Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, September 6, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Construction-Related Impacts
Potential impacts to the State Right-of-Way (ROW) from project-related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, visit: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/trafficoperations/transportation-permits. Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the STN.

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Los Altos is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].

Please note that Caltrans is in the process of implementing an online, automated, and milestone-based Caltrans Encroachment Permit System (CEPS) to replace the current permit application submittal process with a fully electronic system, including online payments. The new system is expected to be available during 2022. To obtain information about the most current encroachment permit process and to download 238
Agenda Item # 3.

Radha Hayagreev, Senior Planner
February 9, 2022

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” the permit application, please visit https://dot.ca.gov/programs/trafficoperations/ep/applications.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected].

Sincerely,

MARK LEONG
District Branch Chief
Local Development Review
c: State Clearinghouse
239
Agenda Item # 3.

DENSITY BONUS REPORT
4350 El Camino Real
July 27, 2022
Summary
This report discusses the project’s relationship to the state and local density bonus regulations and presents the applicant’s basis for the requested development exceptions, density bonus and parking alteration in number of spaces allowed in accordance with state and local regulations.

The project is a 47-unit, multiple-family condominium building to replace the Unocal 76 gas station at 4350 El Camino Real. The project includes seven affordable housing units and seeks two development incentives and a parking requirement alteration. The two development incentives include an “on-menu” building height incentive, and an off-menu incentive for a reduction in parking space back-up distance. The project also applies a parking space alteration that reduces the total number of required parking spaces in accordance with meeting density bonus regulations.

Project Density
Table 1 - PROJECT DENSITY
Lot Size 28,562 square feet or 0.656 acres
General Plan - Thoroughfare Commercial 38 units per acre Zoning - Commercial Thoroughfare 38 units per acre
Allowed Density or Base Density 25 units
Affordable Housing Requirement (15%) 4 units
Affordable Housing Provided (28%) 7 units
Density Bonus Units 22 units
Total Number Dwelling Units 47 units
240
Agenda Item # 3.

Density Bonus Report 4350 El Camino Real July 27, 2022
Dwelling Unit Summary
Affordable Housing Unit Design
The affordable housing units represent similar sizes for their bedroom type in accordance with the City’s Housing Element policy. The affordable units also reflect the full range of unit types in the project including one three-bedroom unit, two, twobedroom units, and four, one-bedroom units. Additionally, as required by the City’s Code, the affordable units are dispersed throughout the project. The affordable units are spread throughout the project located on the Ground, Second, Third and Fourth levels, set along both frontages, including a prime walk-up unit on Los Altos Avenue, and along the courtyard. Overall, the affordable housing units are integrated into the project and indistinguishable by design and construction.

The project emphasizes affordable one- and two-bedroom units in that they serve smaller households in the one- to three-person range. Such units are intrinsically more affordable by their smaller size, and lacking in supply in the City. We designed the overall project with this in mind having a greater percentage of one- and two-bedroom units compared to the three-bedroom units.

Affordable Housing and Density Bonus
Under the General Plan and Municipal Code the project is required to provide a base density of 25 housing units, 15 percent of which must be affordable. This means to the project must have at least four affordable housing units. Additionally and uniquely, the City’s code requires a project to designate a majority of its affordable units as Moderate Income and any remainder at the Low or Very-Low Income level. Overall, Table 2 - DWELLING UNIT SUMMARY
UNIT TYPES Number Size Notes
1 Bedroom 10 580 to 774 sf
2 Bedroom 31 767 to 1,449 sf
3 Bedroom 6 1,023 to 1,675 sf
Overall Total Units 47

AFFORDABLE
1 Bedroom 2 580 and 718 sf Both Very-Low Income
2 Bedroom 4 767 to 1,326 sf 3 Moderate, 1 Very-Low
3 Bedroom 1 1,461 sf Moderate Income
Total Affordable Units 7

Page 2 of 5 ends

241
Agenda Item # 3.

Density Bonus Report 4350 El Camino Real July 27, 2022
this means the project has a requirement of three, Moderate Income units and one, Very-Low or Low Income unit. The project greatly exceeds this minimum by providing four Moderate Income units and three Very-Low Income units. The overall affordable percentage of 28 percent exceeds the City’s requirement by three affordable units.

The state regulations require using a single affordable income category (e.g., Very-Low Income in this case) from which to base the resulting affordable housing percentage and corresponding density bonus percentage. The City’s affordable housing regulations are unique requiring a majority of the affordable housing as Moderate Income and any remainder as lower income. Since an applicant must choose either the Moderate or the Lower income categories from which to base the density bonus and development incentives, this has the effect of reducing the number of affordable units in the project that qualify for the density bonus, which lowers the effective density bonus allowed in the state regulations.

Under the density bonus regulations, the project’s three, Very-Low Income units totaling 12 percent of the project’s base density, qualifies the project for a minimum

38.75 percent density bonus, or at least 10 additional market rate units, and two development incentives or concessions (discussed below). The regulations also allow the City to grant additional density bonus units at its discretion. As an effect of the City’s unique regulations splitting the income categories, the project includes four affordable units that are not counted towards development incentives or a density bonus.

Since the project provides three additional affordable housing units over the minimum City requirement—a significant community benefit, especially when the City is not on track to meet its affordable housing mandate—and four of the affordable housing units are not automatically considered for incentives and a bonus—an increased density bonus is requested to provide 12 additional density bonus units. From a developer’s perspective the total of 47 project units is necessary to reduce the overall risk, to provide a safety net because of the very-high cost of land, to help address the veryhigh cost of construction trending even higher over time, and to help recognize the uncertain nature of the housing market when the project units will be delivered several years in the future.

As mentioned above, the City’s affordable housing regulations require a split in income types, which when combined with the state law, reduce the effective density bonus percentage in any single category. In accordance with Section 65915 (r) of the Government Code, the density bonus regulations shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of units possible. Since the City’s affordable housing regulations reduce the overall density bonus otherwise available by state law by splitting (diluting) the income percentage of the required affordable units, the qualifying on-menu height incentive allows the project to make up key building area in the fifth story that helps defray the cost of providing such units.

Page 3 of 5 ends

242
Agenda Item # 3.

Density Bonus Report 4350 El Camino Real July 27, 2022
We feel this approach helps the community achieve more affordable housing units than it would otherwise, which is an additional public benefit, especially when the City is underperforming on its affordable housing goals with the state.

Height Incentive
The project’s height incentive allows the fifth floor at an overall height of 56 feet (45 feet plus 11 feet). As designed, however, the project only uses nine feet of the allowed 11 feet for an overall building height of 54 feet. This minimizes the overall height of the building by two feet under what is allowed by the on-menu incentive. Even though the City has predetermined that its on-menu height incentive does not have a specific adverse impact, the project’s two-foot reduction in possible height further minimizes potential impacts from the height incentive.

The height incentive is necessary to allow the project to make up floor area dedicated to the affordable housing units and to achieve nine additional units at the fifth story.

The nine-unit fifth story is roughly equal to the 10 density bonus units minimally allowed by local code. The building area from the on-menu height incentive helps the project provide additional units thus reducing the cost per-square-foot to deliver the project; and most importantly, it furthers the applicant’s ability to provide the affordable housing units. The statutory intent of granting the development incentive is to help make up for the cost to provide the affordable housing units.

At the time of project submittal we determined it would cost approximately $5,032,000 to construct the seven affordable housing units at $900 per-square-foot. Based on current development trends, however, where construction costs are significantly higher and expected to continue rising, it will likely cost 20 to 30 percent more to build the affordable housing units when the project is ultimately delivered. Based on this forecast, the project will likely suffer a loss of approximately $3,900,000 to provide the affordable units making the additional market rate units necessary to subsidize the additional cost to the project.

Affordable housing units are restricted to below market prices depending on the designated income category and unit size. At the time of application, according to the City’s affordable housing administrator, the affordable prices were as follows: a onebedroom, Very-Low Income unit was restricted to $149,649; a one-bedroom, Moderate Income unit was $480,255; a two-bedroom, Moderate Income unit was $553,351; and the restricted value of the one, three-bedroom Moderate Income unit was estimated at approximately $630,000.

Government Code Section 65915 (d) (1) provides that a “city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence” that (a) the incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; (b) the incentive would have a specific adverse impact on public health, safety, the physical

Page 4 of 5 ends

243
Agenda Item # 3.

Density Bonus Report 4350 El Camino Real July 27, 2022
environment, or historic resources; or (c) the incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

Government Code Section 65915 (d) (4) provides that the city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested incentive. The requested height incentive would not have a specific, adverse impact, upon health, safety, or the physical environment since the height incentive is a previously determined appropriate on-menu local incentive. The reduced back-up dimension for the parking spaces is supported by a professional transportation report (Traffic Report by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated June 21, 2019). Neither requested incentive is contrary to state or federal law. The traffic report is provided by reference in the project’s environmental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Parking Incentive
The parking back-up distance incentive—to allow for 24 feet of back up area versus the required 26 feet—allows for a more economical parking garage by reducing its overall dimensions by four feet in the east/west direction and two feet in the north/ south direction; this reduces the construction costs of soil removal and concrete needed and costs of other building materials. The reduced back-up dimension is supported by the project’s transportation report. The parking back-up distance incentive equates to an unquantified actual and specific project cost reduction.

Parking Alteration
This project uses the parking alteration allowed by Government Code Section 65915 (p) (2) and by Los Altos Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 14.28.040 (G) (2) (b). The project provides 84 parking spaces which meets the requirement of 84 spaces allowed by the primary state density bonus regulations. Although we are not electing it, the project far exceeds the secondary density bonus parking standard allowing 45 parking spaces (0.5 spaces per bedroom) since the project includes a maximum number of Very-Low Income units and is located adjacent to a major transit stop. In a sense, since we are electing to build twice as much parking as could be allowed from a development perspective to meet market conditions our parking component is more expensive on a relative per unit basis thus adding to the need of the development incentives.

Page 5 of 5 ends

244
Agenda Item # 3.

AG ENDA REPORT
DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #3
Meeting Date: July 21, 2022
Subject: 4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Prepared by: Radha M. Hayagreev, Consulting Senior Planner Reviewed by: Steve Golden, Interim Planning Service Manager City Attorney’s Office
Initiated by: Angela and Gregory Galatolo, Property Owner, and Applicant ATTACHMENTS:

A. Draft Resolution 2022_XX
B. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, duly noticed and circulated C. Comments received and responses to comments for the IS-MND D. Revised Density Bonus Report and letter
E. Cover letter and response letter to PC and staff report (May 13, 2022) F. Revised Architectural plan set
G. April 7, 2022, Planning Commission Agenda Report (some attachments removed as noted for clarity and to eliminate duplication with attachments of this report) H. April 7, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend to the City Council approval of Multiple-Family Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus and Development incentives and Waivers (applications 19-D01, 19-UP-01 and 19-SD-01 – 4350 El Camino Real) per the findings and conditions contained in the resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The comments received do not raise any significant new information or substantial evidence in light of the whole record to warrant recirculation of the MND or preparation of an Environmental Impact ----------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
245
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 2 July 21, 2022
Report per CEQA Guidelines 15064 and 15073.5. The City Council will review and consider the comments and responses prior to making a decision on the project. City Council adoption of the MND and Mitigation and Monitoring Program will be required to approve the project, but no action on the MND is required if the City Council decides to disapprove the project. Refer to Attachment B and C of this staff report for more details.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project site is a 0.66-acre parcel located at 4350 El Camino Real, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Los Altos Avenue in northern Los Altos. The Assessor’s Parcel number for the project site is 167-11-041.

