowing in the marketplace and directing proceeds to specific areas of the economy considered to otherwise have restricted access to credit markets. The largest federal agencies are Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHLB, FFCB, and TVA.

Federal Reserve System (the Fed) - The independent central bank system of the United States that establishes and conducts the nation's monetary policy. This is accomplished in three major ways: (1) raising or lowering bank reserve requirements, (2) raising or lowering the target Federal Reserve Funds Rate and Discount Rate, and (3) in open market operations by buying and selling government securities. The Federal Reserve System is made up of twelve Federal Reserve District Banks, their branches, and many national and state banks throughout the nation. It is headed by the seven-member Board of Governors known as the “Federal Reserve Board” and led by its Chairman.

Federal Treasuries - A collective term used to describe debt instruments backed by the U.S. Government and issued through the U.S. Department of the Treasury that includes Treasury bills, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Also a benchmark term used as a basis by which the yields of non-Treasury securities are compared (e.g., "trading at 50 basis points over Treasuries").

Fiduciary Funds - Term used when a governmental unit acts in a fiduciary capacity such as a trustee or agent.

The government unit is responsible for handling the assets placed under its control.

Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) - A privately owned entity subject to federal regulation and supervision, created by the U.S. Congress to reduce the cost of capital for certain borrowing sectors of the economy such as students, farmers, and homeowners. GSEs carry the implicit backing of the U.S.

Government, but they are not direct obligations of the U.S. Government. For this reason, these securities will offer a yield premium over Treasuries. Examples of GSEs include: FHLB, FHLMC, FNMA, and SLMA.

Governmental Funds - Term used in Government Accounting to apply to all funds except for the profit and loss funds (e.g., enterprise fund, internal service fund) and trust and agency funds. Examples of government funds are the general fund, special assessment fund, and capital projects fund. Governmental funds use the modified accrual accounting method.

Government Instrumentalities (Supranationals) – Entities formed by two or more central governments with the purpose of promoting economic development for the member countries. Supranational institutions finance their activities by issuing debt, such as supranational bonds. Examples of supranational institutions include the European Investment Bank and the World Bank. Similarly to the government bonds, the bonds issued by these institutions are considered direct obligations of the issuing nations and have a high credit rating.

Index - A compilation of statistical data that tracks changes in the economy or in financial markets.

Interest-Only (IO) Strips - A security based solely on the interest payments from the bond. After the principal has been repaid, interest payments stop and the value of the security falls to nothing. Therefore, IOs are considered risky investments and are usually associated with mortgage-backed securities.

ATTACHMENT 1
33 Agenda Item # 3.

Inverse Floater - A floating rate security structured in such a way that it reacts inversely to the direction of interest rates. Considered risky as their value moves in the opposite direction of normal fixed income investments and whose interest rate can fall to zero.

Investment Advisor - A company that provides professional advice managing investment portfolios offers investment recommendations and/or research in exchange for a management fee.

Liquidity – This is a measure of the relative ease of converting an asset into cash without significant loss of value and the level of cash and near-cash items in a portfolio of assets. This term also describes the marketability of money market security correlating to the narrowness of the spread between bid and ask prices.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) - Special fund in the California State Treasurer’s Office which local agencies may access to deposit funds for short-term investment and reinvestment.

Market Value - The fair market value of a security or commodity or the price at which a willing buyer and seller would pay for a security.

Maturity Date - Date on which principal payment of a financial obligation is due.

Money Market Mutual Fund (2a-7) - A type of mutual fund that invests solely in money market instruments, such as Treasury bills, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, and repurchase agreements. Money market mutual funds are registered with the SEC under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are subject “rule 2a-7” which significantly limits average maturity and credit quality of holdings.

Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) - Mortgage-backed securities represent an ownership interest in a pool of mortgage loans made by financial institutions, such as savings and loans, commercial banks, or mortgage companies, to finance the borrower's purchase of a home or other real estate. The majority of MBS are issued and/or guaranteed by GNMA, FNMA and FHLMC. There are a variety of MBS structures, some of which can be very risky and complicated. All MBS have reinvestment risk as actual principal and interest payments are dependent on the payment of the underlying mortgages which can be prepaid by mortgage holders to refinance at lower rates or simply because the underlying property was sold.

Mortgage Pass-Through Securities - A pool of residential mortgage loans with the monthly interest and principal distributed to investors on a pro-rata basis. Largest issuer is GNMA.

Municipal Note/Bond - Debt issued by a state or local government unit or public agency. The vast majority of municipals are exempt from state and federal income tax, although some non-qualified issues are taxable.

Mutual Fund - Portfolio of securities professionally managed by a registered investment company that issues shares to investors. Many different types of mutual funds exist (bond, equity, money market fund); all except money market funds operate on a variable net asset value (NAV).

NRSRO - “Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization.” An entity designated as a rating organization that the SEC has recognized as having a strong national presence in the U.S. NRSROs provide credit ratings on corporate and bank debt issues. Only ratings of an NRSRO may be used for the regulatory purposes of rating. They include Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch among others.

Par Value - Face value, stated value or maturity value of a security.

Principal - Face value of a financial instrument on which interest accrues which may be less than par value if some principal has been repaid or retired. For a transaction, principal is par value as a factor of price and includes any premium or discount.

ATTACHMENT 1
34 Agenda Item # 3.

Proprietary Funds - In governmental accounting, one having profit and loss aspects; therefore it uses the accrual rather than modified accrual accounting method. The two types of proprietary funds are the Enterprise Fund and the Internal Service Fund.

Prudent Investor Standard - Standard that requires that when investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. This standard is more stringent than the “prudent person” standard as it implies a level of knowledge commensurate with the responsibility at hand.

Range Note - A type of structured note that accrues interest daily at a set coupon rate that is tied to an index.

Most range notes have two coupon levels; a higher accrual rate for the period the index is within a designated range, the lower accrual rate for the period that the index falls outside the designated range. This lower rate may be zero and may result in zero earnings.

Rate of Return - Amount of income received from an investment, expressed as a percentage of the amount invested.

Repurchase Agreement (Repo) - A short-term investment vehicle in which an investor agrees to buy securities from a counterparty and simultaneously agrees to resell the securities back to the counterparty at an agreed upon time and for an agreed upon price. The difference between the purchase price and the sale price represents interest earned on the agreement. In effect, it represents a collateralized loan to the investor, where the securities are the collateral. Can be DVP, where securities are delivered to the investor’s custodial bank, or “tri-party” where the securities are delivered to a third-party intermediary. Any type of security can be used as “collateral,” but only some types provide the investor with special bankruptcy protection under the law. Repos should be undertaken only when an appropriate approved banking master repurchase agreement is in place.

Reverse Repurchase Agreement (Reverse Repo) - This is a repo from the point of view of the original seller of securities. Used by dealers to finance their inventory of securities by essentially borrowing at short-term rates. Can also be used to leverage a portfolio and in this sense, can be considered risky if used improperly.

Safekeeping - Service offered for a fee, usually by financial institutions, for the holding of securities and other valuables. Safekeeping is a component of custody services.

Supranational Bonds - Are defined as those issued by entities formed by two or more central governments to promote economic development for the member countries. For example, United States dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank.

Total Return - Investment performance measured over a period of time that includes coupon interest, interest on interest, and both realized and unrealized gains or losses. Total return includes, therefore, any market value appreciation/depreciation on investments held at period end.

Weighted average maturity (WAM) - is the weighted average amount of time of the maturities on the underlying mortgages in a mortgage-backed security (MBS) and assets in asset backed securities (ABS). This term is used more broadly to describe maturities for these instruments as these securities invest in multiple specified pools of underlying assets and these underlying pools may have varying maturities.

ATTACHMENT 1
35 Agenda Item # 3.

Yield to Maturity (YTM) - Calculated return on an investment, assuming all cash flows from the security are reinvested at the same original yield. Can be higher or lower than the coupon rate depending on market rates and whether the security was purchased at a premium or discount. There are different conventions for calculating YTM for various types of securities.

ATTACHMENT 1
36 Agenda Item # 3.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
__GE__
Finance Director
_JH__ _JH__

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Subject Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355,365,371,373 First Street
Prepared by: Sean K. Gallegos, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Laura Simpson, Interim Community Development Director Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Resolution No. 2022-XXX

2. Joint Planning/Complete Streets Meeting Minutes, December 2, 2021

3. Joint Planning/Complete Streets Meeting Agenda Report and Attachments, December 2, 2021

4. CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration Technical Appendices

5. Project Design Plans and Tentative Map
Initiated by:

Applicant, 355 1st St LLC
Previous Council Consideration:

None
Fiscal Impact:

The project will result in the following estimated financial contributions to the City’s special revenue funds:
• Park in-Lieu Fees: $195,200 ($48,800/multiple-family dwelling unit) • Traffic Impact Fees: $16,636 ($4,159/multiple-family dwelling unit) • Los Altos Public Art Fund: one percent of construction costs, up to $200,000 Environmental Review:

On November 2, 2021 a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed with the County Clerk for a twenty (20) day comment period. No comments were received for this project and the environmental document indicates that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. However, the mitigation measures identified in the initial study would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (the City of Los Altos) that the project, 37 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 2
with mitigation measures incorporated, may have a significant effect on the environment. Please review Attachment 6 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) in the Joint Planning/Complete Streets Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 3) for further details.

Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:

Does the proposal meet the required findings for design review and subdivision per the Los Altos Municipal Code?
Summary:
• The Project includes the demolition of six existing commercial buildings and one existing single-family residence, and the construction of a new four-story multiple-family building with 50 condominium units, two levels of underground parking with 113 parking spaces, 34 interior bicycle parking spaces, and a private rooftop area. • The Project will replace the existing sidewalk along First Street and Whitney Street and will be required to add two new ADA ramps and crosswalk striping per the City standards on the northeast and southeast corner of the intersection with First Street and Whitney Street.
• The Project proposes six (6) dedicated below market rate units with three (3) at the moderate-income level and three (3) at the very low-income level. Since the project is providing 8% of the units at the very low-income level, it qualifies for one (1) density bonus concession / incentive.
• The Project was reviewed by the Complete Streets and Planning Commissions. The Complete Streets Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval with specific modifications.

Staff Recommendation:

City Council approval of design review and subdivision applications D21-0003 and TM21-0001 per the findings and conditions contained in the resolution. 38 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 3
Purpose
Consider the recommendation from the Planning Commission and Complete Streets Commission and evaluate whether the project complies with the Los Altos Municipal Code requirements for design review and tentative subdivision map approval and furthers the City’s efforts of providing for the production of housing, as reflected in the Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Housing Element and other elements in the Los Altos General Plan.

Background
Site Setting and Project Description
The development proposal includes a Design Review and Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map applications for a new four story, 50-unit multiple-family residential development on a .64-acre (27,887 square-foot) site comprised of four parcels at 355 First Street (APN: 167-41-026), 365 First Street (APN: 167-41-027), 371 First Street (APN: 167-41-028), and 373 First Street (APN:
167-41-029). The project site is located on the east side of First Street, at the intersection of Whitney Street, and it is developed with seven existing buildings totaling 7,648 square feet, including a hair salon, coin shop, office building, a single-family residence and two outbuildings.

The four sites do not gain vehicular access from First Street, the site at 355 First Street obtains access from a driveway along Whitney Street, and the three parcels at 365 First Street, 371 First Street and 373 First Street gain vehicular access from the alley that runs along the rear (eastern) property line.

The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing buildings and construct a four-story building with 50 residential condominium units, two levels of underground parking with 113 parking spaces, 34 interior bicycle parking spaces, and a private rooftop area. The driveway location will be located along the alley that abuts the eastern lot line and will provide access to the underground garage.

The Project will replace the existing sidewalk along First Street and Whitney Street and will be required to add two new ADA ramps and crosswalk striping per the City standards on the northeast and southeast corner of the intersection with First Street and Whitney Street. The Project proposes six (6) dedicated below market rate units with three (3) at the moderate-income level and three (3) at the very low-income level. Since the project is providing 8% of the units at the very low-income level, it qualifies for one (1) density bonus concession / incentive.

Planning Commission Study Session
On January 21, 2021, the Planning Commission held a study session to review and provide feedback on the Project’s architectural and site design. At that time, the project was proposed as 50 condominium units with a four-story building with two levels of underground with 111 parking spaces. The underground parking was accessed from the alley that abuts the eastern lot line. The project shown to the Planning Commission identified a total of eight (8) affordable units (7 moderate and 1 low-income unit) with a base density of 37 units for the project. 39 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 4
Overall, the Commission expressed general support for the project. The Commissioners shared some concerns such as:

1. The fourth floor could benefit from some setback or better articulation,

2. The rear elevation is more successful than the front elevation, the structure appears bulky for First Street and lacks a relationship to the City’s village character,

3. The unit sizes could be reduced to create smaller units,

4. There is an opportunity to create a buffer zone between the sidewalk and building, recommended the applicant use the objective design standards being developed at time of commission review,

5. The building entrance is underwhelming, the interior courtyard could be used in a better way,

6. An improved landscaping plan is necessary to improve the transition from the building to back of sidewalk,

7. The roof deck needs to insulate noise and light to neighbors, and the development could use more affordable units.

Please refer to Attachment 2 in the Complete Streets Commission/Planning Commission Agenda report (Attachment 3) for comments made by the commission at this meeting.

Complete Streets Commission Study Session
Per Section 2.08.160 of the Los Altos Municipal Code the Complete Streets Commission (CSC) is an advisory body to the City Council on bicycle, pedestrian, parking, and traffic matters. As a result, and per 14.78.090 of the Los Altos Municipal Code, City staff and the applicant attended a study session with the applicant on February 24, 2021. Formal meeting minutes are not available for this meeting, but below is a summary of the major items discussed and how the project has been modified accordingly:

Table 1-Complete Streets Commission CSC Input
CSC Comments Applicant’s Response
Enhance back-alley access The alley was enhanced with further raised planters and the exit was enhanced with a raised walkway.

Additional bicycle parking Bicycle parking above the required has been provided.

As we develop the utilities for the
project more space may be available.

Additional EV Charging station An EV Charging Station has been provided for every unit
Examine streetscape on First
Street
Numerous design revisions have been made to the
project including the building design and the
landscape.
40 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 5
SB330 - Joint Complete Streets Commission and Planning Commission Meeting Development project applications submitted after January 1, 2020 are subject to SB-330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. The application was submitted on January 19, 2021; therefore, the project is subject to SB-330 provisions which includes a maximum of five public hearings. To reduce the total number of hearings, the Los Altos City Council directed staff and commissions to hold joint meetings; therefore, on December 2, 2021, the Complete Streets Commission and Planning Commission held a joint meeting to consider the project and provide recommendations to the City Council as specified by the Zoning Code. The Complete Streets Commission is tasked with reviewing the bicycle, pedestrian, parking and traffic elements of a development application and providing an advisory recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council recommending approval of the proposed project. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the project with a suggestion that electric power charges be installed in the bike storage area. A copy of the minutes for the meeting are provided as Attachments 2 and 3.

Story Pole Installation
Pursuant to the City Council Policy and Community Development Department procedures, the Applicant installed story poles per the approved plans as verified by the Applicant’s civil engineer/surveyor as found in the certification letter included as Attachment 9 of the Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 3).

Summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis
The VTA VMT Evaluation Tool says that residential projects located within the project’s transportation analysis zone (TAZ) would generate 7.08 VMT/capita. Similarly, the tool finds that the proposed project is projected to generate 6.37 VMT per capita. Since the proposed project’s estimated VMT per capita of 6.37 is lower than the significance threshold of 10.39 VMT per capita, the project would have a less than significant impact of vehicle miles traveled. Please review the TIA within the Mitigated Negative Declaration for additional traffic related details.

Project consistency with the General Plan and CMP’s LOS thresholds was evaluated relative to both existing traffic and background traffic volumes. For the existing plus project scenario, the levels of service at the seven study intersections under study were evaluated for the current traffic conditions and the traffic conditions expected to result from added vehicular trips under the proposed project.

The project is estimated to generate 196 new daily trips, with 9 net new trips (-3 inbound and 12 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 12 net new trips (12 inbound and 0 outbound) during the PM peak hour. A copy of the TIA is provided
The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the 41 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 6
surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The project impacts were evaluated relative to the seven intersections conveyed in Table 4 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (Attachment 4), and it found the following:
• Five of the seven study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during both AM and PM peak hours. Since the project would add trips to existing low-delay movements, there would be a decrease in overall average delay at some intersections. • The intersection of Foothill Expressway and San Antonio Road currently operates at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. However, the addition of project trips would not adversely affect traffic operations at the intersection because these trips would not increase the average delay at the intersection by more than four seconds. • The San Antonio Road & Whitney Street/Pepper Drive intersection currently operates at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. However, the addition of project generated trips would not adversely affect traffic operations at the intersection. Since the unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road & Whitney Street/Pepper Drive operates at LOS E, a signal warrant check (MUTCD 2010 edition, Part 4, Warrant 3) was conducted for the intersection based on the peak-hour traffic warrant. The analysis shows that the signal warrant is not met with or without the project.

The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic volumes at the affected intersections. The City of Los Altos’ circulation system would continue to operate effectively following implementation of the project. Therefore, traffic generated by the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and the Congestion Management Program.

Transit Stop
The closest bus stop is located along both sides of San Antonio Road (near Whitney Street) approximately 800 feet from the subject site which is considered an acceptable walking distance.

Local VTA route 40 provides service between Foothill College in Los Altos Hills and La Avenida Street in Mountain View via San Antonio Road, Lyell Street and First Street. According to the traffic impact analysis, existing bus service is expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate new riders as a result of the project.

Pedestrian and Bicycles
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. The proposed project would provide sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. The project proposes to construct a new five-foot-wide sidewalk and seven-foot-wide planting strip along its frontage on Whitney Street and an eight to 12-foot-wide sidewalk along its frontage on First Street. Trees would be planted along the sidewalk on the First Street frontage.
42 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 7
The Pedestrian Master Plan includes goals, policies and actions for improving the pedestrian environment in Los Altos, including planning for pedestrian accommodation and facilities that serve people of all ages and abilities, developing a safe pedestrian network, and increasing pedestrian mode share. Pedestrian circulation would not be inhibited by the proposed project and the project would not conflict with the Los Altos Pedestrian Master Plan. The proposed project would include pedestrian access points to existing facilities and would not prevent the City from implementing the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan. If approved by the City Council, the applicant will be required to improve the sidewalk along First and Whitney so there is an accessible path of travel per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site include bike lanes and bike routes. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III facilities) are roadways shared between bicycles and vehicles. While most streets in the downtown area lack bicycle facilities, they have slow traffic speeds and are conducive to bicycling. The project proposes to provide 34 long term Class I bicycle parking spaces located in bicycle lockers in the underground garage area, which complies with the VTA guidelines to provide one Class I facility for every three units. The project also proposes six short term Class II bicycle parking spaces on two bicycle racks located along the project frontage on First Street, which complies with the VTA standard to provide one Class II bicycle facility for every 15 units. See sheet A08 of the submitted plans for details.

The project would not remove any bicycle facilities and would not preclude the continued use of existing bicycle facilities in the project area, nor would it conflict with Los Altos General Plan policies promoting continued and expanded bicycle use.

Discussion/Analysis
General Plan and Zoning District Development Standards
The Project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies contained in the Los Altos General Plan. This includes goals, policies and programs in the Land Use Element, Community Design & Historic Resources Element, Economic Development Element and Housing Element. The Project complies with all applicable site standards for a multiple-family residential project in the CD/R3 District1
, and all other applicable Zoning Code site development requirements. Pursuant to Section

14.52.060 of the Municipal Code, the Project is required to provide a minimum 60% of softscape surfaces (plant material) within the front and rear yard areas. The Applicant is providing approximately 60% of the front yard and rear yard area with softscape surfaces.

1 The project was deemed complete prior to the recent zoning ordinance changes that established new objective design standards; therefore, the Project was reviewed for consistency with the prior zoning ordinance requirements. 43 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 8
Design Review Findings and Guidelines
To approve the Project, the City Council must make positive design review findings as outlined in Section 14.78.060 of the Municipal Code (see the Resolution in Attachment 1). In addition to complying with the standard design review findings, the Project must address the CD/R3 District’s Design Controls (Section 14.52.110).

Overall, the project reflects a desired and appropriate development intensity for the CD/R3 District and within the First Street District as outlined in the General Plan and the Downtown Vision. The multiple-family development provides for studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom market-rate housing units that are more affordable by design as compared to single-family housing that is the predominant housing type in Los Altos and will contribute to the commercial vitality of the Downtown. The proposal meets General Plan Policy Land Use Policy 3.1, which encourages residential development above the ground floor that includes affordable housing units in the downtown core.

The proposal has architectural integrity and has an appropriate relationship with other structures in the immediate area in terms of height, bulk and design. The majority of the older buildings in the immediate area are fairly nondescript and lack a lot of architectural style. These are typically small-scale buildings at this time, but many are in the process of being transformed into larger scale developments. The projects at 389, 425, and 440 First Street have three stories of residential units above grade while 450 First Street and this project at 355 First Street have four stories above grade. A comparison of the projects’ First Street facades are shown below at a matching scale, and this is conveyed in the architectural peer review report by Cannon Design Group shown as Attachment 5 in the Complete Streets Commission/Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 3). While the project includes an increase in scale from existing buildings, it is compatible with height, mass, and bulk with this project of the projects approved by the City Council in the neighborhood context.

The building mass is articulated to relate to the human scale, both horizontally and vertically.

Building elevations have variation and depth and avoid large blank wall surfaces. The building was designed with numerous changes in wall planes both horizontally and vertically to provide strong visual interest. The patio spaces at the lower-level step in and out and have cantilevered elements above that provide a sense of habitation as well and relating to human scale at the ground level. The second level balconies are recessed into the façade to provide a covered outdoor space while the upper balconies step back to break up the building massing with depth and a material change. The building entrance is clearly identifiable and the scale and material of the entrance and the surrounding landscaping signals its use.

The exterior materials and finishes convey high quality, integrity, permanence and durability, and materials are used effectively to define building elements. The exterior materials for this project reflect not only the architectural style of the building, but high-quality durable materials as well. 44 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 9
A clean lined modern stone veneer is used at the planter elements to define the base of the building.

The horizontal siding material layered with the panels defines a base and creates a layered effect to break down the building mass. These materials along with the selected color palette provide a rich street presence that is harmonious with surrounding buildings both old and new.

The landscape plan appears generous and inviting. The building along First Street has been set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line providing a constant band of landscape planters integrated into the front of the building. In addition to this landscape buffer, there are street trees planted at regular intervals within the City right of way to provide a shaded pedestrian experience as people walk towards downtown. The maximum amount of landscaping is provided with a layering of planter wall heights. Bike racks and benches are provided. Street trees are proposed on First Street and the Alley. The existing street trees on Whitney Street are proposed to remain The mechanical equipment is screened from public view due to the building screening being designed to match the building parapet heights, and screen equipment from public view.

The service, trash and utility areas are screened from public view, or are enclosed in structures that are consistent with the building architecture in materials and detailing due to the trash areas being enclosed within the basement and not being visible from the street. A service vehicle (Cushman 35LR54) is shown on the upper garage plan to move trash from the trash storage area to the trash staging area along the alley on the east side of the building.

The Downtown Design Guidelines (adopted December 8, 2009) and the more recently adopted Downtown Vision Plan provide additional criteria and guidelines for new development to ensure that high quality materials are utilized, appropriate scales and massing are incorporated, and overarching Downtown characteristics are preserved and maintained. An architectural peer review report, which includes a summary the Downtown Design Guidelines for the First Street District and a critique of the architectural design, was completed for the project is shown as Attachment 5 in the Complete Streets Commission/Planning Commission Agenda report (Attachment 3). The Applicant chose to modify the design based on the architectural peer review report as conveyed in Table 3 of the Complete Streets Commission/Planning Commission Agenda report, which was also considered and supported by the majority of Planning Commissioners.

Overall, as evidenced in this discussion, the discussion in the Complete Streets Commission/Planning Commission Agenda report (Attachment 3), and as further supported by the findings contained in the resolution (Attachment 1), the project meets the City’s required design review findings and zoning district design controls. The Planning Commission considered the design at their December 2, 2021 meeting, and they recommended approval of the project. 45 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 10
Affordable Housing - Density Bonus and Development Incentives Chapter 14.28 of the Municipal Code requires a minimum of 15 percent of the units be affordable, with a majority of the units designated as affordable at the moderate-income level and the remaining units designated as affordable at the low or very-low-income level. Since the base density for the project is 39 dwelling units, the project must provide 5.85 (rounded up to six) affordable units.

The project is consistent with the City’s affordable housing regulations insofar as it proposes six affordable housing units, where six are required. However, by providing three moderate income units and three very-low-income unit, the project is in NOT complying with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requirement to provide the majority of units at the moderate-income level.

Four moderate-income units are required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.020. According to Condition No. 13, the project is approved conditioned upon meeting the minimum requirement to provide four moderateincome units. This condition does not alter or affect the number of very low-income units that the project will provide to qualify for the density bonus sought by the applicant. The applicant and the City disagree as to the application of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to the project and have jointly requested technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). HCD declined to provide advice to resolve the disagreement.

Therefore, the project is conditioned to administratively provide four moderate-income units consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Housing Element program 4.3.2 requires that affordable housing units generally reflect the size and number of bedrooms of the market rate units. In this case, the overall project is proposing four three-bedroom units. The project includes one one-bedroom and two two-bedroom units at the moderate-income level and one studio unit and two one-bedroom units at the very-low income level. The project proposes 44 market rate units, with one studio unit, four one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom units, and 11 three-bedroom units. Due to the percentage of overall affordable units proposed, it appears that the proposed unit type of affordable housing units meets the intent of the program.

Under the State’s density bonus regulations (Section 65915 of the California Government Code), the project qualifies for a 27.5% density bonus if it provides at least 8% very-low income units, for a total of 11 units at a base density of 39 units, for a total of 50 units.

Density Bonus Concessions
Since the project is providing more than five percent of its units as affordable at the very-low income level, it qualifies for one development incentives per State Law and City Ordinance. To help guide incentives requested by developers and ensure that the incentives do not result in any adverse impacts, the City adopted a list of “on-menu” incentives or concessions. In this case, the 46 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 11
project is seeking a height incentive to allow the project to exceed the maximum height limit of 45 feet by 11 feet (on-menu).

Under Government Code Section 65915(e) and Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.040(F), the City must grant the requested incentive unless it can make specific negative findings. Under the Ordinance, the City has determined that “on-menu” incentives would not have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment, which is one of three potential findings necessitating denial of the request, thus one of the following two findings would need to be made to deny the request:
• The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with the definition of “concession” or “incentive,” to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health & Safety Section 50052.5, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subsection (I).
• The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

There is not sufficient evidence currently in the record to make either of the other required findings for denial, i.e., that the incentive or concession would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or would be contrary to state or federal law.

Therefore, staff recommends the granting of the Applicant’s requests.

Density Bonus Waiver
In addition to requesting incentives and concessions, applicants may request the waiver of an unlimited number of development standards that would physically preclude the construction of a project with the density bonus and the incentives or concessions to which the development is entitled, per Government Code Section 65915(e)(1), which reads:

In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. Subject to paragraph (3), an applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

Density Bonus Waiver #1
Applicant is requesting a waiver of the development standard set forth in LAMC Sec.

14.74.200(A) which requires that perpendicular parking spaces in off-street parking facilities 47 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 12
must have a width of no less than nine (9) feet. Based on information provided by the project architect, to provide the amount of parking proposed by the Project, the width of twelve (12) of the parking spaces was reduced to 8.5 feet x 18feet.

Density Bonus Waiver #2
Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for a building height to allow the elevator to be 17 feet six inches when the code prohibits roof top structures taller than 12 feet in height. Based on information provided by the architect for the Project, an elevator shaft is necessary to comply with accessibility standards please see Attachments 3-(Density Bonus Report) and Attachment 4 (Elevator Shaft Details) for further details.

The waiver requests appear appropriate and reasonable for a project of this size and scope. There is sufficient evidence currently in the record that the development standard (absent the requested waiver) would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development meeting the criteria of the State Density Bonus Law or the Los Multiple-Family Affordable Housing Ordinance at the densities or with the incentives permitted thereunder was confirmed in the Density Bonus Report. The concession or incentive would not have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to very low-income and moderate-income households. Therefore, staff recommends the granting of the Applicant’s requests.

A Density Bonus Report that supports the density bonus, development incentives and waiver requests was prepared by the Applicant and is included in Attachment 2 of the Complete Streets Commission/Planning Commission Agenda report (Attachment 3) Density Bonus and Parking
Under the provisions of Density Bonus law, the project is entitled to reduced parking ratios and is only required to provide 70 parking spaces. The project proposes to exceed this requirement by providing 111 total spaces (99 regular sizes stalls (9x18 in size) and 12 reduced spaces (8.5 x18).

Subdivision
The Project includes a Vesting Tentative Map to create one lot for further subdivision with a condominium plan. The recording of a subsequent condominium plan would further allow for division of the air space for the four residential units as well as assign below grade parking spaces and other common areas. As outlined in the resolution, the subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan, is physically suitable for this type and density of development, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their 48 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 13
habitat, is not injurious to public health and safety, and provides proper access easements for ingress, egress, public utilities and public services.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act. The analysis has determined that there are no significant environmental impacts with implementation of proposed mitigation measures.

On November 2, 2021 a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed with the County Clerk for a twenty (20) day comment period. The City received a request to be notified about projects in the city of Cupertino from the Tamien Nation, because the city is within the geographic area with which they are traditionally and culturally affiliated. The City consulted with Tamien Nation for this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. No comments were received for this project. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are included in Attachment 6 of the December 2, 2021 Planning/Complete Streets Commission report (Attachment 3).

Options
1) Approve Resolution No. 2022-XX
Advantages: The project will replace underdeveloped commercial properties with a highquality multiple-family development that helps the City meet its goals for producing new housing units and is supportive of the goals of the Downtown Vision Plan.

Disadvantages: The amount of commercial building space along First Street will be reduced.
2) Do not approve Resolution No. 2022-XX
Advantages: The existing commercial buildings on the sites will be maintained.

Disadvantages: The City will not make any progress on achieving its goals for the production of new housing units and implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan.

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), California Government Code Section 65589.5(j), requires that when a proposed housing development complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, but a local agency proposes to deny the project or approve it only if the density is reduced, the agency must base its decision on written findings supported by substantial evidence that:
49 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Proposed Four-Story Multiple-Family Residential at 355 First Street February 8, 2022 Page 14

1. The development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density.

Subdivision (j) of the HAA also requires the local agency to identify and provide written documentation of the reasons why a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other provision within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.

The proposed project has been determined to comply with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, including maximum height, density, minimum setbacks, useable common and private open space, and number of parking spaces. Thus, subdivision (j) of the Housing Accountability Act applies. Staff is not aware of any basis to make the findings listed above.

Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend Option 1.
50 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1 of 24 pages
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR A NEW FIFTY UNIT MULTIPLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 355 FIRST

STREET AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos received a development application from DeNardi Wang Homes for a new a 50 unit, multiple-family project, which includes design review and subdivision applications (TM21-0001; D21-0003), referred herein as the “Project”; and WHEREAS, said Project has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Complete Streets Commission held duly noticed joint public hearings on the Project on December 2, 2021 and December 16, 2021, at which all public comment was duly considered and the Complete Streets Commission recommended Planning Commission and City Council approval of the project. The Planning Commission subsequently recommended City Council approve the Project; and; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on the Project on February 8, 2022 and February 22, 2022 by law and considered public testimony and evidence and recommendations presented by staff related to the Project; and; and WHEREAS, the applicant and the City of Los Altos did not receive technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) regarding the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study for the Project has been completed pursuant to CEQA which identifies potentially significant effects on the environment which would result from the Project, and concludes that these impacts can be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance with adoption and implementation of certain mitigation measures therein identified and listed; and WHEREAS, based on this Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, which finds that any potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project would be sufficiently mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures specified therein; a complete copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and all supporting exhibits and documents are on file and can be viewed at the City office; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intent of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project on November 2, 2021, which started a 20-day public review period. The notice was posted at the City office, the County Clerk, on the City website, published in the Town Crier and sent to all property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the project, and all interested persons; and 51 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 2 of 24 pages
WHEREAS, at the February 8and February 22 2022 meetings, the City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project, any comments received to-date and the responses prepared, invited additional comments from the public; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted its own independent analysis of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan were appropriate as there is substantial evidence the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and the mitigated negative declaration reflects the District's independent judgment and analysis; and
WHEREAS, the findings and conclusions made by the City Council in this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented as well as the entirety of the administrative record for the proposed Project, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The findings are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon the City Council’s decision are located in the Office of City Clerk.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby approves the Project subject to the findings and conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A (Findings) and Exhibit B (Conditions of Approval), Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit C) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit D) and incorporated by this reference.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on February 22, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR

Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea M. Chelemengos, CMC, CITY CLERK
52 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 3 of 24 pages

EXHIBIT A-FINDINGS
(VTTM 21-001; DR 21-003)-355 First Street

1. With regard to environmental review, the City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received) and based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts of the Project with mitigation measures are below a level of significance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

2. The City Council finds the MND and MMRP has been completed in compliance with CEQA and consistent the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City hereby approves and adopts the MND, which is hereby attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “C”. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the MMRP, which is hereby attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “D”.

3. With regard to the new fifty-unit multiple-family structure, the City Council finding the following in accordance with Section 14.78.060 of the Municipal Code:
a. The proposal meets all applicable goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan, and CD/R3 Zone District design criteria because it is providing fifty new multiple-family residential condominium units in a multiple-family district, it incorporates high quality architectural design and is compatible with the existing development in the immediate vicinity;
b. The proposal has architectural integrity and an appropriate relationship with other structures in the immediate area in terms of height, bulk and design; Building mass is articulated to relate to the human scale, both horizontally and vertically. c. Building elevations have variation and depth and avoid large blank wall surfaces. The residential projects incorporate elements that signal habitation such as identifiable entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies.
d. Exterior materials and finishes convey high quality, integrity, permanence and durability, and materials are used effectively to define building elements such as base, body, parapets, bays, arcades and structural elements. Materials, finishes, and colors have been used in a manner that serves to reduce the perceived appearance of height, bulk and mass, and are harmonious with other structures in the immediate area. e. Landscaping is generous and inviting, and landscape and hardscape features are designed to complement the building and parking areas, and to be integrated with the building architecture and the surrounding streetscape. Landscaping includes substantial street tree canopy, either in the public right-of-way or within the project frontage. 53 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 4 of 24 pages
f. Signage is designed to complement the building architecture in terms of style, materials, colors and proportions.
g. The exterior mechanical equipment, which is located in alcoves and within the fenced private areas, is screened from public view and the fencing is consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detailing; and
h. The service, trash and utility areas are located behind fences, recessed in alcoves or enclosed within the building in order to be screened from public view and are placed in a way that is consistent with the building architecture in materials and detailing.

4. With regard to the fifty-unit condominium subdivision, the City Council finds the following in accordance with Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California:
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in 65451.

This Finding cannot be made. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Los Altos General Plan, including the Land Use Element, which designates the parcel as Downtown Commercial and allows for higher density residential development. Specific applicable policies of the General Plan for creating one parcel to be further divided into 50 condominium units include Land Use Element Policies 2.2, 3.1 and 3.5, Housing Element Policy 4.3, and the Infrastructure and Waste Disposal Element Policies 1.3, 2.2 and 3.1.

The subdivision is also consistent with the Downtown Special Planning Area within the Land Use Element. The subdivision is not within an area adopted as specific plan area. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

This Finding cannot be made. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Los Altos General Plan, including the Land Use Element, which designates the parcel as Downtown Commercial and allows for higher density residential development. Specific applicable policies of the General Plan for creating one parcel to be further divided in 50 residential condominium units include Land Use Element Policies 2.2, 3.1 and 3.5, Housing Element Policy 4.3, and the Infrastructure and Waste Disposal Element Policies 1.3, 2.2 and 3.1.

The subdivision is also consistent with the Downtown Special Planning Area within the Land Use Element. The subdivision is not within an area adopted as specific plan area. c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

This Finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because it is in conformance with the Downtown Commercial land use designations of the General Plan, and complies with all applicable CD/R3 Zoning District site development standards excluding those exceptions otherwise approved; d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 54 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 5 of 24 pages
This Finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because it is in conformance with the Downtown Commercial land use designations of the General Plan, which does not have a density maximum but allows higher density residential development and complies with all applicable CD/R3 Zoning District site development standards excluding those exceptions otherwise approved; e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

This Finding cannot be made. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife because the site is located within a developed urban context and is not in or adjacent to any sensitive habitat areas;

5. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

This Finding cannot be made. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems because the site is located within an urban context and has access to urban services including sewer and water.

6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

This Finding cannot be made. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with access easements because there are no known existing access easements encumbering this property.

7. Density Bonus Findings. With regard to the offered below market rate units and requested parking requirement alteration, the City Council finds, in accordance with Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.040, as follows:
a. The applicant is offering three very low-income unit and three moderate income units for sale, which qualifies the project for additional waivers and incentives b. Per Table DB 2 in Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.040, a project that includes eight percent or more of its total units as very-low income restricted affordable units shall be granted one (1) incentive. The applicant will be requesting one density bonus concession to increase the height from 35 feet to 46 feet. Evidence has not been presented which supports other findings for denial of the requested incentives. The height and the 55 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 6 of 24 pages
setback incentives are considered an “on-menu” incentive per Section 14.28.040(f) Incentive Standards and, therefore, the City has determined that the incentive would not have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or upon a listed historical resource.
c. Per Section 14.28.040(H)(1), a project can request a waiver or reduction of development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development in addition to the development incentive permitted by the Municipal Code. Consistent with these requirements, the applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for a building height of up to sixty-three (63) feet and four and a half (4.5) inches where the development standard set forth in LAMC Sec.14.66.240(F) requires that an enclosed roof structure housing the elevator for the proposed residential building that provides access to the roof top be limited to twelve (12) feet in height. Based on findings by the architect for the Project, the elevator housing on the roof deck cannot be constructed unless it is approximately seventeen (17) feet and six (6) inches in height, and an elevator shaft is necessary to comply with accessibility standards. The Council determined the waivers are supported by the fact that the implementation of the standards physically precludes the construction of the development and evidence has not been presented that the waivers will have a specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, or an adverse impact on any listed historic resource or will be contrary to state or federal law.

8. Non-compliance with 14.28.020:
a. Applicant is required to provide at least four Moderate and two Low Income or Very Low Income restricted units. Applicant proposes only three moderate units. The City Council has determined the Project does not meet the standard. Parties are jointly requested technical assistance from HCD. HCD declined to provide advice to resolve the disagreement. The project has been conditioned on providing a fourth Moderate Income restricted unit. Per Condition of Approval No. 13 under the General Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit B of this Resolution, the applicant shall provide 4 moderate income restricted units unless the California Department of Housing and Community Development agrees with the applicant’s interpretation of the law. 56 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 7 of 24 pages

EXHIBIT B-CONDITIONS

GENERAL

1. Approved Plans
Project approval is based upon the plans received on November 12, 2021 except as modified by these conditions.

2. Indemnity and Hold Harmless
The applicant/owner agrees to indemnify, defend, protect, and hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City’s defense of its actions in any proceedings brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging any of the City’s action with respect to the applicant’s project. The City may withhold final maps and/or permits, including temporary or final occupancy permits, for failure to pay all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions.

3. Encroachment Permit
An encroachment permit, and/or an excavation permit shall be obtained prior to any work done within the public right-of-way and it shall be in accordance with plans to be approved by the City Engineer.

