Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, June 28, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

SECURITY GATE - TO

REMAIN OPEN DURING

BUSINESS HOURS
UNIT 1D
1 BED,
1 1/2 BATH 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
November 12, 2021

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A10
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH

UNIT MIX CHART
1 BEDROOM UNITS/ UNIT AREA 1ST FLOOR

STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
3 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
2F
3A
3B
3C
621 SQ. FT.
790 SQ. FT.
988 SQ. FT.
1,178 SQ. FT. 1,203 SQ. FT. 1,245 SQ. FT. 1,352 SQ. FT. 1,369 SQ. FT. 1,435 SQ. FT. 1,613 SQ. FT. 1,729 SQ. FT. 2,197 SQ. FT.
1 1
4 1
1 1
3 25%
8 67%
1 8%
12 1D 1,026 SQ. FT. 1
2G 1,174 SQ. FT. 1
3D 2,049 SQ. FT. 3E 1,987 SQ. FT.
1 642
Agenda Item # 11.

COURT

OPEN TO ABOVE
UNIT 3B
3 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2C
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 1A
STUDIO, 1 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3A
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2B
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

TRASH CHUTES
UNIT 1C
1 BED, 1 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2A
2 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT 1B
1 BED,
1 BATH
BMR: VERY LOW

DECK DECK DECK DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
DECK

DECK DECK DECK
DECK
DECK A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19

OPEN TO
BELOW
UNIT 2G
2 BED, 2 BATH
BMR: MODERATE
UNIT 1D
1 BED,
1 1/2 BATH 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
November 12, 2021

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A11
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'

UNIT MIX CHART
1 BEDROOM UNITS/ UNIT AREA 2ND FLOOR

STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
3 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
2F
3A
3B
3C
621 SQ. FT.
790 SQ. FT.
988 SQ. FT.
1,178 SQ. FT. 1,203 SQ. FT. 1,245 SQ. FT. 1,352 SQ. FT. 1,369 SQ. FT. 1,435 SQ. FT. 1,613 SQ. FT. 1,729 SQ. FT. 2,197 SQ. FT.
1 1
4 1
1 1
4 29%
8 57%
2 14%
1 1
1 NORTH
14 1D 1,026 SQ. FT. 1
2G 1,174 SQ. FT. 1
3D 2,049 SQ. FT. 3E 1,987 SQ. FT.
643
Agenda Item # 11.

COURT

OPEN TO ABOVE
UNIT 3B
3 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2C
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3D
3 BED, 3 BATH
UNIT 3A
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2B
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

TRASH CHUTES
UNIT 2F
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2A
2 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT 1B
1 BED,
1 BATH
BMR: MODERATE

DECK DECK DECK DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
DECK

DECK DECK DECK
DECK
DECK A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19
UNIT 2G
2 BED, 2 BATH
UNIT 1D
1 BED,
1 1/2 BATH 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
November 12, 2021

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
A12
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH

UNIT MIX CHART
1 BEDROOM UNITS/ UNIT AREA 3RD FLOOR

STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
3 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
2F
3A
3B
3C
621 SQ. FT.
790 SQ. FT.
988 SQ. FT.
1,178 SQ. FT. 1,203 SQ. FT. 1,245 SQ. FT. 1,352 SQ. FT. 1,369 SQ. FT. 1,435 SQ. FT. 1,613 SQ. FT. 1,729 SQ. FT. 2,197 SQ. FT.
1 1
3 1
2 15%
8 62%
3 23%
1 1
1 13
1D 1,026 SQ. FT. 1
2G 1,174 SQ. FT. 1
3D 2,049 SQ. FT. 3E 1,987 SQ. FT.
1 1
644
Agenda Item # 11.

W D
COURT

OPEN TO ABOVE
UNIT 3B
3 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2C
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3A
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2B
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3C
3 BED, 2 1/2 BATH

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

TRASH CHUTES
UNIT 2F
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3E
3 BED,
3 BATH

DECK DECK DECK DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
DECK

DECK DECK DECK
DECK
DECK A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19
UNIT 3D
3 BED, 3 BATH 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
November 12, 2021

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
A13
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH

UNIT MIX CHART
1 BEDROOM UNITS/ UNIT AREA 4TH FLOOR

STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
3 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
2F
3A
3B
3C
621 SQ. FT.
790 SQ. FT.
988 SQ. FT.
1,178 SQ. FT. 1,203 SQ. FT. 1,245 SQ. FT. 1,352 SQ. FT. 1,369 SQ. FT. 1,435 SQ. FT. 1,613 SQ. FT. 1,729 SQ. FT. 2,197 SQ. FT.
1 1
3 1
0 0%
6 55%
5 45%
1 11
1D 1,026 SQ. FT.
2G 1,174 SQ. FT.
3D 2,049 SQ. FT. 3E 1,987 SQ. FT.
1 1
1 1
645
Agenda Item # 11.

A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19

OPEN TO COURT
BELOW

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

VALLEY VALLEY

ROOFTOP CONDENSER
UNIT, TYP.

LOCATION OF SOLAR

PANELS, TBD

RAISED PLANTER, TYP
- SEE LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS

RAISED TREE

PLANTER, TYP - SEE

LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS

ACCESS GATE FOR

MAINTENANCE

ACCESS GATE FOR

MAINTENANCE

ACCESS GATE FOR

MAINTENANCE
48" HIGH ROOF TOP SAFETY
GUARDRAIL 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
July 16, 2021

ROOF PLAN
A14
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
Los Altos, CA 366.014
September 3, 2021
355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
November 12, 2021
646
Agenda Item # 11.
647
Agenda Item # 11.
648
Agenda Item # 11.

ROOF DECK

FIRST FLOOR
+ 0'-0"

SECOND FLOOR
+ 11'-5 1/4"

THIRD FLOOR
+ 22'-10 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
+34'-3 3/4"
+ 45'-7 1/2"

STAIR TOWER
+ 56'-1"

ELEVATOR TOWER
+ 63'-4 1/2"

UPPER GARAGE
- 12'-6"

LOWER GARAGE
- 22'-8" 10'-2" 12'-6" 11'-5 1/4" 11'-5 1/4" 11'-5 1/4" 11'-3 3/4" PROPERTY LINE MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 246.28'
BASE HEIGHT = 200.28'

COURTYARD
UNIT 3E
UNIT 1B
UNIT 1B

PARKING
STALL

PARKING
STALL
GARAGE
UNIT 2E UNIT 3C
GARAGE
UNIT 2E 9'-0"

PARKING
STALL

PARKING
STALL
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2E UNIT 1D
UNIT 2E UNIT 1D UTIL. 8'-2" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" PROPERTY LINE 245.87'
211.69'
223.13'
234.56'
200.25'
256.33'
263.38'
187.75'
177.58'

WHITNEY STREET
ADJACENT BUILDING 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
November 12, 2021

BUILDING SECTION A
A17

SECTION A
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
649
Agenda Item # 11.
8'-2" MIN. PROPERTY LINE 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" PROPERTY LINE 9'-0" 8'-2" MIN. PARKING STALL

PARKING
STALL

RESIDENT'S

BIKE STORAGE
UNIT 2D
UNIT 3A UNIT 1B UNIT 2A
UNIT 3A UNIT 1B UNIT 2A
UNIT 3A UNIT 3E
GARAGE
GARAGE

ROOF DECK

FIRST FLOOR
+ 0'-0"

SECOND FLOOR
+ 11'-5 1/4"

THIRD FLOOR
+ 22'-10 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
+34'-3 3/4"
+ 45'-7 1/2"

STAIR TOWER
+ 56'-1"

ELEVATOR TOWER
+ 63'-4 1/2"

UPPER GARAGE
- 12'-6"

LOWER GARAGE
- 22'-8" 10'-2" 12'-6" 11'-5 1/4" 11'-5 1/4" 11'-5 1/4" 11'-3 3/4" MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 246.28'
BASE HEIGHT = 200.28'
245.87'
211.69'
223.13'
234.56'
200.25'
256.33'
263.38'
187.75'
177.58' 8'-2"

FIRST STREET ALLEY
TRANSFORMERS 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
November 12, 2021

BUILDING SECTION B
A18
SECTION B 0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
V:\366014_355 First Street\03_CAD\366014\04_Sheets\DRB\A18 BUILDING SECTION B.dwg, 11/15/2021 2:40:31 PM, JReardon 650
Agenda Item # 11.

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 8'-2" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 9'-0" 8'-2" UNIT 2C UNIT 2E UNIT 3B
UNIT 2C UNIT 2E UNIT 3B
UNIT 2C UNIT 2E UNIT 3B
UNIT 2C UNIT 2E UNIT 3B
GARAGE

PARKING GARAGE STALL

PARKING
STALL

ROOF DECK

FIRST FLOOR
+ 0'-0"

SECOND FLOOR
+ 11'-5 1/4"

THIRD FLOOR
+ 22'-10 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
+34'-3 3/4"
+ 45'-7 1/2"

STAIR TOWER
+ 56'-1"

ELEVATOR TOWER
+ 63'- 4 1/2"

UPPER GARAGE
- 12'-6"

BUILDING SECTION C
A19
SECTION C 0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
V:\366014_355 First Street\03_CAD\366014\04_Sheets\DRB\A19 BUILDING SECTION C.dwg, 11/15/2021 2:41:03 PM, JReardon 651
Agenda Item # 11.

W D 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
November 12, 2021

FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
A20

SECOND FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

LOWER GARAGE LEVEL UPPER GARAGE LEVEL

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
471 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
296 SF
471 SF
24,493 SF
25,260 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
929 SF
2,740 SF
18,675 SF
15,006 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
42 SF
2,863 SF
20,143 SF
17,238 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING
TOTAL
1,590 SF
12,131 SF
49,524 SF
130,913 SF

BUILDING TOTALS
67,668 SF

DECK AREA
795 SF

DECK AREA

TOTAL DECK AREA
8,537 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
42 SF
2,553 SF
20,319 SF
17,724 SF

DECK AREA

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
42 SF
2,565 SF
20,305 SF
17,700 SF

DECK AREA
844 SF 801 SF 779 SF

ROOF DECK

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL

DECK AREA

ROOF DECK
5,318 SF
468 SF
468 SF
239 SF
25,031 SF
25,741 SF
652
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
TM1.0
653
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
C1.0
654
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
C2.0
655
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
C3.0
656
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
C3.1
657
Agenda Item # 11.
658
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
C4.0
659
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
C5.0
660
Agenda Item # 11.

L-1

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT GROUND FLOOR
NORTH 8’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
355 1ST STREET, LOS ALTOS
November 12, 2021
LEGEND

LANDSCAPE AREA CALCS
STREET TREES IN TREE GRATES AT 25’ ON
CENTER, TYP. 4’-3” CLEAR FROM PLANTER

WALL TO EDGE OF TREE GRATE OPENING,
TYP.

RAISED PLANTER, TYP

BENCH, TYP

LARGE FORMAT LINEAR PAVERS, TYP
BIKE RACK, TYP OF 2

UNIT PATIO, TYP

PLANTING STRIP WITH (E) STREET TREES

RAIN GARDEN, STORMWATER PLANTING

SEAT BLOCK, TYP
PATIO

ACCENT TREE, TYP

WATER WALL

ROCK GARDEN WITH BOULDERS

PRECAST PLANTER, TYP

PODIUM (DASHED)
60% MINIMUM SOFTSCAPE REQUIRED
1ST STREET SETBACK
HARDSCAPE: 798 SF
SOFTSCAPE: 1,197 SF
TOTAL: 1,995 SF
60%
4 3
2 1
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 3
2 1
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
661
Agenda Item # 11.