The site is currently occupied by a gasoline service station, surface parking, and perimeter landscaping.

The gasoline service station includes a 1,466 square-foot gasoline service station building comprising a convenience market and an auto repair shop and there are pump islands for outdoor fueling covered by canopies.

The project site is designated as ‘Thoroughfare Commercial’ in the General Plan and zoned CT (Commercial Thoroughfare.) The project proposes to demolish the existing gasoline service station buildings, and pump islands and canopies, and remove the asphalt paving and landscaping, and the underground fuel and oil storage tanks, and construct a new five-story residential building with two below-ground parking levels.

The Applicant requests approval applications for Design Review, Conditional Use permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for a new multiple-family development on a 0.66-acre (28,562 sq. ft.) site at 4350 El Camino Real. The proposal includes 47 for-sale condominium units in 53.85 feet tall, five-story building with two levels of underground parking and a ground level common area at the rear of the building. The proposed design provides 40 new market-rate condominium residences, and seven affordable residences. The following paragraph indicates the revision to the proposal.

The Project unit distribution includes 10 one-bedroom, 31 two-bedroom, and 6 three-bedroom units.

The one-bedroom units would range in size from 580 to 774 square feet, the two-bedroom units would range from 767 to 1,449 square feet, and the three-bedroom units would range from 1,023 to 1,675 square feet. The revision to the unit distribution is discussed in detail in section ‘Number of Unit Types and BMR Units’
With regards to common space and private open space, the project includes new street trees planted in park strips along the El Camino Real and Los Altos Avenue frontages and landscape areas between the sidewalks and unit entrances on the ground floor, as well as perimeter landscaping along the southern and eastern property lines. A courtyard area that includes seating areas and raised planters is located on the ground floor of the building and provides approximately 12,359 square feet of common open space for project residents. Each unit provides approximately 64 square feet of private open space in the form of either a balcony or patio. There is an additional rooftop deck which has amenities such as a seating area and barbecue space.

BACKGROUND:

On April 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to provide feedback on the design review, conditional use permit and subdivision applications for the proposed project and voted 5-0 to 246
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 3 July 21, 2022
continue the applications and gave direction to the applicant to address specific concerns related to the design of the project and the affordable housing component of the project.

The Commission requested that the applicant address design deficiencies related to the design review findings and the deficiencies in meeting Density Bonus provision requirements as summarized below.

Details of the Planning Commission discussion are included in Attachment G and H The Design Review deficiencies include:
a. Vertical and horizontal articulation of building massing. b. Pedestrian and vehicular entrances to be distinguished. c. Use of architectural elements to break up building massing to reduce bulk d. Design articulation to provide relief between base, body, and upper floor details. e. Detailing of open space to include additional amenities. f. Signage to highlight entrances.
g. Rooftop mechanical screen detailing.

The Density Bonus deficiencies include:
h. Discrepancy between unit sizes of the affordable units to the overall project unit size i. Exclusion of bedroom type in the affordable unit mix. j. Distribution of the affordable units across project.

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

On May 20, 2022, the applicant submitted revised architectural plans (Attachment F) and other supporting documents such as response letter, revised density bonus report etc. that reflect responses to Planning Commission direction (see Attachment H). The proposed revisions include changes to several design element deficiencies stated above and updates to the proposed distribution in affordable housing unit sizes (i.e., number of bedrooms.) Please be aware that the discussion and analysis below is limited to the specific changes to the project from the April 7, 2022, Planning Commission meeting and a more comprehensive review of the project is contained in the April 7, 2022, Planning Commission agenda report (Attachment G).

Design Revisions
The applicant provides a more comprehensive explanation and narrative of the proposed changes with a detailed description of each change and references to sheet numbers is included in the applicant’s response letter (Attachment E)
The design plans were in the revised submittal address the inconsistencies by incorporating design changed as detailed below:
a. The vertical and horizontal articulation of building has been broken down to reflect a material change between floors, including window detailing to reflect residential nature of building, realigning garage door entrance and redesign of façade. The changes in material for the facades help visually break large surfaces into primary and secondary bays ranging from 24ft to 34ft wide that are punctuated by narrower immediate bays ranging from 9ft to 10ft. The primary bays are clad in either plaster or weathering metal, and the secondary bays are clad in masonry, wood, or color contrasting plaster.
b. Pedestrian and vehicular entrances are shown to be distinguished by adding an entrance lobby canopy, realignment of the garage door in the front façade. The exit stair along Los Altos 247
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 4 July 21, 2022
Avenue is set back further from the street to create a deeper intermediate bay, as well as lowered its height to the standard parapet height. The stoops at the individual entries facing Los Altos Ave. have been redesigned with decorative painted metal railing standing on masonry stem walls, providing a welcoming appearance. Decorative lighting has been added at the stoop entries.
c. Revised design has incorporated inset windows, metal railings for balconies on the second to fourth floors, façade material changes to enhance smaller bays and floor delineation, fourth story overhangs, recessed rooftop parapets and additional canopies to reduce mass and bulk of the building. Additional sunshades have been added to the windows along the street level frontages. Projecting eaves at the top of the fourth floor have been emphasized, and projecting metal cap detail (for shadows) has been added at the fourth-floor parapets. d. Ground floor facades facing El Camino Real and Los Altos Avenue have been redesigned to have a strong masonry base expression with a precast water table course, as well as a project precast belt course at the level of the second-floor windowsills. The parapet is shown to be recessed on the rooftop and there are overhangs provided on the fourth floor to provide relief between base, body, and upper floor. The base is now clearly differentiated from the building mid-sections, as well as the setback, and more transparent fifth floor. e. The courtyard at the rear has been revised to include additional amenities like edible herb planting and sculptural pebbles besides the community seating areas. A small rooftop deck has been added at the corner of the building facing El Camino Real which includes an outdoor grill, seating and gathering space.
f. The address signage has been conceptually added to the rendered elevations.

Rooftop mechanical equipment is shown and is appropriately screened using a mechanical screen design. Parapets are set inside to reduce the bulk of the building.

Based on the proposed design changes discussed above, notwithstanding concessions and waivers requested1, the project will maintain consistency with all the objective design standards in the CT zoning district (see Attachment G and H)
Overall, these changes have improved the overall design of the project while presenting a better designed structure for this site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider these positive design review findings found in the draft resolution in Attachment A and/or recommend conditional approval and changes as maybe incorporated in the design as necessary.

Number of Unit Types and BMR Units
Pursuant to Section 14.28.030, Standards of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, all affordable units in a project “shall be constructed concurrently with market rate units, shall be dispersed throughout the project, and shall not be significantly distinguishable by size, design, construction or materials.” The project maintains a total of 47 units, but with regard to the overall distribution of unit sizes, the Applicant has reduced the number of two-bedroom units by one unit (31 total proposed) and increased the number of three-bedroom units by one unit (six total proposed) but did not change the number of one-bedroom units (ten total proposed). With regards to the income restricted (or below 1 Exceptions for development incentives include increased height, reduced parking aisle widths, and optional that the project is eligible for under Density Bonus Law and discussed as part of the April 7, 2022, Planning Commission agenda report.
248
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 5 July 21, 2022
market rate [BMR]) units, the applicant exchanged a two-bedroom, moderate income unit with a threebedroom, moderate income unit and also relocated BMR units throughout the project.

The tables below show the revised unit distribution of the overall project and proposed income restricted units by bedroom count, size, and location.

Overall Units
UNIT TYPES Number (Percent of Total Units) Size
1 Bedroom 10 (21%) 580 to 774 sf
2 Bedroom 31 (66%) 767 to 1,449 sf
3 Bedroom 6 (13%) 1,023 to 1,675 sf
Income Restricted (BMR) Units
Income Restriction Level Number Size Floor
Moderate Income
4 total (16%)
1 3-Bedroom (1,461 sf) First
1 2-Bedroom (767 sf) Second
1 2-Bedroom (767 sf) Third
1 1-Bedroom (580 sf) Third
Very-Low Income
3 total (12%)
1 1- Bedroom (718 sf) First
1 1-Bedroom (580 sf) Second
1 1-Bedroom (718 sf) Fourth
*Note: Percentages above represent the percentage of a 25-unit base density project.

In addition, the table below is a comparison of the BMR units by bedroom count to the overall units proposed in the project (including the BMR units).

BMR Units Overall Project
1-bedroom units 4 units (3 VLI, 1 MI)
57% of BMR Units
10 Units
21% of Total
2-bedroom units 2 units (2 MI)
28% of BMR Units
31 Units
66% of Total
3-bedroom units 1 unit (1 MI)
14% of BMR Units
6 Units
13% of Total
Median Unit Size 767 Square Feet 1,326 Square Feet
In summary, there is some improvement in the distribution of the affordable units by bedroom count in the revised proposal with the inclusion of a 3-bedroom unit into the affordable housing mix with the one- and two-bedroom units and the revised proposal maintains the proposed location (dispersement) of the BMR units. However, more than half (57 percent) of the BMR units still are 1- bedroom units while the overall project has majority 2-bedroom units (66 percent). Staff suggests that two additional 1-bedroom BMR units should be converted into 2-bedroom units for a more equitable affordable unit distribution by bedroom count (unit size) when compared to the distribution of units in the whole project and in compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. This would result in two 1-bedroom units or 28% of the BMR units and four 2-bedroom units or 57% of the BMR. A condition of approval has been added to the resolution consistent with the standards. With regards to the proposed BMR locations, per the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance standards, the BMR units 249
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 6 July 21, 2022
are required to be dispersed throughout the project. Similar to the original proposal, the Applicant has not proposed any of the BMR units on the fifth floor. In general, the BMR units are dispersed in the project (i.e. not delegated to one particular floor or location of the building), but locating a BMR unit(s) on the fifth floor would provide further evidence that the proposal meets this standard.

Density Bonus
Under the State’s density bonus regulations (Section 65915 of the California Government Code) and the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, the project qualifies for a density bonus based on verylow-income units if it provides at least five percent very-low-income units. With three affordable units at the very-low-income level (12 percent), the project qualifies for a density bonus of 38.75%.

