Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, June 30, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

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.
665
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. 666
Agenda Item # 11.
667
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
668
Agenda Item # 11.
669
Agenda Item # 11.
670
Agenda Item # 11.
671
Agenda Item # 11.
672
Agenda Item # 11.
673
Agenda Item # 11.
674
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
675
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
676
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
677
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
678
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.
1 679
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
680
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
681
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
682
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
683
Agenda Item # 11.
684
Agenda Item # 11.
685
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'
686
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'
687
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'
688
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
689
Agenda Item # 11.
690
Agenda Item # 11.
691
Agenda Item # 11.
692
Agenda Item # 11.
693
Agenda Item # 11.
694
Agenda Item # 11.
695
Agenda Item # 11.
696
Agenda Item # 11.
697
Agenda Item # 11.
698
Agenda Item # 11.
699
Agenda Item # 11.
700
Agenda Item # 11.
701
Agenda Item # 11.
702
Agenda Item # 11.
703
Agenda Item # 11.
704
Agenda Item # 11.
705
Agenda Item # 11.
706
Agenda Item # 11.
707
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]
708
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
709
Agenda Item # 11.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
710
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. 711
Agenda Item # 11.
712
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 713
Agenda Item # 11.
represents poor architectural choices, does not meet our guidelines and is not compatible with the downtown.
714
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 715
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 716
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.
717
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.
718
Agenda Item # 13.
719
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]
720
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 721
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]
722
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]
723
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.
724
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]
725
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
726
Agenda Item # 13.

The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
727
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]
728
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 729
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]
730
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
731
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
732
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
733
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 734
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.”
735
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
736
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.
737
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
738
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
739
Agenda Item # 14.

Los Altos City CouncilJune 30, 2022

Los Altos City Council
June 30, 2022