Agenda packet, study session — Los Altos City Council, April 26, 2022

JOINT CITY COUNCIL -

PLANNING COMMISSION

STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
4:00 PM - Tuesday, April 26, 2022
Telephone/Video Conference Only
Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the City Council will meet via Telephone/Video Conference Only.

Telephone: 1-650-242-4929Meeting ID: 147 544 8513
https://webinar.ringcentral.com/j/1475448513
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 STUDY SESSION 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. .

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

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

CONFIRM QUORUM

PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM(S)

DISCUSSION ITEM(S)

1. Housing Element Update and Policy Discussion: Allow Lisa Wise Consulting to present policy options for Council and Commission consideration and feedback related to allowing residential uses in Public and Community Facilities and Office Administrative zoning 1 4/26/2022 JOINT CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA Page 2 of 2 districts, and whether to increase density and height in Commercial Thoroughfare, and the Loyola Corners Specific Plan zoning districts (L. Simpson)

ADJOURNMENT

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. Council Meetings are televised live and rebroadcast on Cable Channel 26.

On occasion the City COuncil may consider agenda items out of order. 2 Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
____
Finance Director
____ ____

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 26, 2022
Subject: Joint Study Session with Planning Commission and City Council to allow LWC to present policy options for Council and Commission consideration and feedback related to allowing residential uses in PCF and OA zoning districts, and whether to increase density and height in CT, CRS, and the Loyola Corners Specific Plan zoning districts.

Prepared by: Laura Simpson, Interim Community Development Director Reviewed by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Initiated by:

Housing Element Subcommittee of City Council.

Fiscal Impact:

No direct fiscal impact is anticipated.

Summary:

On February 7, 2022, the Council Housing Element Subcommittee requested a staff update to the City Council on the status of community engagement and the housing element outreach process, as well as the next steps in the housing element preparation process, and a recommendation to expand the role of the Housing Element Subcommittee. The Committee also asked that five policy questions that impact the preliminary sites inventory be brought forward for Council input and direction. On March 22nd, the Housing Element Committee’s expansion was approved and five policy questions presented. Preliminary sites maps were also presented, noting that community feedback has been and continues to be received and will inform revisions to the preliminary sites maps. Following the presentation, City Councilmembers asked questions and requested additional information regarding the methodology used for identification of preliminary sites be brought back in a future study session.

Staff Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council members and Commissioners provide feedback and direction on the five policy questions noted below and then allow LWC to complete the public draft of the Housing Element over the next seven weeks. At the City Council’s March 22, 2022 meeting, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. gave a presentation that included a brief overview of the Housing Element and process, but focused primarily on approach, methodology, and assumptions for the sites 3 Agenda Item 1.

Subject: Housing Element Update and Policy Discussion
April 26, 2022 Page 2
inventory analysis. LWC then described various policy considerations for preliminary zoning modification options. The presentation has been updated for the April 26th study session. The following questions are posed in the presentation:

1. Allow higher density in the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District?

2. Allow residential on certain Public and Community Facilities (PCF)-Zoned Parcels?

3. Allow residential in the Office Administrative (OA) District?

4. Establish a minimum density and allow 3 stories (or 100% residential uses) in the Commercial Retail Sales (CRS) District?

5. Remove the density cap and allow 3 stories (or 100% residential uses) in the Loyola Corners Specific Plan?
Each of these policies, if approved, would allow a certain increase in the number of units that might be counted toward the City’s RHNA goals, allowing for some number of units beyond the 1,958 units in the allocation. Housing units that receive Certificates of Occupancy beginning July 1, 2022, may be counted toward the 2023-2031 Housing Element Cycle.

Discussion:

In June 2021, The City selected Lisa Wise Consulting (LWC) as the consulting firm to prepare the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element. LWC began working with staff to collect housing data in late summer and fall. In October 2021, the City Council Housing Element Committee was formed and the subcommittee provided direction to staff on a community engagement approach. On March 22nd, the role of the Committee was expanded to provide general feedback in the Housing Element update process. Over the past six months, staff has been working closely with the team at LWC and their outreach subconsultant, Plan to Place, to ensure that Los Altos residents, the local business community and its workforce, community and faith-based nonprofits, and other communities of interest, are engaged and informed about the Housing Element update. Translation services and materials have been made available in Mandarin and Spanish.

Outreach
Staff began the outreach process with a multi-faceted approach last November through 1) the establishment of a Housing Element page on the City’s website, which is maintained by LWC and city staff, and is linked to the City’s main webpage, through which the city has received input directly from residents and businesses; 2) six Housing Element pop-up tables at various events around the city; 3) ongoing small group virtual meetings on the Housing Element, ranging from 2 to 10 attendees of which 30 have been held to date, where staff present information and answer questions; 4) two double page ads in the Town Crier; 5) ongoing Housing Element newsletters and alerts for over 150 persons who have signed up on the interest list; 6) two Community Workshops, 4 Agenda Item 1.

Subject: Housing Element Update and Policy Discussion
April 26, 2022 Page 3
with the first attended by over fifty households, and the second on March 1st, attended by over 150 households; and 7) an information flier sent to every household in Los Altos.

The process has now moved from the first phase of education and outreach about the Housing Element to the second phase, which provides information and allows feedback on the potential housing element sites and potential rezoning sites in the City. Staff sent a postcard to all Los Altos residents, informing them of the community workshop on March 1st, requesting feedback on the potential sites and rezoning opportunities, and directing them to the Housing Element website for complete information. A map of potential sites and rezoning opportunities was posted on the Housing Element website prior to the March 1st, community workshop.

Since then, staff has met with the business community, residents, and many local organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, Los Altos Village Association, Los Altos Property Owners Downtown, the Los Altos Advocates for Affordable Housing, and the League of Women Voters, Los Altos Residents, Friends of Los Altos, nonprofit housing developers, community-based and faith-based nonprofits, veterans groups businesses and their workforce. Staff has received and shared with the consultant many e-mails related to the sites analysis from all groups, developers, residents, and interested parties. Staff and the consultant also met with the Housing Element Committee of Council on April 13th, to review background information for the sites.

At the March 22nd, City Council meeting, LWC presented the preliminary sites analysis with the specific policy questions mentioned above, and the following public comments were received:
 If density isn’t modified in the R-1 districts, changes will have to made in other zoning districts.
 Being identified as a preliminary site does not mean that an existing building on the property will be torn down or that the existing use will be removed.  Requests for additional information and a detailed list of preliminary sites.  Concern that Rancho Shopping Center, Lucky’s, State Street Market, City parking spaces, Packard Foundation garden, and St. Nicholas’s parking lot are not going to redevelop as housing.
 The OA District has narrow lots and shouldn’t be rezoned to allow residential.  Concern about allowing residential in the OA District and insufficient parking.  The outreach strategy should include banners, sandwich boards, etc. 5 Agenda Item 1.

Subject: Housing Element Update and Policy Discussion
April 26, 2022 Page 4
 Support for the need to upzone. The Housing Element should be a plan to build more housing, not just a plan to please HCD. We’re not telling businesses to go away; office and retail can coexist with housing.
 Some zoning modifications should be implemented. This could be through wholesale changes to zoning or overlays to promote redevelopment of certain properties.  Concern about limited access and safety/evacuation issues regarding the 2100 Woods Lane site.