L-2

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT - ROOF DECK
NORTH 8’ 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’
355 1ST STREET, LOS ALTOS
November 12, 2021
LEGEND

PRECAST PLANTER, TYP

COMMUNITY TABLE

TABLE & CHAIRS, TYP

LOUNGE FURNITURE, TYP

PEDESTAL PAVERS, TYP

PRECAST TREE PLANTER, TYP

ELECTRIC BBQ & COUNTER

FIRE PIT

DOUBLE-SIDED FIREPLACE

SHADE STRUCTURE, TYP

DECORATIVE SCREEN

CANTILEVER BENCH ON PLANTER, TYP

OUTDOOR WORKSPACE

COUNTER SEATING

DOG LOUNGE WITH FENCE & GATES
4 3
15 2
1 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 3
2 1
4 5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
15 13
14 662
Agenda Item # 11.

L-3
355 1ST STREET, LOS ALTOS TREE PROTECTION & REMOVAL PLAN November 12, 2021
663
Agenda Item # 11.

L-4

PRECEDENT & MATERIALS IMAGES
L-4
355 1ST STREET PRECEDENT & MATERIALS IMAGES
March 31, 2021

ROOF DECK PRECAST PLANTERS - ROOF DECK

PRECAST CONCRETE PLANTER - GROUND FLOOR BIKE RACK LARGE FORMAT LINEAR PAVERS BENCH

GREENSCREEN OR DECORATIVE METAL SCREEN ACCENT LIGHTING
SAND HILL ROAD COURTYARD 1450 CHAPIN AVENUE - ARCHIE HELD WATERWALL BBQ (ELECTRIC)/KITCHEN 355 1ST STREET, LOS ALTOS
November 12, 2021
664
Agenda Item # 11.

L-5

PRECEDENT & MATERIALS IMAGES
L-5
355 1ST STREET PRECEDENT & MATERIALS IMAGES
March 31, 2021

RYOAN-JI ROCK GARDEN CANTILEVER BENCH ON PLANTER

GARDEN SURROUND DOUBLE-SIDED FIREPLACE & LOUNGE SEATING FIREPIT & LOUNGE SEATING

OUTDOOR WORKSPACE WITH SEATING
355 1ST STREET, LOS ALTOS
November 12, 2021
665
Agenda Item # 11.

L-6
355 1ST STREET, LOS ALTOS PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN - GROUND FLOOR November 12, 2021
666
Agenda Item # 11.

L-7
355 1ST STREET, LOS ALTOS PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN - ROOF DECK November 12, 2021
667
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600SAN JOSE, CA 95112(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
CM1.0
668
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600SAN JOSE, CA 95112(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
CM2.0
669
Agenda Item # 11.
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600SAN JOSE, CA 95112(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
CM3.0
670
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
1 Recommended the
creation of a
subcommittee of the
Planning Commission
and to work through the
Commission’s
recommendation. After
subcommittee work is
done, it will be returned
to Council.

This
recommendation
requires CC
approval following
an agendized
meeting and would
cut into the
maximum five
meetings for the
project.

Refer to the comment from
the City Attorney.

This was a City discussion
only, and no response is
provided.
2 Supports the 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.

Cannot eliminate
the amenity to
deny the waiver.

See Wollmer and
Bankers Hill 150.

Refer to the comment from
the City Attorney.

Cannot eliminate
the amenity to
deny the waiver.

See Wollmer and
Bankers Hill 150.

Refer to the comment from
the City Attorney.

Cannot eliminate
the amenity to
deny the waiver.

See Wollmer and
Bankers Hill 150.

Refer to the comment from
the City Attorney.

The applicant is
requesting a height
increase as an onmenu concession,
and applicant is
allowed to build to
the height
authorized. Also,
the CC cannot
eliminate
amenities to avoid
the need for
concessions or
waivers.

Refer to the comment from
the City Attorney.

The project meets the height
requirements.
6 Supports a waiver for
the off-street parking
space width to be
reduced from nine feet
to 8.5 feet for twelve
paring spaces. No
Comment
Cannot deny
waiver if denial
would physically
preclude a
development
applicant is
otherwise entitled
to construct
Refer to the comment from
the City Attorney.

OK
672
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
7 The applicant and
architect advised the
focal point of the
building is first and
Whitney, but the
councilmember is not
convinced it should be
the focal point. This
building is right at the
crossroads of entry
points into the city, if
you're entering from
San Antonio Road or
First Street, the building
is very drab and
unappealing. The
building should more
attractive and
welcoming, such as is
the corner of Whitney
Street and First Street is
currently.

The CC can
condition the
design of the
project in a
manner that does
not deny the
project or reduce
the density. The
CC also cannot
require amenities
to be eliminated to
deny waiver
requests.

The elevations along First
Street and Whitney Avenue
were modified with new
first and second floor wall
planes stepping forward
with wood siding to
improve the cohesiveness
of the two-story design
feature for the building and
deemphasize the focal
point of the corner. The
project proposes a more
integrated design with
greater articulation and
segmentation of the façade,
increased step back at the
fourth floor that has
improved the aesthetics of
the building.

The building design has been
modified so that all of the
visible corners from First and
Whitney have similar design
treatments. See also the
attached design narrative.
8 The overall mass and
bulk needs to be
addressed. When you
look at the building and
consider that First
Street is not a wide
street, we need to work
on articulation and
setback to make it more
appealing. (NF). The
building is bulky and
massive, and it doesn’t
look like it belongs in
Los Altos or on First
Street (AE)
The CC can
condition the
design of the
project in a
manner that does
not deny the
project or reduce
the density. The
CC also cannot
require amenities
to be eliminated to
deny waiver
requests.

The building mass was
reduced along the three
visible elevations of the
buildings, which included
reducing large areas of
mass and significant plane
breaks to reduce the
building from looking as
one-block or a “Lego.” At
the corner of First Street
and Whitney Avenue, the
first through third floor
walls planes were moved
forward to improve the
step-back of the fourth
floor. Along the left
elevation (Whitney
Avenue), the building
massing was reduced at the
upper floors and a full wall
plane setback was
introduced with a wood
siding element.

The building design has been
modified see attached design
narrative.
673
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
9 In other buildings
approved, where we
had an all residential.

We had a significant or
different design
difference or variation
at third and fourth floor
to bring down human or
pedestrian scale. We do
not have this with the
proposed building
design, instead, it is
highly vertical and a
uniform look. It has the
appearance of a
“Lego building," like its
been built with Lego
blocks.

The CC can
condition the
design of the
project in a
manner that does
not deny the
project or reduce
the density. The
CC also cannot
require amenities
to be eliminated to
deny waiver
requests.

The elevations along First
Street and Whitney Avenue
were modified with the
first and second floor wall
planes stepping forward
with wood siding to
deemphasize the focal
point at the corner. The
project proposes greater
articulation and increased
segmentation into smaller
vertical elements with
introduction of full height
recesses to reduce the boxlike appearance, increased
step back at the fourth floor
has improved the aesthetics
of the building.

The building design has been
modified see attached design
narrative.
10 In regards to bulk and
mass, some of the
banding that is used and
the composite wood
siding that wraps
around Whitney Street
and First Street at the
first and second story
has the effect of making
the entire building look
like one block or mass,
irrespective of the
subtle differentiation in
setback or articulation,
it is undone by the
material and mass.

Provided any
changes to the
façade do not
affect density, the
CC can impose
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The building design has been
modified see attached design
narrative
674
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
11 The floors are all the
same. While the
building is built out at
the upper stories to
provide depth to create
the perception of setting
back the third and
fourth floor, when in
fact there isn't really
any setback along the
floors. That has to get
better.

The CC can
condition the
project on
reasonable design
changes, but it
cannot reduce the
height or impose
additional
setbacks.

The proposal has
eliminated the built-out
forms at the upper stories.

Instead, the building wall
planes have been shifted
forward to more accurately
reflect the mass and
volume of the building,
which improves the
perception of increase step
back for the fourth floor.

The building design has been
modified see attached design
narrative
12 The building design
should have vertical
elements at the property
line or at an easement.

Provided any
changes to the
façade do not
affect density, the
CC can impose
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The project proposes a
more integrated design
with greater articulation
and segmentation of the
façade to reduce the
massing and bulk of the
building, increased step
back at the fourth floor that
has improved the aesthetics
of the building.

The building design has been
modified see attached design
narrative.
13 The building appears to
be least pleasant of all
the buildings approved
on First Street.

The CC can
condition the
design of the
project in a
manner that does
not deny the
project or reduce
the density. The
CC also cannot
require amenities
to be eliminated to
deny waiver
requests.

The applicant improved the
overall building aesthetic
by improving the
integration of the first and
second story wall planes
with wood siding, by
adding smaller scale twostory tall features along the
front and left elevations,
incorporating greater
articulation and
segmentation to break-up
to avoid a box-like
structure and increasing the
depth landscaping planters
to soften building façade.

The building design has been
modified. See attached design
narrative.
675
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
14 The building design is
uninviting.

Provided any
changes to the
façade do not
affect density, the
CC can impose
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The applicant improved
the overall building
aesthetic by improving the
integration of the first and
second story wall planes
with wood siding, by
adding smaller scale twostory tall features along the
front and left elevations,
incorporating greater
articulation and
segmentation to break-up
to avoid a box-like
structure and increasing the
depth landscaping planters
to soften building façade.

The building design has been
modified. See attached design
narrative.
15 The entrance is not at
the pedestrian scale
with the entrance
awning well up at the
second story. It would
be the only property on
the street with such a
high or tall entrance.

Furthermore, the
entrance is very sterile
in appearance.

The CC can
address this
concern through
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The applicant revised the
entry to improve the
pedestrian scale of the
entrance by modifying the
size of the window system.

However, the entry
continues to have an outscale appearance, which
does not reinforce the
pedestrian scale of the
entry. The City Council
can condition the design of
the project in a manner that
does not deny the project
or reduce the density.

We have reviewed the
entrance several times both
before and after the City
Council hearing and feel that
this design is the most
pleasing.
676
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
16 Recommends staff look
at all the examples that
were in the downtown
building committee
report, which was
adopted in total by the
Council. The report
provides examples for
First Street, which
stated "Do this, Not
That". She encourages
the applicant to review
the examples in the
report for the kinds of
entrances that should
occur on First Street
that would make the
entries warm, inviting,
village-like, and make it
Los Altos.
n/a The applicant revised the
entry to improve the
pedestrian scale of the
entrance by modifying the
size of the window system.

We have reviewed the
entrance several times both
before and after the City
Council hearing and feel that
this design is the most
pleasing.
17 The parapets add to the
height and they call
attention to the height
of the building.

The CC cannot
reduce the height
of the structure,
but it can
condition the
project on design
changes to the
parapets to reduce
visual impact.

The applicant lowered the
height of the parapets, and
the parapet material varies
to contributing to breaking
up the building mass and
accentuate facades with
trespa meteon siding.

The building design has been
modified see attached design
narrative
18 The eave projections
add to feelings of mass.

The CC can
address this
concern through
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The eave elements were
reduced by more than
half. In addition they
were reduced in linear
footage across the
elevations and redesign
to turn the corners.

The cornice has been
modified and reduced in
depth. See also the attached
design narrative
677
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
19 The courtyard is not an
amenity, and it is not a
Zen space. The space is
going to be rather noisy
and dark, and it appears
very tomb-like.

The CC can
condition the
design of the
project in a
manner that does
not deny the
project or reduce
the density. The
CC also cannot
require amenities
to be eliminated to
deny waiver
requests.

The project plans do not
show alterations to the
courtyard by the applicant
and architect to address the
City Council comment.

The City Council can
condition the design of the
project in a manner that
does not deny the project
or reduce the density.

We believe the court feature
will enhance the building
interior. We plan to work on
renderings to showcase this
to City Council.
20 Supports improving the
courtyard and is
puzzled by it. It didn't
appear to be a useful
space.