4. Public Utilities
The applicant shall contact electric, gas, communication and water utility companies regarding the installation of new utility services to the site.

5. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
The project shall comply with City of Los Altos Municipal Regional Stormwater (MRP)NPDES Permit No. CA S612008, Order No. R2-2015-0049 dated November 19, 2015.

6. Americans with Disabilities Act
All improvements shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Latest edition of Caltrans ADA requirements shall apply to all improvements in the public right-of-way.

7. Sewer Lateral
Any proposed sewer lateral connection shall be approved by the City Engineer. Only one sewer lateral per lot shall be installed. All existing unused sewer laterals shall be abandoned according to the City Standards, cut and cap 12 inches away from the main.

8. Transportation Permit
A Transportation Permit, per the requirements specified in California Vehicle Code Division 15, is required before any large equipment, materials or soil is transported or hauled to or from the construction site. Applicant shall pay the applicable fees before the transportation permit can be issued by the Traffic Engineer.

9. Pollution Prevention
The improvement plans shall include the “Blueprint for a Clean Bay” plan sheet in all plan submittals.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 8 of 24 pages
at the Applicant’s expense. The recommendations from the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be shown on the building plans.

11. Civil Engineering Drawings
The applicant shall submit civil engineering drawings that show property lines with bearing and easements.

12. Request for State Technical Assistance
The applicant proposes to provide three moderate-income units and three very-low income units. Four moderate-income units are required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.020. The project is approved conditioned upon meeting this minimum requirement to provide four moderate-income units. This condition does not alter or affect the number of very low-income units that the project will provide to qualify for the density bonus sought by the applicant. The applicant and the City disagree as to the application of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to the project and have jointly requested technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). Staff is authorized to amend this condition administratively if necessary to be consistent with any opinion HCD may provide.

PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION

13. Public Access Easement Dedication
The applicant shall dedicate public access easements for the purpose of providing vehicle and pedestrian access shall be dedicated as follows:
a. An easement of two feet along the rear alley for use as a public right-of-way; and b. An easement of one foot along the First Street frontage to allow for pedestrian access. c. If tree wells are approved by Planning Department, Pedestrian Access Easement along First Street shall be wide enough to allow proper ADA clearances.

14. Public Utility Dedication
The applicant shall dedicate public utility easements as required by the utility companies to serve the site.

15. Subdivision Agreement
The applicant shall sign and return Subdivision Improvement Agreement to the City for records and recordation prior to the recordation of the Final Map.

16. Final Map Application and Payment of Subdivision Fees The applicant shall pay all applicable fees, including but not parkland dedication in-lieu fees and map check fee plus deposit as required by the City of Los Altos Municipal Code. Plats and legal descriptions of the final map shall be submitted for review by the City Land Surveyor.

17. Cost Estimate and Performance Bonds
The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for the improvements in the public right-of-way and shall submit a 100 percent performance bond or cash deposit (to be held until acceptance of improvements) with a ten percent warrant bond and a 50 percent labor and material bond (to be held six months after acceptance of improvements) for the work in the public right-of-way.

18. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
The applicant shall include the following provisions in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs):
58 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 9 of 24 pages
a. Long-term maintenance and upkeep of the landscaping and street trees, on-site and in the public right-of-way along the site frontage, as approved by the City, shall be a duty and responsibility of the property owners.
b. One of the underground parking spaces shall be open for guest users. c. Long-term maintenance and upkeep of the building’s exterior materials and finishes shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association.
d. The Homeowner’s Association will store trash receptacles in the underground parking garage level and will be responsible for moving trash receptacles to the temporary staging area at street level no more than 24 hours in advance of trash pickup and will relocate trash receptacles to their storage location within 24 hours of pickup.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT

19. Final Map Recordation
The applicant shall record the final map.

20. Payment of Impact and Development Fees
The applicant shall pay all applicable fees, including but not limited to sanitary sewer connection and impact fees, traffic impact fees, and public art impact fee as required by the City of Los Altos Municipal Code.

21. Downtown Decorated Lights
The applicant shall insure the design and installation of total of two new Downtown Decorated light fixtures along First Street and Whitney Street as directed by the City Engineer.

22. Storm Water Filtration Systems
The Applicant shall insure the design of all storm water treatment systems and devices are without standing water to avoid mosquito/insect infestation.

23. Cost Estimate and Performance Bonds
The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for the improvements in the public right-of-way and shall submit a 100 percent performance bond or cash deposit (to be held until acceptance of improvements) and a 50 percent labor and material bond (to be held 6 months after acceptance of improvements) for the work in the public right-of-way.

24. Grading and Drainage Plan
The Applicant shall submit on-site grading and drainage plans that include (i.e. drain swale, drain inlets, rough pad elevations, building envelopes, drip lines of major trees, elevations at property lines, all trees and screening to be saved) for approval by City Engineer. No grading or building pads are allowed within two-thirds of the drip line of trees unless authorized by a certified arborist and the Planning Department.

25. Soldier beams/Shoring
The applicant shall insure the design of all soldier beams or other temporary shoring supports are outside the public right-of-way.

26. Sewage Capacity Study
The applicant shall submit calculations showing that the City’s existing sewer line will not exceed two-thirds full due to the project’s sewer loads. Calculations shall include the 6” main from the front of the property to the point where it connects to the 8” sewer line on San Antonio Rd. For any segment that is calculated to exceed two-thirds full for average daily flow or for any segment that the flow is surcharged in the main due to peak flow, the applicant shall 59 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 10 of 24 pages
replace the 6” sewer line with an 8” sewer line. For any segment that is calculated to exceed two-thirds full for average daily flow or for any segment that the flow is surcharged in the main due to peak flow, the applicant shall replace the sewer line with a larger sewer line.

27. Construction Management Plan
The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. The construction management plan shall address any construction activities affecting the public right-of-way, including but not limited to excavation, traffic control, truck routing, pedestrian protection, material storage, earth retention and construction vehicle parking. The plan shall provide specific details with regards to how construction vehicle parking will be managed to minimize impacts on nearby single-family neighborhoods. Sidewalks, parking and travel lanes along First Street and Whitney Street shall not be closed for the full duration of the project. Closures will be reviewed and approved with Encroachment Permit submittals. The applicant shall be required to have a pre-construction meeting with all abutting property owners to discuss the project schedule and to prominently display a sign with the single point of contact the community should interface with for any construction related impacts from the project.

28. Solid Waste Ordinance Compliance
The Applicant shall be in compliance with the City’s adopted Solid Waste Collection, Remove, Disposal, Processing & Recycling Ordinance (LAMC Chapter 6.12) which includes a mandatory requirement that all multi-family dwellings provide for recycling and organics collection programs.

29. Fire Approval
The project shall comply with all Santa Clara County Fire Department standards including but not limited to the comments and conditions provided in the Fire Department Development Review Comment letter dated October 21, 2021. A formal review of the building permit plans will be completed subsequent to submittal of a complete set of building permit design plans.

30. Off-haul Excavated Soil
The grading plan shall show specific grading cut and/or fill quantities. Cross section details showing the existing and proposed grading through at least two perpendicular portions of the site or more shall be provided to fully characterize the site. A note on the grading plans should state that all excess dirt shall be off-hauled from the site and shall not be used as fill material unless approved by the Building and Planning Divisions.

31. Solid Waste and Recyclables Disposal Plan
The Applicant shall contact Mission Trail Waste Systems and submit a solid waste and recyclables disposal plan indicating the type, size and number of containers proposed, and the frequency of pick-up service subject to the approval of the Engineering Division. The Applicant shall also submit evidence that Mission Trail Waste Systems has reviewed and approved the size and location of the proposed trash enclosure. The enclosure shall be designed to prevent rainwater from mixing with the enclosure's contents and shall be drained into the City’s sanitary sewer system. The enclosure's pad shall be designed to not drain outward, and the grade surrounding the enclosure designed to not drain into the enclosure. In addition, Applicant shall show on plans the proposed location of how the solid waste will be collected by the refusal company. Include the relevant garage clearance dimension and/or staging location with appropriate dimensioning on to plans. 60 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 11 of 24 pages

32. Storm Water Filtration Systems
The Applicant shall insure the design of all storm water filtration systems and devices are without standing water to avoid mosquito/insect infestation.

33. Air Quality Mitigation
The applicant shall incorporate into the design plans and shall implement throughout the entire construction process the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities (California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed November 2021).

34. Acoustical Report
The applicant shall submit a report from an acoustical engineer/consultant ensuring that the rooftop mechanical equipment meets the City’s exterior noise regulations.

PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF BUILDING PERMIT

35. Water Efficient Landscape Plan
Provide a landscape documentation package prepared by a licensed landscape professional showing how the project complies with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Regulations and include signed statements from the project’s landscape professional and property owner.

36. Reach Codes
Building Permit Applications submitted on or after January 26, 2021 shall comply with specific amendments to the 2019 California Green Building Standards for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and the 2019 California Energy Code as provided in Ordinances Nos. 2020- 470A, 2020-470B, 2020-470C, and 2020-471 which amended Chapter 12.22 Energy Code and Chapter 12.26 California Green Building Standards Code of the Los Altos Municipal Code. The building design plans shall comply with the standards and the applicant shall submit supplemental application materials as required by the Building Division to demonstrate compliance.

37. California Water Service Upgrades
The applicant is responsible for contacting and coordinating with the California Water Service Company any water service improvements including but not limited to relocation of water meters, increasing water meter sizing or the installation of fire hydrants. The City recommends consulting with California Water Service Company as early as possible to avoid construction or inspection delays.

PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY

38. Condominium Map
The applicant shall record the condominium map as required by the City Engineer.

39. Public Alleyway
The Applicant shall improve the entire width of the alleyway along the rear of the project with the treatment approved by the City Engineer.

40. Watch for Pedestrians Sign
The applicant shall install a “watch for pedestrians” sign at the top of the underground parking garage driveway ramp.
61 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 12 of 24 pages

41. Sidewalk in Public Right-of-Way
The Applicant shall remove and replace entire sidewalk and curb and gutter along the frontage of First Street and Whitney Street as directed by the City Engineer. All sidewalks in the public right-of-way shall be City Standard concrete sidewalks. The applicant shall remove existing driveway on Whitney Street and replace it with standard curb and gutter.

The applicant shall extend sidewalk on Whitney Street from 330 2nd Street property to the alley, and install new driveway approach at the back of 330 2nd Street.

42. New ADA Ramps and Crosswalks
The applicant shall provide two new ADA ramps and crosswalk stripping per the City standards on the northeast and southeast corner of the intersection with First Street and Whitney Street. The applicant shall install new ADA ramps as necessary at the sidewalk extension along Whitney Street.

43. Parking Stall and Red Curb Striping
The applicant shall install parking stall striping and red curb on First Street and Whitney Street as directed by the City Engineer or his designee.

44. Public Infrastructure Repairs
The Applicant shall repair any damaged right-of-way infrastructures and otherwise displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalks and City’s storm drain inlet shall be removed and replaced as directed by the City Engineer or his designee. The Applicant is responsible to resurface (grind and overlay) half of the street along the frontage of First Street if determined to be damaged during construction, as directed by the City Engineer or his designee.

45. Maintenance Bond
A one-year, ten-percent maintenance bond shall be submitted upon acceptance of improvements in the public right-of-way.

46. Green Building Verification
The applicant shall submit verification that the structure was built in compliance with the California Green Building Standards pursuant to Section 12.26 of the Municipal Code.

47. SWMP Certification
The Applicant shall have a final inspection and certification done and submitted by the Engineer who designed the SWMP to ensure that the treatments were installed per design.

The Applicant shall submit a maintenance agreement to City for review and approval for the stormwater treatment methods installed in accordance with the SWMP. Once approved, City shall record the agreement.

48. Landscape and Irrigation Installation
All on- and off-site landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.

49. Label Catch Basin Inlets
The Applicant shall label all new or existing public and private catch basin inlets which are on or directly adjacent to the site with the “NO DUMPING - FLOWS TO ADOBE CREEK” logo as required by the City.
62 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 13 of 24 pages

PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP

50. Affordable Housing Agreement
Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall execute and record an Affordable Housing Agreement, in a form approved and signed by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney, that offers six (6) below market rate unit, for a period of at least 55 years. The below market rate units shall be four Moderate and three Very-Low Income restricted units, which shall be constructed concurrently with the market rate units, shall be provided at the location on the approved plans, and shall not be significantly distinguishable with regard to design, construction or materials. This issue shall be resolved prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
63 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 14 of 24 pages

EXHIBIT C
City of Los Altos

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
355 First Street Residential Development
The City Council of the City of Los Altos has considered the project identified below and has adopted the following Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act:

Project Name: 355 First St. Residential Project
Lead Agency: City of Los Altos
Project Proponent: 355 1st St LLC. C/O DeNardi Wang Homes Project Location: 355, 365, 371, 373 First St., Los Altos, CA Project Description: The proposed project includes demolition of the seven existing buildings and construction of a 79,431 square
foot, 50-unit, four story condominium building and two
levels of underground parking.

Written Comments To Guido Persicone
Planning Services Manager
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Proposed Findings The City of Los Altos is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which this decision is based.

The initial study indicates that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse
environmental impacts. However, the mitigation
measures identified in the initial study would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. There is no
substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (the City of Los Altos) that the project, with mitigation measures incorporated, may have a
significant effect on the environment. See the following project-specific mitigation measures:
64 Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 15 of 24 pages
Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
AQ-1 The project applicant shall include the following BAAQMD best management practices to minimize DPM (PM10) and PM2.5 emissions on the project plans andthe contractor shall implement them during all phases of construction:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;
c. 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;
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; e. 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;
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California 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;
g. 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; and
h. Post a publicly visible sign with telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 65 Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 15 of 24 pages
AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of the demolition and grading permits, the project developershall prepare, and the project contractor shall implement, a demolition and construction emissions avoidance and reduction plan demonstrating a minimum 30 percent reduction in DPM emissions.

The plan shall be prepared at the applicant’s expense and shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Director of Planning or Director’s designee, prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter prepared by a qualified air quality consultant, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure. Theplan shall include the following measures:
a. At least five of the mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment operating onsite 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 4 engines. The plan shall include specifications of the equipment to be used during construction and confirmation this requirement is met; and,
b. Other demonstrable measures identified by the developer and confirmed by the air quality consultant, that reduce emissions and avoid or minimize the affected sensitive receptors exposures by at least 30 percent.

Biological Resources
BIO-1 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 September16 and January 14, 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.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 16 of 24 pages
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 andestablish 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 City of Los Altos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented and submitted to the City prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits.

BIO-2 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 preservationand protection measures during construction activities, including those measuresspecified in the 2021 Arborist Report (Kielty Arborist Services LLC). Also, in accordance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit for proposed 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 City for project approvals. 67 Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 17 of 24 pages
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 In the event that prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find will be stopped, the Director of Community Development will be notified, and the archaeologist will examine the find and make appropriate recommendations, in collaboration with a Tamien Tribal representative, prior to commencement of construction. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery during monitoring would be submitted to the Director of Community Development, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and the Tamien Nation.

CUL-2 In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find will be stopped.The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1 The project proponent shall ensure all construction personnel receive paleontological resources awareness training that includes information on the possibility of encountering fossils during construction; the types of fossils likely to be seen, based on past finds in the project area; and proper procedures in the event fossils are encountered. Worker training shall be prepared and presented by a qualified paleontologist. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Director with documentation showing the training has been completed by all required construction personnel prior to issuance of grading permits.

Treatment may include avoidance, if feasible, preservation in place, or preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation ofa report for publication describing the finds.
68 Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 18 of 24 pages
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the following measures shall be incorporated into demolition plans:
a. All PCB-containing ballasts shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with state and local laws.
b. All potentially friable asbestos-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovationthat may disturb the materials.
c. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR),Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos.

Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations.
d. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employeetraining, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.

Noise
NOI-1 Modification, placement, and operation of construction equipment are possible means for minimizing the impact of construction noise. Construction equipmentshall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as possible.

Additionally, construction activities for the proposed project shall include the following best management practices to reduce noise from construction activitiesnear sensitive land uses:
▪ Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., in accordance with the city’s municipal code for construction in a single-family residential zone. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays, unless permission is granted with a development permit or other planning approval.
69 Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 19 of 24 pages
▪ Use of the concrete saw within 50 feet of any shared property line shall be limited.
▪ Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
▪ Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines in construction equipment with a horsepower rating of 50 or more shall be strictly prohibited, and limited to five minutes or less, consistent with BAAQMD best management practices.
▪ Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors (residences). If they must be located near sensitive receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors. ▪ Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
▪ A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be erected, if necessary, at the property line or along building facades facing construction sites. This measure would only be necessary if conflicts occurred that were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.
▪ Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. ▪ The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities and shall send a notice to all adjacent properties with the construction schedule. ▪ Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
70 Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 20 of 24 pages
NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, mechanical equipment shall be selectedand designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the city’s requirements. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained by the project applicant to review mechanical noise as the equipment systems are selected in order to determine whether the proposed noise reduction measures sufficiently reduce noise to comply with the city’s noise limit at the shared property line.

Noise reduction measures that would accomplish this reduction include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures and parapet walls to block the lineof sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors.

NOI-3 A construction vibration-monitoring plan shall be implemented to document conditions at the structure located adjacent to the proposed construction prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shallbe completed under the direction of a State of California licensed Professional Structural Engineer and be in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan shall include the followingtasks:
▪ Identification of sensitivity to groundborne vibration of the structure located adjacent to the construction.
▪ Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for the structure located adjacent to the construction. Surveys shall be performed prior to, in regular intervals during, and after completion of vibration generating activities and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in the structure, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of the foundation, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structure. Interior inspections would be subject to property owners’ permission.
▪ Conduct a post-survey on the structure where monitoring has indicated damage. Make appropriate repairs or provide compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.
▪ Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
71 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 21 of 24 pages
Tribal Cultural Resources
In addition to mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 presented in Section D5, Cultural Resources, the following measures shall be implemented:

TR-1 The applicant shall contract with the Tamien Nation to development and implement a cultural resource sensitivity training program for the construction work crew on the first day of construction. The archaeologist shall provide evidence of the training to the City Planning Division, which shall include the training materials and a sign-in list of trained construction personnel, at the endof the first day of construction.

TR-2 The applicant shall contract with the Tamien Tribal to monitor ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to removal of existing building foundations, trees, and grading activities.

The applicant shall also contract with a qualified archaeologist to be on-call should cultural or Tribal resources be inadvertently discovered.

Evidence of a contracts with the Tribal monitor and archaeologist shall be provided to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of a building demolitionpermit and/or a grading permit.

Should Tribal or cultural resources be inadvertently discovered, the Tamien Nation Treatment Protocol shall be implemented. Whether or not Tribal or cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, the Tribal monitor shall prepare amonitoring report to be submitted to the City Planning Division, prior to issuanceof an occupancy permit.

The location of Tribal resources is confidential, may be redacted from monitoring reports, and shall not be made available for public review. The location of sensitive cultural resources is exempt from the Public Records Act. 72 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 22 of 24 pages

EXHIBIT D

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring or reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.

The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 5150 El Camino Real Residential Development project concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project or are required as a condition of project approval. This Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.

This document does not discuss those subjects for which the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the impacts from implementation of the project would be less than significant and for which no standard or mitigation measures would be required. 73 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 23 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
Air Quality
AQ-1 The project applicant shall include the following
BAAQMD best management practices to minimize
DPM (PM10) and PM2.5 emissions on the project plans
and the contractor shall implement them during all
phases of construction:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day;
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or
other loose material off-site shall be covered;
c. 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;
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be
limited to 15 miles per hour;
e. 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;
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
Include BAAQMD BMPs
in project plans
Implement BAAQMD
BMPs
Applicant
Contractor
Prior to Approval
of Final Plans
During all Phases
of Construction
74 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 24 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California 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;
g. 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; and
h. Post a publicly visible sign with telephone number
and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding
dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
75 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 25 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of the demolition and grading permits, the project developer shall prepare, and the
project contractor shall implement, a demolition and
construction emissions avoidance and reduction plan
demonstrating a minimum 30 percent reduction in
DPM emissions.

The plan shall be prepared at the applicant’s expense
and shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s
Director of Planning or Director’s designee, prior to
issuance of demolition and grading permits. The plan
shall be accompanied by a letter prepared by a qualified air quality consultant, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this
mitigation measure. The plan shall include the
following measures:
a. At least five of the 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 4
engines. The plan shall include specifications of the
equipment to be used during construction and
confirmation this requirement is met; and,
b. Other demonstrable measures identified by the
Prepare demolition and
construction emissions
avoidance and reduction
plan
The plan shall also include
a letter prepared by a
qualified air quality
consultant
The plan shall include
these measures for
implementation by the
applicant or developer
Project Developer
City’s Director of
Planning or
Director’s
designee
Prior to issuance
of the demolition
and grading
permits
76 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 26 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
developer and confirmed by the air quality consultant,
that reduce emissions and avoid or minimize the
affected sensitive receptors exposures by at least 30
percent.

Biological Resources
BIO-1 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,
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.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 27 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
season, a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys.
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
toconstruction. 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 Conduct two surveys for
active bird nests
14 days prior to
construction start
78 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 28 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
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 he young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.

Developers shall be responsible for implementation of
this mitigation measure with oversight by the City of
Los Altos. Compliance with this measure shall be
documented and submitted to the City prior to issuance
of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits.

BIO 2 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 2021 Arborist Report (Kielty Arborist
Services LLC). Also, in accordance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit for proposed 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 City for project approvals.

Retain certified arborist to
develop a site-specific tree
protection plan
Developer Prior to issuance
of a tree removal
permit and/or a
grading permit
Cultural Resources
79 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 29 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
CUL-1 In the event that prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the
site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find will be stopped, the Director of Community Development
will be notified, and the archaeologist will examine the find and make appropriate recommendations, in
collaboration with a Tamien Tribal representative, prior to commencement of construction. Recommendations
could include collection, recordation, and analysis of
any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery during monitoring
would be submitted to the Director of Community
Development, the California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) and the Tamien Nation.

Include measure on the
project plans
Developer and
Contractor
During
construction
activities
CUL-2 In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find will be stopped. The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified and will make a
determination as to whether the remains are of Native
American origin. If the remains are determined to be
Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately.

Once NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the
descendants will make recommendations regarding
proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance
with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Include measure on the
project plans
Developer and
Contractor
During
construction
activities
Geology & Soils
80 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 30 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
GEO-1 The project proponent shall ensure all construction personnel receive paleontological resources awareness
training that includes information on the possibility of encountering fossils during construction; the types of
fossils likely to be seen, based on past finds in the
project area; and proper procedures in the event fossils are encountered. Worker training shall be prepared and
presented by a qualified paleontologist. The applicant
shall provide the Community Development Director
with documentation showing the training has been
completed by all required construction personnel prior
to issuance of grading permits.

Include measure on the
project plans
Hire a qualified
paleontologist to provide
worker training
Developer and
Contractor
Prior to issuing a
grading permit
GEO-2 If vertebrae fossils are discovered during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop
immediately until a qualified professional
paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of
the find and recommend appropriate treatment.

Treatment may include avoidance, if feasible,
preservation in place, or preparation and recovery of
fossil materials so that they can be housed in an
appropriate museum or university collection and may
also include preparation of a report for publication
describing the finds.

Include measure on the
project plans
Developer and
Contractor
During
Construction
81 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 31 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the following measures shall be incorporated into demolition plans:
a. All PCB-containing ballasts shall be removed and
disposed of in accordance with state and local laws.
b. All potentially friable asbestos-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or
renovation that may disturb the materials.
c. All demolition activities will be undertaken in
accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to
asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent
asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations.
d. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in
accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction
Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring
and dust control. Any debris or soil containing leadbased paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being
disposed.

Incorporate measure into
demolition plans
Implement measures
Developer and
Contractor
Developer and
Contractor
Prior to issuance
of a demolition
permit
During
Construction
82 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 32 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
Noise
NOI-1 Modification, placement, and operation of
construction equipment are possible means for
minimizing the impact of construction noise.

Implement best
management practices for
construction equipment
City’s Director of
Planning or
Director’s
designee
During
construction
activities
83 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 33 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines
in construction equipment with a horsepower rating of
50 or more shall be strictly prohibited, and limited to five minutes or less, consistent with BAAQMD best
management practices.
e. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such
as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors (residences). If they must be located near sensitive receptors, adequate
muffling (with enclosures where feasible and
appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors.
f. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.
g. A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be
erected, if necessary, at the property line or along
building facades facing construction sites. This measure would only be necessary if conflicts occurred that were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control
blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.
h. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to
a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
84 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 34 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
i. The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noisegenerating construction activities and shall send a notice to all adjacent properties with the construction schedule.
j. Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would
be responsible for responding to any complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad
muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously
post the telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction
schedule.
85 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 35 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit,
mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to
reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the city’s
requirements. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained by the project applicant to review mechanical
noise as the equipment systems are selected in order to determine whether the proposed noise reduction
measures sufficiently reduce noise to comply with the
city’s noise limit at the shared property line. Noise
reduction measures that would accomplish this
reduction include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and/or
installation of noise barriers such as enclosures and
parapet walls to block the line of sight between the
noise source and the nearest receptors.

Retain qualified acoustical
consultant
City’s Director of
Planning or
Director’s
designee
Prior to issuance
of a building
permit
NOI-3 A construction vibration-monitoring plan shall be implemented to document conditions at the structure
located adjacent to the proposed construction prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction
activities. All plan tasks shall be completed under the direction of a State of California licensed Professional Structural Engineer and be in accordance with industry
accepted standard methods. The construction vibration
monitoring plan shall include the following tasks:
• Identification of sensitivity to groundborne
vibration of the structure located adjacent to the
construction.

Implement construction
vibration-monitoring plan
Developer and
State of California
licensed
Professional
Structural
Engineer
Prior to grading
activities
86 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 36 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
Tribal Cultural Resources
TR-1 The applicant shall contract with the Tamien Nation to development and implement a cultural resource
sensitivity training program for the construction work
crew on the first day of construction. The archaeologist shall provide evidence of the training to the City
Planning Division, which shall include the training
materials and a sign-in list of trained construction
personnel, at the end of the first day of construction.

Contract with Tamien
Nation to develop and
implement measure.

Developer During
construction
activities
TR-2 The applicant shall contract with the Tamien Tribal to monitor ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to removal of existing building foundations,
trees, and grading activities.

The applicant shall also contract with a qualified
archaeologist to be on-call should cultural or Tribal
resources be inadvertently discovered.

Evidence of a contracts with the Tribal monitor and
archaeologist shall be provided to the City Planning
Division prior to issuance of a building demolition
permit and/or a grading permit.

Contract with Tamien
Nation to develop and
implement measure.

Developer During
construction
activities
87 Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2021-04 Page 37 of 24 pages
Mitigation
Measure
Number
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Actions Party Responsible for Compliance Timing
Verification
of
Compliance
(name/date)
Should Tribal or cultural resources be inadvertently
discovered, the Tamien Nation Treatment Protocol shall
be implemented. Whether or not Tribal or cultural
resources are inadvertently discovered, the Tribal
monitor shall prepare a monitoring report to be
submitted to the City Planning Division, prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit.

The location of Tribal resources is confidential, may be redacted from monitoring reports, and shall not be
made available for public review. The location of
sensitive cultural resources is exempt from the Public
Records Act.
88 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 1 of 10 ends

MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION/COMPLETE

STREETS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, HELD ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2021 BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. HELD VIA
VIDEO/TELECONFERENCE PER EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20
Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the Commission will meet via teleconference only. Members of the Public may call (650) 242-4929 to participate in the conference call (Meeting ID: 144 676 5530 or via the web at https://tinyurl.com/kby2b9rw) Members of the Public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Commission Chair and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. Members of the public are also encouraged to submit written testimony prior to the meeting at [email protected] or [email protected]. Emails received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record.

ESTABLISH QUORUM
PRESENT: Planning Commission: Chair Bodner, Commissioners Ahi, Mensinger (lost connection prior to agenda item #2), Roche and Steinle
Complete Streets Commission: Chair Maluf, Vice-Chair Banerjee, Ambiel, Katz and Gschneidner
ABSENT: Planning Commission: Vice-Chair Doran and Commissioner Marek and Complete Street Commission: Commissioners O’Yang and Venkatraman STAFF: Community Development Director Biggs, Planning Services Manager Persicone, Senior Planner Golden, Associate Planner Gallegos, Transportation Services Manager Lee and Attorney Ramakrishnan from the City Attorney’s Office

PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION

CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion unless any member of the Commission or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Chair.

1. Planning Commission Minutes
Approve minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 2021.

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Steinle, seconded by Commissioner Ahi, the Commission approved the minutes from the October 7, 2021, meeting as written.

The motion was approved (4-0) by the following vote:

AYES: Ahi, Bodner, Roche and Steinle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Doran and Marek

PUBLIC HEARING
ATTACHMENT 2
89 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 2 of 10 ends

2. D20-0004 and TM20-0001 – Abbie Bourgan – 440 First Street The applicant requests Design Review Approval and a Tentative Subdivision Map for a three-story building that includes 4 residential condominium units, one level of underground parking for 9 parking spaces and a useable rooftop area. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32), Infill Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Project Planner: Golden Senior Planner Golden gave the staff report presentation recommending approval to the City Council of design review and subdivision applications D20-0004 and TM20-0001 per the findings and conditions contained in the resolution. He provided a brief summary of the project including that it is a four-unit condominium project with no affordable units proposed, a roof top deck area, and solar panels. He stated that the project height was reduced from 40 feet to 35 feet to comply with height limits and there is no elevator to the roof top deck area.

There were no ex parte communications from the Complete Streets Commission.

There were no ex parte communications from the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Questions
There were no questions from the Complete Streets Commission.

Chair Bodner asked a question about the process and timing for peer design review done by Cannon Design Group.

Project applicant Abbie Bourgan introduced the project to the Commissions and provided some background.

Project architect Chris Hall gave a presentation of the project.

Senior Planner Golden showed the Commissions the sketch up model of downtown with the project added so the Commissions could the proposed building in the context of the neighborhood.

Complete Streets Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Katz asked about how garbage pickup will be addressed and what are the street parking impacts from the project.

Senior Planner Golden answered his questions.

Vice-Chair Banerjee asked about parking garage access and visibility with the narrow driveway of 18 feet in width.

Senior Planner Golden answered her question about garage access.

ATTACHMENT 2
90 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 3 of 10 ends

Project applicant Abbie Bourgan answered her question about the narrow driveway and visibility issues.

Vice-Chair Banerjee asked about bicycle parking and EV charging in the bike room.

Project applicant Abbie Bourgan answered her questions.

Commissioner Ambiel asked about the elevator capacity to accommodate two individuals and two bikes and the garage ramp slope grade and if there are hallways leading up to the units.

Project applicant Abbie Bourgan answered her questions.

Chair Maluf asked about the gym for the residents, the entrance to the garage facing Lyell Street and mail delivery.

Senior Planner Golden and project applicant Abbie Bourgan answered his questions.

Commissioner Katz had a follow-up question regarding pedestrian visibility with the garage slope.

Project applicant Abbie Bourgan answered his question.

Planning Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Ahi had a question about the roof top solar panels to the architect.

Commissioner Roche had questions about the gables and solar panel structure.

Commissioner Mensinger questioned the architect about the gables.

Chair Bodner asked if the architect incorporated any of Cannon Design Group’s recommendations.

Commissioner Steinle asked for confirmation that the elevator does not have roof access and about landscaping opportunities.

Project architect Chris Hall answered most of the Commissioner questions and project applicant Abbie Bourgan answered the landscaping question.

Public Comment
Salim from South Bay YIMBY stated concern with the amount of time this project has taken and said three years is too long and costly for a project to go through the review /approval process and gave his support for the project.

Resident Phil Underwood of 396 First Street stated the need for a streetscape plan for First Street for pedestrian safety, parking, and delivery vehicles.

ATTACHMENT 2
91 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 4 of 10 ends

Resident Abby Ahrens and owner of Enchante Hotel at 1 Main Street said this was a top-quality project and gave her support.

The public comment section of the meeting was closed for applicant rebuttal or final comments.

Project applicant Abbie Bourgan provided final comments on the project.

Following Complete Streets Commission deliberations:

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Ambiel, seconded by Commissioner Katz, the Commission moved the project forward to the Planning Commission and City Council.

The motion was approved (5-0) by the following vote:

AYES: Maluf, Banerjee, Ambiel, Katz and Gschneidner
NOES: None
ABSENT: O’Yang and Venkatraman
Planning Commission discussion then proceeded.

Commissioner Ahi:
• Neighboring project changes at 450 First Street by the City Council were disappointing; • Front elevation lacking a cohesive design;
• Needs to be more symmetrical and dynamic;
• The one gable element on the left and the flat side on the right seem odd; • Mirroring it and overhanging the roof more will make it more dynamic; • Incorporate certain aspects of Cannon Design Group’s comments such as duplicating the gable elements, more of a roof overhang, more articulation, railings on the first level instead of the wall;
• Transitional aesthetic needs to be enhanced – raise building to match those on either side; • Increase the top height to cover the elevator overrun; • Does not care about the height limit and is concerned with the design of the entire street; • The roof decks need better transition;
• Looks industrial and needs to appear more residential; and • Would recommend for City Council approval with no significant City Council redesign.

Commissioner Mensinger:
• Echoed Commissioner Ahi especially regarding symmetry with the front façade and making it look more residential; and
• Said to send the project on to City Council.

Commissioner Steinle:
• Agreed with both Commissioners Ahi and Mensinger;
• Building can be recommended to City Council; and
ATTACHMENT 2
92 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 5 of 10 ends

• There needs to be more landscaping as part of the building, not just around the building – give it more thought.

Commissioner Roche:
• Echoed the elevator overrun comments;
• Content with one gable;
• Does not like the boxy look of the stairwell at the top – needs to be minimized; and • Would move the project forward to the City Council after changes were made.

Chair Bodner:
• Agreed with Commissioner Ahi’s comments;
• Disappointed by changes made by the City Council to change the shared driveway and lose three units;
• The pedestrian experience would be significantly impacted by having two egresses; • Change to the style is significant;
• Likes the proposed style of contemporary Mediterranean a lot more; • Appreciates the refined materials and the colors are incredibly warm; • The rear elevation could benefit from some more residential touches; • May be a bit too stark and bare;
• Consider adding more railing; and
• The building height should match neighboring property heights proposed.

Community Development Director Biggs said it sounded like the majority of the Commission wanted to move this project forward to City Council even though they had design concerns. It would be more appropriate to refer the project back to the applicant to address some of their concerns and incorporate some of the suggested changes for the Commission to review again before sending it off to City Council.

Commissioner Ahi then went over the recommended changes to get a consensus of the Commission:
• Symmetrical aspect of the façade;
• Fit and transition better with the buildings on either side of the project; • The roof structure needs to be more developed; and
• Add accents to the building design.

The applicant Abbie Bourgan and project architect Chris Hall spoke to the design recommendations and comments made by the Planning Commission.

Community Development Director Biggs went over the Commission’s options for a motion.

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Steinle, seconded by Commissioner Ahi, the Commission recommended approval to the City Council of design review and subdivision applications D20-0004 and TM20-0001 per the findings and conditions contained in the resolution, and subject to working with staff to incorporate and address the following:
• Elevator overrun;
ATTACHMENT 2
93 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 6 of 10 ends

• Solar panel array;
• Articulation of the front elevation; and
• More landscaping.

The motion was approved (5-0) by the following vote:

AYES: Ahi, Bodner, Mensinger, Roche and Steinle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Doran and Marek

3. D21-0003 and TM21-0001– 355 1st Street LLC – 355 First Street The Planning Commission and Complete Streets Commission recommend approval to the City Council for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new 79,885 square-foot four story fifty (50) unit condominium building with two levels of underground parking at 355 First Street. A Notice of Intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (MND) in compliance with Section 21092.3 of the Public Resources Code has been filed with the County Clerk pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Project Manager: Persicone
Planning Services Manager Persicone introduced the project.

There were no ex parte communications from the Complete Streets Commission.

There were no ex parte communications from the Planning Commission.

The Commissions took a 12-minute break.

Planning Services Manager Persicone gave the staff report presentation for the SB 330 project recommending approval of Design Review and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map applications D21- 0003 and VTTM21-0001 to the City Council of the fifty (50) unit condominium project at 355 First Street and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Attachment 11 – Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP) to the City Council.

Project architect Jeff Potts of SDG Architects stated the project crossed four sites, presented the 50-unit project with six BMRs proposed, and two levels of sub grade parking for a total of 113 spaces with a sixinch reduction in space width with a waiver.

Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Ambiel from the Complete Street Commission asked questions about bike parking access, if any electrical outlets would be provided in the lockers, any security measures for an open-air charging station and package deliveries.

ATTACHMENT 2
94 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 7 of 10 ends

Project architect Jeffs Potts answered that none are being proposed in the bike lockers at this time but they usually install a charging station, they can look into security measures and deliveries are made into the main lobby.

Commissioner Gschneidner asked about package deliveries as well and where the trucks would park, how many parking spaces are there for the 50 units total, and what are the handicapped and visitor parking spaces required.

Project architect Jeffs Potts answered that they would park in front of the building in one of the spaces for deliveries, presumably not double parked, there are a total of 113 parking spaces, and went over the State and City requirements for handicapped spaces and visitor parking.

Commissioner Katz asked about deliveries of large items or move-in/move-outs and whether access would be given from the alley for the elevator.

Project architect Jeffs Potts said there is no dedicated service elevator for a project of this size and people would be moving in through the front door, not the alley.

Vice-Chair Banerjee asked staff about what the timeline is for the First Street Streetscape Plan? Transportation Services Manager Lee did not have a timeline yet to give but said she would look into it and briefly discussed loading zones being installed independent of the projects.

Commissioner Ahi asked a question to the architect about the open-air area in the center of the building and how it is going to work with drainage and the pervious and impervious surfaces in that area.

Project architect Jeffs Potts said they are draining some of the roof deck to this area with a fountain and landscaping and being directed and collected into pipes to drain into the storm drain at the street.

Commissioner Mensinger asked about considering moving the fourth floor back as suggested in the peer review and material choices to lessen the appearance of mass.

Project architect Jeffs Potts said that it was considered but based on the density, BMR requirements and land cost, it was not feasible. He also stated they tried to lighten up the materials per their direction and peer review for previous meetings and recessing the elements along the balconies to break up the roof line and soften the appearance.

Chair Bodner had a follow-up question about the peer review and other meetings and when the changes were made.

Project architect Jeffs Potts said most changes were made after the second peer review and went over the changes that were made including the front façade per the Commission’s direction.

Public Comment
ATTACHMENT 2
95 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 8 of 10 ends

None.

The public comment section of the meeting was closed for Complete Streets Commission discussion.

Commissioner Ambiel thanked the applicant and architect for providing double the bike parking that was required. However, it is still insufficient with the number of units being provided when we are encouraging less car trips on the road. She suggested better design for bike rooms to make them more pleasing to use with ground floor access. She asked the architect to provide electrical chargers for the seven-bike storage unit to be utilized for charging electric bikes. She also encouraged the City to install more bike parking around this neighborhood.

Commissioner Katz also thanked the architect more maximizing the parking spaces and likes the idea of having one EV charging station per unit. He agreed with Commissioner Ambiel about the increase in the use of EV bikes, especially for those downsizing to condos from houses, and the need for more bike storage.

Vice-Chair Banerjee thanked the architect for the project, mentioned that the VTA is in the process of updating their bike parking guidelines, and stated the need for the City to move on some short-term action and long-term goals for First Street.

Chair Maluf also thanked the architect for the number of bike parking provided for the project.