Housing Element Next Steps
As displayed in presentations to City Council, and on the City Housing Element website, which is directly accessible through the main City webpage, the next steps for the Housing Element process include the following upcoming key dates including today’s study session:

April 26, 2022: Present to City Council/Planning Commission on potential housing sites and rezoning opportunities, with a request for Council/Commission direction to staff on five policies for adding or removing sites.

Mid-May 2022: A full draft with Council and PC feedback incorporated will be provided to Los Altos staff for internal review.

Mid-June 2022: The draft Public Housing Element will be released and posted for 30-day public comment period.

Late June 2022: Community Workshop #3 to explain the Public Draft Housing Element July 7, 2022: Planning Commission study session on Public Draft Housing Element July 12, 2022: City Council study session on Public Draft Housing Element LWC contract
The City contracted with LWC for the total amount of $600,228 for Housing Element preparation.

Approximately a third of the contract amount has been invoiced. Staff has taken on a significant amount of the outreach and staffing work in order to reduce overall costs on the project. It is anticipated that the project can remain on budget and on-time to deliver an adopted Housing Element by Spring 2022, within the State’s allowed grace period, provided no additional meetings are requested. If additional meetings are required, additional funds will need to be allocated from the General Fund and the contract amended. The Housing Element is a project within the FY 2021-2022 CIP budget.
6 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|1
City of Los
Altos
Housing Element Update
City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study
Session
April 26, 2022
7 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|2
Presentation Outline

1. Sites Inventory Analysis Overview

2. Policy Questions

3. Process & Next Steps
8 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|3
Sites Inventory Analysis Overview
9 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|4
What is the Housing Element Sites Inventory?
• Identifies capacity to accommodate regional
housing needs allocation (RHNA)
• Property owners are not required to build the
projected number or affordability of units
identified
• The City will encourage and facilitate the
production of housing at all income levels
through Housing Element programs
For more information see losaltoshousing.org
10 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|5
Preliminary Sites Inventory Analysis
Estimated Preliminary Residential Development Capacity
Income Level Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
RHNA 789 326 843
ADUs 113 161 48
Pipeline Projects 129 38 420
Subtotal ADUs and Pipeline Projects 242 199 468
Estimated Preliminary Sites Capacity
(existing zoning for residential) 415 335 142
Total Estimated Existing Capacity 657 534 610
Estimated RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) (132) 208 (233)
Preliminary estimates are subject to change. Analysis is ongoing and public comments are being integrated. See Council 3/22/22 presentation and losaltoshousing.org for more information. • Accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
• Projects approved, in process
(pipeline)
• Vacant and non-vacant sites
For more information see losaltoshousing.org
11 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|6
RHNA Shortfall Rezone Program
• Rezone program must address RHNA capacity shortfall – allow residential where not allowed or increase density in zones where residential is allowed • Rezone Program for Lower Income Capacity
• Allow multi-family by right if 20% of units affordable to lower income • At least 16 units allowed on each site
• Allow 100% residential in mixed use zones
* Sites identified as lower income that were included in the 2015-2023 Housing Element must allow development by right if 20% of units are affordable to lower income 12 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|7
Rezone Program vs. Constraints Analysis
• Rezone program addresses RHNA capacity shortfall
• Rezone program completion in 3 years (1 year if
Housing Element deadline missed)
• Housing constraints analysis results in programs to
remove constraints to housing production
13 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|8
Policy Questions
14 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|9
Rezone Program Options

1. Allow higher density in the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District?

2. Allow residential on certain Public and Community Facilities (PCF)-Zoned parcels?

3. Allow residential in the Office Administrative (OA) District?

4. Remove the density cap in the Loyola Corners Specific Plan?

5. Other?
* Changes to zoning standards to remove constraints to housing production are also anticipated, but these may not result in additional RHNA capacity

POLICY QUESTIONS
15 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|10
Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) Zone

1. ALLOW HIGHER DENSITY IN THE COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE
(CT) DISTRICT? Estimated RHNA
Unit Capacity
(net):
50-130 units
Estimates are subject to change.
16 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|11
Public & Community Facilities (PCF) Zone

2. ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ON CERTAIN PCF-ZONED PARCELS?
Estimated RHNA
Unit Capacity:
10-260 units
Estimates are subject to change.
17 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|12
Office Administrative (OA) Zone

3. ALLOW RESIDENTIAL IN THE OA DISTRICT?
Estimated RHNA
Unit Capacity:
150-250 units
Estimates are subject to change.
18 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|13
Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP)

4. REMOVE THE DENSITY CAP IN THE LOYOLA CORNERS SPECIFIC PLAN?
Estimated RHNA
Unit Capacity
(net):
35-95 units
Estimates are subject to change.
19 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|14
Other Options

5. OTHER?

A) ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ON OTHER PROPERTIES/AREAS WHERE
NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED?

B) INCREASE DENSITY IN OTHER ZONES WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWED?
20 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|15
Rezone Program Options Summary
Rezone Program Options Total Estimated
RHNA Unit Capacity (net):
245-735 units
Rezone Program Options
Policy Question Estimated RHNA Unit Capacity (net)

1. Allow higher density in CT District? 50-130

2. Allow residential on certain PCF-zoned
parcels? 10-260

3. Allow residential in the OA District? 150-250

4. Remove density cap in Loyola Corners
Specific Plan? 35-95

5. Other? TBD
Total Estimated Net New RHNA Capacity 245-735
Estimates are subject to change.
21 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|16
Process & Next Steps
22 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|17
Housing Element Update Process

WE ARE HERE
23 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|18
Next Steps

1. Based on tonight’s direction, finish drafting the
Housing Element for internal City staff review

2. Release Public Draft Housing Element

3. Public meetings to discuss Public Draft Housing
Element

4. Revise and submit Housing Element for HCD review
Deadline: January 31, 2023 (grace period ends May 30,
2023)
24 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos Housing Element Update|19
Stay Informed and Involved
Losaltoshousing.org
Sign up for project emails!
[email protected]
25 Agenda Item 1.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
26 Agenda Item 1.

From: Yvonne Dupont
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Housing Element Sites to be reconsidered
Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 11:36:12 AM
Importance: High
From: Freddie Park
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>; Laura Simpson <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Los Altos Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Freddie Wheeler
Subject: Housing Element Sites to be reconsidered
Dear Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows, Councilmembers Lee Eng, Fligor, and Weinberg, and Planning Commissioners,
We have been asked to provide input on areas/properties that are currently listed on the Housing Element Inventory. I want to bring your attention to the parking area behind the shops behind the shops in the 100 block of Main Street that runs parallel to San Antonio Road. This area is too small to accommodate the development of housing units. There is room to park a car diagonally and a very narrow path to drive down to reach those diagonal parking spaces. In the portion of the block behind The Italian Deli and Spot Pizza, if housing were built there would be no room for the dumpsters or for Mission Trail to access the dumpsters.

I have attached photos so that you can see the lack of space for housing in this area. For these reasons, I believe it would be appropriate to remove this parking area from inclusion in the Housing Element.