The CC can
condition the
design of the
project in a
manner that does
not deny the
project or reduce
the density. The
CC also cannot
require amenities
to be eliminated to
deny waiver
requests.

The project plans do not
show alterations to the
courtyard by the applicant
and architect to address the
City Council comment.

We believe the court feature
will enhance the building
interior. We plan to work on
renderings to showcase this
to City Council.
21 The windows appear
industrial, and they
should complement the
residential (multifamily building)
The CC can
address this
concern through
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The windows were revised
to be symmetrical and
more residential as to
address the City Council
comment.

Windows have been
modified. See also the
attached design narrative. We
went through multiple
iterations and plan to show
the iterations in our
presentation to City Council.
22 The windows go in a
column up, and the
entire look of the
building is uniform. It
does not have the kind
of articulation and
differences as we
envisioned with 50-
foot/75-foot modules on
First Street.

Provided any
changes to the
façade do not
affect density, the
CC can impose
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The windows were revised
to be symmetrical and
more residential. The
elevations along street
frontages were modified at
the first and second floor
wall planes stepping
forward with trespa meteon
siding to deemphasize
bulk. The building has
greater articulation and
increased segmentation
into smaller elements to
reduce the box-like
appearance of the building.

Windows have been
modified. See also the
attached design narrative. We
went through multiple
iterations and plan to show
the iterations in our
presentation to City Council.
678
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
23 Does not support the
glass railing (JW).

Questions whether the
material is appropriate
(NF). The glass is a
safety hazard for
wildlife (LLE). The
balconies, we need to
lose the glass. It doesn't
belong (AE).

The CC can
address this
concern through
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The balcony railings were
revised to be horizontal
metal rails with wood caps.

Railings have been modified.

See also the attached design
narrative. We went through
several iterations and plan to
show the iterations in our
presentation to City Council.
24 In regard to the roof
amenity, there are
perspectives: 1) If we
go back to our general
plan, it states the FAR
should be no greater
than 2.0:1.0, but the
proposed project is
almost 3.0: 1.0. The
reason there isn't a
place for people to play
is the applicant has
packed and stacked the
units as densely as
possible. while the
council person
appreciates and agrees
we need to add housing,
the applicant has made
a decision to add some
two bedroom and threebedroom units, which
means the building is
maxed out the space for
the building. As a
result, you are left with
the light well.

Cannot eliminate
the amenity to
deny the waiver.

See Wollmer and
Bankers Hill 150.

There are no proposed
alterations to the roof
amenities. The proposed
roof top includes four
seating or activity areas,
which include gas fire pits,
electric barbeques with
counters, and a dog play
area.

We believe the roof amenity
is an important element. We
took care and time to develop
it in a tasteful and considerate
manner. There is a dog play
area, which will relieve the
need for the residents to
travel to other dog parks. The
spaces that the residents will
use are stepped far back from
the roof edge to protect
everyone's privacy. The
greenery is purposely located
for further privacy.
679
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
25 A lesson learned from
100 First Street, a
planter wall proposed
immediately adjacent to
the sidewalk has the
effect of reducing the
size of the sidewalk and
for that reason the
Council has insisted
that other buildings on
First Street not have a
vertical element
immediately at the edge
of the sidewalk, at the
property line, or at an
easement. There needs
to be landscaping
between a sidewalk and
a planter to soften the
appearance and create
an inviting pedestrian
appearance.

The CC can
condition the
project on
reasonable design
changes, but it
cannot reduce the
height or impose
additional
setbacks.

The sidewalk along this
project has been widened.

We feel that the risk of
someone stepping off
the sidewalk into a low
planter is problematic.

We reviewed this comment
along with the sidewalk at
100 First Street. The
sidewalk along this project
has been widened. We feel
that the risk of someone
stepping off the sidewalk into
a low planter is problematic.
26 The City has a long
standing practice to
distribute the below
market-rate units
equitably, and the
current proposal does
not appear to equitably
distribute the below
market rate units
throughout the building.

The CC can
address this
concern through
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The applicant did not
modify the distribution of
below market-rate units
(BMR) to address the City
Council comment. In order
to ameliorate the inequity
of the distribution of the
units, the applicant has
provided an additional
seventh BMR unit.

Even though we still believe
we are were meeting all the
requirements by providing 6
BMR units with 3 at very low
and 3 at moderate, we
decided to provide an
additional 7th BMR unit in a
prime location.
680
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
27 The Below Market Rate
Unit should not be
adjacent to the
designated trash pickup
area.

The CC can
address this
concern through
appropriate
conditions of
approval.

The applicant did not
modify the distribution of
BMR units to address the
City Council comment.

Chapter 14.28.030.C
requires BMR units be
dispersed throughout the
project, and shall not be
significantly
distinguishable by size,
design, construction or
materials. The applicant
has not equitably
distributed market-rate or
BMR units adjacent to the
trash room inconsistent
with Chapter 14.28.030.

Even though we still believe
we are meeting all the
requirements by providing 6
BMR units with 3 at very low
and 3 at moderate, we
decided to provide an
additional 7th BMR unit in a
prime location.
28 Supports increasing the
number of below
market rate units.

The CC cannot
impose a
requirement on
this project in
excess of its
generally
applicable
inclusionary
requirements.

The applicant has proposed
to increase the number of
BMR units from six to
seven units. The new unit
would be located on the
second floor facing
Whitney Street.

Even though we still believe
we are meeting all the
requirements by providing 6
BMR units with 3 at very low
and 3 at moderate, we
decided to provide an
additional 7th BMR unit in a
prime location.
29 Can we have a
requirement for the
below market rate units
to be held in perpetuity,
and have it revert to a
certain number of years.

It is recommended
that the maximum
term be 99-years.

Refer to the comment from
the City Attorney.

This was a City discussion
only, and no response is
provided.
681
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
30 In reviewing the law, it
was found that the State
Density Bonus law
states that if a waiver
will preclude the
construction of the
density proposed for the
project. We need some
very clear direction on
when there is an
optional amenity that
does not otherwise
impact the number of
units or size of units
being proposed. what
are the parameters that
allow us to deny, or if
we must approve a
waiver for the amenity.

The CC cannot
impose a
requirement on
this project in
excess of its
generally
applicable
inclusionary
requirements.

Refer to the comment from
the City Attorney.

This was a City discussion
only, and no response is
provided.
31 Supports the
incorporation of
charging for electric
bicycles at each bicycle
locker. Electric bicycles
are a key component of
the Climate Action
Adaption Plan.

The comment
exceeds the
otherwise
generally
applicable
standard imposed
by the City and/or
the building code.

The CC cannot
impose this
condition.

The Class I bicycle parking
was relocated from the
building’s lower garage to
the first floor. The secured
bicycle room has direct
access off the alley along
the north side of the
building and it has the
capacity for 65 bicycles.

The bicycle room has been
expanded to provide a
bicycle maintenance area,
each bicycle spaces has a
power outlet.

The bicycle parking has been
completely reimagined.

Bicycle parking is now in a
secure bike room on the First
Floor and each bike rack has
power for e-bike charging.
32 Supports the addition of
more electric vehicle
charging stations. The
project shall indicate
the type of EV chargers
for each space.

Recommends level 2
electric vehicle
charging stations for
each unit.

The comment is
consistent with the
generally
applicable
standard imposed
by the City and/or
the building code.

The City can
impose the
condition if it is
not confiscatory.

The project exceeds the
requirements of Section

4.106.4.2 (New MultipleFamily Dwellings) of the
Municipal Code and
complies with the Council
comment by providing one
Level 2 chargers, or their
equivalent or better for
each unit.

EV chargers have been
indicated as Level 2 chargers.

In case the technology
improves by the time of
construction, we will target
Level 2 chargers, or their
equivalent or better. The 50
(1 per unit) installed charging
stations far exceed the
requirements.
682
Agenda Item # 11.
# Council Comments City Attorney
Comments
Staff Response Applicant Response
34 The BMR discussion
regarding perpetuity by
the Assistant City
Attorney makes sense.

It is recommended
that the maximum
term be 99-years.

Refer to the comment
from the City Attorney.

This was a City discussion
only, and no response is
provided.
35 Can we have a
requirement for the
below market rate units
to be held in perpetuity,
and have it revert to a
certain number of years.

It is recommended
that the maximum
term be 99-years.

Refer to the comment
from the City Attorney.

This was a City discussion
only, and no response is
provided.
36 A materials board with
physical materials shall
be provided for the
project.

The applicant has
agreed to provide
this.

The applicant has agreed
to provide the materials
board.

We are in the process of
preparing the physical
materials board so that City
Council will have ample of
time to review before the City
Council meeting.
683
Agenda Item # 11.
355, 365, 371, 373 1st St
Design Revisions Narrative
Based on feedback from the Neighborhood Meeting, the Peer Review, the Planning Commission, the Complete Streets Commission, and the City Council several revisions were made to the design of the project.

Starting at the main corner of the building at the intersection of Whitney and First Street the main building walls of the upper floors and lower floors were shifted out of plane to create a more significant visual step-back of the upper floor. As you proceed down Whitney the massing was reduced at the upper floors and a full wall plane setback was introduced with a wood siding element. This not only reduced the massing in this area, it created more of a defined element at the corner of the upper floors. This was also accentuated by the revised design of the cornice and the reduced depth of that detail. Proceeding further down Whitney the massing was further reduced by removing some of the building elements and creating a wider, full height, building inset with wood detailing. Finally, the corner of Whitney and the alley was accented with a similar corner detail to the one at the corner of Whitney and First Street.

When looking down First Street from the corner you see a similar inset wall plane at the upper floors that reduces the massing in that area as well as creating the more defined corner element at the upper floors. In addition the large lower floor wood massing was broken down into two smaller pieces which provide a building inset along the lower floors. As we move further down First Street a much wider, full height, building inset was created to further reduce the massing and break the overall building down into smaller components. Finally the southeast corner of the building was treated with a similar detail to the corner of Whitney and First Street both at the lower floors and the upper floors.

In addition to the massing revisions noted above some of the building details were revised including the window patterns, the balcony railing designs, and the cornice details. In regards to interior building details the major revisions were at the bicycle storage and the EV charging stations. The EV charging stations were confirmed to be Level 2 chargers, and will include an energy management system. In case the technology improves by the time of construction, we will target Level 2 chargers, or their equivalent or better. The bicycle storage was totally reconfigured with a secure bike room configured on the First Floor. The bike room provides individual racks for up to 65 bikes with each rack including a power outlet for e-bikes. This configuration allows easy retrieval of bikes without venturing into the basement and easy access to the exterior via the rear exit door which is in close proximity to the bike room entrance.

We believe this will be a very positive feature of a pedestrian friendly building. 684
Agenda Item # 11.
685
Agenda Item # 11.
366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

PROJECT DATA TABLE
ADDRESS: 355, 365, 371, 373 FIRST STREET
LOS ALTOS, CA 94022
APN: 167-41-026, 167-41-027, 167-41-028, 167-41-029
GENERAL PLAN: DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (DC)
ZONING: COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN / MULTIPLE FAMILY (CD/R3)
SITE AREA (GROSS): 27,887 S.F. ( 0.64 ACRE )
SITE AREA (NET): 27,287 S.F. ( 0.63 ACRE )
BASE DENSITY: 37 (SEE SHEET T3)
PROPOSED DENSITY: 50 UNITS (79 du / net ac)
BUILDING CODE: 2019 C.B.C.