Following Complete Streets Commission deliberations:

Action: Upon motion by Vice-Chair Banerjee, seconded by Commissioner Gschneidner, the Commission recommended moving the project forward to the Planning Commission and City Council with a suggestion that electric power chargers be installed in the bike storage area.

The motion was approved (5-0) by the following vote:

AYES: Maluf, Banerjee, Ambiel, Katz and Gschneidner
NOES: None
ABSENT: O’Yang and Venkatraman
The Complete Streets Commission then adjourned from the meeting.

Planning Commission deliberations then proceeded.

Commissioner Ahi:
• Last time the building felt massive;
• Still does with the use of the heavy stone textured panels; • Can levels three and four be pushed back;
• Look to Whitney Street balconies articulation for inspiration to add to the front elevation; • Reconsider the glass railings or use a different material to be more residential; • Review the entry and implement into other parts of the building; • Interior open area a concern and should provide more detail looking up; and ATTACHMENT 2
96 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 9 of 10 ends

• Could recommend for approval to the City Council.

Commissioner Roche:
• Changes are positive and modifications reflected here make for a better building; and • Would like to see electric vehicle chargers installed in the garage and for bike lockers.

Commissioner Mensinger:
• Would like to see more done to have the massing of the building reduced to mitigate in some way;
• Encouraged the applicant to follow the Complete Streets Commission recommendations especially the electric bike charging and ease of access to bike storage for families; and • Said to move the project forward to the City Council.

Commissioner Steinle:
• Big building;
• Appreciates the changes that have been made including the landscaping trees; and • Supports moving the project on to City Council.

Chair Bodner:
• Agreed with Commissioner Ahi that it is still a massive building; • The location and fourth floor adds to that but there is no incentive to push it back; • Still looks a bit too commercial and needs to feel more residential; • More could be done in material changes in line with the suggestions by Ahi; • Changes in the landscaping and pedestrian experience is good; • Balcony changes not good and glass balcony enclosures need to be given more thought – go back to a solid material to improve the look;
• Left side has more variety;
• Three levels of the same materials create a very horizontal structure; • Change the three-story corner elements; and
• Window patterns appear commercial and can changes be explored to make it more residential.

Action: Upon motion by Chair Bodner, seconded by Commissioner Steinle, the Commission recommended approval to the City Council of Design Review and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map applications D21-0003 and VTTM21-0001 per the staff report findings and conditions, and subject to working with staff to address the following prior to City Council review:
• Change balcony glass material to a solid material;
• Consider repeating architectural elements on the other corners; • Further adjustments to window patterns to feel more residential; and • Incorporate massing strategies to reduce bulk and bring it more in line and appropriate for downtown.

And recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Attachment 11 – Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP) to the City Council.

ATTACHMENT 2
97 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Page 10 of 10 ends

The motion was approved (5-0) by the following vote:

AYES: Ahi, Bodner, Mensinger, Roche and Steinle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Doran and Marek
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
None.

POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Community Development Director Biggs gave an overview of future agenda items.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bodner adjourned the meeting at 11:00 P.M.

Jon Biggs
Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 2
98 Agenda Item # 4.

COMPLETE STREETS AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT

PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda Item # 3
4868-7819-1620v1
NON-BC\27916001
Meeting Date: December 2, 2021
Subject: 355,365,371,373 First Street Project
Joint Planning Commission/Complete Streets Commission Meeting (VTTM 21-001; DR 21-0003)
Prepared by: Guido F. Persicone, Planning Services Manager, AICP Reviewed by: Jon Biggs, Community Development Director
Erik Ramakrishnan, City Attorney’s Office
Jolie Houston, City Attorney
Project Resolution
Exhibits
A-Findings of Fact
B-Conditions of Approval
Attachment(s):

Attachment 1-Jon Baer Correspondence dated, January 12, 2021 Attachment 2-January 21, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 3-Density Bonus Report
Attachment 4-Elevator Shaft Details
Attachment 5-Larry Cannon, Peer Review of Architecture
Attachment 6- CEQA Document-Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 7-Arborist Report
Attachment 8-Project Vicinity and Notification Maps
Attachment 9-Story Pole Certification Letter
Attachment 10-Project Plans
Recommendation:

Recommend approval to the City Council of the fifty (50) unit condominium project at 355 First Street.

Environmental Review:

A mitigated negative declaration (MND) has been prepared for this project and is included with this report as Attachment 6.

Background
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330)
ATTACHMENT 3
99 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 2 ends

NON-BC\27916001
Pre-Application Phase
California Senate Bill 330, “The Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 9, 2019 and became effective January 1, 2020. The bill establishes a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2025. The Housing Crisis Act allows for an applicant to submit a preliminary application for any housing development project, meaning a project of two or more units and that is at least two-thirds residential by floor area. SB 330 has two key phases: a pre application phase and a formal submittal phase. The purpose of the pre-application phase is to collect specific site and project information to determine the zoning, design, subdivision, and fee requirements that will apply to the housing development project throughout the review and entitlement process. The day the pre-application is filed with the City freezes site development and design standards plus other land use related regulations that can be imposed on the project. Additionally, under the provisions of the legislation, the City can only ask for certain information during the pre-application phase. Other design requirements can be asked for during the formal submittal. This provides some guarantees to the applicant that the “rules of the road” will not be changed mid-stream. During the pre-application phase the City can undertake its normal community outreach by having study sessions, and community meetings.

Formal Submittal Phase of SB 330
The applicant shall submit a formal application for a development project within 180 calendar days of submitting a complete preliminary application. If the City determines that the application for the development project is not complete, the applicant shall submit the specific information needed to complete the application within 90 days of receiving the agency’s written identification of the necessary information. If the development proponent does not submit this information within the 90- day period, then the preliminary application shall expire and have no further force or effect. Additionally, during the “formal submittal” phase the City is only allowed to require five public meetings. The legislation was written very broadly to include community meetings and study sessions in this definition. The City also must account for any potential appeals, which count toward the five meeting maximum.

Project Timeline
October 13, 2020-the Planning Division received a preliminary application for an SB 330 project at 355 First Street. Fees were paid on October 16, 2020. This project was for 35 condominium units.

December 22, 2020-a revised preliminary application for 50 condominium units was submitted.

Since this represented more than a 20% increase in the number of units provided, under the 100
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 3 ends

NON-BC\27916001
provisions of Government Code Section 65941.1, the preliminary application is deemed submitted on December 22, 2020, rather than October 13, 2020.

On January 11, 2021, a virtual community meeting took place with property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the property. Only one community member attended (Jon Baer) and his comments are included as Attachment 1.

January 21, 2021-a study session with the Planning Commission occurred. The project shown to the Planning Commission identified a total of 8 affordable units (7 moderate and 1 low-income unit) with a base density of 37 units for the project. Please refer to Attachment 2 for comments made by the commission at this meeting.
1 February 24, 2021-a study session with the Complete Streets Commission (CSC) occurred.

Please refer to the CSC portion of this report for a detailed summary of the recommended changes requested per the CSC.

On April 7, 2021-project application was filed under the formal submittal phase of SB 330.

July 20, 2021, the applicant resubmitted the project application.

September 10, 2021 the applicant resubmitted the project application. This project shows a base density of 37 units of which six (6) would be affordable (5 very low 1 moderate income).

October 15, 2021-The project is deemed complete, and the Fire Department provides a conditional approval letter.

November 12, 2021-the applicant resubmits the final set of plans for the public hearing showing 39 units as the base density with 6 affordable (3 moderate and 3 very low-income units).

Project Description
The applicant is seeking approval of a design review permit and a tentative map for a new development at 355 First Street. The applicant is proposing a fifty (50) unit condominium project with six (6) dedicated below market rate units with three (3) at the moderate-income level and 1 January 21, 2021 Planning Commission plans:
https://los-altos.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=626&meta_id=67738 101
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 4 ends

NON-BC\27916001
three (3) at the very low-income level.
2 Since the project is providing 8% of the units at the very low-income level, it qualifies for one (1) density bonus concession / incentive.

While 355 First Street is the primary address for the project, the project does entail four separate parcels at 355, 365, 371, 373, which will have to be merged and then re-subdivided for the condominium units as part of the tentative map process. The project is generally consistent with the Los Altos Zoning Code (see Table 1) with a few key exceptions.

Table 1 (General Development Standards)
Standard Proposed Complies
General Plan Downtown Commercial No change Yes
Zoning CD R3 No change Yes
Density No density range in the
CD/R3 Zone
50 condo units Yes
Lot Size 27,811 No change Yes
Front Setback 10 ft.
50% landscaped
10 ft.
50% landscaped
Yes
Rear Setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Yes
Interior
Setback
0 ft. 4 ft. Yes
Street Side
Setback
2 ft. 2 ft. Yes
Enclosed
Refuse
collection
Yes-sheet A2 Yes Yes-sheet A2
Bicycle
Parking
1 Class I (Bike Locker)
for every 3 units and 1
Class II (Bike Rack)
1 Class I (Bike
Locker)-sheet and 1
Class II (Bike Rack3)
Yes-sheet A1
2 Please note the Density Bonus charts in the Los Altos Ordinance need to be updated to reflect recent changes to density bonus law. If a local ordinance and the State Density Bonus conflict, the State law prevails. 3 Class I (bike locker) must be provided for every 3 units and a 1 Class II (bicycle rack) must be provided for every 15 units. See sheet A1.
102
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 5 ends

NON-BC\27916001
Height 35 feet 46 feet-building
63 feet-elevator shaft
Yes- with density
bonus concession and
waivers
Parking 113 99-regular spaces
12-reduced size spaces
-111
Yes-with density
bonus reduction
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Pursuant to the Los Altos Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Los Altos Municipal Code Section

14.28.020), 15% of all units shall be affordable with a majority of the units at the moderateincome level with the remainder being low or very low-income units.

All multiple-family residential projects that create five or more new dwelling units shall provide affordable housing as follows:

A. For projects with five to nine units, affordable housing units shall be provided as follows:

2. Ownership units. Fifteen (15) percent total, with a majority of the units designated as affordable at the moderate-income level and the remaining units designated as affordable at the low- or very-low-income level.

With a base density of 39 units, at least 15% of the units or six (6) shall be affordable with at least four (4) at the moderate-income level.
4 The applicant contends mandating that the majority
of the units be at the moderate-income level violates the spirit of Density Bonus Law and proposes to provide half of the units as moderate and the other half as very low-income units.

The City Attorney has opined that the Los Altos Affordable Housing Ordinance is legally valid and can be enforced. To resolve the parties’ disagreement informally, the City and the applicant have jointly applied to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) for technical assistance. Condition of Approval COA #13 has been crafted to require compliance with the City’s inclusionary standards, pending HCD’s response:

The applicant proposes to provide three moderate-income units and three very low income units. Four moderate-income units are required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary 4 Consistent with the City’s historic interpretation of its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, this is based upon the project’s base density. In zoning districts that do not define a maximum density, the City requires the applicant to submit a base project that complies with applicable development standards to establish the base density for purposes of both the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Density Bonus Law. 103
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 6 ends

NON-BC\27916001
Housing Ordinance, Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.020. The project is recommended for approval conditioned upon meeting this minimum requirement to provide four moderate-income units. This condition does not alter or affect the number of very lowincome units that the project will provide to qualify for the density bonus sought by the applicant. The applicant and the City disagree as to the application of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to the project and have jointly requested technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). Staff is authorized to amend this condition administratively if necessary to be consistent with any opinion HCD may provide. This issue shall be resolved prior to the recordation of the Final Map.

Density Bonus Calculation
Based upon the applicant proposing three (3) very low-income units, the project is eligible for a density bonus of 11 units.

Density Bonus Concession
The applicant is requesting one density bonus concession to increase the height from 35 feet to 46 feet. The height increase would be considered an “on menu” concession request, which are ministerial, unless the City makes one of the following findings:
 The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with the definition of "concession" or "incentive", to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health & Safety Section 50052.5, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in Subsection (I).  The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households  The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

Since none of the density bonus findings above can be made, City staff are recommending approval of the concession.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 7 ends

NON-BC\27916001
project with the density bonus and the incentives or concessions to which the development is entitled, per Government Code Section 65915(e)(1), which reads:

Government Code Section 65915 (e) (1) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. Subject to paragraph (3), an applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

Density Bonus Waiver #1
Applicant is requesting a waiver of the development standard set forth in LAMC Sec.

14.74.200(A) which requires that perpendicular parking spaces in off-street parking facilities must have a width of no less than nine (9) feet. Based on information provided by the project architect, to provide the amount of parking proposed by the Project, the width of twelve (12) of the parking spaces was reduced to 8.5 feet x 18feet.

Density Bonus and Parking
Under the provisions of Density Bonus law, the project is entitled to reduced parking ratios and is only required to provide 70 parking spaces. The project proposes to exceed this requirement by providing 111 total spaces (99 regular sizes stalls (9X18 in size) and 12 reduced spaces (8.5 X18).
105
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 8 ends

NON-BC\27916001
Table 2-Density Bonus Parking Ratios
Units Density Bonus Parking Ratios
Total Required
Parking
Bedroom Count
3 Bedrooms 11 1.5 16.5
Two Bedrooms 30 1.5 45
1 Bedrooms 9 1 8
50 69.5 (70)
Construction Management Plan (CMP)
Sheet CM1.0 (Construction Management Plan) to this report shows the applicant’s plans for managing the construction of the project. Additionally, COA#XX has been written to mandate a pre-construction meeting (after issuance of the building permit but prior to any work being performed), with abutting property owners. Additionally, a sign shall be installed with a single point of contact (POC) the neighborhood can quickly contact to address any construction impacts from the project.

Subdivision
As outlined above, the Project conforms to the General Plan and meets all applicable Zoning Code requirements, albeit with Density Bonus waivers and concessions as allowed by state law. The subdivision is not injurious to public health and safety, is suitable for the proposed type of development, and provides proper access easements for ingress, egress, public utilities and public services. Therefore, all required findings per the State Subdivision Map Act can be made.

Design Controls and Finding
The project’s design is consistent with the Commercial/Multi-Family design review findings (Section 14.78.060) and the CD/R3 Design Controls (Section 14.52.110) as well as all other applicable policies and regulations. The exterior material combines stone textured panels with El Dorado Stone patio walls and a wood look upper roof overhang with a mix of horizontal and vertical siding on multiple floors, each defining a building element. The colors have been selected to provide a distinct separation of units while being complementary to each other and the neighborhood. The colors also provide a visual breakup of massing of the building. In addition to meeting the design controls and findings of the Los Altos Municipal Code, a peer 106
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 9 ends

NON-BC\27916001
review of the architecture was performed by Larry Cannon and Associates (see Attachment 5): 5
Table 3-Peer Review Summary
Third Party Review Project Modification
Set back the fourth floor A continuous horizontal band wrapping all sides of the building at the top of the third floor was incorporated to differentiate the fourth floor from the lower three.

Balconies step back the fourth floor.

Wall planes are varied at the fourth floor to pull it back from the third floor
Enhance the ground floor Project provides new sidewalk along First Street and Whitney Street with street trees, benches, bicycle racks, and extensive landscape planters, all of which contributes to an enjoyable walking experience for people headed down-town.

Landscape design has extensive landscape planters along First Street enriching the 10 feet setback / buffer zone between the sidewalk and the building. Planters were stepped to provide a softer, human-scale, residential look.

Modify the corners and trellis
of the building
All corners have been reviewed and designed with materials and forms wrapping the corners. Attention given to the First / Whitney Street corner.

Continue to develop 2-story pedestrian-detailed and scaled building element at corner of First and Whitney. Eliminate vertical commercial storefront windows at corner of First and Whitney Street, and replace with residential windows.

Eliminate continuous 4-story vertical wall on Whitney.

Extend the 2-story element further down Whitney.

Garage Entries-the currently
proposed facades related to the
garage entry would benefit from
some additional design attention
Garage entry is clad in stone-textured paneling to have a finished appearance.

Garage entry element has been integrated into the design composition of the rear elevation to minimize it as a focal point. Wood cladding added to stair tower to accentuate and 5 On May 24, 2016 the Downtown Building Committee recommended to the City Council that outside third party architecture firms should conduct a third party review for projects in the downtown area. 107
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 10 ends

NON-BC\27916001
draw attention to the vertical circulation of the building.

Finally, in terms of the Multi Family Objective Standards adopted by the City Council on September 14, 2021, those new standards would not apply since the pre application was filed in December of 2020.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
On November 2, 2021 a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed with the County Clerk for a twenty (20) day comment period. No comments were received for this project and the environmental document indicates that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. However, the mitigation measures identified in the initial study would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency (the City of Los Altos) that the project, with mitigation measures incorporated, may have a significant effect on the environment. Please review Attachment 6 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) for further details.

Complete Streets Commission
Per Section 2.08.160 of the Los Altos Municipal Code the Complete Streets Commission (CSC) is an advisory body to the City Council on bicycle, pedestrian, parking, and traffic matters.

2.08.160 - Powers and duties of the complete streets commission.

A. Help to create multi-modal transportation solutions and policies that enable safe, attractive, comfortable and independent access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists of all ages and abilities, including connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries.

B. Shall advise the council on existing and proposed city policies related to traffic calming and traffic enforcement.

C. Shall advise the council on projects and budget priorities for transportation-related capital improvements.

D. Provide for community engagement and serve as a conduit for community input.

As a result, and per 14.78.090 of the Los Altos Municipal Code, City staff and the applicant attended a study session with the applicant on February 24, 2021. Formal meeting minutes are not available for this meeting, but below is a summary of the major items discussed and how the project has been modified accordingly:
108
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 11 ends

NON-BC\27916001
Table 4-Complete Streets Commission CSC Input
CSC Comments Applicant’s Response
Enhance back-alley access The alley was enhanced with further raised planters and the exit was enhanced with a raised walkway.

Additional bicycle parking Bicycle parking above the required has been provided.

As we develop the utilities for the
project more space may be available.

Summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis
The addition of project trips would not adversely affect traffic operations at the intersection because these trips would not increase the average delay at the intersection by more than 4 seconds. The eastbound movement at the San Antonio Road & Whitney Street/Pepper Drive intersection would also operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour.

Similarly, the addition of project generated trips would not adversely affect traffic operations at the intersection.

The VTA VMT Evaluation Tool indicates that residential projects located within the project’s transportation analysis zone (TAZ) would generate 7.08 VMT/capita. Similarly, the tool finds that the proposed project is projected to generate 6.37 VMT per capita. Since the proposed project’s estimated VMT per capita of 6.37 is lower than the significance threshold of 10.39 VMT per capita, the project would have a less than significant impact of vehicle miles traveled.

Please review the TIA within the Mitigated Negative Declaration for additional traffic related details.

Transit Stop
The closest bus stop is located approximately 0.3 mile from the subject site at the corner of Lyell and San Antonio which is considered an acceptable walking distance. Local VTA route 40 provides service between Foothill College in Los Altos Hills and La Avenida Street in Mountain View via San Antonio Road, Lyell Street and First Street. 109
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 12 ends

NON-BC\27916001
Bicycle and Pedestrian
As recommended by the VTA guidelines, the project will be required to provide a minimum of 1 Class I (bike locker) must be provided for every 3 units and a 1 Class II (bicycle rack) must be provided for every 15 units. This equates to 17 Class I spaces and 4 Class II spaces. The applicant is providing 34 Class I and 6 Class II spaces, exceeding the standards. See sheet A08 of the submitted plans for details. If approved by the City Council, the applicant will be required to improve the sidewalk along First and Whitney so there is an accessible path of travel per the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Los Altos General Plan Conformance
Housing Element Policy 2.1: The City will maintain zoning that provides for a range of housing sizes and residential densities.

Housing Element Goal 4: Allow a variety of housing densities and types in appropriate locations to accommodate housing needs at all income categories.

Housing Element Program 4.3.4 Continue to encourage maximum densities.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve design review and subdivision applications (VTTM 19-003; DR 19-007) subject to the recommended findings and conditions
110
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 13 ends

NON-BC\27916001
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-04

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR A NEW FIFTY UNIT MULTIPLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 355 FIRST

STREET AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos received a development application from DeNardi Wang Homes for a new a fifty unit, multiple-family project, which includes design review and subdivision applications (VTTM 21-001; DR 21-0003), referred herein as the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the design permit and subdivision application were processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Complete Streets Commission held duly noticed joint public hearings on the Project on December 2, 2021 and December 16, 2021, at which all public comment was duly considered and it voted to recommended approval of the project to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on the Project on February 8, 2022 and February 22, 2022 at which all public comment were duly considered; and WHEREAS, the applicant the City of Los Altos are seeking technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) regarding the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study for the Project has been completed pursuant to CEQA which identifies potentially significant effects on the environment which would result from the Project, and concludes that these impacts can be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance with adoption and implementation of certain mitigation measures therein identified and listed; and
WHEREAS, based on this Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, which finds that anypotentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project would be 111
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 14 ends

NON-BC\27916001
sufficiently mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures specified therein; a complete copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and all supporting exhibits and documents are on file and can be viewed at the City office;and
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intent of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project on November 2, 2021, which started a 20-day public review period. The notice was posted at the City office, the County Clerk, on the City website, published in the Town Crier and sent to all property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the project, and all interested persons; and WHEREAS, at its February 8th and February 22nd 2022 meetings the City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project, any comments received to-date and the responses prepared, invited additional comments from the public, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and its guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted its own independent analysis of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan were appropriate as there is substantial evidence the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and the mitigated negative declaration reflects the District's independent judgment and analysis; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon the City Council’s decision are located in the Office of City Clerk.

1. The recitals set forth above are held to be true and correct and, by this reference, arehereupon incorporated as findings.

2. The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received) and based on the 112
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 15 ends

NON-BC\27916001
foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts of the Project with mitigation measures are below a level of significance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

3. The City Council find the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been completed in compliance with CEQA and consistent the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

4. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan represents the independent judgment and analysis of the District as the lead agency for the Project.

5. The City Council further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is adequate to serve the required CEQA environmental documentation for the Project and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Plan.

6. The City Clerk is the custodian of the records of the proceedings onwhich this decision is based. The records are located at 1 North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94022

7. The City Council directs staff to file a notice of determination with the County of Santa Clara within five (5) working days of adoption of this resolution.

8. The applicant proposes to provide three moderate-income units. Four moderate-income units are required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.020. The project is approved conditioned upon meeting this minimum requirement to provide four moderate-income units. This condition does not alter or affect the number of very low-income units that the project will provide to qualify for the density bonus sought by the applicant. The applicant and the City disagree as to the application of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to the project and have jointly requested technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). Staff is authorized to amend this condition administratively if necessary to be consistent with any opinion HCD may provide.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 16 ends

NON-BC\27916001
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Anita Enander, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrea M. Chelemengos , CMC, CITY CLERK
114
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 17 ends

NON-BC\27916001

EXHIBIT A-FINDINGS
(VTTM 21-001; DR 21-003)-355 First Street

1. With regard to environmental review, the City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received) and based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts of the Project with mitigation measures are below a level of significance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

2. The City Council find the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been completed in compliance with CEQA and consistent the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Building elevations have variation and depth and avoid large blank wall surfaces. The residential projects incorporate elements that signal habitation such as identifiable entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies.
d. Exterior materials and finishes convey high quality, integrity, permanence and durability, and materials are used effectively to define building elements such as base, body, parapets, bays, arcades and structural elements. Materials, finishes, and colors have been used in a manner that serves to reduce the perceived appearance of height, bulk and mass, and are harmonious with other structures in the immediate area.
115
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 18 ends

NON-BC\27916001
e. Landscaping is generous and inviting, and landscape and hardscape features are designed to complement the building and parking areas, and to be integrated with the building architecture and the surrounding streetscape. Landscaping includes substantial street tree canopy, either in the public right-of-way or within the project frontage.
f. Signage is designed to complement the building architecture in terms of style, materials, colors and proportions.
g. The exterior mechanical equipment, which is located in alcoves and within the fenced private areas, is screened from public view and the fencing is consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detailing; and
h. The service, trash and utility areas are located behind fences, recessed in alcoves or enclosed within the building in order to be screened from public view and are placed in a way that is consistent with the building architecture in materials and detailing.

2. With regard to the fifty-unit condominium subdivision, the City Council finds the following in accordance with Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California:
a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable goals, policies and objectives of the Los Altos General Plan and does not exceed the maximum density for the land use designation;
b. The site is physically suitable for this type and density of development in that the site is generally flat with minimal slope and located within a suburban context with access to all city services, including sewer, water, electricity and public streets. c. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or avoidably injure fish or wildlife since there is not any identified sensitive habitat or other environmental resources on or in proximity to the site; d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems since the project is consistent with the multiple-family character of the neighborhood and is located on a site for which all public utilities are available; and 116
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 19 ends

NON-BC\27916001
e. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with access easements since there are not any existing access easements that are on or adjacent to the site.

3. Density Bonus Findings. With regard to the offered below market rate units and requested parking requirement alteration, the City Council finds, in accordance with Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.040, as follows:
a) The applicant is offering three very low-income unit and three moderate income units for sale, which qualifies the project for additional waivers and incentives b) Per Table DB 2 in Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.040, a project that includes eight percent or more of its total units as very low income restricted affordable units shall be granted one (1) incentive. The applicant will be requesting one density bonus concession to increase the height from 35 feet to 46 feet. Evidence has not been presented which supports other findings for denial of the requested incentives. The height and the setback incentives are considered an “on-menu” incentive per Section 14.28.040(f) Incentive Standards and, therefore, the City has determined that the incentive would not have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or upon a listed historical resource.
c) Per Section 14.28.040(H)(1), a project can request a waiver or reduction of development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development in addition to the development incentive permitted by the Municipal Code. Consistent with these requirements, the applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for a building height of up to sixty-three (63)feet and four and a half (4.5) inches where the development standard set forth in LAMC Sec.14.66.240(F) requires that an enclosed roof structure housing the elevator for the proposed residential building that provides access to the roof top be limited to twelve (12) feet in height. Based on findings by the architect for the Project, the elevator housing on the roof deck cannot be constructed unless it is approximately seventeen (17) feet and six (6) inches in height, and an elevator shaft is necessary to comply with accessibility standards. The Council determined the waivers are supported by the fact that the implementation of the standards physically precludes the construction of the development and evidence has not been presented that the waivers will have a specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, or an adverse impact on any listed historic resource or will be contrary to state or federal law.
117
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 20 ends

NON-BC\27916001

4. Non-compliance with 14.28.020:
a. Applicant is required to provide at least four moderate and two LI/VLI units. Applicant proposes only three moderate units. In City’s view, the project does not meet the standard. Parties are jointly requesting technical assistance from HCD. The project has been conditioned on providing a fourth MI unit. Per COA No. 13 under the General Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit B of this Resolution, the applicant shall provide 4 moderate units unless HCD agrees with the applicant’s interpretation of the law.
118
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 21 ends

NON-BC\27916001

EXHIBIT B-CONDITIONS

GENERAL

1. Approved Plans
Project approval is based upon the plans received on November 12, 2021 except as modified by these conditions.

2. Indemnity and Hold Harmless
Applicants shall sign a letter submitted prior to the issuance of building permits, agreeing to hold harmless the City for any actions related to the permit. The letter shall include the following verbiage: The applicant/owner agrees to indemnify, defend, protect, and hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City’s defense of its actions in any proceedings brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging any of the City’s action with respect to the applicant’s project. The City may withhold final maps and/or permits, including temporary or final occupancy permits, for failure to pay all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions.

4. Public Utilities
The applicant shall contact electric, gas, communication and water utility companies regarding the installation of new utility services to the site.

5. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
The project shall comply with City of Los Altos Municipal Regional Stormwater (MRP)NPDES Permit No. CA S612008, Order No. R2-2015-0049 dated November 19, 2015.

7. Sewer Lateral
119
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 22 ends

NON-BC\27916001
Any proposed sewer lateral connection shall be approved by the City Engineer. Only one sewer lateral per lot shall be installed. All existing unused sewer laterals shall be abandoned according to the City Standards, cut and cap 12” away from the main.

9. Pollution Prevention
The improvement plans shall include the “Blueprint for a Clean Bay” plan sheet in all plan submittals.

10. Storm Water Management Plan
The Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) in compliance with the MRP. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by a City approved third party consultant at the Applicant’s expense. The recommendations from the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be shown on the building plans.

11. Civil Engineering Drawings
The applicant shall submit civil engineering drawings that show property lines with bearing and easements.

12. Affordable Housing Agreement
Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall execute and record an Affordable Housing Agreement, in a form approved and signed by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney, that offers six (6) below market rate unit, for a period of at least 55 years. The below market rate unit shall be at the low-income level shall be constructed concurrently with the market rate units, shall be provided at the location on the approved plans, and shall not be significantly distinguishable with regard to design, construction or materials. This issue shall be resolved prior to the recordation of the Final Map.

13. Request for State Technical Assistance
The applicant proposes to provide three moderate-income units and three very low income units. Four moderate-income units are required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary 120
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 23 ends

NON-BC\27916001
Housing Ordinance, Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.020. The project is approved conditioned upon meeting this minimum requirement to provide four moderate-income units. This condition does not alter or affect the number of very low-income units that the project will provide to qualify for the density bonus sought by the applicant. The applicant and the City disagree as to the application of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to the project and have jointly requested technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). Staff is authorized to amend this condition administratively if necessary to be consistent with any opinion HCD may provide.

PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION

14. Public Access Easement Dedication
The applicant shall dedicate public access easements for the purpose of providing vehicle and pedestrian access shall be dedicated as follows:
a. An easement of two feet along the rear alley for use as a public right-of-way; and b. An easement of one foot along the First Street frontage to allow for pedestrian access. c. If tree wells are approved by Planning Department, Pedestrian Access Easement along First Street shall be wide enough to allow proper ADA clearances.

15. Public Utility Dedication
The applicant shall dedicate public utility easements as required by the utility companies to serve the site.

16. Subdivision Agreement
The applicant shall sign and return Subdivision Improvement Agreement to the City for records and recordation prior to the recordation of the Final Map.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT

17. Final Map Recordation
The applicant shall record the final map. Plats and legal descriptions of the final map shall be submitted for review by the City Land Surveyor. Applicant shall provide a sufficient fee retainer to cover the cost of the map review by the City.

18. Payment of Fees
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees, including but not limited to sanitary sewer connection and impact fees, parkland dedication in lieu fees, 121
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 24 ends

NON-BC\27916001
traffic impact fees, public art impact fee and map check fee plus deposit as required by the City of Los Altos Municipal Code prior to issuance of the building permit.

19. Downtown Decorated Lights
The applicant shall insure the design of total of two new Downtown Decorated light fixtures along First Street and Whitney Street as directed by the City Engineer.

20. Storm Water Filtration Systems
The Applicant shall insure the design of all storm water treatment systems and devices are without standing water to avoid mosquito/insect infestation.

21. Cost Estimate and Performance Bonds
The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for the improvements in the public right-of-way and shall submit a 100 percent performance bond or cash deposit (to be held until acceptance of improvements) and a 50 percent labor and material bond (to be held 6 months after acceptance of improvements) for the work in the public right-of-way.

22. Grading and Drainage Plan
The Applicant shall submit on-site grading and drainage plans that include (i.e. drain swale, drain inlets, rough pad elevations, building envelopes, drip lines of major trees, elevations at property lines, all trees and screening to be saved) for approval by City Engineer. No grading or building pads are allowed within two-thirds of the drip line of trees unless authorized by a certified arborist and the Planning Department.

23. Sewage Capacity Study
The applicant shall submit calculations showing that the City’s existing sewer line will not exceed two-thirds full due to the project’s sewer loads. Calculations shall include the 6” main from the front of the property to the point where it connects to the 8” sewer line on San Antonio Rd. For any segment that is calculated to exceed two-thirds full for average daily flow or for any segment that the flow is surcharged in the main due to peak flow, the applicant shall replace the 6” sewer line with an 8” sewer line. For any segment that is calculated to exceed two-thirds full for average daily flow or for any segment that the flow is surcharged in the main due to peak flow, the applicant shall replace the sewer line with a larger sewer line.

24. Construction Management Plan
The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. The construction management 122
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 25 ends

NON-BC\27916001
plan shall address any construction activities affecting the public right-of-way, including but not limited to excavation, traffic control, truck routing, pedestrian protection, material storage, earth retention and construction vehicle parking. The plan shall provide specific details with regards to how construction vehicle parking will be managed to minimize impacts on nearby single-family neighborhoods. Sidewalks, parking and travel lanes along First Street and Whitney Street shall not be closed for the full duration of the project.

Closures will be reviewed and approved with Encroachment Permit submittals. The applicant shall be required to have a pre-construction meeting with all abutting property owners to discuss the project schedule and to prominently display a sign with the single point of contact the community should interface with for any construction related impacts from the project.

25. Solid Waste Ordinance Compliance
The Applicant shall be in compliance with the City’s adopted Solid Waste Collection, Remove, Disposal, Processing & Recycling Ordinance (LAMC Chapter 6.12) which includes a mandatory requirement that all multi-family dwellings provide for recycling and organics collection programs.

26. Fire Approval
Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall receive approval from the Fire Department for the project.

27. Solid Waste and Recyclables Disposal Plan
The Applicant shall contact Mission Trail Waste Systems and submit a solid waste and recyclables disposal plan indicating the type, size and number of containers proposed, and the frequency of pick-up service subject to the approval of the Engineering Division. The Applicant shall also submit evidence that Mission Trail Waste Systems has reviewed and approved the size and location of the proposed trash enclosure. The enclosure shall be designed to prevent rainwater from mixing with the enclosure's contents and shall be drained into the City’s sanitary sewer system. The enclosure's pad shall be designed to not drain outward, and the grade surrounding the enclosure designed to not drain into the enclosure. In addition, Applicant shall show on plans the proposed location of how the solid waste will be collected by the refusal company. Include the relevant garage clearance dimension and/or staging location with appropriate dimensioning on to plans.

PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY

28. Condominium Map
123
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 26 ends

NON-BC\27916001
The applicant shall record the condominium map as required by the City Engineer.

29. Public Alleyway
The Applicant shall improve the entire width of the alleyway along the rear of the project with the treatment approved by the City Engineer.

30. Watch for Pedestrians Sign
The applicant shall install a “watch for pedestrians” sign at the top of the underground parking garage driveway ramp.

31. Sidewalk in Public Right-of-Way
The Applicant shall remove and replace entire sidewalk and curb and gutter along the frontage of First Street and Whitney Street as directed by the City Engineer. All sidewalks in the public right-of-way shall be City Standard concrete sidewalks. The applicant shall remove existing driveway on Whitney Street and replace it with standard curb and gutter.

The applicant shall extend sidewalk on Whitney Street from 330 2nd Street property to the alley, and install new driveway approach at the back of 330 2nd Street.

32. New ADA Ramps and Crosswalks
The applicant shall provide two new ADA ramps and crosswalk stripping per the City standards on the northeast and southeast corner of the intersection with First Street and Whitney Street. The applicant shall install new ADA ramps as necessary at the sidewalk extension along Whitney Street.

33. Parking Stall and Red Curb Striping
The applicant shall install parking stall striping and red curb on First Street and Whitney Street as directed by the City Engineer or his designee.

34. Public Infrastructure Repairs
The Applicant shall repair any damaged right-of-way infrastructures and otherwise displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalks and City’s storm drain inlet shall be removed and replaced as directed by the City Engineer or his designee. The Applicant is responsible to resurface (grind and overlay) half of the street along the frontage of First Street if determined to be damaged during construction, as directed by the City Engineer or his designee. 124
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project-50 Condominium Units December 2, 2021

Page 27 ends

NON-BC\27916001

35. Maintenance Bond
A one-year, ten-percent maintenance bond shall be submitted upon acceptance of improvements in the public right-of-way.

36. SWMP Certification
The Applicant shall have a final inspection and certification done and submitted by the Engineer who designed the SWMP to ensure that the treatments were installed per design.

37. Landscape and Irrigation Installation
All on- and off-site landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.

38. Label Catch Basin Inlets
The Applicant shall label all new or existing public and private catch basin inlets which are on or directly adjacent to the site with the “NO DUMPING - FLOWS TO ADOBE CREEK” logo as required by the City.
125
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jon Baer
To: Guido Persicone
Subject: 355 First Street comments
Date: Monday, January 11, 2021 8:23:27 PM
Guido-my comments, consistent with what I said during the community meeting are below:

The project appears to be adequately parked, which is a real plus. However I think it is critical, for this project as well as the others under development on this block, that the alley be widened along the full length, not just the properties that are currently being developed. That would allow traffic to use both Whitney and Lyell for entrance and egress onto San Antonio Road. Otherwise there may be conflicts as car try to navigate what is a very narrow alley and create traffic conflicts at one or both of the intersections.

This project is not like others that have or are being constructed in Los Altos-it is the largest, densest project in our downtown and as presented does not work in that the mass and bulk are not visually managed in a good manner. A great example of what not to do is 396 First Street-basically a cube with limited landscape and no richness of design (windows not recessed, etc). The east side of First Street is severely compromised by three story/4story #396 which was a poorly designed building representing excessive development. We want orderly development in this zone. While this design might marginally work along El Camino (and definitely would work in Miami) it does not fit with the village look or feel and does nothing to bring human scale to the building. Compare this building to what was done at 100 First Street!
As previously mentioned, I believe that 371 and/or 373 First are historic structures over 50 years old that will need to be evaluated prior to any demolition and perhaps even before certifying that this project can be fast tracked under SB330
This project will need redesign to reduce the mass and bulk so as to minimize abrupt changes along the street; the building needs to be designed to respect the massing of adjacent buildings. So using objective standards the question is what makes this particular building design need improvement?

1. The volume of this four story cube is insufficiently architecturally relieved: the front elevation has recessed windows, with few, as well as smaller, vertical planes, but not enough breaking up of the cube. Furthermore the fourth story is not set back and has a roof overhang that adds to the appearance of mass and bulk.

Suggestion: use an enhanced version of the front elevation as a model for how to use deep recesses to break the cube massing on all other sides.

2. There is no communal open space for the use of the occupants. 42 units have at least 2 bedrooms. That implies children with no on-site play space.

Suggestion: Enlarge court significantly, and open “court” for general view and access (by most if not all the units, thru the lobby and perhaps even visually to the street). Open more windows on it to illuminate corridors. This is a missed opportunity.
126
Agenda Item # 4.

3. There is minimal public landscaping. This very urban expression needs "generous landscaping”, a town value to fit the “village".

Suggestion: Pull footprint back from First Street to provide landscape buffer space. See 467 First Street example. Even 396 First has trees and planter.

4. The Whitney/First corner is a full cubic volume, with no recognition of 349 (across Whitney) property.

Suggestion: Carve away cubic volume to reduce "big shoulder” impact. Add landscape elements to soften

5. The “Court" is a not a court. It's a light shaft, as presented almost entirely 40ft high solid walls. It does not provide an amenity to the building nor a true emergency egress for the bedrooms above ground level opening on it.

Suggestion: See item 2

6. Recognize the impact on the street and town of the 11 foot height concession and adjust design Suggestion: Pull the fourth story back on both First and Whitney Streets. And consider changing roof overhang element to minimize visual impact of the roof. 127
Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, January 21, 2021

Page 1 of 6 ends

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, HELD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2021 BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. AT LOS ALTOS CITY HALL, ONE NORTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD,

LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA
Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the Commissions will meet via teleconference only. Members of the public may call (650) 242-4929 to participate in the conference call (Meeting ID: 149 818 5195 or via the web at https://meetings.ringcentral.com/j/1498185195 (Password:
022278). Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Commission Chair and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. You may watch the meeting live at https://www.facebook.com/CityOfLosAltos. Members of the public are also encouraged to submit written testimony prior to the meeting at [email protected] or [email protected]. Emails received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record.