Thank you for your consideration,
Freddie Park Wheeler
Resident of Los Altos
27 Agenda Item 1.
28 Agenda Item 1.
29 Agenda Item 1.
30 Agenda Item 1.
31 Agenda Item 1.

From: Yvonne Dupont
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: April 26 Housing Element meeting
Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 11:35:19 AM
Attachments: 2-28-22 portola valley presentation Visualizing Density.pdf Importance: High
From: Pat Marriot
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Los Altos Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: April 26 Housing Element meeting
Commissioners,
If you’re like me, you may have difficulty visualizing densities or heights of proposed new housing developments. Lisa Wise Consulting has not helped us in this regard, in spite of repeated requests from residents.

I received the attached from a friend in Portola Valley, which I find helpful when trying to envision future possibilities. I hope it will be beneficial as you consider RHNA requirements.

Pat Marriott
32 Agenda Item 1.

Housing Sites Inventory
Part III: Visualizing
Density
February 28, 2022
Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
Town of Portola Valley 33
Agenda Item 1.

Visualizing Density- Generally
Missing Middle Housing Defined
Images of Missing Middle Housing - Various Densities
Town of Portola Valley
Key Topics
34 Agenda Item 1.

Visualizing Density
35 Agenda Item 1.

Missing Middle Defined
• A term used to describe multiple units on a
single parcel (whether attached or
detached) that are designed to be
compatible with single family homes
• Common housing types include duplexes;
triplexes; fourplexes; courtyard
apartments; cottage courts; townhomes;
triplex stacked (vertical); and live-work
spaces
Town of Portola Valley 36
Agenda Item 1.

Range of Missing Middle Types
• There are eight Middle Housing types with
variations of each of these types
– Each type has the massing of either a small,
medium or large house
– Upper Middle Housing types (three stories tall)
include massing standards to visually break down
their size and relate them to neighboring two- story houses – The large Middle Housing types (Multiplex Large
and Courtyard Building) include massing
standards to make sure that each building looks
like a large single-unit house.

Town of Portola Valley 37
Agenda Item 1.

Range of Missing Middle Types
Town of Portola Valley 38
Agenda Item 1.

Range of Missing Middle Types
39 Agenda Item 1.

Range of Missing Middle Types
40 Agenda Item 1.

Example – About 19 DU/Ac
Town of Portola Valley 41
Agenda Item 1.

Example – About 25 DU/Ac
Town of Portola Valley 42
Agenda Item 1.
43 Agenda Item 1.

Example – 16-18 DU/Ac
Town of Portola Valley 44
Agenda Item 1.

Using Attic Stories
Town of Portola Valley
2 stories with a 3rd story within the roof
volume/attic space
An attic story is entirely within
the volume of the roof and
adds habitable space to the
building without adding the
appearance of another story
45 Agenda Item 1.

END
Town of Portola Valley 46
Agenda Item 1.

April 25, 2022
Dear Mayor Enander, Chair Doran, City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners, The Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance appreciates the hard work of our City Manager, Planning Director and staff, as well as our consultants, in getting ready to prepare the City’s Draft Housing Element. We are pleased to see, in this presentation, the projected numbers for production of ADUs, homes in the pipeline, and other homes to be built on our existing zoned capacity.

The table on slide 5 of the consultant presentation shows that ADUs plus the homes in the pipeline will generate almost half our RHNA. Those look like solid numbers. We are well on our way to achieving our RHNA.

We support all of the recommended zoning changes:
● Removing the 38 du/acre for CT
● Allowing residential on the Los Altos Methodist Church and Los Altos Christian School site, as well as the city-owned site at Fremont and Grant ● Allowing residential in the OA zone
● Removing the 20 additional unit density cap in the Loyola Corners Specific Plan These zoning modifications are a firm foundation, but will not, by themselves, be enough to achieve our RHNA, let alone supply a buffer. Our analysis, based on recent HCD reviews of other Housing Elements, indicates that even with the recommended zoning changes, our existing zoning would not result in the 892 (415 + 335 + 142) units shown in the table on Slide 5, let alone the additional capacity we need to show for our Housing Element.

We had hoped the consultants would have released a detailed site inventory, including the predicted number of homes from each site. That would have let us make a site by site comparison of the consultant's analysis with ours to nail down the differences. But even without that information, it is evident that a number of the sites in the preliminary site map will require additional action from the city to become realistic candidates for development, and some will need to be removed.

We detailed some of the issues with the preliminary sites in our letter of 1 April 2022 (attached).

In addition to the density cap in the Loyola Corners Specific Plan, the following issues must be addressed to enable the sites in the preliminary site maps to be developed:
47 Agenda Item 1.

Parking: The parking plazas cannot be used for housing unless there is a plan to deal with the parking spaces that are removed. The sites on State and Main will not be developed for housing unless the city allows developers a different way to supply parking than building it on the site.

Floor Area Ratio: The Lucky Grocery area, Rancho Shopping Center and everything in the OA zone have a .35 floor area ratio requirement that would make these sites difficult and unattractive for development of multifamily housing. In order for housing development to occur there, that FAR must be removed.

Murky zoning at the Village Court: The city must clarify what is permitted at the Village Court, on San Antonio and El Camino. We have been unable to learn exactly what is allowed there: there is some sort of PUD, but what it allows and what it disallows is not clear. The exact regulations for that site should be published online, for clarity for the owner and interested residents.

While we support the zoning modifications for the PCF zones (the two churches, plus the site at Fremont and Grant), in the absence of a commitment from the churches for the church sites, or from the city for the city-owned sites, no housing will be developed on those sites in the 6th RHNA cycle. For that reason, those sites should not be included in the Site Inventory without such commitments.

In addition to allowing residential development in the OA zone, and making the zoning modifications listed above, the City will have to allow extra height or density in some zone or zones, in order to show enough capacity to meet our RHNA. This is a complicated puzzle that we need to solve, and we are disappointed that thus far, the consultants have not shown specific numbers for specific sites, so that we can work together to solve it.

Respectfully,
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance Steering Committee Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
Committed to educating and inspiring the Los Altos community to build housing that is affordable for those who live and work in Los Altos
https://losaltosaffordablehousing.org/
48 Agenda Item 1.

Attachment 1
Analysis of Sites, originally sent 1 April 2022
Issues with Certain Sites on the Preliminary Site Inventory The following tables list sites on the Preliminary Site Inventory presented at the Los Altos Housing Element Community Workshop on March 1, 2022. Some of these sites should be removed from the site inventory, while others will require zoning modification or some other city commitment in the Housing Element if they are to stay. In order to know how much rezoning we need, we first must understand how much capacity we presently have.

SItes in CN Zoning with a .35 FAR
The sites in the Lucky Supermarket area, as well as the Rancho Shopping Center, are zoned in the CN zone, with a .35 floor area ratio required, with the first story commercial. The big sites in these two areas are designated for low income housing. In order to list a site for low income housing, it must support 30 dwelling units per acre in base zoning. The restrictive floor area ratio on these sites would prevent that density.