OCCUPANCY: S2 / R2
CONSTRUCTION: TYPE IA / IIIA
FIRE SPRINKLERS: INCLUDED PER C.B.C. 903.2

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / DENSITY BONUS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
LOT SIZE: 27,887 / 43560 = 0.64 ACRE
ALLOWABLE DENSITY: GOVERNED BY 35 FEET HEIGHT LIMIT
BASE DENSITY: 39 UNITS
CALCULATION: 39 UNITS x 15% B.M.R. = 5.85 = 6
AFFORDABLE UNITS: 7 B.M.R. PROVIDED (3 VERY LOW / 4 MODERATE)

DENSITY BONUS
3/39 = 7.69 = 8% VERY LOW UNITS --> 27.5% DENSITY BONUS

27.5% X 39 UNITS = 10.73 --> 11 ADDITIONAL UNITS PERMITTED SEE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65925.(f)(2)
8% VERY LOW UNITS --> 1 CONCESSIONS PERMITTED
SEE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65925.(d)(2)(B)

PROPOSED BUILDING CONFIGURATION
STUDIO UNITS 2
1 BEDROOM UNITS 7
2 BEDROOM UNITS 30
3 BEDROOM UNITS 11
TOTAL UNITS 50
PROPOSED B.M.R. UNITS
STUDIO UNIT (VERY LOW INCOME) 1
1 BEDROOM UNITS (VERY LOW INCOME) 2
1 BEDROOM UNIT (MODERATE INCOME) 1
2 BEDROOM UNITS (MODERATE INCOME) 3

INCENTIVES STANDARD INCENTIVE

1. HEIGHT INCREASE (11' ON-MENU) 35' 46'

WAIVERS STANDARD INCENTIVE

1. PARKING STALL SIZE REDUCTION (10% OF STALLS) 9'-0"x18'-0" 8'-6"x18'-0"

2. ELEVATOR TOWER HEIGHT INCREASE 12' 17'-6”
BUILDING AREA SUMMARY (GROSS S.F.)
LOWER BASEMENT FLOOR: 25,741 S.F.

UPPER BASEMENT FLOOR: 25,355 S.F.

FIRST FLOOR: 18,781 S.F.

SECOND FLOOR: 20,005 S.F.

THIRD FLOOR: 20,194 S.F.

FOURTH FLOOR: 20,195 S.F.

ROOF LEVEL: 468 S.F.

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL: 79,175 S.F.

TOTAL GARAGE: 51,096 S.F.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
355 FIRST STREET IS A MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT COMPRISING 4 LOTS ON FIRST STREET. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A 79,643 SQUARE FEET ABOVE GRADE, 50-UNIT, FOUR-STORY BUILDING, WITH TWO LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING. THE PROJECT REPLACES THE 4 EXISTING BUILDINGS. THE UNDERGROUND PARKING LEVELS ARE ACCESSED FROM ALLEY AND INCLUDE; 113 PARKING STALLS, AND (1) LEVEL 2 EV CHARGING STATION (OR EQUIVALENT) FOR EACH UNIT. THE FIRST FLOOR INCLUDES THE MAIN LOBBY, A COURT FOR INTERIOR LIGHTING, AND A SECURE BIKE ROOM FOR UP TO 65 BIKE RACKS. THE ROOF TOP INCLUDES A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT ROOFTOP DECK WITH GRILLING STATIONS, DINING TABLES, AND OUTDOOR SEATING. IN ADDITION SOLAR PANELS WILL BE INSTALLED FOR A PORTION OF THE COMMON AREA ELECTRICITY USE AND TO OFFSET ELECTRICITY FOR THE 8 BMR UNITS.

THE FOLLOWING TABLE SUMMARIZES THE PROJECT:

SETBACKS: EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED / ALLOWED
FRONT 0'-22' 10' 10'
REAR 16'-116' 10' 10'
RIGHT SIDE 5' 4' 0'
LEFT SIDE 0' 2' 2'
HEIGHT: +/- 16' - 28' 46' (11' ON-MENU INCENTIVE) 35'

BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS

REQUIRED SPACES (PER VTA)
1 CLASS I SPACES PER 3 UNITS: 17 SPACES
1 CLASS II SPACES PER 15 UNITS: 4 SPACES

PROVIDED SPACES
CLASS I (ENCLOSED BICYCLE STORAGE): 65 SPACES
CLASS II (2 BICYCLE RACKS): 6 SPACES

PARKING STANDARDS
PARKING STANDARDS (PER LAMC 14.74.080 )

REQUIRED SPACES
2 SPACES PER UNIT : 100 SPACES
1 GUEST SPACES PER 4 UNITS: 13 SPACES
TOTAL REQUIRED: 113 SPACES
DENSITY BONUS PARKING STANDARDS PER GOV. CODE 65915 (p) (1)

REQUIRED SPACES
1 SPACE PER UNIT 1 BEDROOM UNIT: 9 SPACES

1.5 SPACES PER UNIT 2&3 BEDROOM UNIT: 62 SPACES
GUEST AND ADA INCLUDED: INCLUDED
TOTAL REQUIRED: 71 SPACES

PARKING PROVIDED
STANDARD SPACES: 99 SPACES
REDUCED SPACES (10%): 12 SPACES
ADA SPACES: 2 SPACES
TOTAL PROVIDED: 113 SPACES
NOTES:

1. ALL PARKING SHALL BE DOUBLE - STRIPED

2. PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHTING LEVELS & VIDEO

SURVEILLANCE AT GARAGE LEVELS

UNIT MIX CHART
UNIT AREA 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR4TH FLOORUNIT TOTAL 1 BEDROOM / STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
3 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
2F
3A
3B
3C
617 SQ. FT.
804 SQ. FT.
993 SQ. FT.
1164 SQ. FT.
1206 SQ. FT.
1272 SQ. FT.
1341 SQ. FT.
1366 SQ. FT.
1438 SQ. FT.
1598 SQ. FT.
1767 SQ. FT.
2199 SQ. FT.
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
4 2
2 2
3 2
1 2
1 9 18%
30 60%
11 22%
12 14 13 11
9 BEDS
60 BEDS
33 BEDS
50 UNITS
TOTAL
102 BEDS
TOTAL

PROJECT DATA SHEET
T2

FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
1) FIRE SPRINKLERS: NFPA 13 SYSTEM WILL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED PER CBC 903.2.1 THROUGH 903.2.19.1.2. 2) STANDPIPES: STANDPIPE SYSTEMS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN NEW BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION. FIRE HOSE THREADS USED IN CONNECTION WITH STANDPIPE SYSTEMS SHALL BE APPROVED AND SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT HOSE THREADS. THE LOCATION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT HOSE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED.

STANDPIPES SHALL BE MANUAL WET TYPE. IN BUILDINGS USED FOR HIGH- PILED COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE, FIRE HOSE PROTECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 32. STANDPIPE SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION AND NFPA 14 AS AMENDED IN CHAPTER 47. CFC SEC. 905.
3) EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE: ALL NEW BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE APPROVED RADIO COVERAGE FOR EMERGENCY

RESPONDERS WITHIN THE BUILDING BASED UPON THE EXISTING COVERAGE LEVELS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS OF THE JURISDICTION AT THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT REQUIRE IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS. REFER TO CFC SEC. 510 FOR FURTHER REQUIREMENTS. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS APPLIES TO ALL BUILDINGS. 4) WATER SUPPLY: POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM CONTAMINATION CAUSED BY FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT AND ANY CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS TO CONTACT THE WATER PURVEYOR SUPPLYING THE SITE OF SUCH PROJECT, AND TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PURVEYOR. SUCH

REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF ANY WATER-BASED FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, AND/OR FIRE

SUPPRESSION WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS OR STORAGE CONTAINERS THAT MAY BE PHYSICALLY CONNECTED IN ANY MANNER TO AN APPLIANCE CAPABLE OF CAUSING CONTAMINATION OF THE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY OF THE PURVEYOR OF RECORD. FINAL

APPROVAL OF THE SYSTEM(S) UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL NOT BE GRANTED BY THIS OFFICE UNTIL COMPLIANCE WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER PURVEYOR OF RECORD ARE DOCUMENTED BY THAT PURVEYOR AS HAVING BEEN MET BY THE APPLICANT(S). 2019 CFC SEC. 903.3.5 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 13114.7. 5) TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CURRENT EDITIONS OF NFPA 72, THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, AND THE CITY OR TOWN ORDINANCES, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS WHERE A TWO-WAY SYSTEM IS BEING INSTALLED.

OTHER STANDARDS ALSO CONTAIN DESIGN/INSTALLATION CRITERIA FOR SPECIFIC LIFE SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT. THESE OTHER STANDARDS ARE REFERRED TO IN NFPA 72.
6) ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: EW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND WIDTH OF 0.5 INCH (12.7 MM). WHERE

ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. CFC SEC. 505.1.

CODES AND STANDARDS
BUILDING PLANS TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:
2019 CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

CITY OF LOS ALTOS REACH CODE ORDINANCE
1D 1026 SQ. FT. 1 1 1 3
2G 1175 SQ. FT. 1 1 1 3
3D 2040 SQ. FT. 1 1 2
3E 1982 SQ. FT. 1 1
2E-ALT 1 1406 SQ. FT. 2
2E-ALT 2 1391 SQ. FT. 4
2E-ALT 3 1373 SQ. FT. 6
2C-ALT 1449 SQ. FT.
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
2 2
7) FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS: REFER TO CFC SEC. 907 AND THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED EDITION OF NFPA 72. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS (3 SETS) AND A PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE SCCFD FOR APPROVAL BEFORE INSTALLING OR ALTERING ANY SYSTEM.

CALL (408) 378-4010 FOR MORE INFORMATION.
8) CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CFC CHAPTER 33 AND OUR STANDARD DETAIL AND SPECIFICATION SI-7. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE NOTATIONS ON SUBSEQUENT PLAN SUBMITTALS, AS APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT. CFC CHP. 33. 3B-ALT 1734 SQ. FT. 1 1 2
686
Agenda Item # 11.
687
Agenda Item # 11.
688
Agenda Item # 11.
689
Agenda Item # 11.
690
Agenda Item # 11.
691
Agenda Item # 11.
692
Agenda Item # 11.
1 STORY

BUILDING
1 STORY

BUILDING

UTILITY
SHED
2 STORY

BUILDING COVERED WALKWAY

F I R S T S T R E E T W H I T N E Y S T R E E T

A L L E Y

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING UTILITY

CONNECTIONS
EXISTING TREE - TYP.

LANDSCAPE HALF WALL
12" CURB

CONCRETE
PAVERS
TRASH

ENCLOSURE CONCRETE
PAD
1 STORY

BUILDING
376 S.F.
1,246 S.F.
1,687 S.F.
1,491 S.F.
2,440 S.F.
370 S.F.
38 S.F.

APN: 167-41-029 APN: 167-41-028 APN: 167-41-027 APN: 167-41-026 APN: 167-41-025
381 1ST ST. 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2021
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'

EXISTING SITE PLAN
A06
NORTH
TOTAL 7,648 SF

EXISTING BUILDING AREAS
April 8, 2022
693
Agenda Item # 11.
8'-0"
3'-0 3/4"
15'-1"
6'-0 3/4"
3'-0" 10'-0" 2'-0"
169'-6" 24'-0"
193'-6"

F I R S T S T R E E T W H I T N E Y S T R E E T

A L L E Y

ACCESS FROM ALLEY

PROPERTY LINE
4 NEW TRANSFORMER

BELOW GROUND
NEW 2" IRR SERVICE
NEW 4" DW SERVICE

NEW MTD, PUMP AND CURB

UNDERDRAIN
NEW 6" FW SERVICE
PROPOSED TREE - SEE L.A.D
FOR SIZE AND SPECIES - TYP.

PROPERTY LINE
5 1
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3 3
3 APN: 167-41-025
381 1ST ST.

TRASH STAGING AREA
6 6
3 SETBACK LINE 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A07
1 GARAGE RAMP
COURT

KEY NOTES

RESIDENTIAL UNIT

RAISED PLANTERS

BICYCLE RACK
2 3
4 5
NORTH
6 SITTING BENCH
694
Agenda Item # 11.
11 59 TOTAL
18 10
13 7
UP
UP

RAMP UP TO UPPER
GARAGE

BATTERY BACKUP

POWER ENCLOSURE
9'x18' PARKING SPACE,

TYPICAL UNLESS

OTHERWISE NOTED
26'-0"

DRIVE AISLE

ELEVATOR EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B
A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19
ELEV.