ESTABLISH QUORUM
PRESENT: Chair Ahi, Vice-Chair Bodner, Commissioners Doran, Mensinger, Roche and Steinle
ABSENT: Commissioner Marek
STAFF: Community Development Director Biggs, Planning Services Manager Persicone, and City Attorney Houston

PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.

STUDY SESSION

1. 355 First Street-Study Session with the Commission-SB 330 The applicant has submitted a pre-application under the provisions of SB 330 to receive preliminary feedback from the community and Planning Commission. The project would consist of receiving approval of a Design Review permit and Tentative Map subdivision for a new four story fifty (50) unit multifamily condominium building. Project Manager: Persicone Planning Services Manager Persicone gave the agenda report and a PowerPoint presentation.

Jeff Potts, project architect with SDG Architects, provided an overview of the project and gave a PowerPoint presentation of the plans. He stated the proposed project is a 50-unit, four-story building with two levels of underground parking and 111 parking spaces in total.

Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Steinle asked about the heights of the buildings for the projects at 369 and 100 First Streets. He also asked the applicant about materials being used and the difference in colors in the model shown.

Community Development Director Bigg answered that staff did not have the dimensions for369 and 100 First Streets at the moment. Jeff Potts explained the color differences. 128 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, January 21, 2021

Page 2 of 6 ends

Commissioner Doran asked about the two-foot widening of the alley in the back, if the landscaping would be consistent with other landscaping on Whitney Street, questioned the current pathway between buildings, and the sidewalk widths.

Community Development Director Bigg explained that the two-foot widening of the alley has been applied as a condition of approval to other projects approved that abuts the alley. Jeff Potts explained the landscaping, that the pathway is located on private property and is not an easement, and that the sidewalk is being widened from five feet to six feet with the requested one-foot dedication easement by the City.

Commissioner Bodner asked about peer architectural review and the use of Trespa as a material.

Community Development Director Bigg explained that peer review will be done at formal submittal.

Jeff Potts explained that they are committed to the materials at formal submittal and what the Commission decides to approve.

Public Comment
Resident Jon Baer referred to his comments in his letter to the Commission; said the Community Meeting was not properly noticed; the project is a massive cube and needs more articulation; this is a missed opportunity, and this project belongs on El Camino Real.

Resident Roberta Phillips stated that 15 percent affordable BMRs is too low and it should be at least 20 percent to help with our RHNA numbers; the 4th story needs a setback; and had traffic concerns.

PC Discussion
Commissioner Roche said this is a massive building; the fourth floor could benefit from some setbacks and better articulation; there are missed opportunities; should incorporate a peaked roof along Whitney Street; the 46-foot-tall architecture is not redeeming; does not know if the material mix works; asked if the project could be toned down in some manner; and noted the design needs work.

Commissioner Steinle stated that parking is good and appreciated that no vehicle lifts were used; his impression is that the project was designed from the inside out; the rear elevation is more successful than the front and had balconies; asked if the units could be made smaller to make them more affordable by design; noted fewer units and smaller units would require less overall square footage; asked if a mixed-use project been considered; think about downtown walkability and pedestrian scale; concluded by stating this is a good start but more work needs to be done.

Commissioner Doran said that this is an opportunity to create a buffer zone at the sidewalk between the pedestrian zone and the building; the middle light well creates a tunnel effect; agrees with Commissioner Roche and Steinle that this is a little too bulky for First Street; and noted the objective standards under consideration tonight would require a different building with more step backs at the upper levels.

Vice-Chair Bodner appreciates the vision to group parcels; noted four stories is the future for the City; but commented the proposed design is more appropriate for El Camino Real; it does not have a downtown pedestrian feel; suggested the architect pay attention to the objective standards being developed; needs more vertical and horizontal articulation; the building reads as one large expanse and could be articulated better; recess the upper floors; have more than one entrance; more landscaping would be better; needs a softer transition between the building and the back of the 129 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, January 21, 2021

Page 3 of 6 ends

sidewalk; building could be warmed up with smaller bays and different use of materials; has concern with privacy related to the window placement and style and needs a more residential feel; thought and detail need to be given to the balconies; roof deck needs to insulate noise and light to neighbors; back alley widening is a plus and needed; and noted City should take time to revisit the parking space widths to get more spaces as the applicant suggested.

Commissioner Mensinger agreed with the other commissioner comments; more appropriate for El Camino Real; less bulk and mass; and need more space for children and families.

Chair Ahi likes the project as a whole; could use some more affordable units; does not appear as a “residential” development; design is lacking and does not fit in our downtown; building is the same in horizontally and vertically; review the corners; too heavy a form at the top of the building; review the density of the site; lacks village character; lacks a mix of height; materials needs more work because it looks heavy and has too much similarity; disconnect between elevations and program; look at how the program can connect more with the elevation design/architecture; entry is underwhelming for a 50-unit building and is a missed opportunity; the interior court yard square footage can be used in a better way; not objecting to the project, but the design does not go above and beyond what is just required; also consider how this building will relate to pedestrians and the community.

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION

CONSENT CALENDAR

2. Planning Commission Minutes
Approve minutes of the regular meeting of December 17, 2020.

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Steinle, seconded by Chair Ahi, the Commission approved the minutes from the December 17, 2020 Regular Meetings as written.

The motion was approved (6-0) by the following vote:

AYES: Ahi, Bodner, Doran, Mensinger, Roche and Steinle
NOES: None

PUBLIC HEARING

3. Zoning Text Amendment - ZTA 20-0003 - Objective Zoning Standards Zoning text amendment to Title 14 (Zoning) of the Los Altos Municipal Code to provide objective zoning standards for housing development projects. The proposed Ordinance relates to organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Project Manager: Persicone
Monica Szydlik with Lisa Wise Consulting presented and went over the changes directed by the Planning Commission.

Public Comment
Resident Jon Baer commented on slide 15 and 30 that shows the CRS zone with three-story buildings and said to revise it because it looks like we are increasing the height standards.

Resident Roberta Phillips said that the proposed regulations appear to increase density and bulk and asked why the setbacks are being reduced down to five feet. 130 Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, January 21, 2021

Page 4 of 6 ends

Resident Terri Couture agreed with Jon Baer, and is worried about a five-foot setback for the third story, then it should be a 10-foot setback for the fourth story and suggested looking to the Downtown Vision to keep the character of downtown Los Altos.

Salim, whose parents live in Los Altos, asked about upper story setbacks and how they comply with SB 330 which forbids reducing the sites potential for housing by increasing setbacks.

Chair Ahi closed the public comment section of the meeting.

The Commissioners discussed the Zoning Text Amendment to provide objective zoning standards for housing development projects and gave the following comments:

Commissioner Steinle:
• Thinks the commercial Districts are fine and is prepared to move that section forward to the City Council;
• He is more concerned about the proposed rules for the R Districts, especially R3-3, R3-4.5, and R3-5;
• The proposed standards could not be applied to these districts and are unrealistic given the current characteristics of these districts; and
• Suggested the Commission spend more time talking about the R District rules and noted he is not ready to move the standards for these forward.

Commissioner Doran:
• Noted she would consider revisiting the R3 Districts given what Commissioner Steinle said; and
• Asked about the process to review this section again because the earlier project reviewed this evening was the catalyst for a possible closer look.

Attorney Houston said the objective standards need to move forward as a whole and not piecemeal and that the Commission could move them forward to City Council with specific comments and direction.

Chair Ahi:
• Noted the Commission has looked at these rules several times already, and he is ready to move forward to City Council with direction;
• Suggested not being too restrictive with the R zones; • Noted the request for an annual review to see what is working and what is not will allow the City to adjust these rules as needed.

Monica Szydlik with Lisa Wise Consulting stated that the intent was not to replicate the building type and forms in the existing codes, but introduce design standards and coherent design, that is cognizant of adjacencies and articulation in the multi-family zones.

Commissioner Steinle:
• Asked if we need objective standards for districts, like the R3-5, where the likelihood of redevelopment is practically nil; and
• Sufficient time has not been spent discussing the R Districts and passing this on to Council this evening is a missed opportunity.

Vice-Chair Bodner: 131
Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, January 21, 2021

Page 5 of 6 ends

• Agreed with Chair Ahi that this needs to be moved forward with the acknowledgement that the R districts could be modified if future evaluations call for it; • Noted the Commission could provide specific direction to the City Council but did not support a revisit with another meeting.

Commissioner Roche:
• Agreed that not discussing the R Districts was a missed opportunity; and • Asked what the disadvantages would be to have another meeting.

Chair Ahi in answer noted:
• The task is not to design little individual pockets or areas around Los Altos.

Commissioner Mensinger:
• Agreed that it is time to move this on to the City Council; and • We can relook at this after a year and the Objective Standards should move forward so Council can begin its review.

Commissioner Doran agreed and said it is time to move this forward to City Council.

Action: Upon motion by Vice-Chair Bodner, seconded by Commissioner Doran, to recommend the Objective Standards to the City Council with the changes proposed at this meeting included in the changes outlined in the Arata PowerPoint.

The motion was approved (6-0) by the following vote:

AYES: Ahi, Bodner, Doran, Mensinger, Roche and Steinle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Marek

DISCUSSION

4. Planning Commission Workplan
The Commission by consensus agreed with the list staff provided.

Attorney Houston suggested adding some Code clean-up to the Workplan.

Chair Ahi suggested looking at the planning process as a whole to see if the Commission can make it more effective/efficient.

COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
None.

POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Community Development Director Biggs provided an overview of upcoming projects and meetings. 132
Agenda Item # 4.

Planning Commission
Thursday, January 21, 2021

Page 6 of 6 ends

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Ahi adjourned the meeting at 9:37 P.M.

Jon Biggs
Community Development Director
133
Agenda Item # 4.

DENSITY BONUS REPORT
for
355 1ST STREET

LOS ALTOS, CA
On behalf of 355 1st St LLC, C/O DeNardi Wang Homes, (“Applicant”), we are providing this Density Bonus Report with regard to that certain project located at 355, 365, 371, 373 1
st Street, Los Altos, California (the “Project”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Los Altos Municipal Code (“LAMC”).

1. Requested Density Bonus
Summary of Project:

Lot Size 27,887 S.F. (0.64 acres)
Density The Project is located in the CD/R3 District, which allows multiple-family housing as a permitted use and does not specify a maximum allowable residential density.

Base Density Based on the city’s development standards, a Base Density Model on Sheet T3 was created. The Base Density Model shows that the Base Density is thirty-nine (39) units.

Total Number of
Units
Fifty (50) units will be built at the Project, including two (2) studio units, seven (7) 1-bedroom units, thirty (30) 2-bedroom units, and eleven (11) 3-bedroom units.

Proposed Number
of Affordable Units
For the Project, the Applicant shall offer six (6) below market rate units, of which three (3) units will be at the very low-income level and three (3) units will be at the
moderate-income level. The three (3) very low-income level units include one (1) studio unit and two (2) 1-bedroom units.

The three (3) moderate-income level units include one (1) 1-bedroom unit and two (2) 2-bedroom units.

Density Bonus By offering three (3) very low-income level units with a Base Density of thirty-seven (39) units, the Applicant is providing

7.69% units at the very low-income level, which rounds up to 8%. State Density Bonus Law states if 8% of the Base Density is provided at the very low-income level, a Density Bonus of

27.5% is granted. Based on the Base Density of thirty-nine (39) units, a Density Bonus of 27.5% is 10.725 units, which rounds up to eleven (11) units. To achieve the total number of fifty (50) units, eleven (11) bonus units are needed.

Page 1 of 4 ends

134
Agenda Item # 4.

Density Bonus Report for 355 1st Street, Los Altos, CA
Assessor’s Parcel
Number(s)
167-41-026, 167-41-027, 167-41-028, 167-41-029

2. Requested Incentives and Concessions
The Project will include seven point sixty-nine percent (7.69%) very low income units and as such exceeds the five-percent threshold required for one (1) incentives (LAMC Sec.

14.28.040(C)).

Requested On Menu Incentive – Building Height Increase
Accordingly, Applicant is eligible for and is requesting one (1) On Menu Incentive under LAMC Sec. 14.28.040(F) to allow for a building height of up to forty-six (46) feet whereas the LAMC allows for a maximum building height of thirty-five (35) feet.

This height increase will allow for additional units which then reduces the actual cost per square foot to complete the Project and furthers Applicant’s ability to provide for affordable rents or affordable housing costs. See Section 4 below for more information.

California Government Code Section 65915(d)(1) states that the City has the burden of proof in demonstrating that the requested incentive would not result in an identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions (“The city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence” that the incentive (A) does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, (B) would have a specific, adverse impact, or (C) would be contrary to state or federal law). It is presumed that the requested incentive, as an On Menu Incentive that is specifically recognized by the LAMC, will result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions to the Project, unless the City makes a written finding otherwise.

3. Requested Waiver(s)
Requested Waiver – Building Height Increase
Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for a building height of up to sixty-three (63) feet and four and a half (4.5) inches where the development standard set forth in LAMC Sec.

14.66.240(F) requires that an enclosed roof structure housing the elevator for the proposed residential building that provides access to the roof top be limited to twelve (12) feet in height.

Based on findings by the architect for the Project, the elevator housing on the roof deck cannot be constructed unless it is approximately seventeen (17) feet and six (6) inches in height, and an elevator shaft is necessary to comply with accessibility standards. This is evidenced by the attached letter from the architect for the Project.

Page 2 of 4 ends

135
Agenda Item # 4.

Density Bonus Report for 355 1st Street, Los Altos, CA
The additional height requested is less than six (6) feet, and would not be visible from the street because it is set back from the roof edge. Thus there is no specific adverse impact caused by the requested waiver, which is minor in nature and has no impact on the public at large.

Pursuant to LAMC Sec. 14.28.040(H), this waiver should be granted because:
● The development standard set forth in LAMC Sec. 14.66.240(F) would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the elevator, which is required to access the roof deck per the accessibility requirements set forth in the California Building Code. ● To Applicant’s actual knowledge, the increased height in the elevator housing would not (i) have a specific, adverse impact upon the health, safety or the physical environment, (ii) have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or (iii) be contrary to state or federal law.

Requested Waiver – Parking Space Width
Applicant is requesting a waiver of the development standard set forth in LAMC Sec.

14.74.200(A) which requires that perpendicular parking spaces in off-street parking facilities must have a width of no less than nine (9) feet. Based on findings by the architect for the Project, the Project would be able to provide more total parking spaces if the width of some of the parking spaces was reduced to 8.5 feet. Specifically, the width of ten (10) percent of the parking spaces will be reduced, thereby allowing the Project to meet LAMC’s parking standards.

The Project meets the State required parking without the stall reduction. The waiver is to create additional parking which is desired by the city. Without the waiver there will be four (4) less parking spaces available.

Pursuant to LAMC Sec. 14.28.040(H), this waiver should be granted because:
● The development standard set forth in LAMC Sec. 14.74.200(A) would have the effect of physically precluding the desired number of total parking spaces, which would support the functionality of the building.
● To Applicant’s actual knowledge, the decreased width in a portion of the parking spaces would not (i) have a specific, adverse impact upon the health, safety or the physical environment, (ii) have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or (iii) be contrary to state or federal law.

4. Response to Staff Questions
To demonstrate how and why the On-Menu Incentive for height is warranted for the Project, the Cost Savings gaining eleven (11) units with the additional building height is as follows:

Page 3 of 4 ends

136
Agenda Item # 4.

Density Bonus Report for 355 1st Street, Los Altos, CA
Assuming costs are fixed at approximately one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000) per unit, the additional eleven (11) market rate units help subsidize the loss resulting from the six (6) Below Market Rate Units.

The BMR’s sell anywhere from around $119,739 for a Studio Very Low Income Unit to around $552,823 for a 2 Bedroom Moderate Income Unit.

The Project will suffer a loss of approximately six million six hundred thousand dollars ($6,600,000) on the sale of the affordable units (sold below cost of production), and the additional units are required to subsidize this additional cost to the Project.

Page 4 of 4 ends

137
Agenda Item # 4.
1 of 1
Principal Architects:

Ralph Strauss C19511 • Jeff Potts C26734 • Keeth Lichtenberger C17338 • Lance Crannell C31189 • Jennifer Mastro C32960 SDG Architects, Inc. • 3361 Walnut Boulevard, Suite 120, Brentwood, CA 94513 • 925.634.7000 • straussdesign.com September 10, 2021
Subject: Waiver for Elevator Penthouse Height Increase
To Whom it May Concern,
The roof deck amenity is vital to the success and viability of this project. In order to provide the roof deck an elevator is required to meet the Accessibility Codes. In order to be able to physically build an elevator to access the rooftop deck, the elevator housing on the roof deck must be approximately seventeen (17) feet and six (6) inches in height. We have provided cut sheets from many of the major elevator manufactures to illustrate this fact. These show that the override required when including the hoist beam, the roof decking, and the shaft roof is approximately 17’-6”. Per Section 14.66.240 of the LAMC a 12’ elevator penthouse is allowed for roof access. Therefor we are requesting a Waiver of 5’- 6” for the elevator penthouse.

The density of the project based on the required Affordable Housing Units and the resulting Density Bonus Units does not allow for a large common open space at any other level. The need for this amenity was reiterated by the city staff and Planning Commissioner’s during the process.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Potts
Principal Architect
138
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 139
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 140
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 141
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 142
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 143
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 144
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 145
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 146
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 147
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 148
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 149
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 150
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 151
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 152
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 153
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 154
Agenda Item # 4.

Preliminary

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 155
Agenda Item # 4.
&2175$&712
&217:,7+
/2&$7,21
2:1(5
$5&+7
%8,/',1*
':*12

127('21276&$/(7+,6'5$:,1*
7+,6:25.$1'7+(,1)250$7,21,7&217$,16$5(7+(
3523(57<2)27,6(/(9$725&203$1<
27,6
,7,6
'(/,9(5('7227+(56217+((;35(66&21',7,217+$7
,7:,//%(86('21/<)252521%(+$/)2)27,6

7+$71(,7+(5,71257+(,1)250$7,21,7&217$,16
:,//%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26(',1:+2/(25,1
3$57:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1&216(172)27,6

$1'7+$721'(0$1',7$1'$1<&23,(6:,//%(
352037/<5(7851('7227,6
8138%/,6+(':25.
$//5,*+765(6(59('
& 27,6(/(9$725&203$1<
5 *HQ
3:%22)
(;35(66'5$:
$$
6(,60,&
7KHIROORZLQJLWHPVPXVWEHSHUIRUPHGRUSURYLGHGDWQRFRVWWR2WLV(OHYDWRU&RPSDQ\ 27,6
E\WKH2ZQHURU*HQHUDO&RQWUDFWRURUWKHLUDJHQWVLQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWKJRYHUQLQJFRGHV7KHSULFHDQGLQVWDOODWLRQVFKHGXOHRI2WLVLVEDVHGRQWKHVHMREVLWHFRQGLWLRQVH[LVWLQJDWWKHEHJLQQLQJDQGGXULQJ WKHLQVWDOODWLRQRIWKHHOHYDWRUHTXLSPHQW)DLOXUHWRSURYLGHWKHLWHPVVSHFLILHGLQWKLVOLVWZLOOUHVXOWLQDGGLWLRQDOZRUNSHUIRUPHGE\2WLV(OHYDWRUEH\RQG WKHVFRSHRIRXUFRQWUDFWFDXVLQJLQVWDOODWLRQGHOD\V$FKDQJHRUGHUZLOOEHVXEPLWWHGE\2WLVIRUPDWHULDOVDQGRUODERUH[SHQGHG$OOZRUNPXVWEH SHUIRUPHGSHUWKHDSSOLFDEOHQDWLRQDODQGRUORFDOFRGHV *HQHUDO3UHS:RUN
3URYLGHRQVLWHVWRUDJHDUHDIRUHOHYDWRUHTXLSPHQWDVIROORZV GU\DQGHQFORVHGSURYLGHVUROODEOHDFFHVVWRWKHHOHYDWRUKRLVWZD\DWWKH JURXQGOHYHOORFDWHGZLWKLQIHHW
PP
RIWKHKRLVWZD\DQGLVODUJHUWKDQ[IHHW
PP[
PP
SHUHOHYDWRU$Q\
ZDUUDQWLHVSURYLGHGE\2WLVIRUHOHYDWRUHTXLSPHQWDUHQXOODQGYRLGLIHTXLSPHQWLVVWRUHGLQDPDQQHURWKHUWKDQDGU\HQFORVHGEXLOGLQJVWUXFWXUH 3URYLGHVXIILFLHQWRQVLWHUHIXVHFRQWDLQHUVIRUWKHSURSHUGLVSRVDORIHOHYDWRUSDFNDJLQJPDWHULDO6KRXOGVXIILFLHQWUHIXVHFRQWDLQHUVQRWEH SURYLGHGGLVSRVDORISDFNDJLQJPDWHULDOVKDOOEHFRPHWKHUHVSRQVLELOLW\RIWKHRZQHU 3URYLGHDQ\FXWRXWVWRDFFRPPRGDWHHOHYDWRUHTXLSPHQW WURXJKLQJYHQWLQJDQGKDOOIL[WXUHV
DORQJZLWKWKHSDWFKLQJSDLQWLQJRIZDOOVIORRUV
RUSDUWLWLRQVWRJHWKHUZLWKILQLVKSDLQWLQJRIHQWUDQFHGRRUVDQGIUDPHVLIUHTXLUHG +RLVWZD\ 3LW3UHS:RUN
3URYLGHDQGLQVWDOODVWHHO,EHDPVKDSHGVDIHW\EHDPZLWKDPD[LPXPIODQJHZLGWKRI PP
IURPVLGHZDOOWRVLGHZDOODWWKH
WRSRIWKHKRLVWZD\FDSDEOHRIZLWKVWDQGLQJDPLQLPXPQHWOLYHORDGRIOE NJ
SHUHOHYDWRU5HIHUHQFH2WLV/D\RXWIRUORFDWLRQ$ PLQLPXPFOHDUDQFHLVUHTXLUHGIURPWRSRIEHDPWRWRSRIKRLVWZD\ 3URYLGHDFOHDUSOXPEKRLVWZD\ZLWKYDULDWLRQVIURPWKHVL]HVKRZQRQWKH2WLVOD\RXWQRWWRH[FHHG PP
DQGQRWOHVVWKDQWKHFOHDU
GLPHQVLRQVVKRZQRQWKH2WLVOD\RXW
3URYLGHDGHTXDWHUDLOEUDFNHWVXSSRUWVEUDFNHWVSDFLQJDVUHTXLUHGE\JRYHUQLQJFRGHIURPSLWIORRUWRWRSRIKRLVWZD\WRFRPSO\ZLWKWKHUDLO UHDFWLRQIRUFHVGHWDLOHGRQWKH2WLV&RQWUDFW/D\RXW3URYLGHDGHTXDWHVXSSRUWIRUWKHWRSUDLOEUDFNHWVDWORFDWLRQVDERYHWKHWRSODQGLQJDV VSHFLILHGRQWKH2WLV/D\RXW3URYLGHVHSDUDWRUEHDPVZKHUHUHTXLUHG8QOHVVDSSURYHGE\2WLVUDLOEUDFNHWDWWDFKPHQWVXSSRUWVPXVWEH H[SRVHGDQGIOXVKZLWKWKHFOHDUKRLVWZD\OLQH
,IWKHIORRUWRIORRUKHLJKWH[FHHGVWKHPD[LPXPEUDFNHWVSDFLQJDOORZHGE\WKHHOHYDWRUFRGH2WLVUHTXLUHVVRPHIRUPRIVWHHOVXSSRUWWRSURSHUO\ DWWDFKRXUJXLGHUDLOEUDFNHWV7KHPD[LPXPDOORZHGEUDFNHWVSDFLQJLVLQGLFDWHGLQWKHUDLOIRUFHDQGEUDFNHWGHWDLOWDEOHRQWKH2WLVOD\RXW$Q\ UDLOEUDFNHWPRXQWLQJVXUIDFHVWKDWDUHQRWLQOLQHZLWKWKHILQLVKHGKRLVWZD\GLPHQVLRQ LHWKHFOHDUKRLVWZD\OLQH
PD\QHHGWREHH[WHQGHGWR
PHHWWKHUHTXLUHGGLVWDQFH2WLVDJUHHVWRSURYLGHJXLGDQFHRQWKLVPDWWHUDWWKHDSSURSULDWHWLPH ,IUDLOEUDFNHWHPEHGGHGSODWHVRULQVHUWVDUHSURYLGHGE\2WLVWKH\VKDOOEHLQVWDOOHGE\RWKHUVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK2WLVGRFXPHQWDWLRQDQGLQVWUXFWLRQV ,IYHUWLFDOWXEHVWHHOLVXWLOL]HGDVUDLOVXSSRUWVHHWKH2WLVOD\RXWIRUDQ\VSHFLILFUHTXLUHPHQWV 3URYLGHDGHTXDWHVXSSRUWDWDOOIDVWHQLQJSRLQWVRIHDFKHQWUDQFH3URYLGHSOXPEYHUWLFDOVXUIDFHVIRUHQWUDQFHVDQGHQWUDQFHVDQGEXLOGLQJVLOOOLQH )RU05/LQVWDOODWLRQVDKRUL]RQWDOVXSSRUWPHPEHULVWREHSURYLGHG PP
DERYHWKHFOHDURSHQLQJDWWKHFRQWUROOHUODQGLQJWRVXSSRUW WKHHQWUDQFHDQGFRQWUROOHUFRPSRQHQWV,IDQ\RWKHUIORRUKHLJKWH[FHHGV
PP
DKRUL]RQWDOVXSSRUWPHPEHULVWREHSURYLGHG

PP
DERYHWKHFOHDURSHQLQJ)RU05/LQVWDOODWLRQVLIHQWUDQFHILQLVKSURWHFWLRQLVLQVWDOOHGDVHFWLRQRIVXFKSURWHFWLRQPXVWEHUHPRYDEOH WRDOORZVDIHDQGFRQYHQLHQWDFFHVVWRWKH,QVSHFWLRQ 7HVWSDQHORIWKHHOHYDWRU 3ULRUWRWKHVWDUWRILQVWDOODWLRQSURYLGHDGU\SURSHUO\IUDPHGHQFORVHGDQGYHQWHGKRLVWZD\LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHFRGHV

$VUHTXLUHGE\WKH2FFXSDWLRQDO6DIHW\DQG+HDOWK$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 26+$

%

DIUHHVWDQGLQJUHPRYDEOHEDUULFDGHDWHDFK
KRLVWZD\RSHQLQJDWHDFKIORRU%DUULFDGHVVKDOOEH PP
KLJKZLWKPLGUDLODQGNLFNERDUGDQGZLWKVWDQGOEV

NJ
RI
YHUWLFDODQGKRUL]RQWDOSUHVVXUH
%
3URWHFWLRQIURP)DOOLQJ2EMHFWV

$VUHTXLUHGE\WKH2FFXSDWLRQDO6DIHW\DQG+HDOWK$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 26+$

M
KRLVWZD\SURWHFWLRQIURPIDOOLQJGHEULVDQGRWKHUWUDGHV PDWHULDOVE\HLWKHU

)XOOHQWUDQFHVFUHHQLQJPHVKLQIURQWRIDOOHOHYDWRUHQWUDQFHV
6HFXUHGFRQWUROOHGDFFHVVWRDOOHOHYDWRUOREELHV
ORFNDQGNH\
ZLWKSRVWHG1RWLFHRQO\HOHYDWRUSHUVRQQHOEH\RQGWKLVSURWHFWLRQ 1RWHV

,WHPV$
DQG%
FDQEHLQWHJUDWHGV\VWHPV
+RLVWZD\EDUULFDGHVDQGVFUHHQLQJVKDOOEHFRQVWUXFWHGPDLQWDLQHGDQGUHPRYHGE\RWKHUV 3URYLGHDSLWIORRUGHVLJQHGWRVXVWDLQYHUWLFDOIRUFHV EDVHGRQVDIHW\LPSDFW
RQFDUDQGFRXQWHUZHLJKWUDLOVDQGLPSDFWORDGVRQFDUDQG FRXQWHUZHLJKWEXIIHUVDVVKRZQRQWKH2WLVOD\RXW7KHSLWPXVWEHGU\DQGFOHDQ7KHHOHYDWRUSLWPXVWKDYHDIORRUGUDLQRUVXPSSXPSWR SUHYHQWWKHDFFXPXODWLRQRIZDWHU/RFDWLRQWREHFRRUGLQDWHGZLWK2WLVWRDYRLGDOOHOHYDWRUFRPSRQHQWVDQGDFFHVVDUHDV,QDUHDVUHTXLULQJ ILUHILJKWHUVHPHUJHQF\RSHUDWLRQ
)(2
DVXPSSXPSGUDLQVKDOOEHSURYLGHGWKDWVKDOOKDYHWKHFDSDFLW\WRUHPRYHDPLQLPXPRIPK

JDOK
SHUHOHYDWRU
$60($&6$%ODWHVWDSSOLFDEOHFRGH\HDUVHFWLRQ 2WLVUHFRPPHQGVWKDWWKHRZQHUYHULI\WKHGUDLQRU
VXPSSXPSV\VWHPLVLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHFRGHVDQGODZV 3URYLGHDQGLQVWDOODIL[HGYHUWLFDOLURQODGGHULQHDFKSLWDVUHTXLUHGE\JRYHUQLQJFRGHDQGORFDWHGSHU2WLVOD\RXWRUDVFRRUGLQDWHGZLWK2WLV SHUVRQQHO/DGGHUZLGWKDQGSLWZDOOSRFNHWUHTXLUHPHQWVDUHVKRZQLQWKHSLWSODQYLHZRQWKH2WLVOD\RXW)RUHQWUDQFHKHLJKWVRIXSWR
,QVWDOOSHUPDQHQWOLJKWIL[WXUHLQHDFKHOHYDWRUSLWZLWKLOOXPLQDWLRQRIQRWOHVVWKDQO[ IF
DVPHDVXUHGDWWKHSLWIORRU7KHOLJKWEXOE
V

VKDOOEHH[WHUQDOO\JXDUGHGWRSUHYHQWFRQWDFWDQGDFFLGHQWDOEUHDNDJH7KHOLJKWVZLWFKVKDOOEHVRORFDWHGDVWREHDFFHVVLEOHIURPWKHSLWODGGHU *ODVVXVHGLQKRLVWZD\FRQVWUXFWLRQPXVWEORFN
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

$$$
'B)0,
VKRZLQJ2WLVVSHFLILFUHTXLUHPHQWV
05/0DFKLQH6SDFH3UHS:RUN
0DLQWDLQWKHWHPSHUDWXUHDWWKHWRSRIWKHKRLVWZD\ PDFKLQHVSDFH
EHWZHHQ)
&
DQG)
&
7KLVVSDFHDOVRLQFOXGHVWKH
WKHFDUFRQWUROOHUZKLFKLVPRXQWHGDWWKHWRSODQGLQJ5HODWLYHKXPLGLW\VKDOOQRWWRH[FHHG QRQFRQGHQVLQJ3URYLGHYHQWLODWLRQWRVXLW2WLV
KHDWUHOHDVHDPRXQWVDVVKRZQLQ2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUP/RFDOFRGHVPD\UHTXLUHWLJKWHUWHPSHUDWXUHUDQJHVDQGKLJKHU YHQWLODWLRQOHYHOV3OHDVHFKHFNZLWK\RXUORFDOFRGHDXWKRULW\IRUWKHH[DFWUHTXLUHPHQWVLQ\RXUDUHD,I\RXUPDFKLQHU\VSDFHWHPSHUDWXUH H[FHHGVWKLVUHTXLUHPHQWFRQWDFW\RXUORFDO2WLVVDOHVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHIRUDVVLVWDQFH ,QVWDOODSHUPDQHQWOLJKWIL[WXUHDWWKHWRSRIWKHKRLVWZD\ PDFKLQHVSDFH
RIQRWOHVVWKDQOX[

IF
DVPHDVXUHGDWWKHOHYHORIWKH
VWDQGLQJVXUIDFHRQWKHFDUZKHQWKHHOHYDWRULVDWWKHWRSODQGLQJ/LJKWVZLWFKLVWREHORFDWHGLQWKHKRLVWZD\SHUWKH2WLVOD\RXW ,QVWDOODSHUPDQHQWOLJKWIL[WXUHDWWKHWRSODQGLQJHQWUDQFH FRQWUROVSDFH
LQWKHKDOORIQRWOHVVWKDQOX[

IF
DVPHDVXUHGDWWKH
IORRUOHYHO/LJKWVZLWFKLVWREHORFDWHGFORVHWRWKHHOHYDWRUHQWUDQFH &RQWURO5RRP6SDFHDQG0DFKLQH6SDFH3UHS:RUN

3URYLGHDVXLWDEOHFRQWUROURRPVSDFH
V
ZLWKDFFHVVDQGYHQWLODWLRQLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHFRGHVDQGUHJXODWLRQV7KHFRQWURO URRPVSDFH
V
VKDOOEHPDLQWDLQHGDWDWHPSHUDWXUHEHWZHHQ)
&
DQG)
&
WREHPHDVXUHGIHHW
PP
DERYHWKHIORRUDQG
IRRW
PP
RXWIURPWKHIURQWFHQWHURIWKHFDUFRQWUROOHU
V
5HODWLYHKXPLGLW\LVQRWWRH[FHHG
QRQFRQGHQVLQJ3URYLGHYHQWLODWLRQ
WRVXLW2WLVKHDWUHOHDVHDPRXQWVDVVKRZQRQWKH2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUP/RFDOFRGHVPD\UHTXLUHWLJKWHUWHPSHUDWXUH UDQJHVDQGKLJKHUYHQWLODWLRQOHYHOVSOHDVHFKHFNZLWK\RXUORFDOFRGHDXWKRULW\IRUWKHH[DFWUHTXLUHPHQWVLQ\RXUDUHD,I\RXUFRQWURO URRPVSDFH
V
WHPSHUDWXUHVH[FHHGWKHVHUHTXLUHPHQWVFRQWDFW\RXUORFDO2WLVVDOHVDUHD,I\RXUFRQWUROURRPVSDFH V
WHPSHUDWXUHVH[FHHG
WKHVHUHTXLUHPHQWVFRQWDFW\RXUORFDO2WLVVDOHVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHIRUDVVLVWDQFH 3URYLGHLOOXPLQDWLRQRIFRQWUROURRPVSDFH
V
RIQRWOHVVWKDQ/8;

)&
DVPHDVXUHGDWIORRUOHYHO/LJKWVZLWFKLVWREHORFDWHGZLWKLQ
PP
WRWKHORFNMDPEVLGHRIWKHDFFHVVGRRUWRWKHFRQWUROURRPVSDFH V

3URYLGHFRQWUROURRPVSDFH
V
ZLWKVHOIFORVLQJDQGVHOIORFNLQJGRRUVZLWKDJURXSORFNLQJGHYLFH,QDGGLWLRQHQVXUHWKDWDOODLUJDSV DURXQGWKHGRRUVDUHVHDOHG
LHWKUHVKROGZHDWKHUVWULSSLQJHWF

0DLQWDLQWKHWHPSHUDWXUHDWWKHWRSRIWKHKRLVWZD\ PDFKLQHVSDFH
EHWZHHQ)
&
DQG)
&
5HODWLYHKXPLGLW\VKDOOQRWWR
H[FHHG
QRQFRQGHQVLQJ3URYLGHYHQWLODWLRQWRVXLW2WLVKHDWUHOHDVHDPRXQWVDVVKRZQLQ2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUP,I\RXU PDFKLQHU\VSDFHWHPSHUDWXUHH[FHHGVWKLVUHTXLUHPHQWFRQWDFW\RXUORFDO2WLVVDOHVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHIRUDVVLVWDQFH ,QVWDOODSHUPDQHQWOLJKWIL[WXUHDWWKHWRSRIWKHKRLVWZD\ PDFKLQHVSDFH
RIQRWOHVVWKDQOX[

IF
DVPHDVXUHGDWWKHOHYHORIWKH
VWDQGLQJVXUIDFHRQWKHFDUZKHQWKHHOHYDWRULVDWWKHWRSODQGLQJ/LJKWVZLWFKLVWREHORFDWHGLQWKHKRLVWZD\SHUWKH2WLVOD\RXW )LUH3UHYHQWLRQ3UHS:RUN
3URYLGHKRLVWZD\ZDOOVGHVLJQHGDQGFRQVWUXFWHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHUHTXLUHGILUHUDWLQJ LQFOXGLQJWKRVHSODFHVZKHUHHOHYDWRUIL[WXUHER[HV
UDLOEUDFNHWIDVWHQLQJVDQGDQ\RWKHUSHQHWUDWLRQLQWRWKHKRLVWZD\ZDOOV
,QWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVSURYLGHVPRNHGHWHFWRUVORFDWHGDVUHTXLUHGZLWKZLULQJIURPWKHVHQVLQJGHYLFHVWRWKHFRQWUROOHU V
GHVLJQDWHGE\2WLV
$)RUHDFKJURXSRIHOHYDWRUVSURYLGHDQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWUHSUHVHQWLQJWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUDWWKHGHVLJQDWHGUHWXUQODQGLQJ %)RUHDFKJURXSRIHOHYDWRUVSURYLGHDQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWUHSUHVHQWLQJDOOVPRNHGHWHFWRUVORFDWHGLQOREELHVKRLVWZD\VRUFRQWURO URRPVVSDFHVEXWQRWWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUDWWKHGHVLJQDWHGUHWXUQODQGLQJ VHHDERYH
RUWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUVDVGHVFULEHGEHORZ

,IDVPRNHGHWHFWRULVORFDWHGLQWKHKRLVWZD\DWRUEHORZWKHORZHURIWKHWZRUHFDOOODQGLQJVLWVKDOOEHZLUHGWRDFWLYDWH WKHVDPHQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWDVWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUORFDWHGLQWKHOREE\DWWKHORZHURIWKHWZRUHFDOOODQGLQJV
,IWKHFRQWUROURRPVSDFH
V
DUHORFDWHGDWWKHGHVLJQDWHGUHWXUQODQGLQJWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUVORFDWHGWKHUHLQVKDOOEHZLUHG WRDFWLYDWHWKHVDPHQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWDVWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUDWWKHGHVLJQDWHGODQGLQJ &5HTXLUHPHQWVIRULQWHUPLWWHQWO\LOOXPLQDWLQJWKHILUHKDWYLVXDOVLJQDOLQWKHFDURSHUDWLQJSDQHOHLWKHU RU
PXVWEHVHOHFWHG

)RUDVLQJOHXQLWRUJURXSRIHOHYDWRUVKDYLQJFRQWUROURRPVSDFH V
DQGRQHFRPPRQKRLVWZD\SURYLGHRQHDGGLWLRQDOQRUPDOO\ FORVHGFRQWDFWUHSUHVHQWLQJWKHFRQWUROURRPVSDFH
V
DQGKRLVWZD\VPRNHGHWHFWRUV

,IWKHJURXSFRQWDLQVPRUHWKDQRQHKRLVWZD\DQGKRLVWZD\VPRNHGHWHFWRUVDUHLQVWDOOHGSURYLGHRQHQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFW IRUHDFKHOHYDWRU7KHFRQWDFWLVWRUHSUHVHQWWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUVLQWKHFRQWUROURRPVSDFH V
RUKRLVWZD\FRQWDLQLQJWKDW
SDUWLFXODUHOHYDWRU
,Q&DQDGDSURYLGHVPRNHGHWHFWRUVORFDWHGDVUHTXLUHGZLWKZLULQJIURPWKHVHQVLQJGHYLFHVWRWKHFRQWUROOHU V