However, the applicant is requesting an 88% bonus, as reflected in the table below.

Lot Size 28,562 square feet, or 0.656 acres
General Plan Thoroughfare Commercial 38 units per acre
Zoning Commercial Thoroughfare 38 units per acre
Allowed Density - Base Density 25 units
Affordable Housing Requirement (15%) 4 units
Affordable Housing Provided 7 units (4 Moderate Income, 3 Very-Low Income) Eligible Density Bonus 38.75% =9.69 ~ 10 units
Eligible Gross Density 35 units
Additional Density Bonus Units Requested 22 units
Total Number Dwelling Units Proposed 47 units
Percent Density Bonus Requested 88%
In the Applicant’s density bonus letter (Attachment D), the report states the 88% density bonus is necessary because: “the project provides three additional affordable housing units over the minimum City requirement, the developer’s perspective that the number of overall project units is necessary to reduce the risk and provide a safety net because of the very high cost of land, the very high cost of construction trending even higher over time, and the uncertain nature of the housing market in the future when the project units will be delivered.”
Pursuant to Section 14.28.040.E of the Zoning Code, the city has the discretion to grant “a density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a development that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by this section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this section.” Therefore, the granting of a density bonus that exceeds the density bonus threshold per city ordinance is at the city’s discretion.

While previously approved projects by no means sets precedence for future projects, at the April 7, 2022 Commission meeting, the Commission opined about the city’s housing production needs, the benefit of additional housing within the CT zoning district within the El Camino Real corridor, and inquired about some of the other recently approved projects for informational and comparative purposes only. Details of other recently approved projects in the El Camino Real corridor with discretionary density bonuses above the 35 percent threshold are included in the table below. 250
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 7 July 21, 2022
4898 El Camino Real
Five-story 28-unit multiple-family
building with two levels of
underground parking.

The project included six affordable units (40 percent of base density with 2 very low, 2 low, and 2 moderate rate) and received an 87 percent density bonus, an incentive for increased height and a waiver to allow for a taller elevator tower. The City Council approved this project on October 1, 2019
4856 El Camino Real
Five-story 52-unit multiple-family
building with two levels of
underground parking.

The project includes 10 affordable units (35.7 percent of base density with 6 very low, 1 low, and 2 moderate rate) and received an 82.5 percent density bonus, incentives for increased height and a reduced rear yard setback, and a waiver for a 17-foot-tall elevator tower. The project was approved by the City Council on November 27, 2018.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE:

For this meeting, a public hearing notice was published in the Town Crier and mailed to 332 property owners and current tenants within 1,000 feet of the site. At the April 7th, 2022, Planning Commission hearing, a public notice billboard with color renderings was installed along the project’s El Camino Real frontage and story poles to represent the walls and roof line of the building were installed in conformance with the City Council approved modified story pole installation for this project. Staff is unaware if the story poles have been maintained at site since the April 7th hearing. The April 7th story pole certification and notices areas detailed in Attachment E 251
Agenda Item # 3.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 7, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #
4878-6611-3560v1
NON-BC\27916001
Meeting Date: April 7, 2022
Subject: 4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Prepared by: Radha M. Hayagreev, Consulting Senior Planner Reviewed by: Steve Golden, Interim Planning Service Manager Laura Simpson, Interim Community Development Director
City Attorney’s Office
Initiated by: Angela and Gregory Galatolo, Property Owner and Applicant RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend denial to the City Council of Multiple-Family Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus and Development incentives Application for 19-D-01, 19-UP01 and 19-SD-01 – 4350 El Camino Real per the findings and conditions contained in the resolution.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Draft Resolution with Findings 2022_XX
B. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, duly noticed and circulated C. Comments received and responses to comments for the IS-MND D. Complete Streets Study Session Reports and Minutes (August 28, 2019, and October 23, 2019) and PC Study session minutes (October 18, 2018)
E. Modified Story Pole Plan, on-site Story Pole Installation and Story Pole Certification.

F. Density Bonus Report and letter
F1: Cover letter (March 9, 2022)
G. Architectural plan set
H. Project Consistency letter
I. Project Completeness letter per Permit Streamlining Act J. Santa Clara County Fire Department Comments / Conditions K. Public Correspondences
L. Public notice map
M. Draft Conditions of Approval exhibit
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 4350 El Camino Real Residential Project was circulated for 30 days from January 11, 2022, through February 14, 2022. The City received two comment letters for the draft IS/MND during the 30-day public comment period from:
• Mountain View Los Altos School District (February 1, 2022) • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (February 9, 2022) 12 Item 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------
---------------------------------
252
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 2 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
Copies of these comment letters are included in Attachment-C. Attachment C also provides a summary of the written comments with responses to the environmental issues raised. No text revisions to the IS/MND are required.

The comments received do not raise any significant new information or substantial evidence in light of the whole record to warrant recirculation of the MND or preparation of an Environmental Impact Report per CEQA Guidelines 15064 and 15073.5. The City Council will review and consider the comments and responses prior to making a decision on the project. City Council adoption of the MND and Mitigation and Monitoring Program will be required to approve the project, but no action on the MND is required if the City Council decides to disapprove the project. Refer to Attachment B and C of this staff report for more details.

PROJECT LOCATION:

The site is currently occupied by a gasoline service station, surface parking, and perimeter landscaping.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The Applicant requests approval applications for Design Review, Conditional Use permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for a new multiple-family development on a 0.66-acre (28,562 sq. ft.) site at 4350 El Camino Real. The proposal includes 47 for-sale condominium units in 53.85 feet tall, five-story building with two levels of underground parking and a ground level common area at the rear of the building. The proposed design provides 40 new market-rate condominium residences, and seven affordable residences. The Project unit distribution includes ten one-bedroom, 32 two-bedroom, and 5 three-bedroom units. The one-bedroom units would range in size from 580 to 774 square feet, the two-bedroom units would range from 767 to 1,449 square feet, and the three-bedroom units would range from 1,023 to 1,675 square feet.

With regards to common space and private open space, the project includes new street trees planted in park strips along the El Camino Real and Los Altos Avenue frontages and landscape areas between the sidewalks and unit entrances on the ground floor, as well as perimeter landscaping along the southern and eastern property lines. A courtyard area that includes seating areas and raised planters is located on the ground floor of the building and provides approximately 12,359 square feet of common open space for project residents. Each unit provides approximately 64 square feet of private open 13 Item 2.
253
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 3 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
space in the form of either a balcony or patio. The conceptual architectural site plans, elevation and landscape plans are shown in Attachment-G of this staff report.

BACKGROUND:

SB330
Development project applications submitted after January 1, 2020 are subject to SB-330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. The application was submitted on December 27, 2018; therefore, the project is not considered an SB-330 project.

Story Pole Installation
On January 26, 2021, the City Council approved a modified story pole installation for this project.

The modified story pole installation that was approved requires the applicant to install and certify four poles and three balloons. The modified plan also required billboard signs to be installed on-site printed with QR codes that when scanned with a mobile device, opened walkthrough 3D elevation models of the proposed project that the applicant was to publish on the internet. The details of the modified story pole and billboard signs are available in Attachment-E, E1 and E2.

On February 13, 2022, the applicant installed all the approved story poles per the approved exemption plans.

On February 15, 2022, staff received a certified story pole installation for three of the six required story poles as verified by the Applicant’s civil engineer/surveyor, also part of Attachment E.

On February 21, 2022, staff conducted a site visit to also confirm that only three of the story poles were installed on site. Staff also observed an inconsistency with the approved billboard signs since the installed billboard signs did not have the required QR codes as approved by the City Council and there was no link to the 3D walkthroughs.

On February 25, 2022, staff received final certification of all of the required story poles (see Attachment E).

On March 24, 2022, staff received confirmation that the billboard signs had an illegible QR code that did not link to the 3D model/walkthroughs per the approved story pole modification plan.

On March 29, 2022, staff received a communication from the applicant that one of the story poles had fallen.

On March 31, 2022, staff received confirmation that a revised QR code was placed on the billboard sign per the requirements and properly linked to the 3D models/walk throughs (Attachment E1 and E2).

Planning Commission Study Session
On October 18, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a study session to receive the project proposal and provide early feedback to the applicant on the project proposal. Detailed minutes of the study session is available for review in Attachment D.
14 Item 2.
254
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 4 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
Complete Streets Commission
On October 23, 2019, the Complete Streets Commission (CSC) held a duly noticed public meeting to consider the Project. Pursuant to Section 14.78.090 of the Zoning Code, an application for City Council design review shall be subject to a multimodal transportation review and recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council by the Complete Streets Commission as part of the approval process in order to assess potential project impacts to various modes of transportation such as but not limited to bicycle, pedestrian, parking, traffic impacts on public streets, and/or public transportation. The CSC members expressed the following concerns regarding the project which in turn have been reflected in the draft Conditions of Approval in Attachment B, which are recommended if the project is approved.

1. Install a “STOP” sign and stop bar at the garage exit to advise motorists to STOP before exiting the driveway.

2. The outbound garage ramp shall have a maximum slope of 2 percent within 20 feet of the top of the ramp.

3. No parking shall be permitted along the El Camino Real Street frontage.

4. The truck loading space shall be no less than ten (10) feet wide by twenty-five (25) feet long.

5. The loading space shall be accessible from a public street, and it shall not interfere or conflict with the driveway for the below-grade parking garage.

6. Replace existing shelter with a new VTA standard shelter (17’ Full Back with Ad panel) consistent with VTA direction.

7. Locate the shelter out of the sidewalk by pushing it into the landscaping; provide a 7’x25’ shelter pad consistent with VTA direction. This will improve sight distance from the driveway entrance if the driveway is not relocated

8. Install a new bus pad 10’x75’ minimum per VTA Standards (see attachment “VTA Bus Stop Passenger Fac Standards 2010 (37)”)

9. Remove street tree and landscaping adjacent to bus stop area consistent with VTA direction.

Following the discussion, the CSC voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the Project to the Planning Commission and City Council. The CSC agenda report and minutes is contained in Attachment D.

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

Housing Accountability Act
Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, if a housing development project complies with all applicable objective standards imposed by the City, then the City has limited discretion to condition the project, and it may not deny a conditional use permit or other discretionary entitlement for the project or approve the project at a lower density unless the approval authority finds that the project “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.” A “specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable 15 Item 2.
255
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 5 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Here, however, the project does not comply with the City’s objective standards.

The proposed project does not conform to several objective standards that are part of the Commercial Thoroughfare zoning district and the inclusionary housing obligations for unit distribution as described in various sections of this staff report. Therefore, the City has discretion to disapprove the project or condition it in a manner that would reduce density. Staff provided details of the project’s inconsistencies with objective standards to the applicant in a letter dated October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2022), Staff’s correspondence is included in Attachment H and I.

Zoning District and other Development Standards
Table-1 below shows the objective standards required by the Municipal code Chapter 14.50 Commercial Thoroughfare District for this proposal.