EQUIP.
8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6"
8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6"
MECH ROOM 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

LOWER GARAGE PLAN
A08
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
695
Agenda Item # 11.

ELECTRICAL ROOM

TRASH ROOM

RAMP UP TO ALLEY

RAMP DOWN TO

LOWER GARAGE
26'-0"

DRIVE AISLE
9'x18' PARKING SPACE,

TYPICAL UNLESS

OTHERWISE NOTED
UP
DN
UP
DN

LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE
18 10
11 4
11 54 TOTAL

ELEVATOR EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B
A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19
8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6"
8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6"
11'-4" VERTICAL CLEARANCE

TO UNDERSIDE OF

CONCRETE PODIUM,

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
SOFFIT @
+8'-2" A.F.F.

SOFFIT @
+8'-2" A.F.F.

CUSHMAN 35LR54 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2021

UPPER GARAGE PLAN
A09
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
April 8, 2022
696
Agenda Item # 11.

A
A17

DOWN TO

BELOW-GRADE

PARKING
COURT

OPEN TO ABOVE

BIKE ROOM

WITH KEY CARD

ACCESS AND
VIDEO

SURVEILLANCE
UNIT 3B
3 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT
2E-ALT 2
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2C-ALT
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 1C
1 BED, 1 1/2 BATH
BMR: VERY LOW
UNIT 2E-ALT 1
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 1A
STUDIO, 1 BATH
BMR: VERY LOW
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2D
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E-ALT 3
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2B
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2G
2 BED, 2 BATH
BMR: MODERATE

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

TRASH CHUTES
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
PORCH
PORCH

PORCH PORCH

PORCH PORCH
PORCH
PORCH

PORCH PORCH
PORCH
C
A19
C
A19

LINE OF GARAGE WALL
BELOW

OPEN TO
ABOVE

SECURITY GATE WITH

ACCESS CONTROLS
UNIT 1D
1 BED,
1 1/2 BATH

VERTICAL BIKE

RACKS WITH
POWER

BICYCLE

MAINTENANCE
AREA 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A10
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH

UNIT MIX CHART
1 BEDROOM UNITS/ UNIT AREA 1ST FLOOR

STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
3 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2F
3A
3B
3C
617 SQ. FT.
804 SQ. FT.
993 SQ. FT.
1,164 SQ. FT. 1,206 SQ. FT. 1,272 SQ. FT.
1,341 SQ. FT.
1,438 SQ. FT.
1,598 SQ. FT. 1,767 SQ. FT.
2,199 SQ. FT.
3 25%
8 67%
1 8%
12 1D 1,026 SQ. FT.
2G 1,175 SQ. FT.
3D 2,040 SQ. FT. 3E 1,982 SQ. FT.
1 2C-ALT 1,449 SQ. FT.
2E-ALT 3
2E-ALT 2
2E-ALT 1
2E 1,366 SQ. FT. 1,406 SQ. FT. 1,391 SQ. FT. 1,373 SQ. FT.1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 3B-ALT 1,734 SQ. FT.
1 697
Agenda Item # 11.

COURT

OPEN TO ABOVE
UNIT 3B
3 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT
2E-ALT 2
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
BMR:

MODERATE
UNIT 2C-ALT
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E-ALT 1
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 1A
STUDIO, 1 BATH
UNIT 2E
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3A
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E-ALT 3
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2B
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

TRASH CHUTES
UNIT 1C
1 BED, 1 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2A
2 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT 1B
1 BED,
1 BATH
BMR: VERY LOW

DECK DECK DECK DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
DECK

DECK DECK DECK
DECK
DECK A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19

OPEN TO
BELOW
UNIT 2G
2 BED, 2 BATH
BMR: MODERATE
UNIT 1D
1 BED,
1 1/2 BATH 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A11
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH

UNIT MIX CHART
1 BEDROOM UNITS/ UNIT AREA 2ND FLOOR

STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2F
617 SQ. FT.
804 SQ. FT.
993 SQ. FT.
1,164 SQ. FT. 1,206 SQ. FT. 1,272 SQ. FT.
1,341 SQ. FT.
1,438 SQ. FT.
4 29%
8 57%
1D 1,026 SQ. FT.
2G 1,175 SQ. FT.
2C-ALT 1,449 SQ. FT.
2E-ALT 3
2E-ALT 2
2E-ALT 1
2E 1,366 SQ. FT. 1,406 SQ. FT. 1,391 SQ. FT. 1,373 SQ. FT.1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 3 BEDROOM UNITS
3A
3B
3C
1,598 SQ. FT. 1,767 SQ. FT.
2,199 SQ. FT.
2 14%
14 3D 2,040 SQ. FT. 3E 1,982 SQ. FT.
3B-ALT 1,734 SQ. FT.
1 1
698
Agenda Item # 11.

COURT

OPEN TO ABOVE
UNIT
3B-ALT
3 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT
2E-ALT 3
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2C
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E-ALT 2
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3D
3 BED, 3 BATH
UNIT 3A
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E-ALT 3
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2B
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

TRASH CHUTES
UNIT 2F
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2A
2 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT 1B
1 BED,
1 BATH
BMR: MODERATE

DECK DECK DECK DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
DECK

DECK DECK DECK
DECK
DECK A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19
UNIT 2G
2 BED, 2 BATH
UNIT 1D
1 BED,
1 1/2 BATH 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
A12
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH

UNIT MIX CHART
1 BEDROOM UNITS/ UNIT AREA 3RD FLOOR

STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2F
617 SQ. FT.
804 SQ. FT.
993 SQ. FT.
1,164 SQ. FT. 1,206 SQ. FT. 1,272 SQ. FT.
1,341 SQ. FT.
1,438 SQ. FT.
2 15%
8 62%
1D 1,026 SQ. FT.
2G 1,175 SQ. FT.
2C-ALT 1,449 SQ. FT.
2E-ALT 3
2E-ALT 2
2E-ALT 1
2E 1,366 SQ. FT. 1,406 SQ. FT. 1,391 SQ. FT. 1,373 SQ. FT. 1 1
1 2
1 1
1 1
1 3 BEDROOM UNITS
3A
3B
3C
1,598 SQ. FT. 1,767 SQ. FT.
2,198 SQ. FT.
3 23%
13 3D 2,040 SQ. FT. 3E 1,982 SQ. FT.
3B-ALT 1,734 SQ. FT. 1
1 1
699
Agenda Item # 11.

W D
COURT

OPEN TO ABOVE
UNIT
3B-ALT
3 BED,
2 BATH
UNIT
2E-ALT 3
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2C
2 BED,
2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E-ALT 2
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3A
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2E-ALT 3
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 2B
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3C
3 BED, 2 1/2 BATH

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

TRASH CHUTES
UNIT 2F
2 BED, 2 1/2 BATH
UNIT 3E
3 BED,
3 BATH

DECK DECK DECK DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
DECK

DECK DECK DECK
DECK
DECK A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19
UNIT 3D
3 BED, 3 BATH 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
A13
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH

UNIT MIX CHART
1 BEDROOM UNITS/ UNIT AREA 4TH FLOOR

STUDIO UNITS
2 BEDROOM UNITS
1A (STUDIO) 1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
2D
2F
617 SQ. FT.
804 SQ. FT.
993 SQ. FT.
1,164 SQ. FT. 1,206 SQ. FT. 1,272 SQ. FT.
1,341 SQ. FT.
1,438 SQ. FT.
0 0%
6 55%
1D 1,026 SQ. FT.
2G 1,175 SQ. FT.
2C-ALT 1,449 SQ. FT.
2E-ALT 3
2E-ALT 2
2E-ALT 1
2E 1,366 SQ. FT. 1,406 SQ. FT. 1,391 SQ. FT. 1,373 SQ. FT. 1 1
1 2
1 3 BEDROOM UNITS
3A
3B
3C
1,598 SQ. FT. 1,767 SQ. FT.
2,198 SQ. FT.
5 46%
11 3D 2,040 SQ. FT. 3E 1,982 SQ. FT.
3B-ALT 1,734 SQ. FT. 1
1 1
1 1
700
Agenda Item # 11.

A
A17
B
A18
B
A18
A
A17
C
A19
C
A19

OPEN TO COURT
BELOW

EXIT STAIR A

EXIT STAIR B

ELEVATOR

VALLEY VALLEY

ROOFTOP CONDENSER
UNIT, TYP.

LOCATION OF SOLAR

PANELS, TBD

RAISED PLANTER, TYP
- SEE LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS

RAISED TREE

PLANTER, TYP - SEE

LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS

ACCESS GATE FOR

MAINTENANCE

ACCESS GATE FOR

MAINTENANCE

ACCESS GATE FOR

MAINTENANCE
48" HIGH ROOF TOP SAFETY
GUARDRAIL 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

ROOF PLAN
A14
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
701
Agenda Item # 11.
702
Agenda Item # 11.
703
Agenda Item # 11.

ROOF DECK

FIRST FLOOR
+ 0'-0"

SECOND FLOOR
+ 11'-5"

THIRD FLOOR
+ 22'-10"

FOURTH FLOOR
+34'-3"
+ 45'-6 3/4"

STAIR TOWER
+ 57'-4 1/2"

ELEVATOR TOWER
+ 63'-4 1/2"

UPPER GARAGE
- 12'-6"

LOWER GARAGE
- 22'-8" 10'-2" 12'-6" 11'-5" 11'-5" 11'-5" 11'-3 3/4" PROPERTY LINE MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 246.28'
BASE HEIGHT = 200.28'

COURTYARD
UNIT 3E
UNIT 1B
UNIT 1B

PARKING
STALL

PARKING
STALL
GARAGE
UNIT 2E UNIT 3C
GARAGE
UNIT 2E 9'-0"

PARKING
STALL

PARKING
STALL
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2E UNIT 1D
UNIT 2E UNIT 1D UTIL. 8'-2" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" PROPERTY LINE 245.82'
211.67'
223.09'
234.51'
200.25'
257.63
263.63'
187.75'
177.58'

WHITNEY STREET
ADJACENT BUILDING 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

BUILDING SECTION A
A17

SECTION A
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
704
Agenda Item # 11.
8'-2" MIN. PROPERTY LINE 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" PROPERTY LINE 9'-0" 8'-2" MIN. PARKING STALL

PARKING
STALL

MECH ROOM
UNIT 2D
UNIT 3A UNIT 1B UNIT 2A
UNIT 3A UNIT 1B UNIT 2A
UNIT 3A UNIT 3E
GARAGE
GARAGE

ROOF DECK

FIRST FLOOR
+ 0'-0"

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

FOURTH FLOOR

UPPER GARAGE
- 12'-6"

LOWER GARAGE
- 22'-8" 10'-2" 12'-6" 11'-5" 11'-5" 11'-5" 11'-3 3/4"
MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 246.28'
BASE HEIGHT = 200.28'
200.25'
187.75'
177.58' 8'-2"

FIRST STREET ALLEY

TRANSFORMERS
+ 11'-5"
+ 22'-10"
+34'-3"
+ 45'-6 3/4"
245.82'
211.67'
223.09'
234.51'

STAIR TOWER

ELEVATOR TOWER
+ 57'-4 1/2"
+ 63'-4 1/2"
257.63'
263.63' 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

BUILDING SECTION B
A18

SECTION B
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
705
Agenda Item # 11.