$)RUHDFKJURXSRIHOHYDWRUVSURYLGHDQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWUHSUHVHQWLQJWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUDWWKHGHVLJQDWHGUHWXUQODQGLQJDQGLI SURYLGHGIURPWKHVHQVLQJGHYLFHLQWKHSLW
%)RUHDFKJURXSRIHOHYDWRUVSURYLGHDQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWUHSUHVHQWLQJDOOVPRNHGHWHFWRUVORFDWHGLQHOHYDWRUOREELHVEXWQRWWKH VPRNHGHWHFWRUDWWKHGHVLJQDWHGUHWXUQODQGLQJ
VHHDERYH
DQGLISURYLGHGIURPWKHVHQVLQJGHYLFHLQWKHWRSRIWKHKRLVWZD\ &)RUHDFKJURXSRIHOHYDWRUVSURYLGHDQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWUHSUHVHQWLQJWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRULQWKHHOHYDWRUPDFKLQHVSDFH ',IWKHFRQWUROVSDFHLVORFDWHGDWWKHGHVLJQDWHGUHWXUQODQGLQJWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUVORFDWHGWKHUHLQVKDOOEHZLUHGWRDFWLYDWHWKHVDPH QRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWDVWKHVPRNHGHWHFWRUDWWKHGHVLJQDWHGODQGLQJ)RUHDFKJURXSRIHOHYDWRUVSURYLGHLQDGGLWLRQWRWKHDERYH DQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWUHSUHVHQWLQJWKHVHQVLQJGHYLFHVLQWKHSLWRUDWWKHWRSRIWKHKRLVWZD\ )RUWKH)LUH+DWLQWKH(OHYDWRU

$
3URWHFWLRQIURP)DOOV

PP
WKHWRSUXQJRIWKHODGGHUPXVWEHHYHQZLWKWKHERWWRPODQGLQJ)RUHQWUDQFHKHLJKWVJUHDWHUWKDQ
PP
WKHWRSUXQJ
PXVWEH

PP
DERYHWKHERWWRPODQGLQJ+DQGJULSVPXVWEHSURYLGHGWRDKHLJKWRI

PP
DERYHWKHERWWRPODQGLQJ+DQG
JULSVPXVWKDYH
PP
UDGLDOFOHDUDQFHIURPWKHLUFHQWHUOLQHWRDQ\REVWUXFWLRQLQWKHKRLVWZD\ 5HIHUWRWKHGHWDLOYLHZVIRU
W\SLFDOODGGHUDUUDQJHPHQW

723DQG%27720ODQGLQJV
DQGWKH0$,1ODQGLQJZKHUHDSSOLFDEOH
DUHQRWWREHFRQVWUXFWHGXQWLODIWHUDOOHOHYDWRUHTXLSPHQWLVLQVWDOOHGLQWKHKRLVWZD\ 7KHHQWLUHIURQWZDOOPXVWEHRSHQIRULQVWDOODWLRQZLWKWKHIROORZLQJURXJKRSHQLQJGLPHQVLRQV WREHVKRZQRQOD\RXWV

5RXJK2SHQLQJ:LGWK
5RXJK2SHQLQJ+HLJKW

&/($5+2,67:$<:,'7+
PP

IRUDPP

HQWUDQFHKHLJKW

PP

IRUDPP

HQWUDQFHKHLJKW
,IWKHFRQWUROOHULVORFDWHGRQWKH5($5HQWUDQFHWKHZDOODWWKLVUHDUHQWUDQFHVKRXOGDOVRKDYHWKHVHURXJKRSHQLQJGLPHQVLRQV5HPDLQLQJIURQW HQWUDQFHZDOOVDUHQRWWREHFRQVWUXFWHGXQWLODIWHUGRRUIUDPHVDQGVLOOVDUHLQSODFH 7KHURXJKRSHQLQJVSHUVL]HVVKRZQRQWKH2WLVOD\RXWDUHUHTXLUHG3ULRUWRWKHFRPSOHWLRQDQGWXUQRYHURIWKHHOHYDWRU V
DOOHQWUDQFHZDOOV
PXVWEHLQVWDOOHGDQGURXJKRSHQLQJVILOOHGLQFRPSOHWHWRPDLQWDLQILUHUDWHGKRLVWZD\UHTXLUHPHQWV 156
Agenda Item # 4.
&2175$&712
&217:,7+
/2&$7,21
2:1(5
$5&+7
%8,/',1*
':*12

127('21276&$/(7+,6'5$:,1*
7+,6:25.$1'7+(,1)250$7,21,7&217$,16$5(7+(
3523(57<2)27,6(/(9$725&203$1<
27,6
,7,6
'(/,9(5('7227+(56217+((;35(66&21',7,217+$7
,7:,//%(86('21/<)252521%(+$/)2)27,6

7+$71(,7+(5,71257+(,1)250$7,21,7&217$,16
:,//%(5(352'8&('25',6&/26(',1:+2/(25,1
3$57:,7+2877+(35,25:5,77(1&216(172)27,6

$1'7+$721'(0$1',7$1'$1<&23,(6:,//%(
352037/<5(7851('7227,6
8138%/,6+(':25.
$//5,*+765(6(59('
& 27,6(/(9$725&203$1<
5 *HQ
3:%22)
(;35(66'5$:
$$
6(,60,&
(OHFWULFDO5HTXLUHPHQWV
3KDVH3RZHU05/3URYLGHDSHUPDQHQWWKUHH

SKDVHHOHFWULFDOIHHGHUV\VWHPZLWKDVHSDUDWHHTXLSPHQWJURXQGLQJFRQGXFWRUWHUPLQDWLQJ LQWKHHOHYDWRUFRQWUROOHUORFDWHGDWWKHWRSODQGLQJRUWUDQVIRUPHUORFDWHGDWWKHWRSRIWKHKRLVWZD\3HUPDQHQWWKUHH
SKDVH
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
$16,1)3$
RU&DQDGLDQ(OHFWULFDO&RGH
&
ZLWKIHHGHURUEUDQFKZLULQJWRHOHYDWRUFRQWUROOHU
>1(&
'
DQG@RU>&(&5XOH

D
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
RU&DQDGLDQ(OHFWULFDO&RGH
&

ZLWKIHHGHURUEUDQFKZLULQJWRHOHYDWRUFRQWUROOHU>1(& '
DQG@RU>&(&5XOH

D
@ORFDWHGDWWKH
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
VKDOOEHFDSDEOH

WHUPLQDWLQJLQWKHFRQWUROURRPVSDFH
V
ORFDWHGSHU2WLVOD\RXW)HHGHUFRQGXFWRUVDQGJURXQGLQJFRQGXFWRUVL]HGDFFRUGLQJWRHOHYDWRU FXUUHQWFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDVVKRZQRQWKH2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUP)HHGHUFRQGXFWRUVDQGJURXQGLQJFRQGXFWRUPXVWEHFRSSHU $IXVHGGLVFRQQHFWVZLWFKRUFLUFXLWEUHDNHUFDSDEOHRIEHLQJORFNHGLQWKHRSHQSRVLWLRQIRUHDFKHOHYDWRUSHUWKH1DWLRQDO(OHFWULFDO&RGH

$16,1)3$
RU&DQDGLDQ(OHFWULFDO&RGH
&
ZLWKIHHGHURUEUDQFKZLULQJWRFRQWUROOHU>1(& '
DQG@RU
>&(&5XOH

D
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
SKDVHSRZHUUHIHUHQFHGLQWKHSUHYLRXVSDUDJUDSK
$OOYROWRUDPSHUHVLQJOHSKDVHUHFHSWDFOHVLQVWDOOHGLQSLWVPDFKLQHVSDFHVFRQWUROURRPVVSDFH V
VKDOOEHRIWKHJURXQGIDXOW
3URYLGHHOHFWULFSRZHUIRUOLJKWVWRROVZHOGLQJKRLVWLQJHWFGXULQJLQVWDOODWLRQZLWKVXIILFLHQWSRZHUIRUVWDUWLQJWHVWLQJDQGDGMXVWLQJWKHHOHYDWRU 3URYLGHDYROWDPSHUHVLQJOHSKDVHZLUHHOHFWULFDOVXSSO\IRUSODWIRUPRSHUDWLRQGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQDYDLODEOHDWWKHVWDUWRIHOHYDWRU 3URYLGHRQH

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
VWDQGE\
SRZHUSURYLGHWKHVWDQGE\SRZHUXQLWDQGPHDQVIRUVWDUWLQJLW7KHHPHUJHQF\ VWDQGE\

SRZHUXQLWVKDOOGHOLYHUWRWKHHOHYDWRUYLDGLVFRQQHFWVZLWFKHVLQWKHEXLOGLQJSRZHUGLVWULEXWLRQORFDWLRQRUGLVFRQQHFWVZLWFKHVLQWKHFRQWURO URRPVSDFH
V
VXIILFLHQWSRZHUWRRSHUDWHRQHRUPRUHHOHYDWRUVDWDWLPHDWIXOOUDWHGVSHHGDQGUDWHGORDG $QDXWRPDWLFSRZHUWUDQVIHUVZLWFKIRUHDFKSRZHUIHHGHUWRPRQLWRUERWKQRUPDODQGHPHUJHQF\ VWDQGE\
SRZHUFRQGLWLRQVDQGWRSHUIRUPWKH
WUDQVIHUIURPRQHWRWKHRWKHU6ZLWFKWRKDYHWZRVHWVRIQRUPDOO\FORVHGGU\FRQWDFWVRQHWREHRSHQZKHQWKHVZLWFKLVLQWKHHPHUJHQF\

VWDQGE\
SRZHUSRVLWLRQ
WKHRWKHUWRRSHQXSRQLQLWLDWLRQRISRZHUWUDQVIHUDQGWRFORVHZKHQWUDQVIHULVFRPSOHWH6ZLWFKWRKDYHDQLQKLELW IXQFWLRQZKLFKZLOOGHOD\WUDQVIHUWRQRUPDODQGRUHPHUJHQF\ VWDQGE\
SRZHUE\DQDGMXVWDEOHSHULRGRIVHFRQGV6ZLWFKVKDOOKDYH DSKDVHPRQLWRUIHDWXUHZKLFKSURKLELWVWKHWUDQVIHURISRZHUEHWZHHQOLYHVRXUFHVXQOHVVWKHVRXUFHVDUHLQSKDVHZLWKHDFKRWKHU,IDVKXQW WULSGHYLFHLVSURYLGHGDQDGGLWLRQDOQRUPDOO\FORVHGFRQWDFWZLWKDOODVVRFLDWHGZLULQJDQGFRQGXLWWRWKHFRQWUROOHULVUHTXLUHGIURPWKHHPHUJHQF\

VWDQGE\
SRZHUVRXUFH7KHHPHUJHQF\
VWDQGE\
SRZHUV\VWHPSURYLGHGVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK$16,1)3$UHTXLUHPHQWV 7KHWDEOHLQ
VHFWLRQ(/(9$7255(*(1(5$7,9(32:(55(48,5(0(176RQWKH2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUPFRQWDLQVWKHHOHYDWRUV\VWHPSRZHU UHJHQHUDWHGXQGHUDQRYHUKDXOLQJORDG7KHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGLQWKHIRUPLVWREHXVHGWRGHWHUPLQHUHJHQHUDWLYHSRZHUDEVRUSWLRQFDSDELOLW\IRUWKHHPHUJHQF\ 1RWH
7KHEXLOGLQJ(PHUJHQF\
6WDQGE\3RZHU
*HQHUDWRUV\VWHPXVHGWRRSHUDWHWKHHOHYDWRU
V
VKDOOEHFDSDEOHRIVXSSO\LQJQRQOLQHDUORDGV
05/&RQILJXUDWLRQ
FRQWUROOHUORFDWHGLQKRLVWZD\HQWUDQFH
ZLWK7UDQVIRUPHU,IDWUDQVIRUPHULVUHTXLUHGDQGWKHFRQWUROOHULVWREHORFDWHGLQ WKHKRLVWZD\HQWUDQFHWKHWUDQVIRUPHUPXVWEHORFDWHGLQDQHOHFWULFDOURRP7KHWUDQVIRUPHUPXVWEHPRXQWHGDQGZLUHGDVSHUWKH1DWLRQDO (OHFWULFDO&RGH
$16,1)3$
RU&DQDGLDQ(OHFWULFDO&RGH
&
3URYLGHFRQGXLWDQGZLULQJWRWKHWUDQVIRUPHUDVZHOODVEHWZHHQWKH WUDQVIRUPHUDQGWKHFRQWUROOHUORFDWHGLQWKHKRLVWZD\HQWUDQFHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH1DWLRQDO(OHFWULFDO&RGH $16,1)3$
RU&DQDGLDQ
3KDVH3RZHU&RQWURO5RRP6SDFH3URYLGHDSHUPDQHQWWKUHH
SKDVHHOHFWULFDOIHHGHUV\VWHPZLWKDVHSDUDWHHTXLSPHQWJURXQGLQJFRQGXFWRU FLUFXLWLQWHUUXSWHUW\SH
*)&,
$GHGLFDWHGVLQJOHSKDVHUHFHSWDFOHVXSSO\LQJDSHUPDQHQWO\LQVWDOOHGSLWVXPSSXPSVKDOOQRWUHTXLUH*)&,SURWHFWLRQ FXUUHQW7KHEXLOGLQJSRZHUV\VWHPXVHGWRRSHUDWHWKHHOHYDWRU V
VKDOOEHFDSDEOHRIVXSSO\LQJQRQOLQHDUORDGVDQGEHFDSDEOHRIDEVRUELQJ WKHUHJHQHUDWHGSRZHUOLVWHGRQWKH2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUP >5XOH@VKDOOEHSURYLGHGZLWKDOODVVRFLDWHGZLULQJDQGFRQGXLWWRWKHHOHYDWRUFRQWUROOHU6L]HRIPDLQFRQWDFWVWRVXLWHOHYDWRUSRZHU FKDUDFWHULVWLFV)XVHVLISURYLGHGDUHWREHFXUUHQWOLPLWLQJFODVV-RUHTXLYDOHQW&LUFXLWEUHDNHUVLISURYLGHGDUHWRKDYHFXUUHQWOLPLWLQJ RIVXSSO\LQJQRQOLQHDUORDGVDQGEHFDSDEOHRIDEVRUELQJWKHUHJHQHUDWHGSRZHUOLVWHGRQWKH2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUP (OHFWULFDO&RGH
&
&RQWDFW\RXUORFDO2WLVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHIRUGHWDLOV
EXLOGLQJSRZHUV\VWHPXVHGWRRSHUDWHWKHHOHYDWRU
V
VKDOOEHFDSDEOHRIVXSSO\LQJQRQOLQHDUORDGVDQGEHFDSDEOHRIDEVRUELQJWKHUHJHQHUDWHG SRZHUOLVWHGRQWKH2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUP 7KHEXLOGLQJSRZHUV\VWHPXVHGWRRSHUDWHWKHHOHYDWRU
V
VKDOOEHFDSDEOHRIVXSSO\LQJQRQOLQHDUORDGVDQGEHFDSDEOHRIDEVRUELQJWKH UHJHQHUDWHGSRZHUOLVWHGRQWKH2WLV&RQILUPDWLRQRI3RZHU6XSSO\IRUP LQVWDOODWLRQ
VHFWLRQIRUH[DFWUHTXLUHPHQWV

VWDQGE\
SRZHUGLVWULEXWLRQV\VWHP
,QWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLIVSULQNOHUVDUHLQVWDOOHGLQWKHKRLVWZD\ V
RUPDFKLQHVSDFH
V
DPHDQVWRDXWRPDWLFDOO\GLVFRQQHFWWKHPDLQOLQHSRZHU VXSSO\RIWKHDIIHFWHGHOHYDWRUDQGDQ\RWKHUSRZHUVXSSO\XVHGWRPRYHWKHHOHYDWRUXSRQRUSULRUWRWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIZDWHULVUHTXLUHG

XQOHVVSURKLELWHGE\ORFDOFRGH
6PRNHGHWHFWRUVVKDOOQRWEHXVHGWRDFWLYDWHVSULQNOHUVLQKRLVWZD\ V
RUPDFKLQHU\VSDFHVRUWRGLVFRQQHFW
WKHPDLQOLQHSRZHUVXSSO\
,QDGGLWLRQZKHQWKH$XWRPDWLF5HFRYHU\2SHUDWLRQ
$52
LVVSHFLILHGWKHPHDQVSURYLGHGWRDXWRPDWLFDOO\GLVFRQQHFWSRZHUWRWKHHOHYDWRUVKDOO EHHTXLSSHGZLWKDQDGGLWLRQDODX[LOLDU\FRQWDFWWKDWLVSRVLWLYHO\RSHQHGZKHQSRZHULVUHPRYHGIURPWKHHOHYDWRUV\VWHP7KLVDXWRPDWLFDOO\ FRQWUROOHGPDLQOLQHGLVFRQQHFWPXVWEHSURYLGHGZLWKDOODVVRFLDWHGZLULQJDQGFRQGXLWWRWKHFRQWUROOHU 3URYLGHDQ$%&ILUHH[WLQJXLVKHUPLQLPXPOEVIRUPDFKLQHVSDFHDQGORFDWHGFRQYHQLHQWWRWKHWRSODQGLQJHOHYDWRUHQWUDQFH
3URYLGHFRQWUROURRPVSDFH
V
DQGGRRUWRFRGHFRPSOLDQWILUHUHVLVWLYHFRQVWUXFWLRQ )LUH3UHYHQWLRQ3UHS:RUN
FRQW

>2SWLRQDO@&RPSDVV'LVSDWFKLQJ6\VWHPDGHGLFDWHGYROWDPSHUHVLQJOHSKDVHSRZHUVXSSO\ZLWK6367IXVHGGLVFRQQHFWVZLWFKRUFLUFXLW EUHDNHU7KHIXVHGGLVFRQQHFWRUFLUFXLWEUHDNHUVKDOOEHFDSDEOHRIEHLQJORFNHGLQWKHRSHQSRVLWLRQDQGORFDWHGXSVWUHDPRIWKHHOHYDWRU HTXLSPHQW7KLVGLVFRQQHFWRUFLUFXLWEUHDNHUPXVWEHLQVLJKWRIWKH&RPSDVV'LVSDWFKLQJ6\VWHPHTXLSPHQW 05/&RQILJXUDWLRQ
FRQWUROOHUORFDWHGLQKRLVWZD\HQWUDQFH
ZLWK&RPSDVV,I&RPSDVVLVUHTXLUHGDQGWKHFRQWUROOHULVWREHORFDWHGLQWKH KRLVWZD\HQWUDQFHDQHOHFWULFDOURRPPXVWEHSURYLGHGIRUWKH&RPSDVV'LVSDWFKLQJ6\VWHPHTXLSPHQWZLWKLQVLJKWRIWKHHQWUDQFHFRQWUROOHU &RQWDFW\RXUORFDO2WLVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHIRUGHWDLOV
)6$(+RLVWZD\ 3LW3UHS:RUN
3URYLGHDOOKRLVWZD\VWRPHHWVWUXFWXUDOFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRU)LUH6HUYLFH$FFHVV(OHYDWRUVDVSHU,%&DQG1)3$ >237,21$/@),5(6(59,&($&&(66(/(9$7256
)6$(

)6$(0DFKLQH5RRP3UHS:RUN
3URYLGHFOLPDWHFRQWURODQGYHQWLODWLRQZLWKPRQLWRULQJHTXLSPHQW )6$()LUH3URWHFWLRQ3UHS:RUN
&RPSO\ZLWK1)3$UHTXLUHPHQWVUHODWLYHWRKRLVWZD\SUHVVXUL]DWLRQDQGVSULQNOHUSURKLELWLRQ >2SWLRQDO@(OHYDWRU0DQDJHPHQW6\VWHP
(06
DGHGLFDWHGYROWDPSHUHVLQJOHSKDVHSRZHUVXSSO\ZLWK6367GLVFRQQHFWVZLWFKRUFLUFXLW EUHDNHUZLWKGXSOH[RXWOHWVSHU2WLVOD\RXWDQGDWDQ\ORFDWLRQZKHUHD6HFXULW\6WDWLRQDQGRU)LUH6WDWLRQLVIXUQLVKHG&LUFXLWVWREHDUUDQJHG IRUIHHGLQJIURPWKHEXLOGLQJVWDQGE\RUHPHUJHQF\OLJKWLQJVXSSO\LISURYLGHG <RXDJUHHWRLQGHPQLI\DQGVDYH2WLVKDUPOHVVDJDLQVWDQ\DQGDOOOLDELOLW\DQGFRVWVDULVLQJRXWRI\RXUIDLOXUHWRFDUU\RXWDQ\RIWKHIRUHJRLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV )6$((OHFWULFDO5HTXLUHPHQWV
3URYLGHKRLVWZD\OLJKWLQJ
)RRWFDQGOHOX[PHDVXUHGRQWRSRIFDU
IRUHQWLUHOHQJWKRIKRLVWZD\
(PHUJHQF\
VWDQGE\
SRZHUPXVWGHOLYHUSRZHUWRHOHYDWRUPDFKLQHURRPFRQWUROURRPRUVSDFHYHQWLODWLRQFRROLQJHTXLSPHQWDQGWKHKRLVWZD\OLJKWLQJ 157
Agenda Item # 4.
6,*1('
'$7(

27,6
8138%/,6+(':25.
$//5,*+765(6(59('
&
7+,6$55$1*(0(17$1'
6833/(0(17$5<127(6$33529('
$33529$/
7+,6:25.$1'7+(,1)250$7,21,7&217$,16$5(7+(3523(57<2)27,6 (/(9$725&203$1<
27,6
,7,6'(/,9(5('7227+(56217+((;35(66
&21',7,217+$7,7:,//%(86('21/<)252521%(+$/)2)27,6 7+$7
1(,7+(5,71257+(,1)250$7,21,7&217$,16:,//%(5(352'8&('25 ',6&/26(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+2877+(:5,77(1&216(172)27,6
$1'7+$721'(0$1',7$1'$1<&23,(6:,//%(352037/<5(7851('72 27,6(/(9$725&203$1<
&2175$&712
&217:,7+
/2&$7,21
2:1(5
$5&+7
%8,/',1*
':*12

127('21276&$/(7+,6'5$:,1*
5 *HQ
127($
6$/(65(35(6(17$7,9(
7+(6(',0(16,216$5(%$6('21+2,67:$<6,=(66+2:1
,16(576,)(,7+(52)7+(6(9$5<&2168/77+(
3/$19,(:
(;35(66'5$:
$$
6(,60,&
)5217
,16(57
6(( 127( $
(/(9 1R
&23
6(( 127(6
5()
3:%2

,16(57
6(( 127( $

$ ',0

&$5 ,16,'(

&$5 ,16,'(

$ ',0

528*+ 23(1,1*

&/ 231*

&/ +2,67:$<
3,7

&/($5 +2,67:$< 3,7

52 # 0$,1 723 )/225

3/$19,(:
6((127(3:%26+((7 ',5(&7,21$/$552:
,1',&$7(61257+
(/(91R '87< 63((' 6(59,&(7<3(
)30 3$66(1*(5
158
Agenda Item # 4.
6,*1('
'$7(

127('21276&$/(7+,6'5$:,1*
5 *HQ
3,79,(:
(;35(66'5$:
$$
6(,60,&
/%6

/%6

/%6
/%6
/%6

/%6
/%6
',5(&7,21$/$552:
,1',&$7(61257+
3,73/$19,(:
)25&(6+2:1,1&/8'(6'28%/,1*
)25,03$&7
(/(91R '87< 63((' 6(59,&(7<3(
)30 3$66(1*(5
/$''(5$1'
32&.(7'(7$,/ /$''(5
32&.(7
/$''(5
32&.(7:,'7+
0$; 0$;

(/(91R
78%(67((/5$,/
%5$&.(76833257
78%(67((/
)/86+:,7++2,67:$<

127%<27,6

78%(67((/
)/86+:,7++2,67:$<

127%<27,6

,16,'(+2,67:$<
(/(91R

159
Agenda Item # 4.
6,*1('
'$7(

127('21276&$/(7+,6'5$:,1*
5 *HQ
(/(9$7,21
(;35(66'5$:
$$
6(,60,&
)5217 /$1',1*6 )/225+(,*+7 0$5.,1*
(/(91R

727$/5,6(

6,//6833257
'(7$,/$

127%<27,6

,1&/8',1*6833257)25&(17(56,//6833257%5$&.(7
)25&(2)/%6#($)$67(1,1*32,17
#($(175$1&(

$66(0%/<5(48,5('0867:,7+67$1'$+25,=217$/38//287 $'(48$7(6833257$7$//)$67(1,1*32,1762)(175$1&(
'225 63$&(
)5217 :$// /,1(
6,// /,1(
),1,6+(' )/225
*5287 6723
6,//$66(0%/<

%<27,6

&$5
9;
9<
&:7
5$,/6,=(
5$,/6,=(
9;
9<
5
5
5
5
5$,/)25&( %5$&.(7
63$&,1*
0$;,080%5$&.(7
63$&,1*'(7$,/
63$&,1*
0$;,080%5$&.(7
5
5
5
6((127(6
9<
9<
9;
'(+
5
5

'($'(1'+,7&+

,108/7,&$5*528367+(9$/8(6$%29($5(
7+(/$5*(679$/8(6)257+((17,5(*5283

OEV

OEV

OEV
OEV

OEV
OEV
OEV
OEV
OEV
OEV
%$6('21+25,=217$/5$,/)25&(6
6833257
127%<27,6

5(48,5(0(176)255$,/%5$&.(7
5 /2$',1*255811,1*
&$55 6$)(7<$33/,&$7,21
'()/(&7,2112772(;&(('
&:75 /2$',1*255811,1*
)250$;63$&,1*%(7:((1,16(5766((5$,/)25&('(7$,/
+2,67:$<6(&7,21
)5217
723/$1',1*

127%<27,6

7235$,/6833257
6$)(7<%($0

127%<27,6

0$&+,1('(7$,/

127%<27,6

6((6(&7,21$/(/(9$7,21
&(17(52)5$,/%5$&.(7
6(&21'5$,/6833257

21/<5(48,5('217+(
23326,7(6,'(2)&:7

$///2&$7,21',0(16,21672)2//2:$72/(5$1&(2) &5,7,&$/
/2&$7,21
&5,7,&$/
/2&$7,21
&5,7,&$/
/2&$7,21
0,1

72%(/2&$7('
)5203,7)/225$//
),567,17(50(',$7(5$,/6833257/2&$7,21
27+(5,17(50(',$7(68332576&$1127
(;&(('7+(0$;,080%5$&.(763$&,1*,1
7+(5$,/)25&( %5$&.(763$&,1*'(7$,/
7$%/(
&$55$,/%5$&.(7,16(577$%/(

VW%5$&.(7/2&)5203,7)/225

QG%5$&.(7/2&)520VW%5.7
5(4
'

UG%5$&.(7/2&)520QG%5.7

WK%5$&.(7/2&)520UG%5.7

WK%5$&.(7/2&)520WK%5.7

WK%5$&.(7/2&)520WK%5.7

WK%5$&.(7/2&)520WK%5.7
(/(91R

WK%5$&.(7/2&)520WK%5.7

WK%5$&.(7/2&)520WK%5.7
(/(91R

3,7
/,*+7
127 %< 27,6

6(( 127(
3:%2

&$%

727$/ &/($5 +(,*+7

528*+ 23(1,1*

&/($5 231*

6(( 0$&+ '(7$,/

5,6(
(/(91R '87< 63((' 6(59,&(7<3( )30 3$66(1*(5 160
Agenda Item # 4.
6,*1('
'$7(

127('21276&$/(7+,6'5$:,1*
5 *HQ
+$//),;785(6
(;35(66'5$:
$$
6(,60,&
(/(91R
),1,6+(' +$//),;785('(7$,/ )/225
+$//%877216#$//)/2256

161
Agenda Item # 4.
6,*1('
'$7(

127('21276&$/(7+,6'5$:,1*
5 *HQ
&21752/5220
(;35(66'5$:
$$
6(,60,&
&+(&./2&$/%8,/',1*&2'(6)25+$//:$<
&/($5$1&(6:+(1&21752/'2256$5(23(1('
)256(59,&(2)7+((/(9$725
127((
7+()5217685)$&(2)7+(0$,1/,1(',6&211(&70867
352-(&7,172&/($523(1,1*2)&21752/63$&(
,)7+(6,=(2)7+(&21752/63$&(,6,1&5($6('
$0($162)/2&$7,1*7+(0$,1/,1(',6&211(&7,1727+(
127()
&/($523(1,1*0867%(3529,'('
63$&(5(48,5(0(176
=
=
0,1,080&21752/
21(&$5 0,1&/5

6((127((

=
=

0,15220:,'7+

'225
0,1&/5
0,1,080&/($5+(,*+7
6(&7,21==

0,15220:,'7+

'225

52205(48,5(0(176
0,1,080&21752/
21(&$5

)5217+2,67:$</,1(

0,15220:,'7+

0,15220'(37+

0,15220'(37+

0,1&/($5
63$&(5(48,5(0(176
=
=
0,1,080&21752/
21(&$5 0,1&/5

6((127((

0,15220:,'7+

'225

0$,1/,1(6 /,*+76:

6((127()

127%<27,6

0,15220'(37+

:,7+$8720$7,&
5(&29(5<23(5$7,21 :,7+287$8720$7,&
5(&29(5<23(5$7,21
%/2&.2876,1:$//72
$//2:(/(&75,&$/
7528*+,1* &21'8,7
6,=(6+2:1,6)25
&$5$55$1*(0(17
:&21752/63$&(5220
$77+(723/$1',1*

6((127(
5()
3:%2

127(6

:(,*+72)&21752//(5 OEV
7:2

;
PP;PP
&872876$5(5(48,5('
127%<27,6
7+($&78$/
127($
/2&$7,212)7+(&872876)257+(72$1')5202,/3,3($1'(/(&75,&$/7528*+ :,//9$5<'(3(1'(1783210$&+,1(5220/2&$7,21$1'&21),*85$7,21 162
Agenda Item # 4.
6,*1('
'$7(

127('21276&$/(7+,6'5$:,1*
5 *HQ
127($
6$/(65(35(6(17$7,9(
7+(6(',0(16,216$5(%$6('21+2,67:$<6,=(66+2:1
,16(576,)(,7+(52)7+(6(9$5<&2168/77+(
(0%(''(7$,/
(;35(66'5$:
$$
6(,60,&
(0%('/2&$7,21'(7$,/
&2817(5:(,*+7%5$&.(768332576
)5217+2,67:$<:$//
5($5+2,67:$<:$//

127726&$/(

&(0%('3/$7( / &(0%('3/$7( /
(0%('3/$7(

127%<27,6

&:75$,/
&$55$,/
&/&:75$,/
&&$55$,/ /

7<3

&$5
&:7 &/

+2,67:$<'(37+

(/(91R
163
Agenda Item # 4.
164
Agenda Item # 4.

NOTE A:

NOTE B:

NOTE C:

ALL REACTIONS INCLUDE ALLOWANCE FOR IMPACT.

ELEVATOR DESIGN AND FABRICATION BASED ON ESTIMATED CAB WEIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED.

F
F
1 2

RAIL FORCES

LOADING OR UNLOADING
F F
1 2
CAR
DATE SYM. REVISION CHKD.

ELEVATOR CONTRACTOR CONTRACT NUMBER
FOR:

ADDRESS:

CITY:

ARCHITECT:

GENERAL CONTRACTOR:

DRAWN DATE JOB NUMBER REV. SHEET NO.

MAXIMUM VERTICAL FORCE ON EACH GUIDE
RAIL DUE TO SAFETY APPLICATION.

DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING SHOWN. LAYOUT APPROVAL WILL BE CONSTRUED AS FINAL CAB WEIGHT,

PASSENGER
F6.5 x 6.05
F10 x 13.2
F10 x 9.45
ROLLER

FLEX CLAMP
CAR
7'-6"
ROLLER
( 50 % )

TORIN W/ BRAKE

SPECIAL

TRACTION ELEVATOR CONTRACT DATA
VVVF
3,500 LBS.
200 F.P.M.
5,270 LBS.
5,845 LBS.
4,005 LBS.
1,575 LBS.
1,630 LBS.
15 LBS./FT.
450 LBS. 435 LBS.
8,910 LBS.
___ V. 3 PH. 60 CYC.
( 1 ) 3/8 IN. 8 x 19
IRON
4 INCH
( 4 ) SPRING
( 2 ) SPRING
5 1/2 INCH

17.32 INCH
( 53 ) NO. 121458

ELEVATOR NUMBER
TYPE

CAPACITY
SPEED

OPERATION
STOPS

HOISTWAY ENTRANCES

CAR DOOR
STILE

CROSSHEAD

SAFETY PLANK

CAR GUIDE TYPE

CAR SAFETY

GOVERNOR

MACHINE

DRIVE SHEAVE DIAMETER

ISOLATION

CONTROL

POWER SUPPLY

GOVERNOR ROPE
(PREFORMED)

CAR BUFFER TYPE

CAR BUFFER STROKE
CWT. BUFFER TYPE
CWT. BUFFER STROKE
CWT. STILE LENGTH
CWT. GUIDE TYPE
CWT. FILLER TYPE

TOTAL FILLER WEIGHT
TOTAL CWT. WEIGHT

TOTAL CAR WEIGHT
EST. CAB WEIGHT

WITH DOOR OPERATOR

MACHINE WEIGHT
CAR GUIDE RAILS CWT. GUIDE RAILS CHKD.

BY
CENTER OPENING (PWD.)
CENTER OPENING (PWD.)

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CHANGE TO ELEVATOR HOISTWAY OR MACHINE ROOM DESIGN PRIOR TO FABRICATION OF ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT.

IN ANY MANNER DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.

LOANED SUBJECT TO RETURN ON DEMAND AND IS NOT TO BE USED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR AND MUST NOT BE MADE PUBLIC OR COPIED. THIS DRAWING IS

THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF CLASS DESIGNED FOR CLASS "A"

FREIGHT LOADING

MAXIMUM UNIT LOAD

MAXIMUM AXLE LOAD
MAXIMUM SUSTAINING LOAD 3,500 LBS.
875 LBS.
875 LBS.

BALANCE WEIGHTS 150 LBS.

CAB TYPE - ( TKS ) 8 LBS./FT. C12 ( )

POCKET SIZE
HALL FIXTURE ELEVATOR FLOORS W H D FIN. FLOOR
CL. ABOVE
SYNERGY NON-SEISMIC - 3500/200 C/O
FULL LOAD MASS 16,050 LBS.

TAC50-04
SN015
4" STROKE 2'-1" 2'-7"

HOIST ROPE
(PREFORMED)
( 7 ) 10 mm - DRAKO 250-T
8 x 19 WARRINGTON - IWRC
BALANCE WEIGHT FRAME. FINAL 1'-4 5/8"

NET TRAVEL
NOTE: CONTINUOUS PIT CHANNELS WITH 1" GROUT

SECTION A-A

TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD

LOCATION AND CAR BALANCE
AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
5'-0" PIT7'-0" CLEAR OPNG. (TYP.) 8'-3" ROUGH OPNG. (TYP.) 4'-0" MAX. PIT LADDER6'-0" CWT. GUARD
( IF REQUIRED )
6" RUNBY 9'-5 1/8" OVERALL CWT. HEIGHT 1'-0"
FLOOR
(AND INSERTS IF REQ'D),
CAR & CWT. RAIL BRACKETS
SHEAVE
AND ABOVE TOP FLOOR. TYPICAL AT EACH FLOOR
1'-2 1/4"
C
FLOOR HT. CEILING HT.
16'-0"
9'-1 1/4" UNDER X-HEAD
10"
16'-0" UNDER SLAB
8"
8 7/8" 1'-4 1/8"
BMS.
13'-11" UNDER CAR GOVERNOR SUPPORT
14'-1" UNDER CAR DEAD-END HITCH CHANNELS
TOP OF CWT. WITH CAR ON
9'-0 13/16" TOP OF CAB AT HIGHEST FULLY COMPRESSED BUFFERS TRAVEL WITH 7'-11 1/4" O.A. CAB HT. 13'-11" UNDER MACHINE BEAMS AND BOTTOM OF GOVERNOR 4'-4 1/4"4'-10 3/16" (REFUGE SPACE) 3'-6" HAND RAIL

COMPENSATION CHAIN
(WHISPER-FLEX)
( 2 ) WF20
( 2 LBS./FT. ) PER CHAIN
*
* AS REQUIRED
MAX. BRACKET CAR 16'-0"

RAIL SIZE
12'-8"
CWT. 16'-0"

SPACING
C7
8 CWT.
* NOTE: COUNTERWEIGHT SPRING BUFFER STANDS
SHALL BE REQUIRED WITH CHAIN COMPENSATION.

BOTTOM OF GUARD 4 1/2" 2'-7"
2 1/4" 2'-7"
2'-5 3/4"2'-2"
3'-3 1/2"
6" 3'-3 1/2" 1'-9 1/2"
13'-2 3/4" UNDER MACHINE SUPPORT ASS'Y
(IF, REQ'D)
1 1/2" BOTTOM BEAM POCKET
CWT. INTERMEDIATE

SPACING
> 12'-0" > 14'-0" 1
2 QTY. TIE BRACKET
1'-5 1/4"
AND SEALED CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB SURFACE.

NOTE: MUST BE LOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ELEVATOR CONTRACTOR. (SEE "ELECTRICAL POWER REQUIREMENTS").

WIRE MUST BE CONNECTED TO THE BUILDINGS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS GROUND.

GROUNDING PURPOSES TO MINIMIZE ELECTRICAL NOISE INTERFERENCE. THE GROUNDING NOTE: ALSO, A FOURTH WIRE OF SAME SIZE AS THREE PHASE WIRES IS REQUIRED FOR NOTE: IF STANDBY POWER IS REQUIRED, SEE "ELEVATOR STANDBY POWER OPERATION".

VENTILATION (MIN. 32Ā F., MAX. 104Ā F. WITH NON-CONDENSING HUMIDITY OF 10-90%),

AN ENCLOSED CONTROLLER ROOM AREA (ACCORDING TO CODE), WITH ADEQUATE LIGHT, HEAT, NOTE: MUST PROVIDE ADEQUATE DOOR SIZE TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT - OR LEAVE

CONDUIT AND WIRING FROM HOISTWAY TO ELEVATOR MONITORING PANELS (FOR SECURITY, LIFE POCKETS IN CORRIDOR WALL (PER FIXTURE DRAWINGS) FOR HALL FIXTURES.

A PLUMB, PROPERLY-VENTILATED HOISTWAY (ACCORDING TO CODE AND SIZES SHOWN).

ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR MACHINE BEAMS, GUIDE RAIL BRACKETS, AND BUFFERS (FOR REACTIONS SHOWN).

HOISTWAY BARRICADES (ALL CUTTING AND PATCHING TO INSTALL HOISTWAY ENTRANCES, SILLS,

PIT LIGHTS AND SWITCH, CONVENIENCE OUTLETS OF THE GFCI TYPE PER NEC, PIT LADDER PER CAR (ACCORDING TO CODE). NOTE: MUST BE CLEAR OF ALL ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT.

SEPARATE 120 VOLT, 15 AMP. BRANCH CIRCUITS, ALONG WITH TELEPHONE CIRCUIT WHEN REQUIRED, TO TERMINALS OF EACH REQUIRED CONTROLLER (AS LOCATED ON PLAN VIEW) FOR THE FOLLOWING:
- CAR LIGHT AND ALARM CIRCUIT WITH RECEPTACLES OF THE GFCI TYPE PER NEC NOTE: IF STANDBY POWER IS SUPPLIED TO THE ELEVATOR, GROUP CONTROL CIRCUIT MUST BE

BRANCH CIRCUIT CONDUCTOR SIZING, MATERIALS, AND INSULATION (INCLUDING BRANCH CIRCUIT

OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE) TO COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL ELECTRICAL CODES WALL OUT UNTIL EQUIPMENT IS IN PLACE.