Sites with .35 FAR
Address APN Zoned Acres Current use Income Level
600 Foothill Expwy 18956014 CN 6.13 Rancho Shopping Center L 2057 Grant Rd 31816020 CN 0.67 L
2073 Grant Rd 31816015 CN 0.32 M
2111 Grant Rd 31816019 CN 0.85 Lucky grocery L
2185 Grant Rd 31816022 CN 3.38 Lucky grocery L
2235 Grant Rd 31816011 CN 0.30 M
2249 Grant Rd 31816009 CN 0.30 M
2251 Grant Rd 31816008 CN 0.44 M
Total 12.39
Sites Downtown in CD and CRS zones
In downtown Los Altos, we have the zone CD/R3, along First Street and north of the parking plazas, that allows three story all-residential buildings in base zoning; it’s shown in pink in the map below. We have two other zones, CRS (lavender) and CD (brick red), which allow only two stories in base zoning, require the first story to be commercial with a 12 foot ceiling, and have 49 Agenda Item 1.
certain requirements and issues that make providing parking a difficult problem. The poorly drawn black stars in the map below show residential projects recently proposed or under development downtown. Recently we’ve seen a lot of development downtown, all in CD/R3. No developer is building residential in core downtown zones of CRS and CD.

There was one residential project proposed in 2019 in CRS, at 343 Main St, shown below with an orange star. The project was to have a carport in the back, facing the parking plazas. The front door to the second-story apartment, the only entrance, was to be on the back wall of the carport. The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the parking arrangement, illustrating some of the parking issues faced in that zone. The project doesn’t seem to be moving forward.

The next map shows the downtown sites in the preliminary site inventory (shown with green dots). There are a lot of sites in CD and CRS, although developers have not been willing to build there.
50 Agenda Item 1.

If these sites are to be included in the site inventory, the constraints that prevent housing from being built must be removed. Constraints that might be preventing housing include ● Two story height limit
● Location and small lot size making parking difficult to provide ● Requirement that first floor be commercial
The City needs to consult with developers to figure out which of these constraints are preventing housing.

Downtown sites with CRS or CD zoning
Address APN Zoned Acres Current use Income Level
270 Second Street 16740073 CD 0.16 A
Second Street 16740042 CD 0.16 parking, not city owned A 330 Second St 16741046 CD 0.32 A
394 Second St 16741054 CD 0.16 parking, not city-owned A 301 Second St 16740056 CD 0.81 half parking A
285 State St 16739064 CRS 0.10 Manresa Bread M
51 Agenda Item 1.
355 State St 16739060 CRS 0.04 Tanoshi Sushi M
Fourth St at 100 State St 16738051 CRS 0.10
part of buildings,
city-owned M
242 State St 16739011 CRS 0.06 ASA restaurant M
244 State St 16739012 CRS 0.05 Charley Noodles M
252 State St 16739097 CRS 0.11 former Thai Silk M
160 Main St 16738021 CRS 0.09 M
164 Main St 16738022 CRS 0.11 M
168 Main St 16738024 CRS 0.05 M
170 Main St 16738025 CRS 0.08 M
248 Main St 16739074 CRS 0.05 Taekwondo M
252 Main St 16739075 CRS 0.05 M
262 Main St 16739076 CRS 0.11 M
290 Main St 16739105 CRS 0.05 Sethi M
334 Main St 16739084 CRS 0.05 Gourmet Works M
346 Main St 16739085 CRS 0.05 IKB Design M
380 Main St 16739089 CRS 0.05 M
398 Main St 16739091 CRS 0.05 iChakras M
133 Main St 16738013 CRS 0.09 Spot A Pizza Place M
141 Main St 16738012 CRS 0.10 House of Daniel M
147 Main St 16738011 CRS 0.12 Rutt Kitchens M
151 Main St 16738010 CRS 0.14 Paperwhirl M
169 Main St 16738009 CRS 0.27 M
179 Main St 16738052 CRS 0.09 M
189 Main St 16738053 CRS 0.05 M
351 Main St 16740004 CRS 0.05 M
357 Main St 16740003 CRS 0.11 M
60 Main St 16738057
CRS/O
AD 0.05 A
Total 3.93
Parking Plazas
Ten city-owned parking plaza parcels, encompassing over nine acres, are listed on the preliminary site inventory. For the plaza or plazas that we choose to develop as housing, we’ll 52 Agenda Item 1.
have to figure out how to replace the parking we’d lose, and put a schedule for issuing the RFP to developers into the Housing Element. The plazas that we don’t want to develop have to be removed from the site inventory.

City-owned parking plazas
Address APN Zoned Acres Current use Income Level
First St 16740039 CD 1.07 City-owned parking plaza A
Second Street 16740072 CD 1.07 City-owned parking plaza A Third St 16738002 CD 2.17 City-owned parking plaza A
First St 16739032 CRS 1.07 City-owned parking plaza M
First St 16739057 CRS 0.56 City-owned parking plaza M
Second Street 16739007 CRS 1.20 City-owned parking plaza M Second Street 16739069 CRS 0.63 City-owned parking plaza M Fourth St 16738049 CRS 0.16 City-owned parking plaza M
State St 16738028 CRS 0.62 City-owned parking plaza M
Fourth St 16738029
CRS/O
AD 0.58 City-owned parking plaza M
Total 9.13
The Village Court
Here’s a site that’s making its third appearance in the site inventory. It looks like a good spot for redevelopment, paired with the other half of the site not listed in the site inventory. But there is a confusing PUD somehow attached to this site. The zoning situation needs to be clarified.

The Village Court Shopping Center
Address APN Zoned Acres Current use Income Level
4546 X EL CAMINO
REAL 16712047 CT 1.76
Village Court Shopping
Center L
The Clock Tower at Loyola Corners
This big, odd-shaped site has Permanente Creek running through its north and east sides. It is designated for low income housing, which means that it must allow 30 dwelling units per acre in base zoning, before any density bonus. Loyola Corners has a two story hard cap on development, and commercial is required on the first floor. In order to list this site as a low income site, Los Altos would be committing to approving a building there with 48 apartments on the second floor. Moreover, the residential cap currently in effect would bar any such project. 53 Agenda Item 1.

The Clock Tower at Loyola Corners
Address APN Zoned Acres Current use Income Level
1000 Fremont 31801036 CN 1.60 Clock professional offices L Privately owned parking
Several privately owned parking lots are listed in the preliminary site inventory. As far as we know, the parking behind State Street Market and the parking behind State of Mind pizza are required parking areas for those businesses. The city would need to commit to some other sort of parking management, and lift the parking requirement for those businesses, in order for the two parking lots to be available for housing.

St. Nicholas Catholic Church should be asked if it plans to give up its parking for housing.

The parking lot on El Camino has a couple of issues. First, it’s the parking lot for five or six adjacent parcels, including Amber India; in order for it to be developed, the owners of the other properties would have to agree to modify the parking agreement they have established.

Secondly, it’s 250 feet deep, only extending halfway from the R1 neighborhood behind it to El Camino, and CT zoning requires a 100 foot buffer from R1; a lot of the property would be taken up by the buffer.

Privately owned parking
Address APN Zoned Acres Current use Income Level
Third St 16738038 CRS 0.32 parking behind State St Market M Fourth St 16738050 CRS 0.16
parking lot behind State St.