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 8'-2" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 9'-0" 8'-2" UNIT 2C UNIT 2E UNIT 3B
UNIT 2C UNIT 2E UNIT 3B
UNIT 2C UNIT 2E UNIT 3B
UNIT 2C UNIT 2E UNIT 3B
GARAGE

PARKING GARAGE STALL

PARKING
STALL

ROOF DECK

FIRST FLOOR
+ 0'-0"

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

FOURTH FLOOR

STAIR TOWER

ELEVATOR TOWER

UPPER GARAGE
- 12'-6"

LOWER GARAGE
- 22'-8" 10'-2" 12'-6" 11'-5" 11'-5" 11'-5" 11'-3 3/4"
MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 246.28'
BASE HEIGHT = 200.28'
200.25'
187.75'
177.58'
FIRST STREET ALLEY + 11'-5"
+ 22'-10"
+34'-3"
211.67'
223.09'
234.51'
+ 45'-6 3/4"
+ 57'-4 1/2"
+ 63'-4 1/2"
245.82'
257.63'
263.63' 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

BUILDING SECTION C
A19

SECTION C
0 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
706
Agenda Item # 11.

D W
W D
D W 366.014 355 First Street
Los Altos, CA
April 8, 2022

FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
A20

SECOND FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

LOWER GARAGE LEVEL UPPER GARAGE LEVEL

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
471 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
296 SF
471 SF
24,588 SF
25,355 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
834 SF
2,836 SF
18,781 SF
15,111 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
42 SF
2,620 SF
20,005 SF
17,343 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING
TOTAL
1,495 SF
11,983 SF
49,619 SF
130,739 SF

BUILDING TOTALS
67,642 SF

PORCH AREA
922 SF

DECK AREA

TOTAL PORCH / DECK AREA
8,044 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
42 SF
2,553 SF
20,195 SF
17,600 SF

DECK AREA

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL
42 SF
2,564 SF
20,194 SF
17,588 SF

DECK AREA
646 SF 579 SF 578 SF

ROOF DECK

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS

DWELLING UNITS

UTILITY

CIRCULATION

PARKING

LEVEL TOTAL

DECK AREA

ROOF DECK
5,318 SF
468 SF
468 SF
239 SF
25,031 SF
25,741 SF
707
Agenda Item # 11.
708
Agenda Item # 11.
709
Agenda Item # 11.
710
Agenda Item # 11.
711
Agenda Item # 11.
712
Agenda Item # 11.
713
Agenda Item # 11.
714
Agenda Item # 11.
715
Agenda Item # 11.
716
Agenda Item # 11.
717
Agenda Item # 11.
718
Agenda Item # 11.
719
Agenda Item # 11.
720
Agenda Item # 11.
721
Agenda Item # 11.
722
Agenda Item # 11.
723
Agenda Item # 11.
724
Agenda Item # 11.
725
Agenda Item # 11.

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]
726
Agenda Item # 11.

From: Christine Talbott
To: Public Comment
Subject: 355 First Street-SB 330 Project
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 2:28:05 PM
I am strongly opposed to the construction of a FOUR story building at this location.

There are so many large condo buildings on 1st street, that the street is more of a tunnel than a welcoming entrance to downtown Los Altos.

All the condo buildings have taken away retail shops and small offices. Again, changing the flavor of downtown Los Altos.

Such large structures block the afternoon sun from many buildings.

Please do not allow this building.

Christine Talbott
Regency Investment Associates
727
Agenda Item # 11.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
728
Agenda Item # 11.

From: Anne Paulson
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 11 - June 28, 2022
Date: Friday, June 24, 2022 10:15:56 AM
Re: Distribution of Inclusionary Units in 355 First Street.

Dear Mayor Enander and City Council,
The size distribution of inclusionary units in 355 First Street does not follow Los Altos’ ordinance requiring that inclusionary units “shall not be significantly distinguishable by size” from the market rate units. On average, the inclusionary units are much smaller. As shown by this graph, the below market (BMR) units are mostly one and two bedroom units, whereas the market rate units are mostly two and three bedroom units.

Chart
If the units were distributed as follows:

Unit size All BMR Very Low Moderate
Studio 0 0 0
1 BR 1 0 1
2 BR 4 2 2
3 BR 2 1 1
then the market rate units and the below market units would have similar size distributions, as follows, which would be in conformance with our ordinance. 729
Agenda Item # 11.
730
Agenda Item # 11.

From: Jon Baer
To: Anita Enander; Jonathan Weinberg; Sally Meadows; Lynette Lee Eng; Neysa Fligor Cc: Gabriel Engeland; Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item # 11 355 First Street
Date: Sunday, June 26, 2022 3:24:00 PM
City Council- my comments with regard 355 First Street project:

Is it better than the version you reviewed on February 8th ? Really no. Is it worse? Perhaps. Have the key items that can and should be addressed been fixed? Nope.

While some in the community may plead for you to approve this project as we need more housing in our City and the City attorney may warn you that not approving it risks a lawsuit, those arguments are not valid reasons to approve this project. This project is flawed and should be denied. Most of the legitimate issues raised at the last council meeting have been ignored-the applicant is basically daring you to deny the project. Deny it.

What is wrong with this project:

1. The design does not minimize mass and bulk. The revised exterior wood cladding actually increased the mass and bulk at Whitney and First and further emphases that corner. It also fails to minimize the focal point being at Whitney and First, which was one of the city council objections. The condition of approval of having the Community Development Director work with the applicant to remedy planning commission and city council objections is unacceptable.

2. The right side of the building has windows and balconies that are 3 feet from the property line. Another building will get constructed and it will render those balconies and windows essentially useless for air and light. And it will create privacy issues. There should be no windows or balconies on the right side of the building unless the building façade has a more generous setback from the property line.

3. The courtyard is nothing more than a light well in the center of the building. It is a joketenement buildings on the lower east side of New York provided more light and air than what is being provided here.

4. The entrance is not human scale. It can and should be modified to be human scale. This alone is basis for denial of this project. It is irrelevant if the applicant thinks the current design is the most pleasing. It has to be of human scale. End of discussion

5. While extending the lower floors to give the upper floors a greater perception of setback is a clever trick, it does not address the fundamental problem. There already is minimal setback from the street, so the lower floors should not be allowed to be extended out. Doing this does not reduce the appearance of mass and bulk, despite what staff and applicant profess.

6. Adding another BMR unit, while good, does not address the fundamental issue that we require BMR units to be spread out within a building. Take the additional BMR unit, but enforce our requirement.

7. It is sheer nonsense that the roof deck is necessary for the project to be feasible. A well designed courtyard would provide a far more appealing and useful amenity. All the roof deck does is add additional height, mass and bulk to the building.

8. The overall design as well as individual elements such as balcony railings and windows continue to give the building an industrial look, not a residential feel compatible with surrounding buildings.

I am not against more well-designed housing along First Street. This project as currently proposed 731
Agenda Item # 11.
represents poor architectural choices, does not meet our guidelines and is not compatible with the downtown.
732
Agenda Item # 11.

June 26, 2022
Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Council Meeting June 28, 2022, Item #11 – 355 First Street Dear Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council:

As we stated in February, the League of Women Voters supports urban infill developments such as the proposed 355 First Street complex. Its additional 50 residential units will help us reach our RHNA goals in a way that fulfills the Downtown Vision. The project is recommended by both the Complete Streets Commission and the Planning Commission.

However, we do not agree with the Staff that the BMR unit mix reflects the bedroom mix of the entire project. Out of nine studio and one-bedroom units, four are proposed as BMRs, while out of a total of forty-one two and three-bedroom units, only three are proposed to be BMRs. We would like this discrepancy to be corrected, along with relocating the BMRs— per Staff’s direction.

The Housing Element includes programs to reduce constraints on housing development. This project reflects the slow and inconsistent approval process that many developers have complained about. In addition, 355 First Street reinforces the importance of Council and Planning Commission considering only objective standards. The City Attorney pointed out that much of the Council direction on February 8th was not legally permissible and that many of the Council comments were clearly subjective and should be eliminated under the new Housing Element. Some examples of this include:
#13 “building appears to be the least pleasant of all the buildings approved on First Street” #14 “building design is uninviting”
#16 “make the entries warm, inviting, village-like and make it Los Altos” (Please send comments related to this letter to
Thank you for your consideration,
Karin Bricker, President LWV of Los Altos Mountain View cc: Gabriel Engeland Nick Zornes Sean Gallegos. Jolie Houston Angel Rodriguez 733
Agenda Item # 11.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
734
Agenda Item # 11.

YIMBY Law
57 Post St, Suite 908
San Francisco, CA 94104
6/28/2022
Los Altos City Council
1 N San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Via Email
Re: 355 1st Street
167-41-029 & 167-41-028
Dear Los Altos City Council,
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As you know, the City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.

The project at 355 First Street will be a multiple-family residential project comprising four lots on First Street. The project will create 50 units (six affordable). The project will also create two levels of underground parking.

California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.

The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced.

I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.

Sincerely,
1 735
Agenda Item # 11.

Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 2 736
Agenda Item # 11.

From: Dylan Casey
To: Public Comment
Cc: Courtney Welch
Subject: [External Sender]Written Comment on Agenda Item 11, 355 1st St LLC Housing Development Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:34:08 PM
Attachments: Los Altos - 355 First St HAA Letter.pdf
Dear City Council,
Please consider the attached letter as public comment on the proposed housing development at 355 First Street.

Thank you,
Dylan Casey
Executive Director, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund www.carlaef.org
737
Agenda Item # 11.
738
Agenda Item # 11.

Altos to approve of this project because it is the right decision for the City and is required by state law.

CaRLA is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. The proposed project, which is generally consistent with the Los Altos Zoning Code, will provide badly needed housing, support long-term economic stability, and encourage nearby commercial development. In addition, the proposed project will improve the streetscape and incorporate design elements that support residential use. While no one project will solve the regional housing crisis, the proposed 355 First Street development is the kind of housing Los Altos needs to mitigate displacement, provide shelter for its growing population, and arrest unsustainable housing price appreciation. You may learn more about CaRLA at www.carlaef.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
Executive Director
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund -
2044 Franklin St, Oakland, CA 94612 739
Agenda Item # 11.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
CJ
Finance Director
JH SE
Report and attachments to be posted on or before June 23, 2022 740
Agenda Item # 12.

Los Altos City Council
Legislative Committee
June 14, 2022
Summary of current status on bills being followed, listed in two sections: “Recommended for Action” and “Continue to Watch” (no action recommended at this time).

RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION
AB 1944 (Lee) – Amend Brown Act to allow hybrid meetings, change notice and requirements regarding legislative body officials participating remotely.

Previous letter of Support Unless Amended was sent, with recommended amendment to require notice to city of location of member not appearing in person (with location not to be disclosed to public) for purposes of establishing there is a quorum in the jurisdiction.

Amended May 25 in Assembly to allow notice to be given within 72 hours and posted to agenda (exception to current Brown Act) and with requirement that there to be a quorum in person. Effective date established of Jan. 1, 2024.

Recommendation: Reaffirm support in letter, with or without request for further amendments at Council direction.

AB 2011 (Wicks) – Allow housing and mixed-use in office, retail, or parking regardless of general plan or zoning
Last amended May 11 (minor). Hot bill per CalCities.

Recommendation: Send Oppose letter
AB 2097 (Friedman) – Prohibit any requirement for parking on developments within one-half mile of major transit stop
Previous letter of Oppose. Amended May 19 to apply to developments within 1/2 mile of major transit stop (eliminated “major transit corridor”). All other objections remain.

Recommendation: Send revised Oppose letter acknowledging amendment and restating reasons for opposition.

AB 2181 (Berman) – Change composition and selection of VTA board VTA board took Oppose position on June 2.

Recommendation: Send Oppose letter based on recent VTA Board opposition, with specific focus on the lack of small city representation.