NOTE: MACHINE BEAM DESIGN (PER ASME A17.1).

TO WALL INTERFACE TO MAINTAIN LABELED CONSTRUCTION. FILL IN AROUND FRAMES AFTER THE FRAMES ARE SET.

OPENING 1'-3" WIDER AND 1'-3" HIGHER THAN THE FRAME OPENING; FOLLOW INSTALLATION PROCEDURES FOR FRAME ENTRANCE WALLS WITH LINTELS, NOTE: MUST BE PROVIDED AFTER ENTRANCE FRAMES ARE SET - OR LEAVE A ROUGH IS COMPLETED, AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ELEVATOR CONTRACT:

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET BEFORE INSTALLATION SAFETY, OR FIRE REQUIREMENTS).

SMOKE SENSORS (AS REQUIRED).

12. 11.

10. 9.

7. AND HALL FIXTURES).
- GROUP CONTROL WHEN REQUIRED
STANDBY POWER BACKED.

6. 5.

4. 2.

3. 1.

8. A PROPERLY VENTED HOISTWAY AND MAINTAINED BET. 32Ā F. AND 122Ā F. 9/9/2011
GEMANTOWN, TN.

HEAT LOAD IN OVERHEAD

CAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT
IS B.T.U/HOUR 00,000
165
Agenda Item # 4.

DRAWN DATE JOB NUMBER REV. SHEET NO.

OF
DATE SYM. REVISION BY
FOR:

DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING CHKD.

CHKD.

OF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.

USED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN ANY WAY DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST

THIS DRAWING IS LOANED SUBJECT TO RETURN ON DEMAND AND IS NOT TO BE OF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR AND MUST NOT BE MADE PUBLIC OR COPIED.

THIS DRAWING AND ALL INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY SYNERGY NON-SEISMIC - 3500/200-350 LH SN018
3"
5"
(7'-0 1/2" BETWEEN STILES) 7'-4" BETWEEN GUIDES
7'-0" PLATFORM 8'-4" HOISTWAY
FIRE SER SW.

HALL STA. W/
TAIL WT.

SEL.
3 1/2"11"
6'-3" PLATFORM 7'-10" WALL TO WALL

PLAN OF HOISTWAY
8"
1'-0 3/4"
1 1/4"5" 3'-7 3/4" (REF.) 3'-1 1/2"

FACE OFRAIL
52 1/8" D.B.G. 8"
A
CWT. GUARD
R7
CELEV. NO.

LIMIT SW.
4'-9" ROUGH OPENING 3'-3 1/2"
PIT LIGHT SW. 3'-6" CLEAR OPNG.

AT - FLOORS
3'-6" CLEAR OPNG.

T/C SPACE CAR STA.

SEE NOTE 9
S
5" MAX.
3'-3"
3'-11"
A
COMP. SHV. 17 3/4" DIA.

REACTIONS (LBS.)
QTY.

MACHINE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY
6" x 1'-0" x 3/4" STEEL PLATE
W16 x 45 x 9'-0" LONG
1 C8 x 11.5 x 5'-6 1/4" LONG 4 D
C
2 B
A

OVERHEAD BEAMS, SUPPORT PLATES,

AND BEARING PLATES
MARK
R3
R4
R2
R1

DESCRIPTION
6,700
8,000
14,000
4,600 OVERHEAD

PLAN OF OVERHEAD

BUFFER C

BUFFERC
2'-0" TYP.

R6
C
LADDER PIT1'-2"
3'-9 1/4" 1'-4"
CCWT.

B 8 1/2"A4 1/4" A B
O'HD D.S.

CAR
2'-2 1/4" 3'-7 1/2" 7'-10" WALL TO WALL HOISTWAY 1'-5 1/4" 8"
BM. PKT.

C
8"
BM. PKT.
2'-2 1/4" 3'-7 3/4" CWT., CWT. O'HD PICKUP, C& CWT. DEAD END HITCH 4'-2"
8'-4" HOISTWAY
D.S. PICKUP C CAR & CWT. O'HD

END HITCH
4'-2"
C
CAR
CWT. DEAD
8 7
" 8
8 7
8 "
C
C CAR
RAILS

CAR DEAD

C END HITCH
PICKUP
1'-6"
BM. PKT.
10" 4'-2 1/4" 1'-6"
BM. PKT.
3 3/4"
1'-5 3/4"
1'-5 3/4" CAR DEAD C

END HITCH
C D.S.

A
A
GOV.C
3'-9 3/4"
R5
R5
D
SPACE
200 F. P. M. 18,600
13,600
BUFFER REACTIONS (LBS.)
R7
R6R5
350 F. P. M.
25,350 32,500
1'-5 3/4" 2'-2 1/4"
1'-5 3/16" CAR C
C

FACE OF SILL
CARC
1'-5"1'-5"
C
1'-5 5/8"
CHAIN
ATT.

PT.

ATTACH. C CHAIN
C
POINT
1'-7 7/8"
6"6 3/4"
2'-2"

CHAIN LOOP

TRANSFORMER

HEAT LOAD IN CONTROLLER CLOSET
IN B.T.U./HOUR UNITS PER CHART BELOW

CAUSED BY ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT IS

WITHOUT TRANSFORMER
350
200
350
CAR
SPEED
200
3045
2070
560
980 1955
1115
1650
WITH
2210
NO
YES
YES

REGENERATIVE
DRIVE
NO
1'-3" 1'-3"

CHAIN COMPENSATION

ATTACHMENT POINTS
8 5 8
"
C GOV.

PLAN OF CONTROLLER CLOSET
ANY DEVIATION FROM BEAM POCKET TYPE OF SUPPORT NOTE: STANDARD BEAM POCKET ARRANGEMENT SHOWN FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE OVERHEAD BEAMS.

WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE FACTORY.

MACHINE
INTERFACE BOX 11 1/2" C D.S.

R4 R2
R3 R1
6 3/4"
6 3/4"

C CAR RAILS
C CWT.

TRANSFORMER
24" W x 18" D
(305 LBS.) x 33" HIGH
5'-11" MIN. REQUIRED

CONTROLLER CLOSET

SEPARATE DISCONNECT SWITCH

LIGHT AND ALARM CIRCUIT WITH

DISCONNECT SWITCH, ABOVE CAR
5'-0" MIN. REQUIRED

CONTROLLER CLOSET
3'-0" CLEAR OPNG. 7'-6" MIN.

CEILING HT.

CONTROLLER
30" W x 26" D x
84" H. (600 LBS.) (FRONT)
GERMANTOWN, TN.
9/9/2011
166
Agenda Item # 4.

May 20, 2021
Mr. Guido Periscone
Community Development Department
City of Los Altos
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
RE: 355 First Street
Dear Guido:

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

SITE CONTEXT
The site is located in the CD/R3 Downtown/Multiple Family District in an area characterized by older one and two-story commercial buildings. New development along First Street has started to occur in recent years. Four other multifamily developments have been recently approved along First Street. Photos of the site and immediate context are shown on the following page.
167
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 2
THE SITE at Corner THE SITE: First Street Frontage
Parking lot immediately across Whitney Street
THE SITE at Alley Adjacent First Street to South: East Side Parking lot immediately across Alley
Commercial building across First Street Commercial building across Whitney Street 168
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 3

DESIGN REVIEW FRAMEWORK
The following applicable Zoning Code Sections, plans and guidelines apply to this review:
• Downtown Design Guidelines
• Commercial/Multi-Family Design Findings (Zoning Code Section 14.78.060) • CD/R3 District Design Controls (Section 14.52.110)
The Commercial/Multi-Family Design Findings and the CD/R3 District Design Controls provide guidance for the development of this site, but are less specific than the Downtown Design Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines include the identification of defining Village Character Elements and specific guidelines for the Downtown Core District, Mixed Commercial District, and First Street District. The First Street District design guidelines include some guidelines unique to the First Street District, but also contains the following introductory text.

FIRST STREET DISTRICT
Owners of properties and businesses in this district should review the guidelines for the Downtown Core District. While projects in this district may be somewhat larger and less retail-oriented than those in the downtown core, they are still very much a part of the downtown village, and the village character and scale emphasis underlying those guidelines will be expected of new buildings and changes to existing properties in this district.

INTENT
A. Promote the implementation of the Los Altos Downtown Design Plan.

B. Support and enhance the downtown Los Altos village atmosphere.

D. Respect the scale and character of the area immediately surrounding the existing downtown pedestrian district.

Specific relevant design guidelines include the following:

5.2 ARCHITECTURE
Building uses and sizes will vary more in the First Street District than elsewhere in the downtown. The goal of these guidelines is to accommodate this wide diversity of size and use while maintaining a village scale and character that is complementary to the downtown core.

5.2.1 Design to a village scale and character
a) Avoid large box-like structures.
b) Break larger buildings into smaller scale elements.
c) Provide special design articulation and detail for building facades located adjacent to street frontages. d) Keep focal point elements small in scale.
e) Utilize materials that are common in the downtown core. f ) Avoid designs that appear to seek to be prominently seen from Foothill Expressway and/or San Antonio Road in favor of designs that focus on First Street, and are a part of the village environment. g) Provide substantial small scale details.
h) Integrate landscaping into building facades in a manner similar to the Downtown Core District.

The following narrative text and guidelines on the next two pages from the Downtown Design Guidelines would seem to be relevant to this proposed project:
169
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 4

DOWNTOWN VILLAGE CHARACTER
Today, it is a closely knit series of subdistricts with slightly differing use emphases and design characteristics, held together by an overall village scale and character. That unique scale and character has been nurtured over the years, and has become even more of a community asset as many other downtowns in the Bay Area have grown ever larger and lost much of their earlier charm.

ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
These guidelines are not intended to establish or dictate a specific style beyond the desire to maintain Downtown Los Altos’ small town character and attention to human scale and detail. In general, diverse and traditional architectural styles that have stood the test of time are preferred.

Designs merely repeated from other cities or without thought to the special qualities of Los Altos are strongly discouraged, and unlikely to be accepted.

The following design guidelines are intended to reinforce that existing framework, scale and character.

3.2.1 Continue the pattern and scale established by existing buildings a) Maintain and reinforce the underlying downtown 25-foot module along all street frontages. Some techniques for this emphasis include the following:
• Changing roof parapet height and/or shape.
• Utilizing different building heights, architectural styles, and forms. • Utilizing different awning forms and/or materials ... matching the predominant building module. • Changing storefront type and details.
• Defining storefronts with projecting piers and emphasizing tenants’ unique store personalities. • Reinforcing the module with second floor projections and details. b) Break larger buildings up into smaller components.
• Divide longer facades into individual smaller segments with individual design forms and architectural styles.
d) Utilize awnings and canopies at windows and entries. e) Provide cornices and building tops consistent with the architectural style. • Avoid unfinished wall tops in favor of projecting cornice features or roof overhangs. h) Utilize natural materials. Wood, stone, and brick can provide warmth at storefronts, and enhance the feeling of village scale and character.
• Wood doors and window frames are strongly encouraged. i) Enhance the pedestrian experience with interesting architectural details. • Individual trim elements should be scaled to be or resemble proportions that could be handled and installed by hand. Elements on any portion of the structure should not be inflated in size to respond strictly to building scale, but should also have a relationship with human scale. j) Provide special storefront and facade lighting.
170
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 5

3.2.4 Design second floor facades to complement the streetscape and Village Character a) Provide second floor entries that are equal in quality and detail to storefront entries. Some techniques to accomplish this emphasis include:
• Special awning or roof element.
• Wrought iron gate.
• Decorative tile stair treads and risers.
• Special lights.
b) Relate second floor uses to the pedestrian environment on the street level.

Some methods of achieving this include the following:
• Second floor overhangs
• Bay windows
• Decks
• Balconies
• Planters.
c) Utilize operable windows in traditional styles.

3.2.7 Design larger structures to be sensitive to the unique scale and character of Downtown Los Altos b) Avoid architectural styles and monumental building elements that do not relate to the small human scale of Downtown Los Altos.
c) Provide special design treatment for visible sidewalls of structures that are taller than their immediate neighbors. • Sidewall windows are encouraged where codes allow and adequate fire protection can be provided. • Employ design techniques to relate the visible sidewalls to front facades. Some common techniques include the following:
* Repeating front facade finished materials, decorative details and mouldings. * Carrying front facade cornices and wall top projections around all sides of the upper floor. * Providing varied parapet heights to avoid a box-like appearance. * Utilizing gable and hip roofs to vary the height and appearance of side walls. * Treating side walls with inset panels.
* Integrating interesting architectural details.
* Stepping back the front facade of upper floors to vary the side wall profile. 171
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 6

PROPOSED PROJECT
The project consists of four floors of residential units over a subterranean garage.

PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
(January 21, 2021)
The Planning Commission held a study session on the project on January 21, 2021. Major concerns and comments from that meeting include the following:

Source: Planning Commission Minutes

PUBLIC COMMENTS

1. The project is a massive cube and needs more articulation.

2. This is a missed opportunity, and this project belongs on El Camino Real.

3. The 15% affordable BMRs is too low, and should be at least 20%.

4. The fourth floor needs a setback.

5. Traffic concerns.

PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS

1. This is a massive building.

2. The fourth floor could benefit from some setbacks and better articulation.

3. There are missed opportunities.

4. Building should incorporate a peaked roof along Whitney Street.

5. The 46-foot-tall architecture is not redeeming.

6. Does not know if the material mix works.

7. Could the project be toned down in some manner.

8. Design needs work.

First Street / Whitney Street Intersection Facades
Rear Alley Facade
First Street Facade
Whitney Street Facade
172
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 7

9. Parking is good / appreciate that no lifts are used.

10. Impression that the project has been designed from the inside out.

11. The rear elevation has balconies, and is more successful than the front.

12. Could the units be made smaller to make them more affordable / fewer and smaller units would require less overall square footage.

13. Asked if a mixed use project has been considered.

15. Think about downtown walkability and pedestrian scale.

16. Good start, but more works needs to be done.

17. This is an opportunity to create a buffer zone at the sidewalk between the pedestrian zone and the building.

18. The middle light well creates a tunnel effect.

19. Agrees that this is a little too bulky for First Street.

20. The Objective Zoning Standards being considered by the City would require a different building with more step backs at the upper levels.

21. Appreciate the vision to group parcels.

22. Four stories is the future for the City.

23. The proposed design does not have a downtown pedestrian feel, and would be more appropriate for El Camino Real.

24. Suggested the architect pay attention to the Objective Zoning Standards being developed by the City.

25. The building needs more vertical and horizontal articulation.

26. The building reads as one larger expanse, and could be articulated better.

27. Recess the upper floors.

28. Have more than one entrance.

29. More landscaping would be better.

30. Needs a softer transition between the building and the back of the sidewalk.

31. The building could be warmed up with smaller bays, and different use of materials.

32. Concerns with privacy related to the window placement and style.

33. Needs a more residential feel.

34. More thought and detail need to be given to the balconies.

35. Roof deck needs to insulate noise and light to neighbors.

36. Back alley widening is a plus and needed.

37. The City should take time to revisit the parking space widths to get more spaces as the applicant suggested.

38. Agreed that the building would be more appropriate to El Camino Real.

39. Less bulk and mass would be better.

40. Need more space for children and families.

41. Project could use more affordable units.

42. Project does not appear as a “residential” development.

43. Design is lacking, and does not fit into our downtown.

44. Building is the same horizontally and vertically.

45. Review the corners.

46. Too heavy a form at the top of the building.

47. May be too dense.

48. Project lacks Village Character.

49. Lacks a mix of heights.

50. Materials need more work because the building looks heavy and has too much similarity.

51. The entry is under whelming for a 50-unit building.

52. The interior courtyard square footage could be used in a better way.

53. The design does not go beyond what is required.

54. Consider how this building will relate to pedestrians and the community. 173
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 8

COMPARISON WITH RECENTLY APPROVED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ON FIRST STREET Four multifamily projects have been recently reviewed and approved - see illustrations below.

The projects at 389, 425, and 440 First Street have three stories of residential units above grade while 450 First Street and this project at 355 have four stories above grade. A comparison of the projects’ First Street facades are shown below at a matching scale.
174
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 9

DESIGN EVALUATION
The proposed design is well done, and in some other location outside of Downtown Los Altos, might be welcomed.

However, the community expectations for development within Downtown Los Altos, as expressed in the city’s Downtown Vision Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines, asks for much more than would perhaps be expected in another city or even for another location within Los Altos.

The vision plan states that Los Altos is committed to a community-focused, economically viable, and village-scaled Downtown through:
• Maintaining the village character unique to Los Altos while also allowing small, incremental change through implementation of complementary land use and parking policies.

Likewise, the Downtown Design Guidelines clearly states that development within the First Street District is expected to feature Village Scale and Character design forms and details.

Satisfying these community expectations requires a seriously focused design effort, but is especially challenging for larger developments such as 355 First Street. The recommendations in this letter focus on addressing the commissioners’ concerns, and modifying the proposed design to better address the issue of Village Scale and Character. Recommended changes will focus on the following:
• Enhancing the Village Scale and Character of the development. • Enhancing the residential character of the development. • Reducing the visual mass and bulk of the structure.
• Reducing the perceived height of the structure.
• Enhancing the pedestrian experience.
• Softening the design with materials, colors and details.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The illustrative First Street elevation shown below is one way to incorporate the design goals into future design modifications. Other approaches that adhere to the design goals are, of course, possible, and design refinements to the elevation shown would be expected in any case. The basic floor plans, floor heights and windows have not been changed in the illustrative recommendations to minimize potential conflicts with the building’s functioning, and to allow an apples-toapples comparison. When I review the design of challenging developments like this one, I first identify the issues, and then look through the thousands of project examples in my files to find ones where similar conditions have been successfully addressed. In this review, the recommended approach draws heavily from projects which have successfully applied building forms and details to reduce visual mass and height while adding details that would be complementary to the community’s expectation of a project design with Village Scale and Character as a primary goal.

The recommendations below draw on several successful projects, but the basic forms and concepts are drawn from a somewhat more urban context in Vancouver, B.C. where a four-story residential development has been designed to fit comfortably with smaller scale nearby residential neighborhoods - see photo below. 175
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 10

ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATION RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDED DESIGN TECHNIQUES

1. Strong ground floor focus on the pedestrian experience and first floor residential units livability.

2. Small scale architectural detail at the second floor level to stress pedestrian scale and strengthen residential character with balcony activity close to pedestrian level.

3. Entry emphasis with architectural detail and landscaping.

4. Significant setback of fourth floor, and muted color and detailing to visually subordinate the upper floor.

5. Building corner architectural detailing.

6. Break up of large building facades with color, facade and/or material changes.

7. Facade articulation through recessed windows and balconies.

CURRENTLY PROPOSED FIRST STREET ELEVATION

RECOMMENDED FIRST STREET ELEVATION
176
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 11

RECOMMENDATIONS COMMENTARY AND EXAMPLES

OVERALL BUILDING FORM AND ARTICULATION
Some of the basic principles one might draw from the Vancouver example are shown on the photos below.

These principles have been incorporated into the recommended First Street elevation above. One other successful approach is shown in the San Mateo Metropolitan Apartments project below. That approach provides additional facade step backs beyond those shown on the recommended elevation.
177
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 12

GROUND FLOOR TREATMENT
There are two challenges that need to be addressed. The first is to enrich the pedestrian experience, and mitigate higher density development constructed near bounding property lines. The second, for projects that include residential units on the ground floor adjacent to pedestrian ways, is enhancing the living environment for the ground floor units and providing privacy to each unit. The currently proposed design, shown in illustration below, fails to addresses either of these issues.

The recently approved four-story multifamily project at 450 First Street is the one most closely resembling 355 First Street. The sketch below shows the First Street frontage landscaping approved for that project. 178
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 13
Another approach, used for the Vancouver example described above, is to totally shield units adjacent to sidewalks with usable patios and tall buffer landscaping - see photo below.

A few other common setback buffer examples are shown below. 179
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 14
The building entry is an integral apart of the ground floor treatment. To respect the village scale and character intent, it should not be large or formal. Treating it as a part of the landscaping, as shown on the recommended elevation, would be an appropriate approach. The photos below show a couple of examples.

CORNERS AND TRELLISES
Trellises are a useful element in adding architectural detail to a multifamily residential facade - both as corner elements and as accent to individual windows and balconies. Its repetition across a facade can provide a visually unifying design element - see examples below.
180
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 15

GARAGE ENTRIES
The currently proposed facades related to the garage entry would benefit from some additional design attention - see facade segments below.

Designing the garage entry to better integrate it into the overall building facade would result in its blending into the design rather than standing out as a focal point. A couple of examples are shown below that are integral to the overall design,
Note that the garage entrance here is more than a
concrete box. Side wall materials and heights seek
to improve its visual appearance.
181
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street
Design Review Comments
May 20, 2021 Page 16

INTERIOR COURTYARD ATRIUM
The proposed entry courtyard atrium seems like a lost opportunity. It appears to be surrounded by glazing at the first floors and all floors above grade.

There may be some special code provisions that are driving this design, but I’ve seen other open air atria in multifamily housing that seem more human and visually pleasant.

The courtyard atrium in a Mountain View multifamily project shown below is similar in size, but has a more open feeling.

Landscaping within these courtyards provides
another special challenge since they are located on
top of the below-grade garage parking enclosure.

The simplest approach is to place landscaping in
raise planters, as shown in the photo to the to the right. While that can allow some mature plantings, it can in some cases feel a bit like a mouse maze, Planting beds can be brought nearer to the floor level, but require special structural accommodation in the garage structure. Potted plants can also provide greenery without the continuous walls of the raised planters. Also, the courtyard atria can have other special landscaping features. The fountains below are both within small courtyards over parking structures.

Steve, please let me know if you need anything further.

Sincerely,

CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
182
Agenda Item # 4.

Public Review Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 355 First Street Residential Project
November 2021
Prepared by
EMC Planning Group
183
Agenda Item # 4.
184
Agenda Item # 4.

This document was produced on recycled paper.

PUBLIC REVIEW MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
355 FIRST STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

PREPARED FOR
City of Los Altos
Guido Persicone, Planning Services Manager
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Tel 650.947.2633

PREPARED BY
EMC Planning Group Inc.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal
[email protected]
www.emcplanning.com
November 2021
185
Agenda Item # 4.
186
Agenda Item # 4.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1

PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In Compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The City Council of the City of Los Altos has considered the project identified below and has adopted the following Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act:

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
AQ-1 The project applicant shall include the following BAAQMD best management practices to minimize DPM (PM10) and PM2.5 emissions on the project plans and the contractor shall implement them during all phases of construction:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;
c. 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.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3
AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of the demolition and grading permits, the project developer shall prepare, and the project contractor shall implement, a demolition and construction emissions avoidance and reduction plan demonstrating a minimum 30 percent reduction in DPM emissions.

The plan shall be prepared at the applicant’s expense and shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Director of Planning or Director’s designee, prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter prepared by a qualified air quality consultant, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure. The plan shall include the following measures:
a. At least five of the mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment operating onsite 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 4 engines. The plan shall include specifications of the equipment to be used during construction and confirmation this requirement is met; and,
b. Other demonstrable measures identified by the developer and confirmed by the air quality consultant, that reduce emissions and avoid or minimize the affected sensitive receptors exposures by at least 30 percent.

Biological Resources
BIO-1 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, outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction occurs during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project activities.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
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 City of Los Altos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented and submitted to the City prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits.

BIO-2 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 2021 Arborist Report (Kielty Arborist Services LLC). Also, in accordance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit for proposed 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 City for project approvals.
190
Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
EMC Planning Group Inc. 5
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 In the event that prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find will be stopped, the Director of Community Development will be notified, and the archaeologist will examine the find and make appropriate recommendations, in collaboration with a Tamien Tribal representative, prior to commencement of construction. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery during monitoring would be submitted to the Director of Community Development, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and the Tamien Nation.

CUL-2 In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find will be stopped.

The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.

GEO-2 If vertebrae fossils are discovered during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include avoidance, if feasible, preservation in place, or preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds.
191
Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
6 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the following measures shall be incorporated into demolition plans:
a. All PCB-containing ballasts shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with state and local laws.
b. All potentially friable asbestos-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials.
c. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations.
d. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.

Noise
NOI-1 Modification, placement, and operation of construction equipment are possible means for minimizing the impact of construction noise. Construction equipment shall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as possible.

Additionally, construction activities for the proposed project shall include the following best management practices to reduce noise from construction activities near sensitive land uses:
▪ Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., in accordance with the city’s municipal code for construction in a single-family residential zone. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays, unless permission is granted with a development permit or other planning approval.
192
Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
EMC Planning Group Inc. 7
▪ Use of the concrete saw within 50 feet of any shared property line shall be limited.
▪ Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
▪ Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines in construction equipment with a horsepower rating of 50 or more shall be strictly prohibited, and limited to five minutes or less, consistent with BAAQMD best management practices.
▪ Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors (residences). If they must be located near sensitive receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors. ▪ Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
▪ A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be erected, if necessary, at the property line or along building facades facing construction sites. This measure would only be necessary if conflicts occurred that were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.
▪ Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. ▪ The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities and shall send a notice to all adjacent properties with the construction schedule. ▪ Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
193
Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
8 EMC Planning Group Inc.

NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the city’s requirements. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained by the project applicant to review mechanical noise as the equipment systems are selected in order to determine whether the proposed noise reduction measures sufficiently reduce noise to comply with the city’s noise limit at the shared property line.

Noise reduction measures that would accomplish this reduction include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures and parapet walls to block the line of sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors.

NOI-3 A construction vibration-monitoring plan shall be implemented to document conditions at the structure located adjacent to the proposed construction prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shall be completed under the direction of a State of California licensed Professional Structural Engineer and be in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan shall include the following tasks:
▪ Identification of sensitivity to groundborne vibration of the structure located adjacent to the construction.
▪ Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for the structure located adjacent to the construction. Surveys shall be performed prior to, in regular intervals during, and after completion of vibration generating activities and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in the structure, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of the foundation, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structure. Interior inspections would be subject to property owners’ permission.
▪ Conduct a post-survey on the structure where monitoring has indicated damage. Make appropriate repairs or provide compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.
▪ Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
194
Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
EMC Planning Group Inc. 9
Tribal Cultural Resources
In addition to mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 presented in Section D5, Cultural Resources, the following measures shall be implemented:

TR-2 The applicant shall contract with the Tamien Tribal to monitor ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to removal of existing building foundations, trees, and grading activities.

The applicant shall also contract with a qualified archaeologist to be on-call should cultural or Tribal resources be inadvertently discovered.

Evidence of a contracts with the Tribal monitor and archaeologist shall be provided to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of a building demolition permit and/or a grading permit.

Should Tribal or cultural resources be inadvertently discovered, the Tamien Nation Treatment Protocol shall be implemented. Whether or not Tribal or cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, the Tribal monitor shall prepare a monitoring report to be submitted to the City Planning Division, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
10 EMC Planning Group Inc.

This side intentionally left blank.
196
Agenda Item # 4.

This document was produced on recycled paper.

PUBLIC REVIEW INITIAL STUDY
355 FIRST STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

PREPARED FOR
City of Los Altos
Guido Persicone, Planning Services Manager
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Tel 650.947.2633

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.............................................. 13 C. DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................ 14 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............................................................ 15

1. Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................17

2. Agriculture and Forest Resources .........................................................................21

3. Air Quality................................................................................................................23

4. Biological Resources................................................................................................35

5. Cultural Resources...................................................................................................40

6. Energy .......................................................................................................................42

7. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................46

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................49

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................52

10. Hydrology and Water Quality...............................................................................56

11. Land Use and Planning...........................................................................................60

12. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................61

13. Noise..........................................................................................................................62

14. Population and Housing.........................................................................................68

15. Public Services..........................................................................................................69

16. Recreation .................................................................................................................73

17. Transportation..........................................................................................................74

18. Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................80

19. Utilities and Services Systems................................................................................82

20. Wildfire .....................................................................................................................87

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance .....................................................................88 E. SOURCES...................................................................................................................... 91 199
Agenda Item # 4.

EMC Planning Group Inc.

Appendices
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B CalEEMod Results
Appendix C Health Risk Assessment
Appendix D Arborist Report
Appendix E EMFAC Results
Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis
Figures
Figure 1 Location Map....................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph............................................................................................7 Figure 3 Site Photographs ..............................................................................................9 Figure 4 Site Plan ...........................................................................................................11 Figure 5 Elevations ........................................................................................................19 Tables
Table 1 Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan)............25 Table 2 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status ..............................27 Table 3 Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants .............................27 Table 4 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions ...........................28 Table 5 Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ..................29 Table 6 Cumulative Health Risks at Construction MEI.........................................34 Table 7 Trees Planned for Removal and Preservation ...........................................39 Table 8 Student Generation........................................................................................70 Table 9 Existing and Proposed Water Demand ......................................................84 Table 10 Existing and Proposed Wastewater Generation........................................85 200
Agenda Item # 4.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1
A. BACKGROUND
Setting
The 0.64-acre project site includes four lots located at 355, 365, 371, and 373 First Street in Los Altos, and is developed with commercial buildings and one residence. The project location is shown in Figure 1 Location Map, and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph. Figure 3, Site Photographs, shows the existing on-site and surrounding uses. The project site is developed with seven existing buildings totaling 7,648 square feet, including a hair salon, coin shop, office building, a single-family residence and two outbuildings. Whitney Street abuts the project site to the north, First Street abuts the site to the west, a yoga studio sits adjacent to the site in the east, and an alleyway borders the site to the east. Immediately surrounding uses include Draegers market and various commercial retail and office uses. The project site has a Los Altos General Plan (general plan) designation of Downtown Commercial, is zoned CD/R3 Commercial Downtown/Multiple Family, and is within the First Street District of Downtown.

Project Title 355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study Lead Agency Contact Person
and Phone Number
Guido Persicone, Planning Services Manager
(650) 947-2633
Date Prepared November 2021
Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Project Location 355, 365, 371, 373 1st St
Los Altos, CA 94022
Project Sponsor Name and Address 355 1st St LLC. C/O DeNardi Wang Homes 4962 El Camino Real, Suite 223
Los Altos, CA 94022
General Plan Designation Downtown Commercial
Zoning CD/R3 Commercial Downtown/Multiple
Family
201
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
2 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Description of Project
The proposed project includes demolition of the seven existing buildings and construction of a 79,431 square foot, 50-unit, four story condominium building and two levels of underground parking. Los Altos’ housing stock has an average of 2.84 persons per household in 2019 (US Census Bureau 2021). The proposed 50 condominium units would potentially create a population growth in the area of 142 people.

The first floor includes the main lobby and a court for interior lighting. The rooftop includes a 5,000 square foot rooftop deck with grilling stations, dining tables, and outdoor seating.

Solar panels will be installed for a portion of the common area electricity. The building is 46 feet in height.

The underground parking levels totaling 51,023 square feet includes 115 parking stalls, 50 bicycle lockers, 50 storage units, and EV charging stations for each unit. The parking levels can be accessed from the alley way to the east of the project site.

Figure 4, Site Plan, shows the proposed building uses and layout, as well as the proposed parking garage configuration, and access to the site and parking levels.

Off-Site Improvements
The proposed project includes replacing approximately 1,708 square feet of sidewalks within the public way on First Street and Whitney Street.

Affordable Housing
Six (or 13.51 percent) of the 50 units are Below Market Rate units with five very low-income units and one moderate income unit. State Density Bonus Law states if 13 percent of the Base Density is provided at the very low-income level, a density bonus of 42.5 percent is granted.

Based on the base density of 37 units, a density bonus of 42.5 percent is 16 units. This project would include 13 of the 16 allotted bonus units for a total of 15 units. According to Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.28.040, a project that includes at least ten percent very lowincome units will be granted two incentives. With 13.51 percent moderate income units, the project utilizes these two incentives to exceed city code height limits by 11 feet (from 35 feet to 46 feet) in this zoning district and elevator tower increase from 12 feet to 17.6 feet. This project also includes one waiver: a parking stall reduction size by 10 percent.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
None
202
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The Tamian Nation contacted the City of Los Altos requesting consultation. A summary of the consultation and conclusions are presented in Section D18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this initial study.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. 203
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
4 EMC Planning Group Inc.

This side intentionally left blank.
204
Agenda Item # 4.
£¤101
Sunnyvale
Cupertino
§¨¦280
k
Project Site
¬«85
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
¬«82
¬«237
¬«85
¬«82
¬«82
£¤101
£¤101
Foothill Expy.

Los Altos
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Los Altos Hills
Source: ESRI 2019
Figure 1
Location Map
355 First St. Initial Study
0 2 miles
£¤101
k
UV68
Santa Cruz
San Jose
Gilroy
Salinas
San Francisco
£¤101
§¨¦880
UUV84
V92
UV1
§¨¦80
Oakland
UV4
£¤101
Los Altos
Monterey
§¨¦580
§¨¦280 §¨¦680
UV1
Regional Location
205
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
6 EMC Planning Group Inc.

This side intentionally left blank.
206
Agenda Item # 4.

First St.

Whitney St.

Second St.

Foothill Expy.

Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Aerial Photograph
355 First St. Initial Study
0 75 feet
Figure 2
Source: Google Earth 2020
Santa Clara County GIS 2020
Project Boundary
207
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
8 EMC Planning Group Inc.

This side intentionally left blank.
208
Agenda Item # 4.

First St.

Whitney St.

Second St.

Foothill Expy.
0 75 feet
Figure 2
Source: Google Earth 2020
Santa Clara County GIS 2020
Project Boundary
6 5
4 3
2 1
View of the single family residence on the
project site at 371 First St.
6 Second view of commercial/retail buildings
sitting across First St. from project site
5 Looking towards commercial/retail buildings
sitting across First St. from project site
4 Looking north down First St. and the project
site frontage
3 Looking south across the on site parking lot
from the northern corner of the project site
2 Looking southeast toward 355 First St. at the
northwest corner of the project site
1 Photographs: SDG Architects 2021
Source: Google Earth 2020
355 First St. Initial Study
Site Photographs
Figure 3
Project Site
209
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
10 EMC Planning Group Inc.

This side intentionally left blank.
210
Agenda Item # 4.
1$/1/%'@"%#&'"1-,*
,5G
%#&'"1-,*
1$/
%#&'"1-,*
Project Site
355 First St. Initial Study
Site Plan
Figure 4
Source: SDG Architects 2021
0 30 feet
211
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
12 EMC Planning Group Inc.

This side intentionally left blank.
212
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 13
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY

AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Public Services
☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Recreation
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Transportation ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Wildfire ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Energy ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Noise ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
213
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
14 EMC Planning Group Inc.

C. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Guido Persicone, Planning Services Manager Date
214
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 15
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Notes

1. A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).

A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The mitigation measures are described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document or negative declaration. [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)] In this case, a brief discussion would identify the following:
a. “Earlier Analysis Used” identifies and states where such document is available for review.
b. “Impact Adequately Addressed” identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. “Mitigation Measures”—For effects that are “Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” mitigation measures are described which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 215
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
16 EMC Planning Group Inc.

6. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.) are incorporated. Each reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. “Supporting Information Sources”—A source list is attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.

9. The explanation of each issue identifies:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any to reduce the impact to less than significant.
216
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 17

1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 (Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects), would the project:

Comments:
a. The proposed project is not located within a designated scenic view corridor or scenic vista. Implementation of the proposed project will not obstruct or impede the views of any scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site. b. According to the California Department of Transportation California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the sole state-designated scenic highway in Santa Clara County is State Route (SR) 9 from the Santa Cruz County line to the Los Gatos city limit.

Eligible State Scenic Highways (not officially designated) include: SR 17 from the Santa Cruz County line to SR 9, SR 35 from Santa Cruz County line to SR 9, Interstate 280 from the San Mateo County line to SR 17, and a segment of SR 152 in southern Santa Clara County. The proposed project is not located near a state scenic highway or County-designated scenic highway and would, therefore, not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (1, 2, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(10, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality? (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (1, 2, 3, 8)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
217
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
18 EMC Planning Group Inc.
c. The project is located in an urbanized area and would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The visual character of the site and surrounding area is one of a mature mixed-use community. One- and two-story commercial and residential structures border the site to the north, south, and east.

The project introduces a new land use to the project area as the project site is replacing existing commercial and single-family residential buildings with a residential condominium building, but this use is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations. The zoning allows for buildings up to 35 feet; however, with the allowed density bonus incentives outlined in the zoning code and mandated by state law, the 46-foot building height proposed would be consistent with the zoning code. While the proposed development will be taller in height and larger in scale than buildings in the immediately surrounding area, the project would be generally compatible, in terms of size and scale, with the general vicinity and would be required to go through design review and meet stringent design standards to ensure there would not be degradation of the visual quality or character of the site.

Refer to Figure 5, Elevations. This visual impact would be less than significant. d. Nighttime lighting currently exits on the project site and upon redevelopment of the site, would continue to be provided along pathways and adjacent to buildings on the project site. The proposed project may increase the level of illumination in the project area above existing levels due to the changing placement of pathways and increased height building height, however due to urbanized nature of the site’s surrounding and zoning code requirements, off-site illumination and glare will be minimized. The outdoor lighting proposed by the project will comply with all applicable building and zoning codes, and will be designed to minimize off-site illumination and glare by ensuring all lighting above the ground floor is shielded and/or downward facing to prevent unnecessarily illuminating or substantially interfering with the use or enjoyment of nearby properties. This requirement will ensure that the project would not create a substantial new source of light or glare that would adversely affect the visual quality of the area. This visual impact would be less than significant. 218
Agenda Item # 4.

Project Site
355 First St. Initial Study
Elevations
Figure 5
Source: SDG Architects 2021
219
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
20 EMC Planning Group Inc.

This side intentionally left blank.
220
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 21

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use? (6, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (1, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
(1, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? (1, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to
nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? (1, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
221
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
22 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Comments:
a-e. The project site is currently developed with a commercial and residential buildings and associated parking. The project site is identified as “Urban and Built-up Land” on the California Department of Conservation’s Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2016 (2018). There are no Williamson Act parcels or forest or agricultural land on or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the Williamson Act or agricultural zoning, and there would be no impacts to agricultural, forest land, or lands zoned for commercial timber as a result of the project.
222
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 23

3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Comments:
a. The City of Los Altos, including the project site, is within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (hereinafter “air district”). The air district’s most recent adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan). The Clean Air Plan includes measures to minimize ozone precursor emissions and halt the movement of ozone and its precursors into nearby air basins, and builds upon the air district’s determination to minimize the emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a).

Consistency with the Clean Air Plan is based on conformance with air quality control measures presented in the Clean Air Plan. The air district’s Air Quality CEQA Guidelines (2017b) (“air district CEQA guidelines”) Section 9.1 provides guidance for determining if a development project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. For consistency a project should meet three criteria: 1) support the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan; 2) include applicable Clean Air Plan control measures; and 3) not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Clean Air Plan control measures.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (8, 42)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
(37,41,42)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (37,48)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d. Result in other emissions, such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people? (8, 41)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
223
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
24 EMC Planning Group Inc.

The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards; to reduce population exposure to pollutants and protect public health in the Bay Area; and to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect the climate. This is considered to have been accomplished if there are no project-level significant impacts, or if significant impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

As discussed in section “b/c” below, the proposed project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions during construction and operations, but not to the extent that significant impacts would occur. However, during construction, the proposed project would generate toxic air contaminant emissions that would result in significant exposures to sensitive receptors, but not to the extent that significant impacts could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts, and supports the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan.