Market M
El Camino 17003084 CT 0.54 shared parking lot L
Orange Ave 17516020 PCF 0.22
parking lot for St. Nicholas
Church A
Total 1.24
People’s yards and garages
The algorithm used by the consultants picked up some residents’ yards and garages. These do not seem to be good sites for housing.

People's yards and garages
Address APN Zoned Acres Current use Income
54 Agenda Item 1.

Level
379 HAWTHORNE
AVE 17028058 R1-10 0.50 yard of neighboring parcel A
608 UNIVERSITY TRL 17514021 R1-10 0.87 yard of neighboring parcel A 625 PALM AVE 17516088 R1-10 0.18
same owner owns both 625 lots and
615 lot A
Nash Rd 33602008 R1-10 0.49 yard of neighboring parcel A 718 RONALD CT 18919003 R1-10 0.28 garage of adjoining parcel A 775 EDGE LN 18918102 R1-10 0.23 yard of neighboring parcel A 1491 MIRAMONTE
AVE 19341039 R1-10 0.45 garage/back yard of front parcel A

SIERRA VENTURA
DR 34224058 R1-10 0.22 half a house A
1276 MONTCLAIRE
WAY 34209045 R1-10 0.35 someone's back yard A
2050 LONGDEN CL 34210088 R1-10 0.30 someone's side yard A Sites that will not be built
The algorithm picked up a few sites that should be removed, as housing is unlikely to be developed: the Packard Foundation gardens and a corner of the Packard foundation building, as well as the American Legion Post, recently landmarked by the City.

Sites that must be removed
APN Zoned Acres Current use Income Level
16740067 CD 0.32 belongs to Packard Foundation M
16740083 CD 0.12 garden of Packard Foundation M
16740084 CD 0.13 garden of Packard Foundation M
16740048 CD/R3 0.16 American Legion M
Total 0.73
55 Agenda Item 1.

Total sites, with and without identified issues
sites acres
Sites on preliminary site inventory 121 57.42
With issues 72 35.7
Without issues 49 21.72
Need zoning modification to be
feasible (Clock Tower, Rancho,
Lucky, CD, CRS) 42 17.92
City-owned parking plazas 10 9.13
56 Agenda Item 1.

From: Yvonne Dupont
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: LWVLAMV 4/24/22 Letter to Los Altos Council and Planning Commission re Housing Element Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 11:33:37 AM
Attachments: 0424Letter to Los Altos Council and Planning Commission re Housing Element.pdf Importance: High
From: Yvonne Dupont <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Los Altos Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: FW: LWVLAMV 4/24/22 Letter to Los Altos Council and Planning Commission re Housing Element
Importance: High
From: Laura Simpson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Yvonne Dupont <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: LWVLAMV 4/24/22 Letter to Los Altos Council and Planning Commission re Housing Element
Can you forward
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Susan Russell
Date: April 25, 2022 at 10:42:43 AM PDT
To: Laura Simpson <[email protected]>, Jon Maginot <[email protected]>, Andrea Chelemengos <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: LWVLAMV 4/24/22 Letter to Los Altos Council and Planning Commission re Housing Element
Will you be sure the PC members get this email? thanks. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Karin. Bricker
Date: Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 5:58 PM
Subject: LWVLAMV 4/24/22 Letter to Los Altos Council and Planning Commission re Housing Element
To: Los Altos City Council <[email protected]>, Anita Enander <[email protected]>, Sally Meadows <[email protected]>, Neysa Fligor 57 Agenda Item 1.
<[email protected]>, Lynette Lee Eng <[email protected]>, Jonathan D.

Weinberg <[email protected]>
Cc: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>, Laura Simpson <[email protected]>, Jon Maginot <[email protected]>, Andrea Chelemengos <[email protected]>
58 Agenda Item 1.

April 24, 2022
Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council and Planning Commission City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Joint Meeting of Council and Planning Commission April 26 – Study Session re Housing Element Dear Mayor Enander, Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission:

As we have written earlier, the LWV supports an overall state plan for housing that includes Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and certified Housing Elements. We have several comments on the policy issues to be discussed Tuesday afternoon, most of which we have submitted before to Staff, LWC, as well as Councilmembers and Planning Commission members.

First, it is difficult to recommend specific rezonings without seeing a more accurate site inventory. We believe the pipeline units and ADUs are realistic. But it is difficult to imagine that we will produce 415 lower-income units on the sites shown on the site inventory unless Los Altos quickly establishes an affordable housing fund to aid nonprofit housing developers in financing such developments.

We recommend upzoning the CT zone, but it is unclear how many more units will be built if the CT zone allows higher density, particularly since one of the major sites, Village Court, has an underlying PUD which has not been addressed, and, in addition, part of this site needs to be rezoned to CT.

We agree with looking at building on the PCF zones, but unless the churches mentioned are interested in housing development, we are skeptical about how many units can be produced on these sites. If these owners do not want to build housing, these sites should be removed from the list. Similarly, if the Council is not committed to developing any downtown parking plazas as housing, these should be removed from the list.

We also agree with the changes proposed for the OA zones but believe the .35 FAR on these districts must be removed.

We support the changes proposed for Loyola Corners.

We suggest removing the .35 FAR from the CN zones, also.

We believe that unless the parking issue is addressed downtown, parking will remain a constraint to housing development in the downtown including building on any downtown parking plazas.

The shortfall shown by LWC is 364. If all the zoning recommendations made by LWC are made, at the low end of the range this estimates only 245 more units, fewer than the shortfall and nowhere near the number required if the City is to have a reasonable buffer above the 1958 RHNA numbers. And if the church sites and parking plazas are 59 Agenda Item 1.
removed from the list, we have a very serious shortfall. Therefore, we recommend additional zoning changes along with careful attention to removal of constraints to development.

Finally, LWC mentions that sites identified as low-income sites in the last Housing Element can be built on by right so long as 20% of the units are affordable, but if there are any such sites they are not specified. (Please send any questions about this email to Sue Russell a Karin Bricker, President LWV of Los Altos Mountain View cc: Gabriel Engeland Laura Simpson Jon Maginot. Andrea Chelemengos 60 Agenda Item 1.

April 22,2022 Study Session Housing Element
Dear Council members
Please do not rezone the OA district to allow housing. It abuts all single-family homes. The lots are narrow. It is clear that if rezoned that apartment buildings will be built on these locations. There will be no buffer between 50–55-foot buildings and single-family homes. This is not smart zoning. The area is already overcrowded with all the buildings gong in on First Street and the planned new project at the Pancake House. You need to keep the increased density on the downtown side of San Antonio Rd.

Bringing extra traffic and reduced parking to this area is very undesirable to the residents living on these streets. There is already overflow parking from Downtown on these residential streets. It will only get worse since you removed 91 parking spots for restaurants and under parked the projects on First Street It will not be safe to cross the street to Downtown will all the traffic coming from 280 and Foothill Expressway. San Antonio Rd is an emergency road for evacuations, fire trucks and other emergency vehicles.

If you allowed only town houses in the OA district, it would be sensible zoning and keep the residential feel and character or the area in accordance with the General Plan. You do have the flexibility to make this decision as you are adding a substantial buffer to the RHNA numbers to submit to HCD.

Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
61 Agenda Item 1.

From: Gee Who
To: Public Comment; Jon Baer; Lynette Lee Eng; Neysa Fligor; Jonathan Weinberg; Anita Enander; Sally Meadows Subject: Fw: April 26 City Council/ Planning Commission study session on rezoning- comments Date: Saturday, April 23, 2022 7:11:19 PM
Hi,
I agree with Jon and have submitted comments via the website before. His comments below described the situation well.
"the residential streets-Hillview, Hawthorne, Pepper and Lyell are narrow, with little or no place for resulting overflow parking from buildings along San Antonio. These streets serve as prime walking and bicycling paths to the downtown, which reduces the City’s carbon footprint. Additional cars parked along those streets will create a hazardous situation for pedestrians and bicyclists. " I walk these streets to go to downtown. Many kids ride their bicycles.

The east side of San Antonio road is NOT downtown.

Lydia (resident In the Hawthorne, Pepper, Hillview, Lyell neighborhood).

On Saturday, April 23, 2022, 02:40:45 PM PDT, Jon Baer wrote:

I am sending this email with regard OA zoning that will be discussed at the April 26 Los Altos City Council meeting held at 4 pm as the comments I previously made during a public hearing were not correctly captured in written form by the outside consultants.

My objection, as well of those of many of my neighbors, to rezoning the OA district as it relates to San Antonio Road goes beyond the fact the lots are narrow, which they are, which limits possible setbacks to reduce light, privacy, and noise impacts. Typical lots on that portion of San Antonio Road are 140-175 feet deep versus the parcels along El Camino which are typically 250-300 feet deep. More importantly, the San Antonio parcels directly abut residential R-1 housing. It is this intersection of possible mixeduse commercial/intense residential meeting R-1 residential use that requires great attention, so that the quality of life of all the residents can be adequately protected.

The east side of San Antonio Road is not the downtown. It is intended to be a lower height, with less intense usage as a transition to the residential neighborhoods. This is key to the kind of orderly development that our town's zoning code is designed to promote. Furthermore, if more intensive development is allowed, the residential streets-Hillview, Hawthorne, Pepper and Lyell are narrow, with little or no place for resulting overflow parking from buildings along San Antonio. These streets serve as prime walking and bicycling paths to the downtown, which reduces the City’s carbon footprint. Additional cars parked along those streets will create a hazardous situation for pedestrians and bicyclists.

If the City insists on rezoning along San Antonio, I suggest a maximum height limit of 30 feet along the east side of San Antonio Road (with NO exceptions for all BMR housing, no development waivers or bonuses which would add to height or reduce setbacks which abut single family residential housing), with fully parked NEW residential/commercial construction. If necessary, additional parking structures should be built, at City or developer expense on the parking plazas.

Thank you-Jon Baer
62 Agenda Item 1.

From: Jon Baer
To: Public Comment
Cc: Anita Enander; Jonathan Weinberg; Sally Meadows; Lynette Lee Eng; Neysa Fligor Subject: April 26 City Council/ Planning Commission study session on rezoning- comments Date: Saturday, April 23, 2022 2:41:32 PM
I am sending this email with regard OA zoning that will be discussed at the April 26 Los Altos City Council meeting held at 4 pm as the comments I previously made during a public hearing were not correctly captured in written form by the outside consultants.

More importantly, the San Antonio parcels directly abut residential R-1 housing. It is this intersection of possible mixed-use commercial/intense residential meeting R-1 residential use that requires great attention, so that the quality of life of all the residents can be adequately protected.

Thank you-Jon Baer
63 Agenda Item 1.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
64 Agenda Item 1.

From: Nancy Hill
To: Public Comment
Subject: Loyola Corners
Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 3:40:01 PM
We are totally against this insane idea! The traffic is bad enough as it is right there already, that small area could not handle that traffic!
65 Agenda Item 1.

From: Margaret Goossens
To: Public Comment; Los Altos Planning Commission; City Council; Margaret Goossens Subject: Public Comment #1
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:30:32 PM
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, • Please do not change the Loyola Corners Specific Plan, at this time.

Please do not increase the height limit allowed at Loyola Corners, which I believe currently is 31 feet .
• In addition, when considering what changes (if any) to make in the OA district on San Antonio Road, please carefully consider the needs of the residents who live on adjacent streets behind this district to the East of San Antonio Roa I’ve lived at 1278 Miramonte for 30 years. I’ve seen the traffic increase to where during commute times, cars are backed up 1-2 blocks. If you are not providing 2 parking spots per uniting built, then you should not be building here.

If the building height cap is increased, builders will have more independent say on limits, and not have to adhere to the Loyola CornersSpecific Plan.

The builders should not have more say than the Residents; this should be a discussion, and not new surprises popping up at each meeting. We are the Taxpayers.

I am concerned about the bike-riding students, who already have difficulty maneuvering the maze.

Thank you,
Margaret Goossens
66 Agenda Item 1.

From: Yvonne Dupont
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Public Comment Item No. 1 April 26
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:56:21 PM
Importance: High
From: Jerry Clements
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:04 PM
To: Los Altos Planning Commission <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment Item No. 1 April 26
The "Planners" and legislators in Sacramento are presiding over the demise of California. Please preserve the integrity of our City, including the charm of Loyola Corners. Resist and defy until we can pass the stalled initiative which requires Sacramento to stand down. Someone up there years ago said, "we are in an era of limits". Water, water everywhere?? Local decisions are better than those of our Commissars.

Jerry Clements
67 Agenda Item 1.

From:

To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: 4/26 Study Session Housing Element Update and Policy Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 2:49:23 PM
Hello all
I would like to encourage all of you to consider an important piece of the puzzle as we have housing discussions. As leaders, you need to also factor in the extra city infrastructure, staffing and office space to accommodate future needs due to the expanded population that will be coming into Los Altos. We should be thinking about how we will build out city expansion in the way of office space, material storage and other needs. We need to be planning for where this expansion will occur before we start maxing out all the available space with apartments and dwelling units. Thank you Nancy Phillips
Los Altos
68 Agenda Item 1.

From: MJ Lopatin
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item #1 - 4/26/22 Study Session Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 1:33:40 PM
Dear Council Members and Commissioners,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed changes to the Loyola Corners Specific Plan zoning requirements, as well as the possible change of zoning for the PCF land at Grant and Fremont.

The Loyola Corners Specific Plan was already amended by the Council in 2017 to increase heights and densities, allowing more development while still preserving the intent of the LCSP. The area directly abuts small narrow single-story R-1 in most cases, its parking is already too tight, and it has no transit nearby. If you increase height limits to 3 stories allresidential, that becomes an automatic 4 stories with the density bonus exception, greatly adding to the parking and traffic issues, impacting pedestrian and bike safety, overshadowing R-1, and making likely the loss of the vital businesses and restaurants that the LCSP district is protecting and area residents patronize and enjoy. This area is not a transit corridor, and the area and its narrow convoluted roads cannot support Mountain View's cavernous high-rises.

Knowing the development pressures ahead, the Council still largely upheld the LCSP limits in 2017 for all these reasons, and I ask you to do the same.