The following information summarize the project’s technical details:

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Thoroughfare Commercial
ZONING: Commercial Thoroughfare
PARCEL SIZE: 28,562 square feet (0.66-acres)
MATERIALS: Plaster, composite wood siding, glass, stone finish material, Corten steel, metal and wood sunshade
structures on ground floor.

Table-1 Zoning Development Standard
Chapter 14.50 unless
specified otherwise.

Standard Proposed Conforms
(Yes/No)
Notes
SITE AREA: Min area = 20,000
sq. ft.

Min. Site Frontage
– 75ft.

Site area = 28.562 sq.
ft.

Site Frontage along El
Camino Real = 109.04
ft.

Yes
DENSITY: 38 du/ acre 75 du/ac No, unless
Optional Density
Bonus is Granted1
ALLOWED UNITS: 25 units 47 units (88% density
bonus)
No, unless
Optional density
1 Applicant is requesting additional density bonus Per 14.28.040 E. 7. Optional Density bonus is requested.

See Density bonus section and Attachment-F of this report for more details. Chapter 14.28.040 E Density Bonus Standards 7. Optional density bonuses. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the city from granting a density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a development that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by this section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this section.
16 Item 2.
256
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 6 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
bonus request is
granted.

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING
Required 15% of
base units – 4 units
Provided 7 units (4
Moderate, 3 Very-Low
income)
Yes
SETBACKS:

Front yard
Rear yard
Side yard
25 Feet
0 feet

7.5 average
25 feet2

8.1 7.75 feet
Yes
Yes
No
HEIGHT:

Top of roof deck Not more than 45
feet

53.85 feet 3 Yes, if Concession1 is approved.

HEIGHT
Top of Elevator
Override
Not more than 12ft
above max. floor
height
8ft over the roof
deck.

Yes
OPEN SPACE:

Private Open Space
Optional 50 sq. ft.,
immediately
accessible from the
unit it serves.

Providing average of

72.33 sq. ft on 1st
Floor, 63.87 sq. ft. on
upper floors
Yes
Common Open Space For 26 to 50 units a
min of 2,400 sq. ft.
6,126 sq. ft. courtyard
and 6,233 sq. ft. front
yard
Yes

OFF STREET
PARKING:
84 spaces 4 84 spaces Yes, parking is
consistent with the
Density Bonus
Law’s parking ratios.

PARKING STANDARD 9ft by 18ft per space 9ft by 18ft Yes

PARKING AISLE
WIDTH
26 ft for 90-degree
parallel parking
24 ft 5 Yes, if Concession2 is approved.

As seen in Table-1 above, the project does not meet objective design standards because it exceeds the allowed density and is not entitled to the requested 88 percent density bonus as of right.

Prior to presenting this project to the city elected officials, staff has, on multiple occasions, informed the applicant via email and letters and verbal clarification the inconsistencies of the project proposal.

On October 22, 2021, staff has provided an inconsistency letter to the applicant and is made available for reference in Attachment H.
2 CT district front setback requires minimum 50% landscaping. 3 Refer to page-A3.1 &A3.2 of Attachment-G Architectural Plan set of this staff report. 4 Density Bonus Law provisions: 0-1 BR – 1 space per unit, 2-3 BR – 1.5 spaces / unit, 4+ BR – 2.5 spaces / unit 5 Per Chapter 14.74.200 A. 1. Parking Standards Exhibit-A - https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/41491/parking_standa rds_exhibit_a.pdf
17 Item 2.
257
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 7 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
Since the project has not been revised to address inconsistencies and inconsistencies with zoning code development standards, the project can be denied and/or density can be reduced to be consistent with the required objective standards for projects in the CT zoning district.

Design Control Standards (Ct District)
On September 23, 2021(revised on October 27, 2021), the Project was deemed complete as detailed in Attachment-I of this staff report. Per Ordinance number 2021-478 of the LAMC, all projects deemed complete prior to the adoption of the Objective Design Standards effective October 16, 2021, are not subject to the Objective Design Control Standards codified in Chapter 14.50.170 – Design control for the CT zoning district. Although the specific Design Control standards are not applicable to this project because the project was deemed complete before the effective date of the ordinance, there are several design review findings that the City Council needs to make such as architectural integrity and appropriate design to address mass and bulk appearances. The inconsistencies with the design review findings are discussed in the heading ‘Discretionary Entitlement Review’ section of this report.

Inclusionary Housing, Density Bonus and Unit Distribution Inclusionary Housing
The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (LAMC Chapter 14.28.020) requires a minimum of 15 percent of the units be affordable, with a majority of the units designated as affordable at the moderate-income level and the remaining units designated as affordable at the low or very-low-income level. Under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, the project would require a minimum of four affordable units. The applicant is proposing forty-seven units in total, seven units are designated to be affordable units, and of those a majority of four units are dedicated to moderate-income level units and three very-low-income level units, which is consistent with the inclusionary ordinance.

Unit Distribution and Bedroom Count
LAMC 14.28.030.C states that: “Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, all affordable units in a project shall be constructed concurrently with market rate units, shall be dispersed throughout the project, and shall not be significantly distinguishable by size, design, construction, or materials.” The project does not comply with this standard because the project’s affordable units are not dispersed throughout the project, and they will be significantly distinguishable from the market rate units by size and type of unit, as indicated in the following tables:

Table-3: Dwelling Unit Summary
UNIT TYPES Number Size Notes
1 Bedroom - Total 10 (21%) 580 to 774 sf
2 Bedroom - Total 32 (68%) 767 to 1,449 sf
3 Bedroom - Total 5 (10%) 1,023 to 1,675 sf
Moderate Income (4 total,
16 percent)
1 1-Bedroom (764 sf Ground Level
1 1-Bedroom 580 sf) Third Levels
1 2-Bedroom (767 sf) Second Level
1 2-Bedroom (767 sf) Third Level
Very-Low Income (3 total,
12 percent)
1 1- Bedroom (718 sf) Ground Level
18 Item 2.
258
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 8 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
1 1-Bedroom (580 sf ) Second Level
1 1-Bedroom (580 sf) Fourth Level
From the Table-3 above, there are no BMR units on the fifth floor and there are no 3-bedroom units in the BMR mix in this proposal.

See Table-4 below for the significant discrepancies between the unit sizes of the BMR units to the overall project unit sizes noting the comparison of one-bedroom and two-bedroom units between each category.

Table-4: Comparison of Below Market Rate (BMR) Unit Sizes to Overall Project BMR Units Overall Project
Number and Percent of
1 BR Units
5 Units (3 VLI, 2 MI)
71% of BMR Units
100% of VLI Units
10 Units
21% of Total
Number and Percent of
2 BR Units
2 Units (2 MI)
29% of BMR Units
32 Units
68% of Total
Number and Percent of
3 BR Units
0 units
0% of BMR Units
5 Units
11% of Total
Median Size 767 Square Feet 1,326 Square Feet
Note that of the total 89 bedrooms being proposed in the project, only 10.11 percent or 9 bedrooms are dedicated to BMR. The larger 3-bedroom unit has been excluded from the below market rate housing mix entirely. If most BMR units are dedicated to 1-2 person households, the larger families are left out in the availing a housing option through this inequitable mix.

Density Bonus
Under the State’s density bonus regulations (Section 65915 of the California Government Code) and the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, the project qualifies for a density bonus based on very-lowincome units if it provides at least five percent very-low-income units. With three affordable units at the very-low-income level (12 percent), the project qualifies for a density bonus of 38.75%. However, the applicant is requesting an 88% bonus, as reflected in the table below.

Table-2 – Project Density
Lot Size 28,562 square feet, or 0.656 acres
General Plan Thoroughfare Commercial 38 units per acre
Zoning Commercial Thoroughfare 38 units per acre
Allowed Density - Base Density 25 units
Affordable Housing Requirement (15%) 4 units
Affordable Housing Provided 7 units (4 Moderate Income, 3 Very-Low Income) Eligible Density Bonus 38.75% =9.69 ~ 10 units
Eligible Gross Density 35 units
Additional Density Bonus Units
Proposed
22 units
Total Number Dwelling Units
Proposed
47 units
Percent Density Bonus Requested 88%
19 Item 2.
259
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 9 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
In the Applicant’s density bonus letter (Attachment F), the report states the 88% density bonus is necessary because: “the project provides three additional affordable housing units over the minimum City requirement, the developer’s perspective that the number of overall project units is necessary to reduce the risk and provide a safety net because of the very high cost of land, the very high cost of construction trending even higher over time, and the uncertain nature of the housing market in the future when the project units will be delivered.”
According to Section 14.28.040.E of the Zoning Code, the City’s ordinance allows the City discretion to grant “a density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a development that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by this section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this section.” The granting of a larger density bonus would be in the Council’s discretion. Without it, the project does not comply with the objective standards so that the Housing Accountability Act does not apply.

While the Applicant has advised the increased density bonus is necessary due to the inherent risk due to the cost of land and construction and the uncertainty of the market, the applicant has not substantiated this assertion.

Moreover, the Applicant has not identified any significant community benefit of the project that might justify a discretionary bonus. The Applicant claims that the provision of the affordable housing warrants as a community benefit which is not substantial for the requested 22-unit bonus.

As described below under the heading “Unit Distribution”, the project also does not comply with the City’s affordable housing requirements in that it is requires the units shall be dispersed throughout the project, and shall not be significantly distinguishable by size, design, construction, or materials. The fact that the unit type and size of the proposed affordable units is not consistent with the proportionality of the other units in the project, in violation of the City’s affordable housing policies, is an additional basis to deny the applicant’s request for a discretionary density bonus.

Under these circumstances, staff does not recommend granting a discretionary density bonus of 88 percent because nothing about the project warrants granting the Applicant’s request.

Concessions
Since the project dedicates 12 percent of affordable units to very-low-income level units, pursuant to Chapter 14.28.040 of LAMC and Government Code section 65915 (2) (B), if approved the project would qualify for up to two incentives or concessions (“concessions”)6. As detailed in Table-1 the project seeks a height concession and a concession for parking aisle width reduction Per Government Code 65915(d)
(1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b) may submit to a city a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this section and may request a meeting with the city. The city shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the 6 The term “incentives or concessions” in the statute can cause confusion because it suggests that incentives and concessions are different, when in fact the entire term “incentives or concessions” refers to a single concept. For ease of reference, this report generally uses the term “concessions” instead. 20 Item 2.
260
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 10 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
applicant unless the city makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

Concession-1: Height
The maximum allowable height in the CT Zone is 45ft. The maximum height of the proposed project structure is 53.84 feet to the top of the roof deck (Refer to page-A3.1 &A3.2 of Attachment G Architectural Plan) set of this staff report, which is 8.84 feet over the max. allowable height.

Per chapter 14.28.040 F 1. (d) of the LAMC, the request for height increase is an on-menu concession.