SB 897 (Wieckowski) – Requires objective standards for ADUs/JADUs; prohibits limiting to less than 25 feet; reduces parking; further limits owner-occupancy requirement Previous letter of Oppose. Amended May 19, but only significant change re: deadline for limit on rules and effective dates prohibiting owner occupancy requirements.

Recommendation: Send revised Oppose letter acknowledging amendments and restating reasons for opposition.
741
Agenda Item # 13.

SB 922 (Wiener) – Changes sunset for exempting certain bicycle and other transportation plans from CEQA.

Support by CalCities. Amended May 11 (minor).

Recommendation: Send letter of Support.

SB 932 (Portantino) – Changes requirements in Circulation Element of General Plan Amended May 4 with new expiration date; limits new “cause of action” that creates new liability for cities to the period 1/1/24-1/1/28.

Recommendation: Send Oppose letter using CalCities letter as revised based on committee and council member Weinberg’s input (if received).

CONTINUE TO WATCH
AB 2053 (Lee) – Would create a new California Housing Authority Amended May 19. Continue to watch.

AB 2164 (Lee) – Use business license tax to provide financial assistance to small businesses re: Disability access
Support letter previously sent. Significantly amended May 19 (seems to gut bill).

Continue to watch for new amendments.

AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva) – Specifies additional staff requirements on processing ADU applications.

Amended May 2. Continue to watch.

AB 2625 (Ting) – Exceptions to Subdivision Map Act for leasing or easement on land involving an electrical energy storage system.

Amended May 5. Continue to watch.

SB 930 (Wiener) – (as of April 18) Authorizes HCD to review, adopt, amend, and repeal standards, forms, or definitions to implement the Housing Accountability Act without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Amended June 2. Gut and amend to replace HCD bill with alcohol control bill.

Continue to watch for possible return of HCD language.
742
Agenda Item # 13.
743
Agenda Item # 13.
[Addressee TBD upon assignment by Senate Rules Committee] RE: AB 1944 (Lee): Brown Act Modernization
SUPPORT IF AMENDED (As amended 5/25/22)
The City of Los Altos supports AB 1944, as amended. AB 1944 aims to modernize the Brown Act by giving local legislative bodies the option to waive the requirement that its members who are appearing virtually from a remote location need to publish their private address on the public meeting agenda. AB 1944 also requires a remote participation option for members of the public to address the body.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 that allowed officials of local agencies to appear remotely without having to disclose their private addresses. In 2021, Assemblymember Rivas’s Bill 361 further allowed local agencies to continue to meet virtually during a state-declared emergency without having to meet the quorum and other requirements of teleconference meetings under the Brown Act. Our city council has taken advantage of AB 361 and continues to meet virtually.
[DELETE THE FOLLOWING ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH AND REPLACE WITH NEW TERMINAL PARAGRAPH BASED ON MAY AMENDMENT]
[ORIGINAL] The City of Los Altos recommends that AB 1944 be amended to require local legislative bodies, which opt to waive the requirement, have its members who are appearing virtually from a remote location provide the legislative body with the address of the remote location. The legislative body would be required not to make the address public. We support this amendment to ensure that members who are appearing virtually from a remote location are participating within the jurisdiction, thus avoiding any potential abuse of the flexibility that AB 1944 provides. This amendment further makes it easier to enforce compliance with the Brown Act quorum requirement. Therefore, the City of Los Altos supports AB 1944 with that amendment.]
[NEW] The amendments made May 25, 2022, address the concerns previously expressed. The current language, which requires a physical quorum while allowing remote participation without necessitating that the member disclose their physical address, resolves the issues we previously raised while maintaining compliance with the Brown Act quorum requirement.

Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:

The Honorable Alex Lee
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
744
Agenda Item # 13.

The Honorable Scott Wiener
Chair, Senate Housing Committee
1021 O Street, Room 3330
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Wiener:

Re: AB 2011 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As amended 5/11/22)
The City of Los Altos joins the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) in respectfully opposing AB 2011, which would require cities to ministerially approve, without condition or discretion, certain affordable housing and mixed-use housing developments in zones where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use regardless of any inconsistency with a local government’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation.

Housing affordability and homelessness are among the most critical issues facing California cities. Affordably priced homes are out of reach for many people, and housing is not being built fast enough to meet the current or projected needs of people living in the state. Cities lay the essential groundwork for housing production through planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. Importantly, cities are currently updating housing plans to identify sites for more than two million additional housing units.

AB 2011 disregards this state-mandated local planning effort and forces cities to allow housing developments in nearly all areas of a city. This seriously questions the rationale for the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) process. If developers can build housing in office, retail, and parking areas, why should cities go through the multiyear planning process to identify sites suitable for new housing units, only to have those plans ignored and housing built on sites never considered for new housing?
Less than 5% of the land area in the City of Los Altos is currently devoted to commercial and retail use. These areas provide critical retail (especially grocery) within walkable distances to every neighborhood. Nevertheless, we have judiciously identified commercial areas that could accommodate mixed use and multi-family housing while retaining walkability. This bill would potentially negate those efforts.

Eliminating opportunities for public review of housing developments goes against the principles of transparency and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representatives of their support or concerns. “Streamlining” in the context of AB 2011 is a shortcut around public input. While it may be frustrating for some developers to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, and other development impacts, those directly affected by such projects should be heard. Public engagement often leads to better projects.

Developers for projects that we have approved in recent years have uniformly stated that the Planning Commission and public review have resulted in better projects. Disregarding community input will increase public distrust in government and may result in additional efforts by voters to restrict growth.

The City of Los Altos is committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall across all income levels and will work collaboratively with you and other stakeholders on legislative 745
Agenda Item # 13.
proposals that will spur much needed housing construction without disregarding the statemandated local planning process and important public engagement.

For these reasons, the City of Los Altos of opposes AB 2011.

Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:

The Honorable Buffy Wicks
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
746
Agenda Item # 13.
[Amended from original to reflect single amendment that eliminates “public transit corridors”] [Addressee TBD upon assignment by Senate Rules Committee] RE: AB 2097 (Friedman): Residential and Commercial Development. Parking Requirements.

NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As amended 5/19/22)
The City of Los Altos joins the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) in respectfully opposing your measure Assembly Bill 2097, which would prohibit a local government from imposing or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement on residential, commercial, or other developments, without regard to the development size, if the development is located on a parcel within one-half mile of public transit.

The amendment to eliminate applicability to high-frequency transit routes improves but does not eliminate the problems with the bill. AB 2097 would essentially allow developers to dictate parking requirements in areas within ½ mile of current major transit stops. This does not guarantee individuals living, working, or shopping on those parcels will actually use transit.

Many residents will continue to own automobiles and require nearby parking, which will only increase parking demand, displace parking to adjacent neighborhoods, and increase congestion.

AB 2097 would give both developers and transit agencies, who are unaccountable to local voters, the power to determine parking requirements. Transit agencies would be able to dramatically alter local parking standards by shifting transit routes and adjusting service intervals.

Additionally, AB 2097 could negatively impact the State’s Density Bonus Law by providing developers parking concessions without also requiring developers to include affordable housing units in the project. The purpose of the Density Bonus Law is to provide concessions and waivers to developers in exchange for affordable housing units.

While AB 2097 may be well intended, parking requirements are most appropriately established at the local level based on community needs. A one-size fits all approach to an issue that is project specific just does not work. For these reasons, the City of Los Altos opposes AB 2097.

Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:

The Honorable Laura Friedman
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
747
Agenda Item # 13.

The Honorable Lena Gonzalez
Chair, Senate Transportation Committee
State Capitol, Room 405
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Gonzalez:

AB 2181 (Berman) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: board of directors.

NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As amended 5/2/22)
The City of Los Altos respectfully opposes AB 2181. We concur with Assembly member Berman’s concern that the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Governance structure should provide the most effective policy and oversight leadership possible for this critical transportation agency.

A complete change to the governance structure as proposed in AB 2181 would have far reaching implications and long-lasting effects on the delivery of transit and transportation in Santa Clara County. On behalf of our community, we must make sure any legislated change to the Board structure is an effective change, which, regrettably, AB 2181 is not.

The total re-structuring of the VTA Board of Directors under AB 2181 would eliminate the role of elected representatives from certain jurisdictions, leaving no representatives – who are accountable to residents – to convey and represent their city’s priorities and concerns.

Elected city officials provide critical experience and knowledge of local transit and transportation concerns, land use and policy making. Mayors and council members understand and implement land-use decisions that enhance VTA’s transit service planning as well. But more particularly for small cities like Los Altos, AB 2181 would greatly reduce our ability to meaningfully represent the interests of our city within the context of regional needs. AB 2181 would seriously undermine this principle of local representation. The Legislature has chosen to link a number of housing bills and parking requirements for multi-family developments to the availability of local transit. Under AB 2181, jurisdictions seeking to meet housing goals, that both depend on and are affected by transit, would be excluded from participating in VTA governance, with potentially profound adverse effects.

VTA’s Board Enhancement Committee and the Governance and Audit Committee have worked effectively since 2019 on dozens of improvements to the governance of VTA and the process for recruiting and retaining engaged and knowledgeable Board members. Los Altos has diligently participated in and supported these efforts, and VTA’s governance has been improved through these changes. Additional potential improvements are undergoing careful evaluation, consistent with an open process that involves all affected jurisdictions.

The future carries a double responsibility for the VTA Board, as public transportation has the huge challenge of recovering from the impacts of the pandemic and providing service to help Santa Clara County and the state reduce GHG emissions by moving people from singleoccupancy vehicles to transit. This bill is not a good solution to these challenges, especially as there has been insufficient engagement with the Santa Clara County community and the member cities like Los Altos that would be most directly affected.

The City of Los Altos therefore must oppose AB 2181.
748
Agenda Item # 13.

Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:

The Honorable Marc Berman
The Honorable Josh Becker
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
749
Agenda Item # 13.

The Honorable Buffy Wicks
Chair, Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee 1020 N Street, Room 156
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Wicks:

Senate Bill 897 (Wieckowski): Accessory dwelling units: junior accessory dwelling units.

NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As amended 5/19/22)
The City of Los Altos joins the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) in regrettably taking an “oppose” position on your Senate Bill 897, which would significantly amend the statewide standards that apply to locally adopted ordinances concerning the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), even though the law has been substantially amended nearly every year since 2016.

Specifically, SB 897 would require local jurisdictions to:
• Allow ADUs to be constructed with a height of up to 25 feet. Current law appropriately authorizes cities and counties to restrict ADU height to 16 feet, thus helping ensure that these accessory units blend into the existing neighborhood. Mandating that local jurisdictions allow essentially two-story ADUs, even if limited to residential neighborhoods near transit, is completely contrary to the stated belief that ADUs are a way to increase density in a modest fashion that is not disruptive to established communities. Shoehorning a 25-foot structure into a backyard of a single-story ranch style home calls to question the idea that these are “accessory dwelling units.”
• Permit constructed ADUs in violation of State building standards and in violation of local zoning requirements. Current law already requires cities and counties to approve ADUs ministerially, without discretionary review. Expanding this to prohibit local jurisdictions from denying permits for already constructed ADUs that fail to comply with State mandated building standards or local zoning requirements could result in dangerous or substandard living conditions. • Allow two ADUs to be constructed on a lot if a multifamily dwelling is proposed to be developed. SB 897 would allow a property owner to construct two ADUs on a vacant parcel years before the proposed multifamily structure begins construction. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the multifamily structure will ever be constructed. It is unclear why local jurisdictions should be forced to allow ADUs to be constructed before the originally proposed multifamily structure. Constructing an ADU without a primary structure makes them accessory to nothing, but rather a standalone unit.

For these reasons, the City of Los Altos opposes SB 897.

Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:

The Honorable Bob Weickowski
750
Agenda Item # 13.

The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
751
Agenda Item # 13.