Another zoning change you are considering, the PCF land at Grant and Fremont, is on a very busy corner, with many kids walking and biking to school and Marymeade Park, and with R-1 abutting all around. Safe ingress/egress and parking for high density there would be huge problems. Any safe development would actually be very difficult. It needs to stay zoned as is.

Sincerely,
MJ Lopatin
Los Altos resident
69 Agenda Item 1.

From: Nancy Martin
To: Public Comment; City Council; Los Altos Planning Commission Cc: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Loyola Corners Study Session
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 1:12:44 PM
Dear Mayor Enander and City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I am writing to express my concern and objection to any proposed changes to the Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP), especially changes that allow for high density housing.

It was not long ago (2017) that the Loyola Corners Specific Plan was amended. The heights and density were increased at that time.

Those changes were made by a Council who fully understood the potential, and now very real, massive changes to State demands of increased density in our city.

The Council members chose to respect the intent of the LCSP and the residents and businesses within Loyola Corners and the nearby neighborhoods.

They chose to try to maintain the intent of the zoning for the area being a Commercial Neighborhood (CN) district. It is a district that is meant to serve the nearby residents and also meant to protect the nearby residents from the impacts of the noise and density.

There are constant traffic flow problems in Loyola Corners that have not been addressed and very limited parking. New state laws do not require developers to provide for more then one car. That puts the the second car on the street. Any kind of dense housing will create nonstop issues in Loyola corners.

Please follow the wise lead of your past council members, in 2017, and abide by their height and density changes. The changes were studied and researched. Do not increase them any further because the area cannot handle the noise, the traffic and the lack of parking.

Thank you!
Brad and Nancy Martin
.
70 Agenda Item 1.

From: Frances Mueller
To: Public Comment
Subject: Housing Element Update and Policy Discussion
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:58:05 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council and Planning Commission,
I'm a resident of the Los Altos Country Club neighborhood and support raising the cap on density in Loyola Corners as one means to meet our RHNA requirements.

No doubt traffic flow will be considered in the planning process, but currently there is a visibility hazard at the intersection of A St. and Miramonte Ave. Cars traveling northeast on A St. wanting to turn left or right onto Miramonte Ave. have limited visibility of oncoming traffic from the left when there is a queue of vehicles southbound on Miramonte Ave. turning right onto A St. I'm concerned that increased housing density in Loyola Corners and greater traffic flow will make this intersection more hazardous. This intersection should be improved as part of any development of Loyola Corners.

Sincerely,
Frances Mueller
71 Agenda Item 1.

From: Yvonne Dupont
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Housing Element joint CC meeting 4/26/22-LCSP Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:57:41 PM
Importance: High
From: carol little
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Los Altos Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element joint CC meeting 4/26/22-LCSP
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am sharing a letter I sent to the City Council regarding the Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP). It is my hope that you will consider the points I make, in my email to them, when discussing any changes to the LCSP.

Thank you.

Teresa Morris
Dear Mayor Enander and city Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern and objection to any proposed changes to the Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP).

It was not long ago (2017) that the Loyola Corners Specific Plan was amended. The heights and density were increased at that time.

Those changes were made by a Council who fully understood the potential, and now very real, massive changes to State demands of increased density in our city. The Council members chose to respect the intent of the LCSP and the residents and businesses within Loyola Corners and the nearby neighborhoods. They chose to try to maintain the intent of the zoning for the area being a Commercial Neighborhood (CN) district. It is a district that is meant to serve the nearby residents and also meant to protect the nearby residents from the impacts of the noise and density.

Please look at what is being proposed at 996 Loraine, you will see how dense the buildings can be in this area with the current height and density limits. Additionally, you can look at the building that is under construction on Miramonte Ave. to see exactly how dense the buildings can be. The owner of that building is already complaining about lack of parking on the side of his building. The building isn't even built yet and he is complaining about how little parking is available! For those who do not know, Loyola corners is a unique place in that noise travels great distance from Loyola Corners business district. Noise echos off of the creek and spreads far into the neighborhoods. Often as far as 3-4 blocks further than the 72 Agenda Item 1.
creek area that runs along the area.

There are constant traffic flow problems in Loyola Corners that have not been addressed. Adding more density and height will only exacerbate that issue.

Additionally, there is very limited parking and given the state laws that restrict parking requirements fr dense housing, there will be nonstop issues in Loyola corners.

Finally, please consider having a meeting with the residents of the area to discuss options to changing the LCSP.

I fully understand the dilemma of the state forcing the City to look for increased density within the city. I believe there are many other ways to accomplish this.

Thank you.

Teresa Morris
Resident of Loyola Corners
73 Agenda Item 1.

From: Kartik Chandrasekhar
To: Public Comment
Subject: Proposed changes to the Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP) Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 12:16:25 PM
Dear Mayor Enander and city Council Members, I am writing to express my concern and objection to any proposed changes to the Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP), especially changes that allow for high density housing.

Living on Fremont Ave, we are already seeing standstill traffic on the road during rush hour in the morning and in the evening. This is a major concern. It was not long ago (2017) that the Loyola Corners Specific Plan was amended. The heights and density were increased at that time. Those changes were made by a Council who fully understood the potential, and now very real, massive changes to State demand for increased density in our city. The Council members chose to respect the intent of the LCSP and the residents and businesses within Loyola Corners and the nearby neighborhoods. They chose to maintain the intent of the zoning for the area being a Commercial Neighborhood (CN) district. It is a district that is meant to serve the nearby residents and also meant to protect the nearby residents from the impacts of noise and density. There are constant traffic flow problems in Loyola Corners that have not been addressed and very limited parking. New state laws do not require developers to provide parking for more then one car. That puts the the second car on the street. Any kind of dense housing will create nonstop issues for Loyola corners.

Finally, please consider having a meeting with the residents of the area to discuss options to changing the LCSP. We fully understand the dilemma of the state forcing the City to look for increased density within the city. I believe there are many other ways to accomplish this. Please follow the wise lead of your past council members, in 2017, and abide by their height and density changes. The changes were studied and researched. Do not increase them any further because the area cannot handle the noise, the traffic and the lack of parking. Thank you! Kartik Chandrasekhar
1188 Fremont Ave.

Los Altos
74 Agenda Item 1.

From: Yvonne Dupont
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Public Comment - Agenda Item #1 - 4/26/22 - JOINT CITY COUNCIL- PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY

SESSION
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 6:24:00 AM
Importance: High
From: Sandy Salinger
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 8:22 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Public Comment <[email protected]>; Los Altos Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item #1 - 4/26/22 - JOINT CITY COUNCIL- PLANNING

COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners.

Please do not lift the CAPS on Housing Density and Building Height at Loyola Corners. Keep the current limit, per the Loyola Corners Specific Plan, of 2 stories, which is reasonable for a small commercial area surrounded by a residential area.

Higher and more dense buildings in this mostly residential area would create massive driving and parking problems. Fremont Avenue at Loyola Corners is a narrow one-way street, with entry and exit ramps from Foothill Expressway. (Also, A Street is extremely narrow.) Because the expressway is adjacent to Fremont Avenue at Loyola Corners, there is not space to widen Fremont Avenue.