There are 81 control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, many of which are applicable only for industrial or regional implementation. The city would require project conformance with measures that it determines are feasible for project-level implementation. Project consistency with applicable control measures is discussed below, based in part on the implementation expectations stated in the Clean Air Plan (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017).

Clean Air Plan Control measures potentially applicable to the proposed project are presented below in Table 1, Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan) along with a brief consistency analysis to determine how the project either does or does not implement the measure.

As noted in Table 1, with mitigation the proposed project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The impact is less than significant with mitigation (see discussion in item d, below).
b, c. The six most common and widespread air pollutants of concern, or “criteria pollutants,” are ground-level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. In addition, reactive organic gases are a key contributor to the criteria air pollutants because they react with other substances to form ground-level ozone. Health effects of criteria air pollutants include asthma, bronchitis, chest pain, coughing, and heart diseases.

The air district is responsible for monitoring emissions and developing air quality plans for the San Francisco Bay area, including Santa Clara County and has published comprehensive guidance on evaluating, determining significance of, and mitigating air quality impacts of projects and plans in CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (“CEQA guidelines”) (2017).
224
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 25
Table 1 Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan) Control Measure Number and Name Consistency Analysis
BL1 – Green Buildings Consistent. This policy encourages utilization of Green Building Standards in new development. The proposed project would construct the structures in accordance with the California Building Code’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6).

BL2 Decarbonize Buildings All
Pollutants
Consistent. This policy explores incentives for property owners to install ground source heat pumps and solar hot water heaters in multifamily buildings.

See the response to Policy BL1. The proposed project is a multi-family project that may qualify for this program.

BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation. Consistent. This measure is intended to mitigate the “urban heat island” effect by promoting the implementation of cool roofing and cool paving techniques. The proposed project includes rooftop open space areas that are consistent with this measure.

NW2: Urban Tree Planting. Consistent. This measure encourages voluntary approaches to reduce urban heat islands by increasing shading in urban and suburban communities via planting of low-VOC emitting trees.

According to the proposed landscaping plan, the project includes new street trees and trees on site.

SS30: Residential Fan Type Furnaces Consistent. See the response to measure BL2. This measure is intended to reduce NOx emissions from residential fan type central furnaces by reducing allowable NOx emission limits on new and replacement furnace installations through its Regulation 9, Rule 4 (Rule 9-4). The air district works with local jurisdictions to implement this rule. When it is not feasible to install a non-fossil fuel-based furnace, this control measure ensures that the furnace installed uses best available retrofit control technology (BARCT).

The proposed project may qualify for this program.

SS32 Emergency Backup Generators Consistent. Reduce emissions of diesel PM and black carbon from BUGs through Draft Rule 11-18, resulting in reduced health risks to impacted individuals, and in climate protection benefits. The proposed project does not include a backup generator (BUG) and is not subject to this rule.

SS34: Wood Smoke Consistent. In 2008, the Air District adopted Regulation 6, Rule 3 to protect Bay Area residents from the harmful health impacts of wood smoke. In the fall of 2015, the Air District adopted amendments to Regulation 6-3, greatly expanding and tightening the regulation.

The proposed project is subject to compliance with the City’s municipal code regulations prohibiting wood-burning fireplaces
SS36 Particulate Matter from Trackout Consistent. Prevent mud/dirt and other solid trackout from construction, landfills, quarries and other bulk material sites. The proposed project is subject to compliance with mitigation measure AQ-1, presented later in this section, which includes measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction.

SS38 Fugitive Dust PM Consistent. See response to SS36.

SS40 Odors Consistent. The proposed project is a residential use and would not be a source of substantial odors.
225
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
26 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Control Measure Number and Name Consistency Analysis
TR7: Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to
Transit.

Consistent. This measure facilitates safe route to schools and transit by providing funds and working with transportation agencies, local governments, schools, and communities to implement safe access for pedestrians and cyclists.

The nearest school to the project site is Covington Elementary School, about one half mile to the southeast. The proposed project would reconstruct sidewalks on the site frontages and would not preclude continued use of existing facilities. The nearest bus stops to the project site are for VTA bus route (Frequent Route 40) and are located along both sides of San Antonio Road (near Whitney Street), approximately 800 feet from the project site. According to the traffic impact analysis, existing bus service is expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate new riders generated by the project.

TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities. Consistent. Encourage planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g., general and specific plans, fund bike lanes, routes, paths and bicycle parking facilities.

The proposed project includes the provision of resident bike storage facilities on-site and would not remove any bicycle facilities. The proposed project includes replacement of sidewalks along the site frontages; consequently, the proposed project would not preclude the continued use of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

TR16: Indirect Source Review. Consistent. This measure reduces emissions of key ozone precursors, ROG and NOx, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants and GHGs by reducing construction and operational emissions associated with new or modified land uses. On-road and off-road mobile emission sources are the main source categories targeted by this measure. However, space heating, landscape maintenance and wood burning emission source categories could also be included. This reduces region-wide population exposure to air pollutants and also reduces localized population exposure to air pollution.

The proposed project would not emit operational emissions that would exceed air district standards. Mitigation measure AQ-1 discussed later in this section includes emissions reduction measures to reduce construction emissions and minimize exposures to air pollution.

WR2 Support Water Conservation GHG Develop a
list of best practices that reduce water consumption
and increase on-site water recycling in new and
existing
Consistent. This measure promotes water conservation of conveyance and treatment, including reduced water consumption and increased onsite water recycling, in residential, commercial and industrial buildings.

The purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated electricity use required to capture, use, convey, store, conserve, recycle and treat water and wastewater in the Bay Area.

The proposed project would increase water demand on the site and is subject to compliance with the 2016 CALGreen Code and Chapter 12.36 of the Municipal Code, which adopts water efficient landscape regulations. The project would not require expansion of off-site facilities or the construction of new water mains aside from lateral lines required to connect to the existing water main.

SOURCE: BAAQMD 2017a; EMC Planning Group 2021
226
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 27
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (air district) is the agency with the primary responsibility for assuring that national and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the air basin. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Table 2, San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status, identifies the current attainment status within the air basin for each criteria pollutant.

Table 2 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status Criteria Air Pollutants State Standards National Standards Ozone Non-attainment Non-attainment
Respirable Particulate Matter Non-attainment Unclassified Fine Particulate Matter Non-attainment Non-attainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Lead - Attainment
SOURCE: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a
The air district has developed thresholds of significance that are used to determine whether or not the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants during operations and/or construction. The thresholds of significance for determining air quality impacts are contained in the 2017 CEQA Guidelines and are presented in Table 3, Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants.

Table 3 Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria Air Pollutants Construction
Thresholds
Operational Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions (lb/day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lb/day)
Annual Emissions
(tons/year)
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 54 54 10
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 54 54 10
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 (exhaust)1 82 15 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 54 (exhaust)1 54 10
SOURCE: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b
NOTE:

1. The thresholds of significance for particulate matter emissions from project construction apply to exhaust emissions only.

The air district recommends implementation of best management practices to reduce fugitive dust emissions. 227
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
28 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Construction and operations of the proposed project would increase criteria pollutant emissions. The criteria air pollutant emissions generated by existing uses of the site and emissions during construction and operation of the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. The results include emissions reductions from compliance with State’s Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (BEES). Refer to Appendix B for the CalEEMod results.

Operational Emissions
Existing and proposed operational emissions are estimated. Table 4, Unmitigated Operational Emissions, presents the net change between the unmitigated existing operational criteria pollutant emissions and proposed project criteria pollutant emissions.

Table 4 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions
Scenarios
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Suspended
Particulates
(PM10)
Total Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Existing1,2 0.09 0.21 0.11 0.03 0.50
Proposed1,2 0.43 0.23 0.15 0.04 0.23
Change1,2 0.34 0.02 0.04 0.01 -0.273
Net Average Daily Emissions1,4 1.86 0.11 0.22 0.05 -1.483 SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
NOTES:

1. Results may vary due to rounding.

2. Expressed in tons per year.

3. The proposed project would result in fewer emissions.

4. Expressed in pounds per day: A U.S. ton is equal to 2,000 pounds. The emissions estimates in tons per year are multiped by 2,000 pounds to arrive at emissions volume in pounds per year, then divided by 365 days per year to arrive at pounds per day.

The proposed project would not generate operational criteria pollutant emissions that would exceed the air district thresholds. Therefore, criteria pollutant emissions generated by the project would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions include mobile source exhaust emissions, emissions generated during the application of asphalt paving material and architectural coatings, as well as emissions of fugitive dust during demolition and grading. The unmitigated criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from project construction are summarized in Table 5, Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. 228
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 29
Table 5 Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emissions
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOX)
Exhaust
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Total Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
20221,2 0.70 1.49 0.05 0.08
20231,2 0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01
Total Emissions1,2 0.71 1.52 0.05 0.08
Average Daily Emissions1,2 4.93 10.6 0.35 0.44
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
NOTES:

1. Results may vary due to rounding.

2. CalEEMod estimates construction criteria air pollutant emissions in tons per year. A U.S. ton is equal to 2,000 pounds. The emissions estimates in tons per year are multiped by 2,000 pounds to arrive at emissions volume in pounds per year.

CalEEMod estimates a total of 288 construction days. Average daily emissions (in pounds per day) are computed by dividing the annual construction emissions (in pounds per year) by the number of construction days.

The proposed project would not result in construction emissions that exceed the air district thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the increase in criteria pollutant emissions during construction are less than significant and the contribution of these emissions to cumulative air quality conditions are less than cumulatively considerable.
d. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are pollutants that may be expected to result in an increase in mortality or serious illness or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Health effects include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, damage to the body's natural defense system, and diseases that lead to death. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuels combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about twothirds of the cancer risk from TACs.

Although air pollution can affect all segments of the population, certain groups are more susceptible to its adverse effects than others. Children, the elderly, and the chronically or acutely ill are the most sensitive population groups. These sensitive receptors are commonly associated with specific land uses such as residential areas, schools, retirement homes, and hospitals. In addition, certain air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, only have significant effects if they directly affect a sensitive population.

Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust and fugitive dust (PM2.5) that poses health risks for sensitive receptors. Diesel 229
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
30 EMC Planning Group Inc.
particulate matter (DPM), which is a known TAC, is a component of diesel exhaust.

The air district requires an analysis of construction emissions exposures when construction activity would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.

The 355 First Street Health Risk Assessment (EMC Planning Group 2021) (HRA) was prepared to analyze the single-source (direct) and cumulative effects of DPM and PM2.5 exposures and related cancer risks at MEI that could occur during project construction. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Community risk impacts were addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks.

Existing sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site were identified including mobiles sources from vehicles on Foothill Expressway and San Antonio Road, and two gas stations. Existing TAC sources are shown in the HRA Figure 2-1, Existing Emissions Sources within 1,000 Feet. Locations of sensitive receptors are shown in the HRA Figure 2-2, Sensitive Receptors Within 1,000 Feet. The HRA is included in Appendix C.

CalEEMod was used to estimate PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) and PM2.5 fugitive emissions from construction activities. The AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The maximum increased cancer risks at the MEI were calculated using the modeled TAC concentrations combined with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidance for age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters as recommended by the air district.

Model results show that unmitigated construction PM10 (assumed to be DPM) would not result in adult cancer risks, health risks associated with PM2.5 exposures, or chronic DPM exposures that would exceed air district thresholds. Therefore, no significant health risks would occur.

However, the unmitigated cancer risk for infants and children at the MEI is 12.76 cases per million, which exceeds the air district threshold of 10 cases per million. This is a significant impact, and emissions reductions measures are needed to reduce the infant/child cancer risks. To determine the extent of emissions reduction measures that would be required to reduce infant/child cancer risk below the air district threshold, the modeled construction equipment inputs were modified using a combination of Tier 4 diesel engines on five of the larger equipment vehicles in the model’s default construction fleet. The CalEEMod unmitigated and mitigated results are included as an appendix to the HRA.
230
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 31
A 30 percent reduction in construction exhaust emissions is necessary to reduce the infant/child cancer risk at the MEI and meet the air district threshold. Adherence to BAAQMD guidance for the control of construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust is required for consistency with clean air plan policies SS36 and SS38, which seek to minimize fugitive dust during construction. Implementation of these reduction measures (refer to measures “f” and “g” in Mitigation Measure AQ-1, below) would reduce DPM emissions and associated cancer risks associated with DPM emissions, but the exhaust emissions reduction best management practices are not quantifiable using CalEEMod and therefore, a determination that the cancer risk would be reduced to a less-than-significant level cannot be made with certainty. As a consequence, without additional mitigation, project construction activity would result in infant/child cancer risks at the MEI that would exceed BAAQMD singlesource cancer risk thresholds. Additional emissions reductions are needed during construction to reduce DPM emissions associated with infant/child cancer risks to below the air district’s single-source threshold.

The modeling shows that DPM emissions concentrations and associated cancer risks can be reduced by the use of an equipment exhaust mitigation strategy in addition to compliance with BAAQMD best management practices. Most of the reductions would result from the use of construction vehicle engines that meet Tier 4 standards on five of the larger vehicles, although a combination of Tier 3 or 4 engines and other methods such as the use of diesel particulate filters (DPF), electrification of equipment, use of alternative fuels, and reductions in idling times could achieve similar DPM emissions reductions.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the infant/child cancer risks to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 The project applicant shall include the following BAAQMD best management practices to minimize DPM (PM10) and PM2.5 emissions on the project plans and the contractor shall implement them during all phases of construction:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day;
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;
231
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
32 EMC Planning Group Inc.
c. 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; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
e. 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; f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California 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;
g. 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; and
h. Post a publicly visible sign with telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of the demolition and grading permits, the project developer shall prepare, and the project contractor shall implement, a demolition and construction emissions avoidance and reduction plan demonstrating a minimum 30 percent reduction in DPM emissions.

The plan shall be prepared at the applicant’s expense and shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Director of Planning or Director’s designee, prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter prepared by a qualified air quality consultant, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure. The plan shall include the following measures:
232
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 33
a. At least five of the 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 4 engines. The plan shall include specifications of the equipment to be used during construction and confirmation this requirement is met; and
b. Other demonstrable measures identified by the developer and confirmed by the air quality consultant, that reduce emissions and avoid or minimize the affected sensitive receptors exposures by at least 30 percent.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce fugitive dust emissions consistent with clean air plan policies and would reduce the project’s single-source construction DPM emissions and their related cancer risks to a lessthan-significant level.

Community Health Risks
Cumulative community cancer risks from existing mobile and stationary sources do not exceed the air district cumulative significance threshold of 100 cases per million.

The cumulative community risk impacts and the project’s contribution to them during construction are summarized in Table 6, Cumulative Heath Risks at Construction MEI.

Unmitigated project construction emissions contribute to less than significant cumulative cancer risks and other health risks associated with exposures to PM2.5 emissions and chronic health risks from exposures to DPM emissions. As shown in Table 6, cumulative community cancer and health risks are below the air district’s cumulative thresholds with or without the project. The project’s contribution to cumulative cancer risk and health risks are less than cumulatively considerable. 233
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
34 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Table 6 Cumulative Health Risks at Construction MEI
Source Cancer Risk
(per million)1
Annual PM2.5
Concentration (μg/m3)1
Chronic
Hazard
Index1
Air District Cumulative-Source Threshold 100.0 0.80 10.0 Mobile Sources at MEI 10.82 0.24 -
Permitted sources within 1,000 feet 38.02 0 <0.01
Cumulative2 Without Project 48.84 0.24 <0.01
Exceeds Thresholds (Without Project)? NO NO NO
Project (Unmitigated) 12.76 0.15 0.01
Cumulative with Unmitigated Project1,2 61.60 0.39 0.01
Exceeds Thresholds (Unmitigated)? NO NO NO
Project (Mitigated, Tier 4 Engines) 9.4 0.09 0.001
Cumulative with Mitigated Project1,2 59.72 0.33 0.01
Exceeds Thresholds (Mitigated)? NO NO NO
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
NOTES:

1. Results have been rounded, and may, therefore, vary slightly.

2. Includes emissions reductions due to implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Operational Health Risks
Future residents of the project that drive would contribute to vehicle traffic and subsequent emissions exposures at the project site from vehicles on Foothill Expressway and South San Antonio Road. As noted in Section 2 of the health risk assessment, Foothill Expressway has an ADT of 38,940 vehicles per day, and South San Antonio Road has an ADT of 45,200 vehicles per day, which equates to less than cumulatively considerable cancer and other health risks (see Table 6). The addition of project traffic to Foothill Expressway represents a less than 0.10 percent increase to ADT; the addition of project traffic to South San Antonio Road represents a less than

0.10 percent increase in traffic. The increase in emissions and exposures to them from the addition of project traffic to the two roadways would be negligible and the associated increase in cancer risks and other health risks to future residents on the project site would be less than cumulatively considerable. e. The proposed project would not result in any objectionable odors during the operational phase. During project construction, there may be nuisance diesel odors associated with operation of diesel construction equipment on-site, but this effect would be localized, sporadic, and short-term in nature. Therefore, temporary impacts from nuisance diesel odors on adjacent residential receptors would be less than significant.
234
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 35

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Comments:

The project site is located in an urbanized area of Los Altos and is developed with seven existing buildings. There are no sensitive habitats, wetlands, or aquatic features on or in the Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(1, 15)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(1, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.),
through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (1)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (1, 15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (1, 3, 8,39)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ()
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
235
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
36 EMC Planning Group Inc.
project vicinity. Ornamental landscaping and trees are present throughout the site and an arborist report was prepared for the project. Forty ornamental and native trees were inventoried, listed, and assessed for health. The arborist report is included in Appendix D (“Arborist Report”).

Wildlife species in urban areas are typically limited to those acclimated to frequent disturbance and noise, including common species such as house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), rock dove (Columba livia), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), mice (Mus musculus, Reithrodontomys megalotis, and Peromyscus maniculatus), and squirrel (Sciurus sp.) can occur.
a. Special-status species are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts. The special-status designation also includes CDFW Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected species, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rank 1B and 2B species, and other locally rare species that meet the criteria for listing as described in Section 15380 of CEQA Guidelines. Specialstatus species are generally rare, restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical, vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring.

Due to the lack of sensitive habitats and the human disturbance of the project site, special-status plant and animal species are not expected to occur on the project site.

Nesting Birds. Various bird species may nest throughout the project site, including in trees, on open ground, or in any type of vegetation. Project construction activities including ground disturbance may impact nesting birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, should nesting birds be present during construction. If protected bird species are nesting on or adjacent to the project site during the bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15), tree removal and noise-generating construction activities could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 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 236
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 37
be conducted between September 16 and January 14, outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction occurs during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction 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.
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. 237
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
38 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the City of Los Altos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented and submitted to the City prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits.

Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds by requiring nesting bird surveys prior to construction and measures for the protection of nests if found. Therefore, this impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Communities. There are no sensitive natural communities at the project site. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities are not anticipated.
c. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. There are no wetlands or waters of the U.S. at the project site. Therefore, impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S. are not anticipated. d. Wildlife Movement. Wildlife movement corridors provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing species richness and diversity, and usually also provide cover, water, food, and breeding sites. The project site does not facilitate major wildlife movement due to the lack of habitat and existing level of disturbance. e. Local Biological Resource Policies/Ordinances. Measures to protect sensitive biological resources within City of Los Altos are identified in Open Space, Conservation and Community Facilities Element and Community Design and Historic Resources Element of the Los Altos General Plan. Policy 1.1 of the Community Design and Historic Resources Element includes measures to preserve trees, especially heritage and landmark trees, and trees that protect privacy in residential neighborhoods. In addition, the City of Los Altos has adopted a Tree Protection Ordinance in Section 11.08 of the Municipal Code. The Tree Protection Ordinance includes measures for removal and replacement of trees in the City, in addition to protective actions to be taken to avoid damage to existing trees. The Tree Protection Ordinance defines a “protected tree” as:
 Any tree that is 48 inches or more in circumference measured at 48 inches above grade;
 Any tree designated by the historical commission as a heritage tree or any tree under official consideration by the historical commission for heritage tree designation; and
 Any tree which was required by the city to be either saved or planted in conjunction with a development review application.
238
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 39
The Arborist Report evaluated potential impacts to trees as a result of the project. The disposition of each tree is documented in the Arborist Report, and a comparison of the proposed tree removal and preservation contained in the landscaping plan is summarized in Table 1, Trees Planned for Removal and Preservation, below.

Table 7 Trees Planned for Removal and Preservation
Protected Not Protected Total
Trees Planned for Removal 4 16 20
Trees Planned for Preservation 6 1 7
Source: Kielty Arborist Services LLC 2021, Jett Landscape Architecture, Design 2021 The proposed project could remove up to four 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.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 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 2021 Arborist Report (Kielty Arborist Services LLC). Also, in accordance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit for proposed 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 City for project approvals.

Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to regulated trees by requiring City approval prior to the removal of regulated trees, installation of adequate replacement trees, and protection of all retained trees during construction. Therefore, this impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
f. Conservation Plans. There are no critical habitat boundaries, habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the proposed project site. 239
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
40 EMC Planning Group Inc.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Comments:
a. The project site is developed with four commercial/office building, one residence, and two outbuildings. The city adopted a Historical Preservation Ordinance and the City's Historical Commission is responsible for keeping a current inventory of qualified historic structures. Neither the project site or any of the existing buildings are identified in the city’s Historic Resources Inventory. The project site is within a highly developed and urbanized downtown and is not within a historic district or adjacent to historically significant buildings. The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. b, c. The consultant conducted a records search at the Northwest Information Center, which revealed there are no known historic or unique archaeological resources at the project site or in the vicinity. Although there are no known archaeological resources or burial sites on the project site, construction activities could inadvertently expose buried or previously unrecognizable archaeological resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce this potential, significant impact to a lessthan-significant level.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 In the event that prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50- foot radius of the find will be stopped, the Director of Community Development will be notified, and the archaeologist will examine the find and make appropriate recommendations, in collaboration with a Tamien Tribal representative, prior to commencement of construction.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
section 15064.5? (1, 2, 29)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to section 15064.5? (1, 2, 3)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? (1, 2, 3)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
240
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 41
Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery during monitoring would be submitted to the Director of Community Development, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and the Tamien Nation.

CUL-2 In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find will be stopped. The Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
241
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
42 EMC Planning Group Inc.

6. ENERGY
Would the project:

Comments:
a. Energy impacts are assessed based on the proposed project energy demand profile and on its relationship to the state’s energy efficiency regulations and the City’s land use planning regulations, as described below.

Existing Energy Demand
The existing commercial businesses and the single-family home on the project site consume energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and vehicles that consume transportation fuel. A summary of existing energy demand is provided below.

Electricity. Section 5.3, Energy by Land Use – Electricity, in the Existing Annual Operations CalEEMod results included in Appendix B identifies an existing electricity demand of about 73,122 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year.

Natural Gas. Section 5.2, Energy by Land Use – Natural Gas, in the Existing Annual Operations CalEEMod results included in Appendix B identifies that the natural gas demand from existing uses would be about 104,715,000 British Thermal Unit (BTU) per year or 1,047 therms per year (1 therm = 100,000 BTU).

Transportation Fuel. Existing uses generate traffic trips. Vehicle trips can be translated into vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the purpose of projecting transportation fuel demand. CalEEMod results included in Appendix E shows that the estimated existing annual VMT is approximately 277,547 miles. The 2021 Emissions Factor Model version 1.01, which uses vehicle miles traveled as an input, was used to estimate the projected transportation fuel use. The EMFAC results for existing fuel demand included as Appendix E show existing transportation fuel demand of about 1,768.01 gallons per year of diesel and 107,60.92 gallons per year of gasoline.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? (8, 37, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? (8, 37, 41)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
242
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 43
Projected Energy Use
The proposed project would result in increased demand for electricity, natural gas and fuel. A summary of projected energy demand is provided below.

Electricity. According to the According to the California Energy Commission Energy Consumption Data Management System (2021), in 2019, total electricity consumption in Santa Clara County was 16,664,460,569 kilowatt-hours (kWh). Section 5.3, Energy by Land Use – Electricity, in the Projected Annual Operations CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show projected electricity demand would be approximately 456,664 kWh per year. The projected electricity demand exceeds that of the existing uses by 383,542 kWh per year, or 524.52 percent, and the projected demand would represent approximately 0.003 percent of the total 2019 Santa Clara County electricity demand.

Natural Gas. According to the California Energy Commission Energy Consumption Data Management System (2021b), in 2019, total natural gas consumption in total natural gas consumption in Santa Clara County was 459,720,764 therms. Section 5.2, Energy by Land Use – Natural Gas, in the Projected Annual Operations CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show that projected natural gas demand would be 344,790,000 BTU per year or approximately 3,448 therms per year. The projected natural gas demand exceeds that of the existing uses by 240,075,000 BTU per year (2,401 therms per year), or 229.27 percent, and the projected demand would represent approximately 0.075 percent of the total 2019 Santa Clara County natural gas demand.

Transportation Fuel. The proposed project would generate new traffic trips that would increase vehicle miles traveled. New vehicle trips would result in increased demand for and consumption of transportation fuel. CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show that the projected annual vehicle miles traveled would be 551,414 miles. The 2021Emissions Factor Model version 1.01, which uses vehicle miles traveled as an input, was used to estimate the projected transportation fuel use. The Emissions Factor Model results in Appendix E show projected transportation fuel (diesel and gas) demand of about 3,330 gallons of diesel and 19,167.05 gallons of gasoline per year. The projected transportation annual fuel demand exceeds that of the existing demand by approximately 1,561.99 gallons of diesel, or 88.35 percent; and 8,406.13 gallons of gas, or 78.12 percent.

Regulatory Requirements
A multitude of state regulations and legislative acts are aimed at improving vehicle fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, and enhancing energy conservation. For example, 243
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
44 EMC Planning Group Inc.
the Pavley I standards focus on transportation fuel efficiency. The gradual increased use of electric cars powered with cleaner electricity will reduce consumption of fossil fuel. Vehicle miles traveled are expected to decline with the continuing implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 743, resulting in less vehicle travel and less fuel consumption. In the renewable energy use sector, representative legislation for the use of renewable energy includes, but is not limited to SB 350 and Executive Order B-16-12. In the building energy use sector, representative legislation and standards for reducing natural gas and electricity consumption include, but are not limited to Assembly Bill 2021, CALGreen, and the California Building Standards Code.

The California Building Standards Code is enforceable at the project-level. The California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the California Building Standards Code, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption.

The California Energy Code is updated every three years by the California Energy Commission as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and construction methods. The Green Building Standards Code (also known as CALGreen), which requires all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and environmentally responsible, was most recently updated in July 2019. These comprehensive regulations are intended to achieve major reductions in interior and exterior building energy consumption.

The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2013 and as a condition of project approval, the City will require the applicant to implement applicable GHG reduction measures from that CAP that could serve to reduce energy consumption. These are in addition to meeting regulatory requirements as describe above. The CAP measures include:
 Provide alternative-fuel vehicle charging stations (consistent with Action 1.3 C);  Install energy-efficient indoor and outdoor appliances and equipment (e.g., pool pumps, washer, dryer, HVAC) (consistent with Action 2.2 A);  Comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (consistent with Action 3.2 A);
 Comply with air district construction equipment best practices (consistent with Action 3.3 A); and
 Manage stormwater runoff with green infrastructure such as bioswales and other Low-Impact Development strategies. (consistent with Action 4.1 A).

More information about the CAP is provided in Section 8.0, Greenhouse Gases. 244
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 45
Conclusion
The proposed project could be considered to result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy if its energy demand is extraordinary relative to common land use types, its gross energy demand is excessive relative to total demand in Santa Clara County, and/or it fails to comply with California energy efficiency/conservation regulations that are within the applicant’s control.

Because the proposed project is urban infill, residents will have more ready access to urban services, including via non-motorized modes of travel, and transit services that would a project that is not on an urban infill site. This will result in reduced vehicle miles traveled and lower transportation fuel demand.

The project is a common land use type whose electricity and natural gas demand would not be excessive. As presented above, projected electricity and natural gas demand would not be excessive relative to cumulative electricity and natural gas demand in Santa Clara County. Further, the City of Los Altos enforces the California Building Standards Code through the development review process. That enforcement is the primary mechanism through which the applicant would be required to implement energy efficiency/conservation measures. The applicant has indicated that their intent is to design the project to exceed Title 24 by 10 percent. Further, the City will require that the project incorporate a series of GHG reduction measures from its 2013 CAP that will result in additional energy demand reductions.

The proposed project would consume energy, but it would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant b. There are no regulations at the state or local level that would mandate that the proposed project must include on-site renewable energy sources. The California Building Standards Code would require the proposed project to be built to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time the building permit is issued. By incorporating energy efficient measures per the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the project would comply with existing state and local energy standards and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for energy efficiency. The applicant has indicated that their intent is to design the project to exceed Title 24 by 10 percent which would further building efficiency and compliance with state and local plans.
245
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
46 EMC Planning Group Inc.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
(1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42? (2)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(2) Strong seismic ground shaking? (2) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (12)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(4) Landslides? (12) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (13)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (1, 2, 8)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property? (1, 2, 8) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (1, 2, 3)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? (1, 2, 3)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
246
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 47
Comments:
a (1) Los Altos lies between the active San Andreas and Hayward faults, as well as numerous smaller faults. However, no active faults traverse the city and therefore there is no potential for the primary hazard of ground rupture (City of Los Altos 2002b. p 22).
(2) The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region.

The faults in this region can generate earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or higher. During an earthquake, very strong ground shaking could occur at the project site, which could damage buildings and other proposed structures and threaten residents and occupants of the proposed development and surrounding areas. Therefore, the project developer would be required to design the proposed building to meet current California Building Code standards in order to reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects related to ground shaking.
(3) The proposed project is not located within a California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered low. (4) The project site is not located in a landslide hazard zone on County or State geologic hazard maps. The project site is relatively flat and is not located in the vicinity of steep embankments that could increase the risk of landslides affecting the site. Therefore, the proposed project is not susceptible to future landslides, on or off the site. Therefore, the project would have no impacts related to landslides. b. Ground disturbance on the project site would result from the demolition of the seven existing buildings and excavation to construct the below-grade parking garage, trenching for utilities, and construction of the proposed condominium building.

Transportation of construction materials and equipment to and from the site can also result in disturbance of the soils at the site. These activities would increase exposure of soil to wind and water erosion and increase sedimentation. Erosion control measures are required under Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and would reduce potential construction-related erosion impacts. Required measures include:
 All excavation and grading work would be scheduled in dry weather months or construction sites would be weatherized to withstand or avoid erosion;  Stockpiles and excavated soils would be covered with secured tarps or plastic sheeting; and
 Vegetation in disturbed areas would be replanted as quickly as possible.

Implementation of the identified erosion control measures would ensure that erosion and sedimentation impacts are reduced to less than significant. 247
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
48 EMC Planning Group Inc.
c, d. According to the Los Altos General Plan Initial Study, the Santa Clara Formation underlying most of the city has a low stability rating and may be subject to slumping and landslides on slopes greater than 15 percent. The project site is relatively flat and is not located in the vicinity of steep embankments that could increase the risk of instability and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
e. The proposed project would connect to the City of Los Altos Sanitary Sewer System.

Therefore, the project site would not need to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. Most of the city is situated on alluvial fan deposits of Holocene age that have a low potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. The proposed residential development includes a four-story condominium building and two levels of below-grade parking.

Although it is improbable that paleontological resources would be discovered on-site given its prior disturbance and the low potential for such resources, construction activities could result in the disturbance and/or accidental destruction of paleontological resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potential, significant impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 The project proponent shall ensure all construction personnel receive paleontological resources awareness training that includes information on the possibility of encountering fossils during construction; the types of fossils likely to be seen, based on past finds in the project area; and proper procedures in the event fossils are encountered. Worker training shall be prepared and presented by a qualified paleontologist.

The applicant shall provide the Community Development Director with documentation showing the training has been completed by all required construction personnel prior to issuance of grading permits.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Comments:
a. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2013 that is valid to 2020, as it was based on meeting the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals to the year 2020.

The City is in the process of updating its CAP and expects the update to be adopted by the end of 2021. Consequently, the City does not have a current, adopted plan for reducing GHGs from which the analysis of project-specific GHG impacts can be streamlined. Consequently, the City is relying on air district guidance regarding GHG thresholds of significance and impact analysis methodologies as identified in the air district’s 2017 CEQA Guidelines.

Table 3-1 in the 2017 CEQA Guidelines identifies screening levels for specific project types at which size the projects may be considered to have a less-than-significant GHG impact. The proposed project use type is “apartment, mid-rise.” For operational impacts from GHG emissions, Table 3-1 indicates that projects of this type would have a less-than-significant impact if they have 87 or fewer units.

The GHG significant thresholds and analysis methodologies in the 2017 CEQA Guidelines, including the screening criteria, are based on meeting the Assembly Bill 32 target of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Projects whose size is below the applicable screening criteria shown in Table 3-1 would not be considered to generate GHG emissions that would have a significant environmental impact. Senate Bill 32 became effective in January 1, 2017. Senate Bill 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to at least 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990 by the end of 2030. As such, the air district’s screening criteria do not reflect project sizes at which GHG impacts could be considered less than significant in light of the 2030 target. The project sizes shown in the screening criteria would Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? (8, 37, 40, 41, 42)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases? (8, 37, 40, 41,
42)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
249
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
50 EMC Planning Group Inc.
need to be reduced by 40 percent to coincide with the more stringent 2030 emissions reduction target. Therefore, the applicable screening threshold for this project would be 52 units (87 units x .60 = 52 units).

The project, which consists of 50 condominium units, is below the adjusted screening threshold. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to operational GHG emissions. Project emissions would actually be lower than produced by operations of a 50-unit, high density residential project. The project site is developed with seven existing buildings totaling 7,648 square feet, including a hair salon, coin shop, office building, and a single-family residence. These uses produce GHG emissions that would be eliminated with the proposed project, thereby reducing the net emissions produced by the project. Further, the proposed project is consistent with the general plan land use designation for the site and represents dense infill development – a land use strategy designed in part to reduce vehicle miles traveled and the related mobile-source GHG emissions produced by vehicle travel.

Project site preparation and construction activities would produce GHGs from construction equipment, worker and construction vehicles, etc., which typically use fossil-based fuels. Excavation, grading, and construction would be temporary. The air district does provide guidance on assessing the significance of construction GHG emissions. Compliance with mitigation measures (described above in Section 3. Air Quality) to limit air quality impacts during construction as required by the air district (e.g., watering exposed areas, covering haul trucks carrying loose material, limiting speed in construction areas, minimizing idling times, etc.) would reduce construction GHG emissions.
b. The 2017 Guidelines, as adjusted to reflect SB 32, is considered to be the applicable plan for reducing GHG emissions until such time as the City adopts its updated CAP.

Although the City’s 2013 CAP is no longer valid, as a condition of approval, the City will require the applicant to implement applicable GHG reduction measures from that CAP. These measures may include:
 Provision of alternative-fuel vehicle charging stations (consistent with Action

1.3 C);
 Installation of energy-efficient indoor and outdoor appliances and equipment (e.g., pool pumps, washer, dryer, HVAC). (consistent with Action 2.2 A);  Compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (consistent with Action 3.2 A);
250
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 51
 Compliance with air district construction equipment best practices (consistent with Action 3.3 A); and
 Continue to manage stormwater runoff with green infrastructure such as bioswales and other Low-Impact Development strategies. (consistent with Action 4.1 A).

The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, since the proposed project will not substantially increase GHG emissions based on air district screening criteria as described in “a.” above.
251
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
52 EMC Planning Group Inc.

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? (1, 2, 8)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (1, 2, 8, 28, 30)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (1, 2, 8)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment? (11, 14, 16)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. For a project located within an airport land-use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or a publicuse airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project
area? (15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (1, 2, 3)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires? (17)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Comments:
a. Operation of the proposed project would not result in hazardous materials being transported, used, or disposed of in quantities that would pose a significant hazard to the public. Operation of the proposed project would include the on-site use and 252
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 53
storage of cleaning supplies and maintenance chemicals in small quantities (oil, paint, pesticides, etc.). These small quantities of cleaning supplies and materials would not pose a risk to site users or adjacent land uses.
b. Development of the proposed project will require the demolition of the buildings onsite. Buildings constructed prior to 1978 may contain lead-based paint and buildings constructed prior to 1989 may contain building materials that contain asbestos. Four of the existing buildings were developed prior to 1978 and, therefore, could contain lead-based paint and/or asbestos. Demolition of the existing building could expose construction workers, surrounding residences, and/or the environment to asbestos, lead based paint and/or polychlorinated biphenyls which would represent a risk to public health and safety and would be a significant impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the following measures shall be incorporated into demolition plans:
a. All PCB-containing ballasts shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with state and local laws.
b. All potentially friable asbestos-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. c. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations.
d. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing leadbased paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.
253
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
54 EMC Planning Group Inc.
c. There are not any schools within one quarter-mile of the project site and the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or substances. The nearest schools to the project site include Los Altos Chinese School Preschool (0.4 miles east of the site) and Covington Elementary School (0.6 miles southeast of the site).
d. Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and CalRecycle.

According to the State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, there are four Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) sites within 1,000 feet of the site. All of these LUST sites are offsite and have undergone cleanup and are closed cases.

Additionally, according to the Department of Substances Control Envirostor website, as of 2018, there is an active cleanup site within 1000 feet of the project site at a drycleaning business located at 392 First St. In 2007, the dry-cleaning business was taken over by a new operator who switched to the use of hydrocarbons as the cleaning solvent. A limited environmental assessment lo performed, in which preliminary subsurface investigations detected PCE in soil vapor above commercial/industrial screening level. County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health is currently overseeing remediation at the site. While this site is within 1,000 feet, it is not located on-site. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The closest airports to the site include Moffett Federal Airfield, a joint civil military airport, approximately four miles east of the project site, and Palo Alto Airport, a general aviation facility, located approximately five miles north of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in safety hazard or noise impacts due to airport activities. f. The city has an adopted Emergency Preparedness Plan identifying potential risks, facilities and resources relied upon in the event of a catastrophe, and persons responsible for implementation. While the proposed residential project would incrementally increase demand on emergency responders in Los Altos, the proposed project is on a previously developed site and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the Emergency Preparedness Plan. 254
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 55
g. The project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as delineated on CalFire SRA and LRA maps. The project site is in an urban area and is not located near wildland areas that would be susceptible to fire. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires.
255
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
56 EMC Planning Group Inc.

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality? (13, 18,
23)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? (1, 2, 3,
13, 18, 23, 28)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; (1, 2, 3, 13, 18, 23, 28) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site; (1, 2, 3, 13, 18,
23, 28)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(3) Create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or (1, 2, 3, 13, 18, 23, 28)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(4) Impede or redirect flood flows? (1, 2, 3, 13, 18,
23, 28)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
(19, 20)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? (1, 2, 21, 28)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
256
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 57
Comments:
a. Construction Phase. Construction activities, such as grading and excavation, have the potential to result in temporary impacts to surface water quality in nearby waterways. When disturbance to the soil occurs, sediments may be dislodged and discharged into the storm drainage system after surface runoff flows across the site.

The proposed project would result in the disturbance of approximately 0.64 acres, which is below the one-acre of disturbance threshold requiring a Notice of Intent to be covered by the State of California Construction General Permit.

However, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) that covers the project area. The site will be required to undergo a construction site inspection and control program to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains.

Inspections will confirm implementation of appropriate and effective erosion and other construction pollutant controls by construction site operators/developers.