The height increase is within the max. allowed on-menu concession of 11ft increase as approved by the Council.

The request for the height increase does not result in adverse impact on public health or safety based on the objective standards or conditions, it is not inconsistent with State or Federal Law and can be granted if the project is approved
Concession-2: Parking Aisle Reduction
Figure-1: LAMC parking Appendix-A
The applicant requests a concession for a reduced parking aisle width of 24 feet whereas the standard parking aisle drive width for a 90-degree parking stall is 26 feet as shown in Figure-1 above, per the off-street parking standards in LAMC Appendix-A.

Per the density bonus report, “The back-up distance incentive to allow 24 feet versus the required 26 feet allows for a more economical parking garage by reducing its overall dimensions by four feet in the east/west direction and two feet in the north/south direction, which reduces construction costs of soil removal and concrete and costs of other building materials. The reduced back-up dimension is supported by the project’s transportation report. The back-up distance incentive equates to an unquantified actual and specific project cost reduction.” 21 Item 2.
261
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 11 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
Please find below the Garage Design summary excerpt from traffic report for clarification on the 24- foot aisle width analysis:

On each level of the parking garage, there would be four rows of parking to the west of the ramp, as well one row against the wall of the garage. On all rows, parking would be provided at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. The drive aisles through the parking garage are shown to be 24 feet wide, which would provide sufficient room for vehicles to enter or back out of the 90- degree parking stalls. Site access and circulation were evaluated with vehicle turning movement templates for a typical AASHTO Passenger Car defined in AASHTO handbook 2011. Some examples of this type of vehicles are: 2018 Cadillac Escalade, 2018 GMC Yukon, 2018 Chevrolet Suburban, 2018 Ford Expedition, and 2018 Toyota Sequoia. The traffic report section of Attachment- B has Figure 8A and 8B which show the circulation patterns and turning templates for the proposed garage and reduced aisle widths.

The request for this reduced size in the parking garage does not result in adverse impact on public health or safety based on the objective standards or conditions, it is not inconsistent with State or Federal Law and can be granted if the project is approved.

General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies for the El Camino Real Corridor under the Special Planning Area in the Land Use Element, Community Design and Historic Resources Element, Housing Element and Economic Development Element. Together these elements discourage exclusive office use and promote inclusion residential development, encourage affordable housing projects, increased height for residential development, intensification of development to be compatible to the opposite side of the El Camino Real Corridor and streetscape improvement and pedestrian friendly streetscape designs.

Some of the Housing Element Goals are not consistent with the project proposal. Below are some Goals with which the project is inconsistent.

Goal 2, Policy 2.1.1 Encourage diversity of housing. Require diversity in the size of units for projects in mixed-use or multifamily zones to accommodate the varied housing needs of families, couples, and individuals. Affordable housing units proposed within projects shall reflect the mix of community housing needs.

In this case, however, the Below Market Rate (BMR) units are generally smaller than the market rate units in the project, and therefore do not reflect community need. As indicated above, 71% of the BMR units are one-bedroom units, which are not designed to meet the needs of more diverse household sizes.

Goal 4, Policy 4.3.2: Implement Chapter 14.28 of the Municipal Code, which defines the number of required BMR units by development size and type and requires on larger projects (greater than 10 market-rate units) that the BMR units generally reflect the size and number of bedrooms of the market rate units. Again, the project does not meet this goal.
22 Item 2.
262
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 12 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
Although the proposed project is not consistent with the above General Plan policies, it is generally consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan:

Community and Historic Resources Element
Goal 4: Policy 4.2: Evaluate site development and design to ensure consistency in site design.

Goal 4: Policy 4.3: Evaluate development application to ensure compatibility with residential neighborhoods south of the corridor.

Land Use Element
Since this corridor is a six-lane arterial road with contiguous commercial development along the City’s northern boundary, abutting cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto, there are significant opportunities for land use intensification and revitalization of the corridor without jeopardizing the small-town character of the community.

Goal 4: Policy 4.1: Discourage projects, which are exclusively office uses.

Goal 4: Policy 4.3: Encourage residential development on appropriate sites within the El Camino Real Corridor
Goal 4: Policy 4.4: Encourage the development of affordable housing.

Economic Development Element.

Goal 4: Policy 4.3: Promote the development of mixed-use commercial and residential developments within the El Camino Real Area to provide housing opportunities within the community.

Goal 4: Policy 4.5: Designate El Camino Real as the principal area of intensification of commercial and residential development.

ED4:1. Allowing land use intensification throughout the area consistent with the land use and economic development policies outlined in the General Plan ED4:2. Promote the development of mixed-use commercial and residential and discourage development of exclusively office uses:

ED4: 3. Implementing the Sherwood Gateway Specific Plan and the Thoroughfare commercial (CT) Zoning District.

Parking
Table-5 below shows the required parking standards per zoning code standards (section 14.78.080) and the parking reduction provisions pursuant to State Density Bonus Laws7 7 Chapter 14.28 Multiple Family Affordable Housing references two spaces per each two-bedroom unit, whereas State Law was updated January 1, 2021.
23 Item 2.
263
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 13 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
The parking spaces normally required in the Zoning Code are shown in the table above are for reference purposes only. Projects that qualify for a density bonus are entitled to the parking ratios in the Density Bonus Law, which are set forth in the table above. Using those ratios, the project is required to provide only 66 spaces, compared to the 84 spaces provided.

Each parking space is 9 feet by 18 feet, which conforms to the off-street parking code requirement.

Discretionary Entitlements
Under the Housing Accountability Act, if a project complies with all applicable objective standards, the project must be approved at the density proposed, but it may be conditioned in ways that do not have the effect of a denial or reduction in project density. If the discretionary density bonus is granted, or if the project is modified to comply with the City’s objective standards, conditions of approval that do not have the effect of a denial or reduction of density may be proposed so that all the findings of approval discussed in this section can be made.

Design Review Permit
Per Chapter 14.76.060 – Design Review Findings, The City Council needs to make the following findings for the approval of the Design Review Permit. As indicated above, note that because the project does not comply with all the City’s objective standards, the City Council has discretion to deny the project or to approve it at a lower density based upon these findings.

A. The proposal meets the goals, policies and objectives of the general plan and any specific plan, design guidelines and ordinance design criteria adopted for the specific district or area.

Staff review: The project does not meet all the objectives standards of the zoning ordinance in the CT zoning district as detailed in Table-1 of this staff report, which is why a denial is recommended.

Table-5 Required Residential Parking
Type of
unit
No. of
Units Bedroom
Count
Required
Parking Ratio
per Zoning
Code 14.74.080
Required
Parking
Spaces
Per
Zoning
Code
State
Law
Density
Bonus
reduced
Parking
Ratio
Required
Parking
Spaces
Per
Density
Bonus
Proposed
parking
Three
Bedrooms
5 15
2/unit 10 1.5/unit 7.5
Two
Bedrooms
32 64
2/unit 64 1.5 /unit 48
One
Bedroom
10 10 1.5/unit 15 1 /unit 10
Guest
Parking
1 per 4 units 12 None -
Total Parking: 101 65.5 (66) 84
24 Item 2.
264
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 14 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
B. The proposal has architectural integrity and has an appropriate relationship with other structures in the immediate area in terms of height, bulk and design.

Staff review: The proposal is taller by an entire floor in relationship with the neighboring structures. Its bulk can be reduced further by articulating the vertical façade more, providing appropriate scale back using design as detailed in the design control chapter of the CT district.

C. Building mass is articulated to relate to the human scale, both horizontally and vertically. Building elevations have variation and depth and avoid large blank wall surfaces. Residential or mixed-use residential projects incorporate elements that signal habitation, such as identifiable entrances, stairs, porches, bays, and balconies.

Staff review: The vertical and horizontal articulation of the building mass can be further detailed and broken down, as addressed in the Design Control section of the CT zone. The pedestrian entrances and vehicular entrances are not detailed with elements that distinguish the spaces other than stairs and a door. The use of architectural elements can help break up the massing further in these areas and made more inviting. There are large vertical surfaces that extend five stories, that results in a more bulky appearance and massing. Design elements could be incorporated to break down these planes into smaller elements which would provide for a less bulky and less massive appearance.

D. Exterior materials and finishes convey high quality, integrity, permanence and durability, and materials are used effectively to define building elements such as base, body, parapets, bays, arcades and structural elements. Materials, finishes, and colors have been used in a manner that serves to reduce the perceived appearance of height, bulk and mass, and are harmonious with other structures in the immediate area.

Staff review: The current material and finishes include a limestone base with stone and wood siding material for most of the primary street facades. The corner of the building has a portion of the façade finished in Corten Steel panels and aluminum storefront windowpanes for the corner lobby entrance leading to the mailbox. The upper stories have vinyl windows which result in a lower quality appearance and is a less durable material than other exterior window materials available and as compared to the metal cladded windows. The rear of the building is shown to be finished in plaster. While there are several quality materials proposed, the use of these materials on the facades are not entirely serving to reduce the height, mass and bulk because of the lack of articulation and consistent visual elements to read base, body, parapets and other structural elements. The design can be articulated further to provide some relief between upper floors, body of the project and base level details.

E. Landscaping is generous and inviting, and landscape and hardscape features are designed to complement the building and parking areas, and to be integrated with the building architecture and the surrounding streetscape. Landscaping includes substantial street tree canopy, either in the public right-of-way or within the project frontage.

Staff review: Landscaping is generous and inviting, however, the project could incorporate more hardscape features at the lobbies and entrances to signify entry elements. The tree canopy is substantial along the street sides. The landscaped courtyard area could include additional amenities to be used for active and passive open space areas for the residents living in the development which may include families and children.
25 Item 2.
265
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 15 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
F. Signage is designed to complement the building architecture in terms of style, materials, colors and proportions.

Staff review: Staff has not received a signage package for review. If the project is approved, this would be a made a condition of project approval. However, most likely signs would be limited to address and directional signs.

G. Mechanical equipment is screened from public view and the screening is designed to be consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detailing.

Staff review: The rooftop mechanical and other mechanical equipment are not shown in the drawings. If the project is approved, screening of rooftop mechanical equipment could be a made a condition of project approval.

H. Service, trash and utility areas are screened from public view, or are enclosed in structures that are consistent with the building architecture in materials and detailing.

Staff review: The garbage staging area on the first floor is screened and is consistent with the building architecture.

Conclusion: Because all the foregoing findings cannot be made, staff recommends denial of the Design Review Permit.

Conditional Use Permit
With regard to Conditional Use Permit UP19-001, to approve the permit the City Council would need to find the following in accordance with Chapter 14.80.060 of the LAMC.

A. That the proposed location of the conditional use is desirable or essential to the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare.

Staff review: Based upon the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project, there is no evidence that the project will have an undesirable impact on the physical environment of the surrounding community.

B. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning plan as stated in Chapter 14.02 of this title;
Staff review: The project will not have a significant environmental impact and it will meet many of the goals and objectives of the General Plan. However, it does not comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements, exceeds the allowed density, and as proposed does not meet all of the City’s design policies and objectives, as set forth above with respect to the Design Review Permit findings. Therefore, the project does not fully comply with all the objectives set forth in Section 14.02.020 of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

C. That the proposed location of the conditional use, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity;
26 Item 2.
266
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 16 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
Staff review: Because the project will not cause a significant environmental impact, as indicated in the IS/MND, the development of a housing project in the corner location of El Camino and Los Altos Ave. will not be detrimental to the health and safety. The project will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity because of the proposed mitigated measures detailed in the IS/MND to take necessary precautions during the time of construction.

D. That the proposed conditional use will comply with the regulations prescribed for the district in which the site is located and the general provisions of Chapter 14.02; Staff review: The specific use of a multi-family residential project does not fully comply with the regulations prescribed for the CT district as detailed in the staff report analysis and development standards Table-1.

Conclusion: Because all the foregoing findings cannot be made, staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit.

Subdivision
With regard to Subdivision TM19-0001, to approve the map, the City Council would be required to determine that none of the following findings can be made, in accordance with Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California:

A. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in 65451.

Staff review: This Finding can be made. The proposal remains inconsistent with Housing Element Goal 2, Policy 2.1.1 and Goal 4, Policy 4.3.2. in that the proposal does meet required diversity in the size of units and that the affordable housing units are seventy one percent one-bedroom units and are generally smaller than the market rate units in the project.

B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

Staff review: This Finding can be made. The proposal remains inconsistent with Housing Element Goal 2, Policy 2.1.1 and Goal 4, Policy 4.3.2 because the proposal does not meet the required distribution of unit type, size and diversity of units in the affordable housing mix.

C. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

Staff review: This Finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because it is in conformance with the Thoroughfare Commercial land use designations of the General Plan, and complies with all applicable CT Zoning District site development standards excluding those exceptions otherwise approved;
D. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 27 Item 2.
267
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real – New Multiple-Family Development Page 17 March 24, 2022
4878-6611-3560v1 NON-BC\27916001
Staff review: This Finding can be made. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development because it exceeds the maximum allowable density of 45 du/acre by eighty eight percent which it is not entitled by right.

E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Staff review: This Finding cannot be made. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements would not cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or wildlife if mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the project are implemented, as indicated in the IS/MND.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Because all the foregoing findings cannot be made, staff recommends denial of the Subdivision Permit.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE:

For this meeting, a public hearing notice was published in the Town Crier and mailed to 332 property owners and current tenants within 1,000 feet of the site (Attachment L). A public notice billboard with color renderings was installed along the project’s El Camino Real frontage and story poles to represent the walls and roof line of the building were installed in conformance with the City Council approved modified story pole installation for this project as detailed in Attachment E and discussed above.

At the time of report publication, 4 public correspondences were received and included as Attachment K. Staff will forward any additional correspondence received to the Commission.

28 Item 2.
268
Agenda Item # 3.

Complete Streets Commission Minutes
October 23, 2019

Page 1 of 6 ends

MINUTES OF THE COMPLETE STREETS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, HELD ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2019 AT 7:00 PM AT THE GRANT PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, 1575 HOLT AVENUE, LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Nadim Maluf (Chair), Stacy Banerjee, Randy Kriegh, Jenny Lam, Tom Madalena (Staff Liaison)
ABSENT: Suzanne Ambiel (Vice Chair), Paul Van Hoorickx, Herprit Mahal.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION

1. Minutes
Approve Minutes of regular meeting on August 28, 2019
Upon motion by Commissioner Banerjee, seconded by Commissioner Lam, the Commission approved the Minutes of regular meeting on August 28nd with the following comments. • Location of the meeting should be Los Altos City Hall – Community Chambers, not Los Altos Youth Center.
• Add the following to Commissioner Reports and Comments section: City Council and CUSD held a Subcommittee meeting which included safe routes related discussion.

Approved with the following vote:

AYES: 4. NOES: 0. ABSTAIN:0. ABSENT: 3. Passed 4-0

2. Fremont Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation
Jaime Rodriguez, City’s transportation consultant, along with Daniel Leary and Anoop Admal from Bellecci and Associates presented the item to the Commission. Bellecci and Associates is the selected consultant team responsible for project design.

Commission was introduced to the project’s work scope of pavement rehabilitation on Fremont Avenue, and the City’s intent to take this opportunity to implement striping, signage and other safety improvements. Since a portion of the project is funded by grant from the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program, the project will have to go through an environmental review process with Caltrans, which is estimated to take approximately 10 months. City staff conducted a community open house prior to this meeting to give a chance for the community to look at the design and provide comments.

ATTACHMENT D
208
Item 2.
269
Agenda Item # 3.

Complete Streets Commission Minutes
October 23, 2019

Page 2 of 6 ends

PowerPoint presentation included the following information:
• Map of Project Environment: predominantly residential neighborhood, few churches, Stanford medicine, and highway 85.
• Pavement Dig-out repair areas: Explanation of asphalt repair areas and indicated location of existing pedestrian pathways and crosswalks.
• City’s traditional pavement rehabilitation methods and newer methods were considered for this project with the introduction of Cold in-place recycling, a more expensive but sustainable repair method.
• Bike lane considerations: A look at existing bike lane and consideration for solid green and dashed green street markings.
• Construction staging and detour route during construction. • Project schedule:
o Design phase: Spring 2020.
o Caltrans review: Summer 2020.
o Project bid: Winter 2020.

City staff plans to return with this item with completed design in February 2020. City Staff seeks input from the Commission to advise design phase following the presentation.

Question from Commission:
• What kind of topics are included in the Caltrans Review? Will there be any traffic studies? o Caltrans will require types of study depending on project environment and work scope. Project close to a creek may require study for wildlife impact, excavation depth may trigger research on tribal burial areas. Traffic studies are usually only required when there are proposed changes of the roadway configuration such as lane reduction. Traffic study requirement for this project is not anticipated at this time.
• Is this one of the segments that will be looked at with the Complete Streets Master Plan? Will the work be coordinated?
o Concept plan line for the Complete Streets Master Plan will not include Fremont Avenue anymore since this project will take care of it. • Will traffic accident data on Fremont Avenue be reviewed for the development of the design?
o Yes, speed, volume and accident data has been collected and will be brought to presentation in the February meeting.
• What are the criteria that are used to determine the type of pavement treatment option? o In addition to the survey that determined percentage of roadway failure, the team also took samples of roadway surface by “coring” down from the surface. Using all the data, the design team will draft a report with recommendation for a single treatment.
209
Item 2.
270
Agenda Item # 3.

Complete Streets Commission Minutes
October 23, 2019

Page 3 of 6 ends

• Is there any trade-off when we are considering environmental options? o When it comes to environmental effort required by Caltrans, City will have no choice but to follow their instruction. When we are looking at environmental considerations for pavement options, it is up to the City and Community to determine how environmentally friendly we would want to be with added construction cost to do pavement recycling. Cold in-place recycling is a relatively new method, and there are not much data that supports the estimated pavement life of 12-15 years so far.
• Commission would like more data on recycling method to be able to weigh the trade-off in February.
• Is there any consideration for pedestrian in this project? o Yes, there is. Existing pathways and crosswalks are looked at as part of the project, and staff will pick up any inputs from the community. • With the grant funding of $336,000 in mind, what does our budget look like with the options presented?
o It is roughly estimated that it will be around $800,000 for microsurfacing, $1.3 Million for overlay, and $1.9 Million for cold in-place recycling. • What is meant by Complete Streets consideration on the report? What aspects of the project contributes to Complete Streets?
o Buffered bike lane, green striping, high visibility crosswalks, and improvements on existing pedestrian pathways are all considered Complete Streets improvements.
• How we keep track of the project and its progress?
o There will be a project website with updates on project. www.losaltosca.gov/FremontAvePavementRehab
Public Comments:
• Concerned with the quality of existing roadway on Fremont Avenue. Multiple utility patching and cracks over the roadway. Would like to see pedestrian pathway improvements as well. Wider range of community should be notified about the project. • Concerned about the work scope changing from simple paving job into something different especially with Federal grant involved.

Comments and Feedback from Commission:
• Good opportunity to look at Complete Streets options. Think about connectivity if we are doing bike lane. Agree with the previous public speaker’s point, adding Complete Streets treatments to this project may come short.
• Would like broader public outreach notification. Looking forward to the completed design with presented Complete Streets improvements.
210
Item 2.
271
Agenda Item # 3.

Complete Streets Commission Minutes
October 23, 2019

Page 4 of 6 ends

• Encourage staff to continue collecting feedback from the community. • Fremont Avenue is very congested during peak time. Although this is not part of work scope, this should be looked at.
• Cut through traffic issue.
• Fremont Avenue is very difficult to cross.
• Bike lane issue through corridor and at each of project limits. • Public outreach is very important for a project to be successful. Encourage staff to not lose track of the community during the elongated design and review process.

3. Development Project Review: 4350 El Camino Real
Associate Planner Seam Gallegos presented the design review application for a new five-story multifamily development with 47 units. This item was brought back in order to address comments received from the Commission in the August meeting.

Presentation included consideration of the following topics:
• Driveway design and location.
• Removal of right turn lane on Los Altos Avenue.
• Parking restriction.
• Number of on-site parking spaces.
• Loading zone consideration.
• VTA bus stop modifications.
• On-site bicycle facilities.
• Elevator size to accommodate bicycle users.
• Landscape improvements.

Question and comments from Commission included the following topics:
• Delivery and moving truck access.
• Number of bicycle storage.
• Impact from new no parking zone.
• Number of parking spaces per ordinance.
• Landscaping plan and El Camino Real streetscape plan. • VTA shelter and loading zone.
• Driveway location.
• New EV charging regulation.

Motion made by Commissioner Banerjee, seconded by Commissioner Lam to forward the item to the Planning Commission and the City Council with the following recommendation:
• Follow staff recommendation in the staff report.
211
Item 2.
272
Agenda Item # 3.

Complete Streets Commission Minutes
October 23, 2019

Page 5 of 6 ends

• Follow the number of parking under the City Ordinance. • Remove parking on El Camino Real.
• Review trash pick-up area for safety.
• EV readiness on for parking lot.
• Additional bicycle storage: 60 Class I bicycle parking.

Approved with the following votes: AYES:4 NOES:0 ABSTAIN:0 ABSENT:3. Passed 4-0

4. Complete Streets Master Plan
Verbal update from Staff Liaison Tom Madalena on the status of Complete Streets Master Plan RFP. Staff received a total of 1 proposal and is planning to start review and selection process shortly.