There already are traffic bottlenecks in this area, creating problems for drivers and dangerous conditions for children on bicycles. Cars exiting new buildings from underground parking would further exacerbate existing traffic problems.

Parking is already extremely difficult for patrons of the current Loyola Corners businesses. The current 2 story limit under the Loyola Corners Specific Plan for an additional 20 units would necessitate underground parking and some additional ground level parking, since this area is not served by public transit.

Increasing the number of additional units allowed to more than 20 additional units would create traffic chaos.

Thank you.

Sandra Salinger
Los Altos
75 Agenda Item 1.

From: Jane Osborn
To: Public Comment; Los Altos Planning Commission; City Council Cc: Jane Osborn; Jonathan Shores; Laura Simpson; Planning Services Subject: Public Comment, Agenda Item #1, Study Session, April 26, 2022, Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 3:00:00 AM
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, • Please do not change the Loyola Corners Specific Plan, at this time. A great deal of effort on the part of many people went into creating this plan, including city staff, city council, planning commissioners, and residents, over a long period of time. All aspects of this plan were thoughtfully and carefully considered. There were very good reasons behind the drafting of the various elements in the current plan.

At the time this plan was reviewed and amended in 2017, a compromise already was made with regard to the density of housing allowed. At the time, the number of units allowed was increased substantially from the level of density that had been proposed or allowed previously. As I recall, the increase may have been at least by 50% over the previous levels.

The density for new residential housing was increased to 24 additional units, including four units that currently are under construction.

Also, please do not increase the height limit allowed at Loyola Corners, which I believe currently is 30 feet (about two stories). Due to changes in state law, it is my understanding that developers now will be able to ask for an increase in height due to the housing density bonus laws. This could result in buildings that are at least three stories tall, even under the existing height limits in the specific plan. If the height limits are increased, we could end up with four-story buildings or taller. This alone could have a significant, negative impact on this modest, small scale and historic district, which is surrounded by R1 housing on at least three sides, or on all sides, if you include the residential area that is directly across from Loyola Corners, on the other side of the "Loyola Bridge.".

Please keep in mind that this is a small scale area. The roads in this area all are two lanes.

They quickly lead into residential neighborhoods, which are zoned for R1. Historically, these narrow roads were quiet and rural in character. In the past, they primarily served only local traffic. They were never intended or designed to hold heavy traffic. The area has become increasingly more congested with traffic, especially during certain times of the day. Also, parking is limited, and there already is a shortage of parking spaces at Loyola Corners.

Parking encroachment onto the adjacent residential streets already exists. Traffic congestion, noise impacts, parking shortages and parking encroachment all would be expected to increase substantially in Loyola Corners with additional increases in residential density allowed in this confined area.

Pedestrian safety issues already exist at Loyola Corners. It is likely that these also would be exacerbated with further increases in residential density and traffic levels. Crossing the streets at Loyola Corners already can be dicey, even with the current traffic levels. My husband was almost hit by a car while walking his bike in the cross walk coming from the West side of Miramonte Ave. (near Loraine) to get to the Post Office on the other side. The car was driven by a younger man who appeared to be a commuter, who was impatient and suddenly veered into the oncoming lane in order to pass the car that was stopped at the cross walk ahead of him, just as my husband was crossing at that spot. My husband stopped suddenly and the car stopped just in time to avoid a horrible collision. If the person crossing had been a child or a 76 Agenda Item 1.
shorter adult, it is likely that they would have been hit. Other people have reported the exact same type of close call at that same spot. Local residents and anyone who uses the post office can attest to the considerable traffic issues that exist at that location in front of the post office.

Also, local residents have witnessed cars often speeding and running red lights in the area.

For example, on one occasion, my husband witnessed a child (who appeared to be about 11 years old) start to cross on the green light at the intersection of A Street and Fremont. Her father pulled her back just in time to prevent her from being hit by a car that was speeding through the red light on Fremont. If she had not been with her father, she would have been hit and severely injured or killed.
• In addition, when considering what changes (if any) to make in the OA district on San Antonio Road, please carefully consider the needs of the residents who live on adjacent streets behind this district to the East of San Antonio Road.. In the interest of fairness, please protect these residents from intrusions to their privacy and from noise impacts that could occur as a result of any changes that you might be considering. I assume I am "preaching to the choir," since presumably you (the council and the planning commission) already were planning to be mindful of the needs of those residents. In my opinion, if the existing office buildings on the East side of San Antonio are replaced with housing, the new buildings should not be any taller than the existing buildings. Also, it seems reasonable to require that any new housing projects have to provide sufficient resident and visitor parking so as not to encroach on the surrounding residential neighborhoods, Thank you very much for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Jane Osborn
Los Altos Resident
(Resident of the greater Loyola Corners area)
E. Jane Osborn, Ph.D. Nationally Certified School Psychologist, NCSP Licensed Educational Psychologist, LEP . Cognitive and Developmental Psychology.

77 Agenda Item 1.

From: Sandy Salinger
To: City Council; Public Comment; Los Altos Planning Commission Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item #1 - 4/26/22 - JOINT CITY COUNCIL- PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 8:21:55 PM
Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners.

Increasing the number of additional units allowed to more than 20 additional units would create traffic chaos.

Thank you.

Sandra Salinger
Los Altos
78 Agenda Item 1.

From: carol little
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM #1 - 4/26/22 STUDY SESSION Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 6:33:19 PM
Dear Mayor Enander and city Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern and objection to any proposed changes to the Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP).

It was not long ago (2017) that the Loyola Corners Specific Plan was amended. The heights and density were increased at that time.

There are constant traffic flow problems in Loyola Corners that have not been addressed. Adding more density and height will only exacerbate that issue.

Additionally, there is very limited parking and given the state laws that restrict parking requirements fr dense housing, there will be nonstop issues in Loyola corners.

Finally, please consider having a meeting with the residents of the area to discuss options to changing the LCSP.

I fully understand the dilemma of the state forcing the City to look for increased density within the city. I believe there are many other ways to accomplish this. 79 Agenda Item 1.

Thank you.

Teresa Morris
Resident of Loyola Corners
80 Agenda Item 1.

From: John Dilley
To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM #1 - Tuesday, April 26 STUDY SESSION Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 3:02:36 PM
Regarding the proposed conversion of OA Zoning to housing, I am concerned if the new zoning includes:
much taller structures, impacting visibility of the sky from OA-adjacent parcels significantly increased through commute traffic on residential streets, which may impact safety for children who bike and walk to school.

I agree with these observations from the LWC recommendation against rezoning OA into residential from the Joint City Council - Planning Commission Study Session Agenda Packet (page 5):
"The OA District has narrow lots and shouldn’t be rezoned to allow residential." "Concern about allowing residential in the OA District and insufficient parking." The residential feel of Los Altos is a significant part of the charm of this city. It would be a shame to lose it.

I ask that the plans maintain the characteristics of the current residential-adjacent OA zoned parcels.

Sincerely,
John Dilley
44 Marvin Ave
Los Altos, CA 94022
81 Agenda Item 1.

Los Altos City CouncilApril 26, 2022

Los Altos City Council
April 26, 2022