Operational Phase. Under the provisions of the MRP, “regulated projects” include redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area. Regulated projects are required to design and construct onsite stormwater treatment controls utilizing Low Impact Development (LID) practices to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. The MRP also requires regulated projects to incorporate site design and pollutant source control measures to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions and reduce the pollutants loads of post-construction runoff. The MRP requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained. The goal of LID is to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover and then infiltrating, storing, detaining, evapotranspiring, and/or biotreating stormwater runoff close to its source. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage that treats stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product. Practices used to adhere to these LID principles include measures such as rain barrels and cisterns, green roofs, permeable pavement, preserving undeveloped open space, and biotreatment through rain gardens, bioretention units, bioswales, and planter/tree boxes. Require each Regulated Project to treat 100 percent of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d for the Regulated Project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures onsite or with LID treatment measures at a joint stormwater treatment facility. 257
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
58 EMC Planning Group Inc.

The proposed project would create/replace over 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area and would, therefore, be subject to these stormwater controls including LID practices. The proposed project includes flow through planters and bioretention areas located throughout the project site (refer to Appendix A, sheet C-5.0 for the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan. These LID-based treatment measures have been sized in accordance with Provision C.3 standards. Flow-through planters and bioretention areas would not only remove pollutants from storm water, but also help to reduce post-construction runoff rates. The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
b. The project site is not located within or adjacent to any groundwater recharge facilities used by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water). Groundwater recharge facilities are integral to the maintenance of groundwater levels in Santa Clara County because the amount of groundwater pumped far exceeds natural recharge. The project incorporates LID practices and minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing imperviousness. The project proposes to incorporate bioretention and flow through planter areas into the landscaping, which will allow runoff to infiltrate into the native soils and potentially recharge groundwater in the local aquifer. The proposed project would not establish groundwater wells to supply the site, deplete groundwater supply, or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
c. The project would include site design and post-construction treatment control measures in compliance with the MRP. Treatment control measures, including flowthrough planters and bioretention areas, would reduce the rate, volume, and pollutant load of runoff leaving the site and entering the public storm drain system.

The City of Los Altos Stormwater Master Plan identifies areas of known drainage issues throughout the city, none of which would be exacerbated by the proposed development. The storm drain system would continue to provide adequate stormwater conveyance for a 10-year event following the implementation of the project and would not require upgrades or drainage pattern alterations to accommodate the project. Adherence to the standard measures described above would ensure that the project reduces potential erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. Compliance with the MRP would ensure that stormwater flows generated at the project site would be reduced and treated to the maximum extent feasible using LID methods. The project would not substantially alter the 258
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 59
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. d. The project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Santa Clara County, the project site is located in a Flood Zone X. Zone X is designated as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood, areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from one percent annual chance floods. The project site is not located within a dam failure inundation zone. There are no landlocked bodies of water near the project site that would affect the site in the event of a seiche, and no bodies of water near the project site that would affect the site in the event of a tsunami. The project area is flat and there are no hillsides in proximity that would affect the site in the event of a mudflow.
e. Valley Water prepared a Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) for the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins in 2016, describing its comprehensive groundwater management framework including objectives and strategies, programs and activities to support those objectives, and outcome measures to gauge performance. The GMP is the guiding document for how Valley Water will ensure groundwater basins within its jurisdiction are managed sustainably. The project site is located within the Santa Clara subbasin, which has not been identified as a groundwater basin in a state of overdraft.

Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with actions set forth by Valley Water in its GMP in regards to groundwater recharge, transport of groundwater, and/or groundwater quality. The proposed project is located in an urban area served by existing water retailers and would not directly extract groundwater to meet its water demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not preclude the implementation of the GMP.
259
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
60 EMC Planning Group Inc.

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Comments:
a. The proposed project is an infill, redevelopment project that is consistent with the existing urban development of the area and would not divide connected neighborhoods or land uses. The proposed project does not include new roadways, infrastructure or development features that would not divide an established community; therefore, there would be no impact related to physically dividing an established community.
b. The proposed project would redevelop and intensify the land uses on the project site by providing high density housing on a site currently developed with low density commercial, retail, office, and single-family residential uses. The proposed project would not conflict with general plan goals or policies intended to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. The project is compatible with its general plan land use designation and zoning. The project site has a general plan land use designation of Downtown Commercial, in which high-density residential land uses are encouraged.

The zoning code does not identify a maximum allowed density for the CD/R3 district and housing is a principally permitted use in this district. The proposed condominium building would reach a maximum height of 46 feet, which exceeds the CD/R3 district’s allowable building height limit of 35 feet. The project proponent has requested an incentive to allow for the proposed building height of the condominium buildings. Pursuant to State Density Bonus law and the city’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, the project is entitled to two incentives or concessions, additional waivers, and reduced on-site parking requirements. With the allowed incentives/waivers, the project would meet all required site standards, including setbacks and buffer zones between adjacent land uses. The City of Los Altos’ design review process for CD-R3 developments would ensure that the final design and site layout of the project is consistent with all applicable design findings and design controls.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? (8) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Cause any significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (1,2, 3, 8, 28)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
260
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 61

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Comments:
a. The proposed project would redevelop a site that is not known to contain mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the state. The proposed project would not indirectly affect the availability of any mineral resources by restricting access to a resource recovery site or substantially depleting the reserves of any resources in the region. Therefore, the proposed residential development would not result in a significant impact to mineral resources.
b. There are no identified mineral resource recovery sites located within or adjacent to the project site. The project site is in an urbanized area developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses and is developed with buildings, paved surfaced parking, paved walkways, and landscaping. Therefore, the development of the proposed residential project would not result in the loss of a mineral resource recovery site.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state? (1, 2, 28)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land-use plan? (1, 2, 28)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
261
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
62 EMC Planning Group Inc.

13. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Comments:
a. The project site is in an urbanized area developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses and is developed with seven exiting structures including commercial office, retail, residential, and two outbuildings.

Temporary Construction Noise
Construction noise impacts depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas.

Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., morning or evening hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.

The Noise Ordinance establishes interior and exterior noise standards by zoning district for daytime and nighttime hours, and identifies prohibited acts relative to noise, including maximum noise levels at affected properties and hours during which construction is permitted. The noise ordinance allows for increases in noise related to construction activities during permitted construction hours. The acceptable daytime noise level for the R-3 Districts is 50 dBA and for C districts is 60 dBA.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or in applicable standards of other
agencies? (1, 2, 3, 28, 31, 47)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration
or ground borne noise levels? (1, 2, 3, 28)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land-use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public-use airport,
expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (15)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
262
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 63
According to the United State Environmental Protection Agency, noise levels during construction could range from 65 to 88 dBA at 50 feet and therefore, could exceed noise level standards set forth by the city at the immediately adjacent office building to the south. This would constitute a significant temporary noise impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential construction noise impacts at adjacent residential and commercial properties to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 Modification, placement, and operation of construction equipment are possible means for minimizing the impact of construction noise.

Construction equipment shall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as possible. Additionally, construction activities for the proposed project shall include the following best management practices to reduce noise from construction activities near sensitive land uses:
 Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., in accordance with the city’s municipal code for construction in a single-family residential zone. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays, unless permission is granted with a development permit or other planning approval.
 Use of the concrete saw within 50 feet of any shared property line shall be limited.
 Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
 Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines in
construction equipment with a horsepower rating of 50 or more shall be strictly prohibited, and limited to five minutes or less, consistent with BAAQMD best management practices.  Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors (residences). If they must be located near sensitive receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures 263
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
64 EMC Planning Group Inc.
where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors.  Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be erected, if necessary, at the property line or along building facades facing construction sites. This measure would only be necessary if conflicts occurred that were irresolvable by proper scheduling.

Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.
 Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
 The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating
construction activities and shall send a notice to all adjacent properties with the construction schedule.
 Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be
responsible for responding to any complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

Operational Noise
Traffic. Neither the City of Los Altos nor the State of California define the traffic noise level increase that is considered substantial. A significant impact would typically be identified if project generated traffic were to result in a permanent noise level increase of three dBA CNEL or greater in a residential area where the resulting noise environment would exceed or continue to exceed 60 dBA CNEL or result in a permanent noise increase of five dBA Ldn or greater in a residential area where the resulting in a noise environment would continue to be 60 dBA CNEL or less. For 264
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 65
reference, a three dBA CNEL noise increase would be expected if the project would double existing traffic volumes along a roadway. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultations, average trip generation rates were estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017) rates for Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise) (ITE Land Use 221). The project would replace the existing buildings on-site including a 1,250 square foot hair salon, 2,050 square feet coin shop retail space, a 1,500 square foot chiropractor practice, and a 2,450 square foot office building. The trips associated with these uses were subtracted from the proposed new use; however, no trip credits were taken for the coin shop, as it is currently vacant. As shown in Table 3, Project Trip Generation Estimates in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the project is estimated to generate 196 new daily trips after crediting the 76 existing trips. Because this would double the existing trips at the site, the project traffic could result in a three dBA increase. However, because the area is mixed use in nature and the uses immediately adjacent to the site are commercial/office, a three dBA traffic noise increase would not be a significant noise increase to the area.

Parking. Parking would be provided in the underground garage. Parking activities occurring in the underground garage would not be anticipated to be audible outside of the parking structure.

Mechanical Equipment. The proposed project would include mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC). This could include condenser, exhaust fans, and boilers located on the rooftop. According to the 5150 El Camino Real Residential Development Initial Study, typical residential rooftop exhaust fans are anticipated to generate noise levels of 50 to 60 dBA at 50 feet from the equipment, depending on the equipment selected. Shielding from equipment enclosures and surrounding structures would provide 10 to 15 dBA of reduction. The City of Los Altos limits sound levels generated by air-conditioning or air-handling equipment to 50 dBA at residentially zoned property lines. While the property immediately adjacent to the site is developed with an office use, it has a CD/R3 Commercial Downtown/Multiple Family zoning designation. The descriptor for the noise limit is not specified. For consistency with the provisions of the code, a reasonable interpretation of this standard would identify the criteria as an hourly average Leq. It is possible the HVAC system could exceed city noise standards.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
265
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
66 EMC Planning Group Inc.

By requiring a review of the mechanical equipment selected for the proposed project, as well as its design and location within the site, project mechanical equipment would not generate long-term noise levels in exceedance of City noise limits.

Mitigation Measure
NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the city’s requirements. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained by the project applicant to review mechanical noise as the equipment systems are selected in order to determine whether the proposed noise reduction measures sufficiently reduce noise to comply with the city’s noise limit at the shared property line. Noise reduction measures that would accomplish this reduction include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and/or installation of noise barriers such as enclosures and parapet walls to block the line of sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors.
b. Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas sound is simply carried through the air.

Therefore, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (PPV [in/sec]) and is measured in vibration decibels (VdB).

The City of Los Altos does not specify a construction vibration limit. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of

0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings. The conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV vibration limit would be applicable to properties in the vicinity of the project site, but historic or very old buildings are not known to exist in the immediate project vicinity.

Demolition, excavation, and other construction activities could result in unacceptable vibration levels at the adjacent office building to the west. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure this potential impact is not significant. 266
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 67
Mitigation Measure
NOI-3 A construction vibration-monitoring plan shall be implemented to document conditions at the structure located adjacent to the proposed construction prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction activities. All plan tasks shall be completed under the direction of a State of California licensed Professional Structural Engineer and be in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan shall include the following tasks:
 Identification of sensitivity to groundborne vibration of the structure located adjacent to the construction.
 Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for the structure located adjacent to the construction. Surveys shall be performed prior to, in regular intervals during, and after completion of vibration generating activities and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in the structure, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of the foundation, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structure.

Interior inspections would be subject to property owners’ permission.
 Conduct a post-survey on the structure where monitoring has indicated damage. Make appropriate repairs or provide
compensation where damage has occurred as a result of
construction activities.
 Designate a person responsible for registering and
investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
c. There are no airports near the project site that would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The closest airports to the site include Moffett Federal Airfield, a joint civil military airport, approximately four miles east of the project site. And Palo Alto Airport, a general aviation facility, located approximately five miles north of the project site.
267
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
68 EMC Planning Group Inc.

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Comments:
a. According to the United States Census Bureau, Los Altos has an estimated 2019 population of approximately 30,089 and Los Altos’ housing stock has an average of

2.84 persons per household in 2019 (US Census Bureau 2021). The proposed 50 condominium units would potentially create a population growth in the area of 142 people. However, this would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The proposed project is consistent with the uses allowed by the general plan and zoning code. The project site is located in an established urban area, has direct access to the roadway and existing utility infrastructure located on First Street. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth.
b. The proposed project would result in the demolition of one single-family residence.

However, the project would create 50 new dwelling units and would not displace a substantial number of people or housing such that replacement housing would be necessitated elsewhere.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (7, 8)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (7, 8)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
268
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 69

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

Comments:
a. The City of Los Altos contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire District for fire and emergency medical services. There are two fire stations in Los Altos: Almond Fire Station located at 10 Almond Avenue; and Loyola Fire Station located at 765 Fremont Avenue. The closest station to the project site is the Almond Fire Station, located approximately 0.5 miles north of the site.

The project proposes to replace seven existing commercial/residential structures with one new residential building on the site that would provide a total of 50 residential units. According to the California US Census Bureau, Los Altos’ housing stock had an average of 2.84 persons per household in 2019. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a population increase of 142 persons. As discussed in Section 15, Population and Housing, the proposed development would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The project would incrementally increase the local population and associated demand on fire protection services. The incremental increase in demand would not, by itself, require new facilities or expansion of existing facilities to provide adequate fire protection services and meet the city’s overall service goals. The project would be reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire District to ensure applicable Fire Code standards to reduce potential fire hazards are included in the project design when construction permits are issued, including Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection? (1, 2, 7, 8, 15) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Police protection? (1, 2, 7, 8, 15) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Schools? (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 32, 39, 40) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Parks? (7, 8) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Other public facilities? (1, 2, 3, 7, 8) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
269
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
70 EMC Planning Group Inc.
sprinklers and smoke detectors. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire facilities.
b. Police protection services for the project site are provided by the Los Altos Police Department, headquartered at 1 North San Antonio Road, approximately 0.4 miles north of the site. The Department has 32 sworn officers, five reserve officers, and 17 professional civilian staff.

As previously discussed, the project would increase the permanent population of the area by approximately 142 persons. This incremental increase in population would not place a substantial new burden on police protection services in the area. The project would be constructed in conformance with current codes and the project design would be reviewed by the Los Altos Police Department to ensure that it incorporates appropriate safety features to minimize criminal activity. New facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, would not be required to provide adequate police services to serve the proposed project and meet the city’s overall service goals.

The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered police facilities. c. The project site is in the Los Altos School District and Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District. Elementary school students in the project area attend Gardner Bullis Elementary School, located approximately 0.9 miles west of the project site. Middle school students in the project area attend Egan Junior High School, located approximately 0.8 miles west of the project site. High school students in the project area attend Los Altos High School, located approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the project site.

Table 8, Student Generation, presents the projected number of students resulting from the proposed project.

Table 8 Student Generation
Number of
Proposed Units Student Generation Rates
Number of New
Students
50 0.63 elementary school students (K-9) 33

0.038 high school students (9-12) 2
Total 35 Students
SOURCE: Mountain View Los Altos High School District 2017 Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2019
270
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 71
The proposed project is expected to generate 34.4 school aged children. While the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand placed on schools in Los Altos, this increase would not be substantial and would not require the construction of new school facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.

California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Sections 65995-65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of the planning, use, or development of real property” (Section 65996[a]). The legislation goes on to say that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).

In accordance with California Government Code Section 65996, developers pay a school impact fee to the local school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by their proposed residential development project. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered school facilities.
d. The closest public park is Shoup Park, located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the site. Other public park facilities in the vicinity include Village Park (0.35 miles to the north) and Rosita Park (0.7 miles to the southeast). The project would increase the residential population in the project area by 142 persons which could increase use of existing parks and recreational facilities in Los Altos and in adjacent cities. This incremental increase in demand is not expected to create a substantial physical burden on local and regional parks to an extent that would require the expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities.

The City of Los Altos has established a Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter

13.24.010 of the Municipal Code) requiring residential subdivisions to dedicate land for park or recreational purposes, or pay a fee in-lieu thereof, as a condition of approval for the final subdivision or parcel map. The intent of the ordinance is to allow development to occur within the city in a manner that meets the city’s parks and recreation goals. The city provides and maintains developed parkland and open space to serve its residents. Residents of Los Altos are served by community park facilities, neighborhood parks, playing fields and community centers. The city’s Department of Recreation and Community Services is responsible for development, operation, and maintenance of all city park facilities. In accordance with the City of 271
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
72 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Los Altos Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 13.24.010 of the Municipal Code), the project applicant shall pay the applicable parkland dedication in-lieu fee as a condition of project approval.
e. While the project would incrementally increase the demand on library and community center facilities, the project is not expected to create a substantial physical burden to an extent that would require expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered libraries, community centers, or other public facilities.
272
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 73

16. RECREATION
Comments:
a, b. As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the proposed project would incrementally increase the population in the project area. In accordance with the City of Los Altos Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 13.24.010 of the Municipal Code), the project applicant will be required to pay the applicable parkland dedication in-lieu fee as a condition of project approval. Additionally, the proposed residential project would provide on-site recreational facilities including a 5,000 square foot rooftop deck with grilling stations, dining tables, and outdoor seating. The proposed project would not increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of a facility would occur or be accelerated or that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated? (1, 2, 3, 7, 8)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(1, 2, 3, 7, 8)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
273
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
74 EMC Planning Group Inc.

17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Comments:

The following discussion is based on a Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. The report, dated August 2021, is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix F. The study evaluated intersection levels of service for General Plan and CMP consistency, impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and site access, on-site circulation, vehicle queuing, and parking demand. a. The traffic impact analysis studied the following five signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections:

1. Foothill Expressway & Main Street (CMP intersection)

2. First Street & Main Street

3. First Street & Whitney Street (unsignalized)

4. San Antonio Road & Edith Avenue/Main Street

5. San Antonio Road & First Street/Cuesta Drive

6. San Antonio Road & Foothill Expressway (CMP intersection)

7. San Antonio Road & Whitney Street/Pepper Drive (unsignalized) Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities? (1, 8 47)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (8, 47)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (1, 2, 47)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
(1, 2, 8, 47)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
274
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 75
A development project in Los Altos would be inconsistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan if for either peak hour, either of the following conditions occurs at a signalized intersection:
 The level of service at the intersection drops below its respective level of service standard (LOS D or better for local intersections) when project traffic is added, or
 An intersection that operates below its level of service standard under noproject conditions experiences an increase in delay of four or more seconds, and the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) is increased by one percent (0.01) or more when project traffic is added.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) oversees the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which is aimed at reducing regional traffic congestion.

The relevant state legislation requires that all urbanized counties in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain each county’s share of gas tax revenues. State legislation requires that each CMP define traffic LOS standards, transit service standards, a trip reduction and transportation demand management, a land use impact analysis program, and a capital improvement element. VTA has review responsibility for proposed development projects that are expected to affect CMP designated intersections.

A development project would be inconsistent with the CMP if the development project results in the level of service at a CMP intersection dropping below LOS E when project traffic is added.

Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment. The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections.

Standard trip generation rates were applied for the proposed development in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 10th edition. The trip rates for a Multiple-family Housing – Mid-Rise land use were used for this project. Total trips generated by the proposed project were then evaluated against estimated trips generated by the existing businesses onsite and the project was determined to create 196 net daily trips (refer to Table 3, Project Trip Generation Estimates in the Traffic Impact Analysis). 275
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
76 EMC Planning Group Inc.

The trip distribution pattern for net trips generated by the proposed project was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The new net trips that the project would generate were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure, the roadway network connections, and the locations of project driveways.

Level of Service. Project consistency with the General Plan and CMP’s LOS thresholds was evaluated relative to both existing traffic and background traffic volumes. For the existing plus project scenario, the levels of service at the seven study intersections were evaluated for the current traffic conditions and the traffic conditions expected to result from added vehicular trips under the proposed project.

For the background plus project scenario, background peak-hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding the estimated traffic from the approved but not yet constructed developments to existing volumes.

As shown in Table 4 of the Traffic Impact Analysis, five of study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during both AM and PM peak hours. Since the project would add trips to existing low-delay movements, there would be a decrease in overall average delay at some intersections.

The intersection of Foothill Expressway & San Antonio Road operates at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. However, the addition of project trips would not adversely affect traffic operations at the intersection because these trips would not increase the average delay at the intersection by more than 4 seconds.

The San Antonio Road & Whitney Street/Pepper Drive intersection operates at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. However, the addition of project generated trips would not adversely affect traffic operations at the intersection. Since the unsignalized intersection of San Antonio Road & Whitney Street/Pepper Drive operates at LOS E, a signal warrant check (MUTCD 2010 edition, Part 4, Warrant 3) was conducted for the intersection based on the peak-hour traffic warrant. The analysis shows that the signal warrant is not met with or without the project.

The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic volumes at affected intersections. The City of Los Altos’ circulation system would continue to operate effectively following implementation of the project. Therefore, traffic generated by the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and the CMP.
276
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 77
Transit Facilities. The project site is primarily served by one VTA bus route (Frequent Route 40). The nearest bus stops to the project site are located along both sides of San Antonio Road (near Whitney Street), approximately 800 feet from the project site. According to the traffic impact analysis, existing bus service is expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate new riders as a result of the project. The project would not remove any transit facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies associated with new transit facilities. The project would not cause substantial transit delays.

Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, continuous sidewalks exist along the east side of First Street. Discontinuous sidewalks are present along the west side of First Street and on Whitney Street. Near the project site, marked crosswalks are present along the north and east legs at the intersection of First Street & Whitney Street. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are present at the intersection of First Street & Main Street. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided at the remaining signalized study intersections, with the exception of the south leg of the San Antonio Road & First Street/Cuesta Drive intersection. The project site is located near routes identified in the City’s Safe Routes to School Plan. The City has released draft Walk n Roll maps for each school that services the Los Altos community. The Walk n Roll maps designate pedestrian and bicycle-friendly routes that students and parents can use to walk and bike to school. The project site is located near San Antonio Road and Cuesta Drive, which are both identified in numerous Walk n Roll maps.

The proposed project would provide sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. The project proposes to construct a new five-foot-wide sidewalk and seven-foot-wide planting strip along its frontage on Whitney Street and an eight to 12-foot-wide sidewalk along its frontage on First Street. Trees would be planted along the sidewalk on the First Street frontage. The existing sidewalks and crosswalks provide adequate access to transit and nearby points of interest.

The Pedestrian Master Plan includes goals, policies and actions for improving the pedestrian environment in Los Altos, including planning for pedestrian accommodation and facilities that serve people of all ages and abilities, developing a safe pedestrian network, and increasing pedestrian mode share. Pedestrian circulation would not be inhibited by the proposed project and the project would not conflict with the Los Altos Pedestrian Master Plan. The proposed project would include pedestrian access points to existing facilities and would not prevent the City from implementing the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan. 277
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
78 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site include bike lanes and bike routes. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III facilities) are roadways shared between bicycles and vehicles. While most streets in the downtown area lack bicycle facilities, they have slow traffic speeds and are conducive to bicycling. The project proposes to provide 56 long term bicycle parking spaces located in bicycle lockers in the underground garage area. The project also proposes six short term bicycle parking spaces on two bicycle racks located along the project frontage on First Street. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, and would not preclude the continued use of existing bicycle facilities in the project area nor would it conflict with Los Altos General Plan policies promoting continued and expanded bicycle use.
b. Senate Bill 743 was passed in 2013 and mandated a shift in the metrics used for transportation analysis under CEQA from Levels of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (1) establishes that VMT is the metric to use to analyze transportation impacts of land use projects.

The Traffic Impact Analysis describes the daily VMT per capita for the project and compares it to significance thresholds for the City of Los Altos. Per Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines, when there is a change in land use, VMT for a proposed project should be compared to thresholds set by lead agencies without regard to the VMT generated by the previous existing use.

The City’s VMT threshold of significance is the city average VMT per capita minus 15 percent, which calculates to 10.39 daily vehicle miles traveled per resident. Thus, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it results in a project VMT of

10.39 VMT per capita or more.

The results of the VMT evaluation, using the VTA VMT Evaluation Tool, indicates that the proposed project is expected to generate 6.37 VMT per capita. Since the proposed project’s estimated VMT is lower than the significance threshold of 10.39 VMT per capita, the project would have a less than significant impact on vehicle miles traveled.
c. On-site circulation was evaluated for the project driveways and underground parking garage for traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and sight distance. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles. The site plan shows the driveway to the underground garage ramp from the alleyway measuring 24 feet in width, which is adequate width for a two-way driveway. The project plans do not show any entry control device. Therefore, it is unlikely there will be any queuing for inbound traffic. Since the driveway ramp is accessed from an alley carrying low traffic volume, vehicle queuing for exiting vehicles is not expected. 278
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 79
Sight distance was checked for the proposed driveway. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. Vehicles are expected to drive slowly in the alley. However, for the purposes of analysis it is assumed that the speed limit of the alley is 25 mph. Therefore, the Caltrans stopping sight distance for both driveways is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Drivers will be able to see at least 200 feet towards the south when exiting. Similarly, drivers will be able to see vehicles turning from Whitney Street into the alley from the north.

The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or due to incompatible uses.
d. The site was found to have adequate site access and circulation and would provide adequate emergency vehicles access to the condominiums. 279
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
80 EMC Planning Group Inc.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources code section 5020.1(k), or (26)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe. (26)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Comments:
a. The Tamian Nation contacted the City of Los Altos requesting consultation. City staff and the Tribal representative met on August 16th and October 4th, 2021. A records search from the Northwest Information Center was obtained and shared with the Tribal representative, the results of which are discussed in Section D5, Cultural Resources, of this initial study.

The Tribal representative indicated that the project site is located within a general area known to the Tribe sensitive resources. The Tribal representative provided no evidence of Tribal resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources code section 5020.1(k), or, a resource determined by the City of Los Altos, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. 280
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 81
However, because the Tamien Nation is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, and the Tribe has indicated that sensitive resources are located with the general vicinity, the Tribal representative and City staff have agreed to the following mitigation measures, in the event significant resources meeting the definition in (1) and (2) in the table above are accidentally discovered during earth moving activities associated with the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures
In addition to mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 presented in Section D5, Cultural Resources, the following measures shall be implemented:

TR-2 The applicant shall contract with the Tamien Tribal to monitor ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to removal of existing building foundations, trees, and grading activities.

The applicant shall also contract with a qualified archaeologist to be on-call should cultural or Tribal resources be inadvertently discovered.

Evidence of a contracts with the Tribal monitor and archaeologist shall be provided to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of a building demolition permit and/or a grading permit.

Should Tribal or cultural resources be inadvertently discovered, the Tamien Nation Treatment Protocol shall be implemented. Whether or not Tribal or cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, the Tribal monitor shall prepare a monitoring report to be submitted to the City Planning Division, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.

The location of Tribal resources is confidential, may be redacted from monitoring reports, and shall not be made available for public review.

The location of sensitive cultural resources is exempt from the Public Records Act.
281
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
82 EMC Planning Group Inc.

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Comments:
a. Water. The proposed project would connect to existing eight-inch water main that runs along First Street up Whitney Street and eventually along the alley way adjacent to the rear of the project site. The project would not require expansion of off-site facilities or the construction of new water mains aside from lateral lines required to connect to the existing water main.

Sewer. The proposed project would connect to the city’s existing sanitary sewer system. The existing sanitary sewer along they alley way adjacent to the rear of the project site would be utilized by the project to convey wastewater flows from the Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment,
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (1, 2, 3, 27, 28)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple
dry years? (1, 2, 28, 33, 34, 35)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? (28, 35, 36, 37)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals? (28, 38)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (28)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
282
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 83
project to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP). The city’s Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan (SSMP) Update determined that less than five percent of the 121 miles of inspected sewer pipes in the city and in its immediate vicinity were in poor condition. No deficient pipe segments were located directly adjacent to the project site. Overall, the city’s sewer system was determined to be in good condition, with several recommended improvements noted in the SSMP Update to be included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to address deficiencies.

The proposed project would not require expansion of off-site facilities or the construction of new sewer lines aside from lateral lines required to connect to the existing sewer in the alley.

Storm Water. Runoff from the project site flows into the City of Los Altos’ municipal storm drainage system. The existing on-site storm drainage system captures and conveys runoff from the project site to the city’s storm drain system. New storm water controls will be constructed on site, the environmental effects of which have been evaluated in this initial study.

Electric, Natural Gas, Telecommunications. The site is currently served by electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication utilities. The proposed redevelopment of the site would not require the expansion of these utilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact due to the expansion or relocation of electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. b. The project site is served by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and is located within Cal Water’s Los Altos Suburban (LAS) District. Water supply for the project site is sourced from a combination of groundwater and purchased water.

Approximately 35 percent of the LAS District’s provided water comes from primary groundwater production and 65 percent comes from water purchases from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, sourced from underground aquifers, reservoirs, and the San Joaquin Sacramento River Delta. The Cal Water system includes 297 miles of mains, 65 booster pumps, and 46 storage tanks. The LAS District 2015 UWMP found that Cal Water has more than sufficient well capacity to meet the demands unserved by Santa Clara Valley Water District purchases through 2040.

The project site is currently developed with commercial retail/office, a single-family residence, and associated paved surface parking and landscaping. Table 9, Existing and Proposed Water Demand, shows the existing, proposed, and net increase in water uses according to CalEEMod, which bases its results on model aggregate water use defaults within the entire BAAQMD boundary.
283
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
84 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Table 9 Existing and Proposed Water Demand
Existing Water Use Proposed Water Use Net Increase in Water Demand

1.2 mgpy (3.7afy) 5.4 mgpy (16.6 afy) 4.2 mgpy (12.9 afy) SOURCE: CalEEMod 2021

1. mgpy is million gallons per year

2. afy is acre feet per year
While the project would increase water demand at the site, this increase would be an incremental increase to the overall Cal Water demand of 10,188 acre-feet per year.

Project water use would be further minimized by adherence to the 2016 CALGreen Code and Chapter 12.36 of the Municipal Code, which adopts water efficient landscape regulations. Because the proposed project would increase site water demand compared to existing conditions, and the Cal Water LAS District did not identify any substantial supply deficiencies through 2040, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to water supply. c. The City of Los Altos’ Department of Public Works is responsible for the wastewater collection system within the city. Wastewater is conveyed to the Palo Alto Regional Water Pollution Control Plant (PARWQCP) for treatment and disposal. The PARWQCP serves the wastewater management needs of the communities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University and East Palo Alto Sanitary District. The city owns and maintains the collection system within the city and its sphere of influence and the trunk sewer that connects the city to the PARWQCP master metering station.

An existing sewer main serves the project site. The PARWQCP has capacity to treat 40 million gallons per day (mgd) of dry weather flows from cities within its service area, with 3.6 mgd of dry weather flow allocated to serve the City of Los Altos’ wastewater disposal needs. In 2015, it was estimated that the City of Los Altos generated 3.47 mgd for treatment at the PARWQCP, slightly below the capacity allocated to it at the plant. Table 10, Existing and Proposed Wastewater Generation, shows the current wastewater generation, proposed generation, and net increase in wastewater generation.

The estimated wastewater generation from the project would incrementally increase wastewater generation at the site. However, the PARWQCP currently has sufficient capacity to provide wastewater treatment for the cities within its service area, and the proposed project would not inhibit the PARWQCP from meeting wastewater treatment requirements.
284
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 85
Table 10 Existing and Proposed Wastewater Generation
Existing Wastewater
Generation
Proposed Wastewater
Generation
Net Increase in Wastewater
Generation
744,005 gpy (2,038 gpd) 3,200,000 gpy (8,767 gpd) 2,500,000 gpy (6,849 pgd) SOURCE: CalEEMod 2021
NOTES: gpy: gallons per year
gpd: gallons per day
d. Solid waste collection in the City of Los Altos is provided by Mission Trail Waste Systems through a contract with the city. Mission Trail Waste Systems provides residential, commercial and industrial collection services for garbage, recycling and organics for the city. Mission Trail Waste Systems operates a transfer station at 1313 Memorex Drive in Santa Clara. The City of Los Altos is served by the Newby Island Landfill, located at 1601 Dixon Landing Road in Milpitas. Newby Island Landfill provides disposal capacity to the cities of San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. As of May 17, 2018, Newby Island Landfill had approximately 16.9 million cubic yards of capacity remaining and an estimated closure in 2039. Using the CalRecyle 2019 average disposal rate per capita of 2.9 pounds per day, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 90.2

0.005 tons of solid waste per year. The solid waste increase would be less than this when considered existing buildings on site that would be replaced by the project.

While the proposed project would increase the solid waste generated on-site, the project would be served by a landfill with adequate capacity to support growth expected in the region.
e. The project would be required to provide three streams of waste – solid waste, recyclable materials and organic materials – per the city’s Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Ordinance. The Ordinance is intended to support the city’s target of achieving a 78 percent waste diversion rate. The project would also be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 6.14 to reduce construction and demolition waste. By diverting waste per city policies, the net increase in the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project would be reduced. Overall, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in solid waste and recyclable materials generated within the City of Los Altos and would not prevent the City from meeting its solid waste reduction goals Compliance with the city’s Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Ordinance would ensure that project operation meets state and federal solid waste statutes and regulations. Additionally, the project would be required to collect, recycle and dispose of waste generated from construction and demolition activities per Municipal Code Chapter 6.14. Diversion of construction and demolition materials would further the City’s efforts to reduce waste and comply 285
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
86 EMC Planning Group Inc.
with AB 939, AB 32, AB 341 and help achieve the State 75 percent waste diversion goal by 2020 and the city’s 78 percent waste diversion goal. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with federal, state, and local solid waste statutes and regulations.
286
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 87

20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Comments:
a-d. The project site is in an urbanized area. The site is not located within an identified Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Local Responsibility (LRA). The project site is not located near wildlands that could present a fire hazard.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (17)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of
wildfire? (17)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment? (17)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. 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? (17)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
287
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
88 EMC Planning Group Inc.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Comments:
a. As discussed in the prior sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially affect biological resources or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory with implementation of the identified standard measures, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures.

As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 for impacts to nesting birds and adherence to the City of Los Altos’ Tree Preservation Ordinance measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, with implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact on archaeological, historic, and paleontological resources. Any potential significant project impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels;
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community; substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or
threatened species; or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? (1, 3, 15, 8, 29, 39)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects) (1, 3, 15, 16, 8, 29, 39)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c. Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ()
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
288
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 89
Additionally, as discussion in Section D18, Tribal Resources, with implementation of mitigation measures TR-1 and TR-2, potential, significant impacts to Tribal resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
b. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
The proposed development could result in temporary water quality, biological, greenhouse gas and noise impacts during construction. With the implementation of the identified BMPs, mitigation measures, and consistency with adopted City policies, construction impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Because the nature of the identified impacts is temporary and would be mitigated, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on water quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas and noise.

Implementation of the proposed project could result in the loss of trees on and adjacent to the site. Any trees removed would be replaced in accordance to the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance. The project would have no long-term effect on the urban forest or the availability of trees as nesting and/or foraging habitat. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable long-term impact on biological resources.

Earthmoving activities may result in the loss of unknown subsurface prehistoric and historic resources on-site. Because the project would implement mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources in the project area.

As discussed in Section 4, Air Quality, the project could result in humane exposure to MEI in exceedance of air district thresholds. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the exposure levels below the threshold and lower the infant/child cancer risks to a less-than-significant level.

The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project included an evaluation of intersection levels of service (LOS). One of the scenarios evaluated was Background Plus Project Conditions, which consisted of existing traffic plus additional traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the area, plus the 289
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
90 EMC Planning Group Inc.
additional traffic generated by the proposed project. The results of the LOS analysis indicated that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under all analysis scenarios, including Background Plus Project Conditions, which represents the cumulative scenario. Cumulative traffic impacts of the project would therefore be less than significant.

As discussed in the respective sections, the proposed project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, geology and soils, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utility and service facilities. The cumulative impacts to utilities, public services, and population and housing are accounted for in the City’s long-term infrastructure service planning. The project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on these resource areas.
c. Consistent with Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals. While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include construction air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable General Plan policies and implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. As discussed in Section 4, Air Quality, implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce potential air quality impacts to a less than significant level. No other direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings have been identified. 290
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 91
E. SOURCES

1. City of Los Altos. Los Altos General Plan 2002-2020. November 2002a.

2. City of Los Altos. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Los Altos General Plan Update. November 2002b.

3. City of Los Altos. Municipal Code.

4. City of Los Altos. Downtown Land Use and Economic Revitalization Plan. https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_develop ment/page/39021/downtown_land_use_plans_for_website_revised.pdf

5. City of Los Altos. Downtown Vision Plan. August 28, 2018. https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_develop ment/page/39021/los_altos_downtown_vision_plan_document-final-20180828.pdf

6. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2016. (2018) https://santaclaralafco.org/sites/default/files/scl16.pdf

7. United States Census Bureau. Quickfacts Los Altos California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/losaltoscitycalifornia. July 1, 2019.

8. SDG, Architects, Inc. 355 First St Formal Submittal. March 31, 2021

9. Los Altos School District. http://www.myschoollocation.com/losaltossd/ Accessed May 4, 2020.

10. California Department of Transportation California Scenic Highway Mapping System. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed May 1, 2021.

11. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002524.

May 2, 2020.

12. California Department of Conservation. EQ Zapp. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. Accessed April 20, 2021.

13. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order No. R2-2015-0049 NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008. November 19, 2015
291
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
92 EMC Planning Group Inc.

14. State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T0608502130&myta b=esidata&subcmd=edfsummarytable#esidata. Accessed April 20, 2021.

15. Google, Inc. Google Maps.

16. PropertyShark. Real Estate Search and Property Information. https://www.propertyshark.com/mason/

17. CA.gov. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414

18. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. C3 Stormwater Handbook. June 2016.
https://cleanwater.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb461/files/SCVURPPP_C.pdf.

19. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06085C0038H. May 18, 2009.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=355%20First%20St.%20Los%20 Altos%20CA#searchresultsanchor

20. Santa Clara County of Emergency Services. Annex to 2010 Association of Bay Area Government Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. December 2011. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/santaclaraco-annex-2011.pdf

21. Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. 2016

22. Valley Water. “Groundwater Supply”. https://www.valleywater.org/yourwater/where-your-water-comesfrom/groundwater/groundwater-supply.

Accessed May 1, 2021.

23. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. C3 Stormwater Handbook. Appendix E Hydromodification Management Requirements. https://scvurppp.org/pdfs/1516/c3_handbook_2016/Appendix_E.pdf

24. State of California. 2013 State Hazards Mitigation Plan. 2013. Accessed May 2, 2021 http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/plan/state_multi-hazard_mitigation_plan _shmp.

25. City of Los Altos. Police Services Division- About the Los Altos Police Department.

Accessed May 14, 2021. https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/about-los-altospolice-department. 292
Agenda Item # 4.
355 First Street Residential Project Initial Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 93

26. EMC Planning Group. Personal email communication with Guido Persicone.

May 10, 2021.

27. City of Los Altos. Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Update. February 2013.

28. City of Los Altos. 5150 El Camino Real Residential Development Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration. July 2019.
https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_develop ment/page/48259/initial_study_mitigated_negative_declaration_7.10.19_w_figures. pdf.

29. City of Los Altos. Historic Resources Inventory. October 2012.

30. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-actions-protectpublic-exposure-asbestos. Accessed May 1, 2020.

Los Altos City CouncilFebruary 8, 2022

Los Altos City Council
February 8, 2022