5. Cuesta Drive – Arboleda Drive Traffic Calming Project Verbal update from Transportation Consultant Jaime Rodriguez on the design of Cuesta Drive – Arboleda Drive Traffic Calming Project. Comments on 65% design were sent back to Alta Planning. New all way “STOP” at Cuesta Drive and Clark Avenue to be installed by City Staff prior to project construction. 95% design is expected November 2019.

Question and comments from Commission:
• Will the new “STOP” sign installation change any aspect of the design? o No.
• Will there be any improvements on shoulder/swale area? o That will not be part of this project. Shoulder/swale area is under property owner’s responsibility to maintain.
• Encourage staff to revisit the shoulder area in question (revisit Jim Fenton’s question from past meeting).

Public Comments:
• Appreciate staff’s effort and looking forward to the project. • Comments on cut-through issue and pedestrian safety.

6. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – Transportation Projects Update Verbal update from Jaime Rodriguez on Transportation CIP. Next update at the January meeting with quarterly updates moving forward.

Question and Comments from Commission:
• Clarification on Fremont Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation CIP budget. • Some CIPs were not on the list, would it come to Complete Streets Commission? 212
Item 2.
273
Agenda Item # 3.

Complete Streets Commission Minutes
October 23, 2019

Page 6 of 6 ends

o Some CIPs such as First Street Streetscape project is lead by other Department within the City and is not included in the list provided. • How many projects are on Schedule? How do we keep track of project delivery responsibility?
o Many projects are far off from original proposed schedule such as Cuesta Drive.

Staff is open for suggestion for project tracking system.

7. Complete Streets Commission Work Plan
Verbal update from Tom Madalena. This will be brought back to Commission with the Quarterly update.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

8. Monthly Staff Report
• Proposed date change for November 27th meeting since it is a Thanksgiving holiday. • Open house meeting similar to this evening will take place almost every month for the next 6~8 months.
• Tom Madalena will be taking over the role of Staff Liaison as Jaime Rodriguez will shift focus to project design.

COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
None.

POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Quarterly meeting with Police Department.
• Work plan and next year’s agenda items.
• Forming subcommittee.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Nadim adjourned the meeting at 9:55 PM
213
Item 2.
274
Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, October 18, 2018

Page 1 of 3 ends

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2018 BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. AT LOS ALTOS CITY HALL, ONE NORTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD,

LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA

ESTABLISH QUORUM
PRESENT: Vice Chair Samek, Commissioners Ahi, Bodner, Lee, Meadows and Mosley ABSENT: Chair Bressack
STAFF: Community Development Director Biggs and Planning Services Manager Dahl

PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Planning Commission Minutes
Approve the minutes of the September 20, 2018 Regular Meeting and Study Session.

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Meadows, seconded by Commissioner Bodner, the Commission approved the minutes from the September 20, 2018 Regular Meeting and Study Session as amended.

The motion was approved (4-0-2) by the following vote:

AYES: Bodner, Lee, Meadows and Samek
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bressack
ABSTAIN: Ahi and Mosley

SPECIAL ITEM

2. Commission Reorganization
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Meadows, seconded by Commissioner Bodner, the Commission nominated Vice-Chair Samek as Chair.

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

AYES: Ahi, Bodner, Lee, Meadows, Mosley and Samek
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bressack
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Meadows, seconded by Commissioner Bodner, the Commission nominated Commissioner Lee as Vice Chair.

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

AYES: Ahi, Bodner, Lee, Meadows, Mosley and Samek
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bressack 214
Item 2.
275
Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, October 18, 2018

Page 2 of 3 ends

STUDY SESSION

3. 18-PPR-06 – Gregory and Angela Galatolo – 4350 El Camino Real Design Review Study Session for a new multiple-family development at the corner of El Camino Real and Los Altos Avenue. The proposal includes 45 condominium units in a five-story building with two levels of underground parking. Project Planner: Dahl/Gallegos Planning Services Manager Dahl presented the staff report.

Project applicant Angie Galatolo Project architect Alex Siedel presented the project, providing an overview of the architectural design, noting that it is a good location for high density housing and will have a similar density to other nearby projects on El Camino Real.

Public Comment
Eric Steinle, resident and president of the Peninsula Real Homeowner’s Association, expressed concern that the proposed five-story height is inconsistent with the surrounding context and noted that the proximity of the project’s driveway could conflict with the existing driveway of their multi-family building and that the trash pick-up should be located along Los Altos Avenue.

Eric Noveutube, neighboring resident, noted the project incorporated a good use of materials, but expressed concern that the driveway on El Camino Real could create issues and that the project could create shadows and glare.

Commission Discussion
The Commission discussed the project and provided the following comments:
• Vice-Chair Lee:
o Good scale/mass breakdown;
o Good focus on corner design;
o Use a better wood material;
o Concerned about scale and overall height;
o Too tall and needs a better relationship to surroundings - four stories would be a better transition to neighboring properties;
o The garage entry on the El Camino Real is a concern;
o Provide better landscaping between adjacent buildings – more detail on the plans; and o Need to better understand the function/purpose of the proposed porches on Los Altos Avenue.
• Commissioner Meadows:
o An initial study should be done since it is a gas station site – potential for contaminants needs to be explored;
o More details needed on courtyard – show that project meets minimum open space requirements;
o Look at material treatments on all elevations;
o Likes Corten steel elements;
o Needs more benefits/amenities to support an 80 percent density bonus; o Evaluate the entry at the street corner a bit more;
o Consider privacy for side/rear facing windows;
o Need to provide for loading spaces; and
o Improve mix of BMRs (size/beds) and identify the amenities project provides. 215 Item 2.
276
Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, October 18, 2018

Page 3 of 3 ends

• Commissioner Bodner:
o Rethink the driveway on El Camino Real – will have circulation impacts; o Explore a better location for garbage on El Camino Real; o Use more interesting landscaping;
o Good mix of materials;
o Look at a delivery area on Los Altos Avenue;
o Placement of courtyard next to the adjoining multi-family is a good location; o Expressed concern with size of density bonus;
o Review window reflectivity on neighbors; and
o Improve prominence of entry.
• Commissioner Mosley:
o Study garage entrance on El Camino Real;
o Concerned about five-story height; significantly taller than adjacent buildings; and o Need more affordable units – improve size and number of bedrooms in the affordable unit mix.
• Commissioner Ahi:
o Consider a mixed-use project;
o Concerned about size of density bonus;
o Concerned about side yard setbacks – improve placement of balconies; o Provide a solar study to evaluate shadows on adjacent properties; o More attention needed for the side/rear elevations;
o Work on the corner element adjacent to the street intersection; o Study the driveway location; and
o Use the courtyard space as a buffer to neighboring properties. • Chair Samek:
o Make sure the context elevations are to-scale;
o Look at newer adjacent buildings;
o Okay with height in this context/setting;
o Density should be balanced with more BMR units and amenities; and o Work on placement of the parking garage driveway.

COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
None.

POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Samek adjourned the meeting at 8:38 P.M.

Jon Biggs
Community Development Director
216
Item 2.
277
Agenda Item # 3.

BKF ENGINEERS
1730 N. First Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112 | 408.467.9100 February 25, 2022
BKF No. 20180481
Angela Galatolo
4350 El Camino Real
Los Altos, CA 94022
Transmitted Via Email
Subject: 4350 El Camino Real, Los Altos
Story Pole Certification
Angela:

This is to state that in accordance with the City of Los Altos building code, BKF Engineers, on February 9, 2022, has staked the location of six story poles. Subsequently on February 24, 2022, BKF Engineers surveyed the top elevation of the story poles.

Top story pole elevations:

Story Pole Number 9001 – 123.53 feet
Story Pole Number 9002 – 123.51 feet
Story Pole Number 9003 – 124.03 feet
Story Pole Number 9004 – 123.66 feet
Balloon Number 9005 – 123.56 feet
Balloon Number 9006 – 123.58 feet
(See attached exhibit for location of story poles.)
The staking was performed under the direction of the undersigned.

Sincerely,
BKF Engineers
_________________________________
Jose Gonzalo Garcia
Project Surveyor
P.L.S. No. 8315

ATTACHMENT E
217
Item 2.
278
Agenda Item # 3.
218
Item 2.
279
Agenda Item # 3.
219
Item 2.
280
Agenda Item # 3.
220
Item 2.
281
Agenda Item # 3.
221
Item 2.
282
Agenda Item # 3.
222
Item 2.
283
Agenda Item # 3.
223
Item 2.
284
Agenda Item # 3.
224
Item 2.
285
Agenda Item # 3.

Community Development Department
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022
4859-7576-1920v1
\27916001
October 22, 2021 (Revised on October 23, 2021)
Gregory and Angela Galatolo
Via Email: [email protected]
4350 El Camino Real
Los Altos, CA 94022
Subject: 4350 EL CAMINO REAL (Application No. 19-D-01, 19-UP-01 and 19-SD-01) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Galatolo:

This letter is being provided pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2), and is in response to the plans and documentation for the Commercial Design Review, Use Permit and Subdivision applications for a new multiple-family building at 4350 El Camino Real. Based on City staff review, this letter is a list of the consistency items that should be addressed or provided for the application. regarding the following comments from the Planning Division, please contact Sean Gallegos, Associate Planner at 650-947-2641.

Consistency with City Ordinances, Policies, and Guidelines This application has been reviewed for consistency with the following City documents. The remaining comments in this letter are based on the following:

General Plan
Other City Policies
Zoning Ordinance
Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance
Multi Family Design Review Submittal Requirements
Density Bonus Report Requirements
Story Pole Requirements New Development
Construction Management Plan Submittal Requirements
Public Art Impact Fee handout
As proposed, the project is inconsistent with applicable objective standards. Staff recommends the following additional comments be addressed to maintain consistency with the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, Density Bonus Report and Other City Policies and Requirements:

ATTACHMENT H
302
Item 2.
286
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2021)

Page 2 ends

1. Chapter 14.50.180 (Off-Street Loading for Residential (CT) In order to accommodate the delivery or shipping of goods at a multiple-family residential project, on-site loading/unloading space shall be provided:

A. There shall be at least one loading/unloading space provided, which shall have minimum dimensions of at least ten (10) feet by twenty-five (25) feet, with fourteen (14) feet of vertical clearance;
B. Loading and unloading spaces shall be located and designed so that the vehicles intended to use them can maneuver safely and conveniently to and from a public right-of-way without interfering with the orderly movement of traffic and pedestrians on any public way and complete the loading and unloading operations without obstructing or interfering with any parking space or parking lot aisle; C. No area allocated to loading and unloading facilities may be used to satisfy the area requirements for off-street parking, nor shall any portion of any of off-street parking area be used to satisfy the area requirements for loading and unloading facilities; D. A loading/unloading space may be located in the front yard setback, but shall comply with other required setbacks;
E. All loading spaces shall be designed and maintained so that vehicles do not back in from, or onto, a public street;
F. Loading spaces shall be striped indicating the loading spaces and identifying the spaces for "loading only." The striping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner/tenant in a clear and visible manner at all times; and G. Adequate signage shall be provided that directs delivery vehicles to the loading space.