The Honorable Luz Rivas
Chair, Assembly Natural Resources Committee
1020 N Street, Room 164
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Rivas:

RE: SB 922 (Wiener) California Environmental Quality Act: Exemption: transportation Related Projects
NOTICE OF SUPPORT (As Amended 5/11/22)
The City of Los Altos write in support of SB 922 to help transit agencies and local governments build active and sustainable transportation projects that will create a safer, healthier, and more equitable future for all Californians. The author’s previous bill (SB 288) temporarily exempted from CEQA certain clean transportation projects. Under current law, these CEQA exemptions sunset on January 1, 2023.

SB 922 would eliminate the sunset and provide greater clarity about how to use the exemption and which types of projects are eligible for exemption. SB 922 would streamline CEQA with targeted statutory exemptions for transit and active transportation projects that significantly advance the state’s climate, safety, and health goals.

We favor the criteria required in the bill that the community be meaningfully engaged in shaping projects to require that they benefit residents. The racial equity analysis and residential displacement risk analysis are particularly significant.

SB 922 helps ensure that transportation spending aligns with the state’s policy goals while benefitting communities. For these reasons, the City of Los Altos is pleased to support SB 922.

Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:

The Honorable Scott Wiener
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
752
Agenda Item # 13.
[Note: final Senate amendments only limited new cause of action applicability to the period 1/1/24-1/1/28. Changes were made to original draft of letter in response to Council member Weinberg’s comments. Project description in paragraph 2 was revised and then reviewed by staff transportation consultant familiar with the project for accuracy.] The Honorable Cecelia M. Aguiar-Curry
Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee
1020 N Street, Room 157
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry:

Senate Bill 932 (Portantino): General plans, circulation element NOTICE OF OPPOSITION UNLESS AMENDED (As amended 5/4/22) Dear Chair Portantino:

The City of Los Altos joins the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) in regrettably taking an “oppose unless amended” position on your Senate Bill 932. SB 932 would make significant, unprecedented, and overly prescriptive changes to the requirements of the circulation element of local general plans; impost costly, unfunded mandates for changes to local transportation infrastructure; and expose local governments to significant legal liability.

The City of Los Altos has taken a pro-active approach to meeting the important goals of this bill:
to make streets and roads safer for all users. With impetus from Los Altos, a safe-routes-to school infrastructure project is underway along Homestead Road that transects rights-of-way in the city of Los Altos, County of Santa Clara, City of Cupertino, and City of Sunnyvale and will integrate those new paths with local streets. After Los Altos brought all stakeholders together (the above jurisdictions plus two school districts), the County was persuaded to fund and complete the initial planning phase to help build consensus on a unified vision. Following a two-year period of awaiting appropriate grant fund opportunities, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency took the lead in developing and securing grant fund sources for the design and environmental phases of the project. Grant funding for the construction phases of the project are still unidentified. This project continues to require considerable interagency coordination as part of the design, but the result will be a significant improvement in safe, shared use for students who live in one city but attend school in another. This is just one example of critical projects that require flexibility and quick response to the opportunities to work across multiple jurisdictions to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. They cannot be achieved through a top-down approach that dictates the type of improvements and timing for implementation when multiple jurisdictions are involved.

We are nearing completion of a new Complete Streets Master Plan that integrates improved bicycle/pedestrian paths and safety with routine street maintenance and sets out a long-term plan for making our streets more available to and safer for all users. Much of the plan remains unfunded, despite planned use of state funding from sources such SB-1, Block Grants, gas tax, and other County return-to-fund sources. The requirements of SB 932 are likely even to exceed the ambitious plan we have just developed; without any additional revenue sources, SB 932 will place even greater strain on limited City resources.

We note that cities that have made safety a priority and that have virtually no fatalities would be penalized under 65302(b)(2)(ii)(III) because the already excellent safety record would not allow 753
Agenda Item # 13.
for the reductions that are needed to be granted a 10-year extension of time to implement the provisions of SB 932. This is probably unintended and could perhaps be corrected through amendment.

Our city faces significant tradeoffs in prioritizing competing needs for roadway maintenance and improvements. The loss of employees during COVID, escalating costs for materials, and problems with supply chains are all impediments to be overcome. The circulation element must continue to provide flexibility as to the type of transportation improvements warranted in specific contexts, and any timelines for implementation must be developed in consideration of realistically available financial resources. We note that there is significant pressure from the legislature for local agencies to reduce, eliminate or defer development impact fees, which are among the few sources of revenue the small cities need to implement the provisions of this bill.

Finally, SB 932 creates significant new legal liability for local jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that fail to meet the bill’s arbitrary implementation timeframes. In addition to the funding constraints and issues discussed above, the new private right of action created by SB 932 will be counter-productive to making progress on improving our local streets. Simply put, every additional dollar that goes toward defending against litigation is one fewer dollar available for improving our local streets and roads. Section 65302(b)(2)B)(iii) must be removed from the bill for our city to remove opposition to SB 932.

The following would allow us to remove our OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED position.

1. Remove the uniform, top-down mandates as to project type and timing.

2. Allow for flexibility in projects that cross jurisdictions.

3. Identify new funding sources for any new mandate.

4. Remove entirely the proposed new cause of action liability (we note the currently amended version imposes a time limit on its application, but the entire concept is problematic).

5. Eliminate the perhaps unintended penalties of 65302(b)(2)(ii)(III), as described above.

Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:

The Honorable Anthony Portantino
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
754
Agenda Item # 13.

June 8, 2022
Re: AB 2181 (Berman) OPPOSE
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers and Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, Per action taken by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors on June 2, 2022, I respectfully request your jurisdiction to consider opposing Assembly Bill 2181. Please see the attached letter on behalf of the Board indicating VTA’s opposition.

VTA remains committed to implementing governance reforms initiated by the VTA Board in 2019.

Thank you for your consideration and support of public transportation in Santa Clara County.

A letter stating your jurisdiction’s official position on AB 2181 can be submitted electronically at https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/faces/index.xhtml.

Sincerely,
Charles “Chappie” Jones
Chairperson, Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Cc: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County
755
Agenda Item # 13.

June 8, 2022
Honorable Marc Berman
Assemblymember
State Capitol
Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249
Re: AB 2181 (Berman) OPPOSE
Dear Assemblymember Berman,
On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), I respectfully submit the Board of Directors’ opposition to Assembly Bill 2181. We appreciate and commend your efforts to reform local governance in Santa Clara County and agree that our organization, like any other, has areas in which it can certainly improve. However, we found that these proposed changes to the structure of the VTA Board of Directors in AB 2181 will undermine this policy making and oversight body as well as diminish our chances of successfully passing future local sales tax measures. These measures represent more than 63 percent of the funding for the day to day services VTA and its workforce provide. They would further weaken our position in competition for federal, state and regional funds.

AB 2181 would reduce the number of local elected officials on the VTA Board through a complex process to select city group representatives. The replacement of the Board with the proposed hybrid structure will limit the role of local elected officials who make the land use decisions that ultimately determine the transportation needs in the county. These local elected officials bring experience providing policy direction and oversight of the services VTA provides to the many jurisdictions within the county, the pay and benefits workers receive and their pensions. These local elected officials are vital to ensuring that cities’ priorities are represented in transportation sales tax measures and ensuring city council support.

With these concerns in mind, the VTA Board voted unanimously to oppose AB 2181 on June 2, 2022. When we voted, we made clear that VTA is not opposed to improvements and pledged to complete the reforms developed by the Board Enhancement Committee in a thoughtful process that began in 2019.

Thank you for your leadership, consideration and service to our community. We look forward to continuing to work with you on future transportation policies, projects and services.

Sincerely,
Charles “Chappie” Jones
Chairperson, Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
756
Agenda Item # 13.

Cc: County of Santa Clara Legislative Delegation
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County
757
Agenda Item # 13.

April XX, 2022
Senate Bill 932 (Portantino): General plans, circulation element

OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Dear Senator Portantino:

The City of Los Altos has taken a pro-active approach to meeting the important goals of this bill: to make streets and roads safer for all users. We have partnered with the County of Santa Clara in designing new bike paths along the section of Foothill Expressway that transects the city of Los Altos and integrated those new paths with local streets. This required considerable interagency coordination, but the result is a significant improvement in safe, shared use. In another project, we partnered with the County and with the City of Cupertino to design comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle paths to schools that cross all three jurisdictions. These are the types of critical projects that require flexibility and quick response to the opportunities to work across multiple jurisdictions to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. They cannot be achieved through a top-down approach that dictates the type of improvements and timing for implementation when multiple jurisdictions are involved.

Most recently we completed a new Complete Streets Master Plan that codifies the integration of improved bicycle/pedestrian paths and safety with routine street maintenance and sets out a long-term plan for making our streets more available to and safer for all users. Unfortunately, the plan will require funding of at least $44Million (today’s dollars). Much of the plan remains unfunded, despite planned 758
Agenda Item # 13.
use of SB 1, Block Grants, fuel tax, and other revenue sources. The requirements of SB 932 are likely even to exceed the ambitious plan we have just developed.

We note that cities that have made safety a priority and that have virtually no fatalities would be penalized under 65302(b)(2)(ii)(III) because their already excellent safety record would not allow for the reductions that are needed to be granted a 10-year extension of time to implement the provisions of SB 932. This is probably unintended and could perhaps be corrected through amendment.

Finally, SB 932 creates significant new legal liability for local jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that fail to meet the bill’s arbitrary implementation timeframes. In addition to the funding constraints and issues discussed above, the new private right of action created by SB 932 will be counter-productive to making progress on improving our local streets. Simply put, every additional dollar that goes toward defending litigation is one fewer dollar available for improving our local streets and roads. Section 65302(b)(2)B)(iii) must be removed from the bill for our city to remove opposition to SB 932.

We hope you will continue to work with the League of California Cities and others on amendments that will allow us to remove our position of “oppose unless amended.”
759
Agenda Item # 13.

City of Los Altos 2022 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar June 20, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept/
Date of
request
to add.

July 12, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
AB 481 Discussion/Public
Hearing?
Katie
Housing Element Discussion Nick
Award the CIPP Corrosion Rehabilitation Safety Project Consent Aida Award the on call spot repairs and CCTV Inspection Services Consent Aida Contract Amendment with Traffic Patterns Consent Jim
Complete Streets Master Plan Consent Nick
August 23, 2022 Reach Code Study Session with Env Commission Study Session Aida August 23, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
4350 El Camino Real Discussion/Public
Hearing???
5150 El Camino Real Discussion/Public
Hearing???
August 30, 2022 Commission Interviews
September 6, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Sewer Treatment Plant Amendment Consent
760
Agenda Item # 14.

City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
June 20, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

September 20, 2022* Year End tentative report – September (if needed)

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
October 11, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
October 25, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
November 1, 2021 Joint w/Commissions
November 15, 2022 * 1st Quarter report FY 2021/2022

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
November 29, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
December 6, 2022 CAFR and Year End – 1st meeting December December 13, 2022 Special meeting REORG.
761
Agenda Item # 14.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Future Agenda Topics To Be Scheduled….

Proposed City policy that modifies the environmental analysis standard for circulation impacts from a Level of Service (LOS) analysis to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis.

Public
Hearing
info on Cuesta speed tables
League of California Cities – Role and Representation Presentati on/Discu
ssion
Council Initiated
Subcommittee on Grants NF 03.25.2022
Comprehensive multi-modal traffic study (analysis of recent projects projected parking, trip generation, & traffic impacts to actuals; ECR impacts should include adjacent streets) ES
Reach Code 2.0
Boards and Commission Process /Survey use
PCI Report
Complete Streets Master Plan
Discussion “Ceding Time” at meeting
Flag Raising Policy
Contributions to non-profits policy
762
Agenda Item # 14.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Funding mechanisms for housing and housing programs
763
Agenda Item # 14.

Los Altos City CouncilJune 28, 2022

Los Altos City Council
June 28, 2022