As specified in the Zoning Code (Sec. 14.74.200), truck loading spaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide by twenty-five (25) feet long and each parking and loading space shall be accessible from a public street or alley. The project plans do not show a designated loading zone for the property. The site plan does not show the location of a truck loading spaces that does not interfere with access to the below grade garage, which would be required for trash collection or deliveries.

2. Chapter 14.72.020 (Maximum Fence Heights)
The maximum height of any fence, wall, or other similar structure erected, constructed, or maintained in the city shall not exceed six feet. A fence detail is shown in the project plans, but the location of the fence is not shown in the plan set. Therefore, staff is unable to determine if plans are consistent with the maximum permitted fence height Chapter 14.72.020 of the Zoning Code. The site plan shall be updated to reflect compliance with the maximum permitted fence heights of Chapter 14.72.020 of the Zoning Code.

3. Table LU-1 of the Land Use Classification System of the Land Use Element permits a maximum floor area ratio per net acre of 2.0:1 for a residential use.

Table B-40 of the Housing Element establishes a maximum density of 38 dwelling units per acre for sites in the Commercial Thoroughfare district. 303
Item 2.
287
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2021)

Page 3 ends

Program 4.3.4 of the Housing Elements encourages the City to comply with maximum codified densities in the zones that allow multifamily housing.

Density Bonus Report: Any applicant requesting a density bonus and any incentive(s), waiver(s), or parking reductions provided by State Density Bonus Law shall submit a Density Bonus Report as described below concurrently with the filing of the planning application for the first discretionary permit required for the housing development.

The Land Use Element encourages a maximum floor area per net acre of 2.0 as a measure of intensity of the residential use in the Thoroughfare Commercial land use. The project proposes a floor area per net acre of 2.4:1. Staff recommends the project Information Table be updated to include the building Floor Area, which shall be related to the floor area ratio. The applicant shall address the floor area per net acre inconsistency in the density bonus letter.

The Housing Element encourages maximum densities of residential development as well as facilitating affordable housing. The permissible density is 38 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 25 dwelling unit. The project proposes 47 units or a density of 72 dwelling units per acre, which exceeds the permissible density of 38 dwelling units per acre. percent of the units be affordable, with a majority of the units designated as affordable at the moderate-income level and the remaining units designated as affordable at the low or very-lowincome level. minimum of four affordable units. The applicant is proposing seven affordable units, with four moderate-income level units and three very-low-income level units, which is consistent with the inclusionary ordinance.
based on
very-low income units if it provides at least five percent very-low-income units. With three affordable units at the very-low-income level and four affordable units at the moderate level (7 affordable units total), the project is providing 28 percent of its base density as affordable, with 12 percent of its base density affordable at the very-low-income level. By providing 12 percent of its units as affordable at the very-low-income level, the project qualifies for a 38.75 percent density bonus Government Code 65915(f)(2)., or a total of 35 multiple family units. However, the applicant proposes a project with 47 units or a density of 72 dwelling units per acre. To achieve a total of 47 units, the applicant is requesting an 88% density bonus. the 88% density bonus is necessary due to:
project provides three additional affordable housing units over the minimum City requirement, the
reduce the risk and provide a safety net because of the very high cost of land, the very high cost of construction trending even higher over time, and the uncertain nature of the housing market in According to Section 14.28.040.E of the Zoning Code, the multiple-family affordable housing this section for a development that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by this section for developments that 304
Item 2.
288
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2021)

Page 4 ends

do not meet the requirements of this section. The granting of a larger density bonus would be in standards.

While the applicant has advised the increased density bonus is necessary due to the inherent risk due to the cost of land and construction and the uncertainty of the market, the applicant has not provided any technical reports or evidence to support the claims related to land costs, constructions costs, real estate risks, or any other factor related to the unsubstantiated claims from the applicant for the density bonus of 88 percent.

A development with a density bonus greater than 35 percent should be based upon an increased number of BMR units consistent with the multiple-family affordable housing ordinance (Chapter

14.28 of the Zoning Code). As currently proposed, the project is not consistent with the Zoning Code (Chapter 14.28) and the objective standards of the Zoning Code. Staff recommends the density bonus report be revised to address the above listed items, or staff will recommend denial if/when it is scheduled for Planning Commission review. Overall, the project does not reflect a desired and appropriate development intensity for the CT District and the El Camino Real corridor.

4. Section 14.28.030 (Standards) of the Multiple-Family Affordable Code requires that all affordable units in a project shall be constructed concurrently with market rate units, shall be dispersed throughout the project, and shall not be significantly distinguishable by size, design, construction or materials.

The applicant proposes a 47-unit multiple-family development with 21 percent of the development with one-bedroom market-rate units (10 total units), 68 percent of the development with two-bedroom market-rate units (32 total units), and ten percent of the development with three-bedroom market-rate units (5 total units). The applicant proposes seven affordable units, with 71 percent of the affordable units being one bedroom (total of five), and 29 percent of the affordable units being two-bedroom units (total of 2), and the affordable units are distributed on floors one through three.

As currently proposed, multiple-family development is not consistent with Section 14.28.030 due to the affordable units not being dispersed throughout the development on all floors, and the twostory units being significantly distinguishable due to the size of the units being 767 square feet, while 90 percent of the market-rate units having a median unit size of 1,326 square feet. Consistent with Section 14.28.030 of the Zoning Code, staff recommends the applicant distribute the affordable units through all five floors, the percentage of affordable units be designed to not be distinguishable from the percentage of one-, two- and three-bedroom market-rate units, and the size of the affordable units not be significantly distinguishable from the market-rate units.

INCONSISTENCIES WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS (Resolved with Conditions) In order to enable staff to provide useful feedback, staff has provided comments outlining inconsistencies with City requirements that will be dealt with through conditions of approval.

The following items will not be used to determine completeness; however, these items are 305
Item 2.
289
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2021)

Page 5 ends

1. Section 14.74.160 (Off-Street Loading Spaces) requires that loading spaces shall be provided on the site of each of the permitted uses in the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) district when found by the commission to require the receipt or distribution of materials by vehicles or when found to be necessary for the public safety or welfare. The number of spaces shall be determined on the basis of the number of anticipated truck movements. off-street loading spaces requirement is a matter of
confirming consistency. Staff recommends the applicant provide information regarding the number of anticipated truck movements to assess whether the truck loading space for deliveries is necessary based on Section 14.74.160. At a future Planning Commission meeting, staff will request the commission consider whether loading spaces are required for deliveries.

2. Construction Management Plan
The proposed preliminary construction plan does not comply with the Construction Management Plan handout, and it must be incorporated into the plan set as directed in the Submittal Requirements handout for Commercial or Multiple-Family Design Review. We previously found the proposed CMP did not provide sufficient details for off-site truck staging for material deliveries that require multiple trucks at any one time (concrete, building materials, etc.). A Condition of Approval will be required for an updated CMP consistent with the Submittal Requirements Construction Management Plan handout, including providing greater detail on the truck staging for material deliveries that require multiple trucks at any one time (concrete, building materials, etc.) prior to the Building Permit being issued for the development. The Construction Management Plan handout is provided below:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page /41491/construction_management_plan_submital_requirements_and_example.pdf

3. Vesting Tentative Map
The Vesting Tentative Map requires the vacating of the ingress/egress easement on the subject site and a separate ingress/egress easement on the adjacent site (APN 167-60-MULT). Staff previously advised the vesting tentative map was incomplete due to lacking a letter from the neighboring property (APN 167-60 MULI) agreeing to vacating the easements. As Condition of Approval, evidence that an instrument has been recorded vacating the ingress/egress easement will be required prior to recordation of the Final Map.

4. Signs
No signs were proposed for the project. Any potential signage must comply with Chapter 14.68 (Signs on Private Property). The web link to the Sign Ordinance is provided below:
https://library.municode.com/ca/los_altos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT14ZO_C H14.68SIPRPR
306
Item 2.
290
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2021)

Page 6 ends

5. California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications and the American Public Works Association Standard Specifications for Public works for construction Section 21 (Street Trees)
The furnishing and installation of street trees shall be in accordance with the plans and the specific standards of Section 21, Street Trees. The project plans are not consistent with Section 21, and the furnishing and installation of street trees shall be required as a Condition of Approval consistent with Section 21, Street Trees. The Section 21 standard is provided at the below link:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/Public%20Works/page/210/gu idance_technical_specification_-_section_21.pdf

6. Public Infrastructure Repairs
The public infrastructure shall be repaired consistent the specific standards of the Engineering Division if there are damaged to right-of-way infrastructures and otherwise displaced curb, gutter inlet shall be removed and replaced as directed by the
City Engineer or his designee
The infrastructure and sidewalk improvements shall be required as a Condition of Approval consistent with Engineering Standards in the attached surface improvement exhibit https://www.losaltosca.gov/publicworks/page/surface-improvements

7. Stormwater Management
The applicant shall submit a complete Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and a hydrology calculation showing that 100% of the site is being treated; is in compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). The SWMP must be reviewed and approved by a The project
plans and submittal are not consistent with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP), but a Condition of Approval shall be required to obtain a complete Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and a hydrology calculation showing that 100% of the site is being treated. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention measures (Chapter 10.16) are provided at the following web link:
https://library.municode.com/ca/los_altos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10PUSE_ CH10.16STPOPRME

8. Sidewalk Lights
The new light fixture to be installed along El Camino Real in the vicinity of the existing bus stop shall be consistent with the Engineering Division Electrolier Specification (SL-1 and SL-2B). The project plans are not consistent with ut any sidewalk light improvements shall be required as a Condition of Approval consistent with the Street Lighting Standard Details provided at the below web link:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/publicworks/page/street-lighting 307
Item 2.
291
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2021)

Page 7 ends

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Not Related to Completeness of the Application) In order to enable staff to provide useful feedback, it is recommended that additional information beyond the minimum requirements is provided for review. The following items will not be used to determine completeness; however, these items are recommended in order to understanding of the project.

1. Community Design Policy 1.7 addresses the enhancement of neighborhood character by promoting architectural design of and residential developments that is compatible in the context of surrounding neighborhoods.

Community Design Policy 4.2 requires projects improve the visual character of El Camino Real commercial area by ensuring compatibility with residential neighborhoods to the south of the corridor.

CDHR 1: Community Identity and Character:
character by:
a. Maintaining the low density, low profile residential character of the community through zoning regulations and design guidelines.
b. Promoting site planning and project design with an emphasis on small town scale and pedestrian friendly development.
c. Ensuring compatibility between residential and non-residential development through zoning regulations and design review.

As currently designed, the project does not meet the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Code design criteria for the CT District:

The project does not have architectural integrity and an appropriate relationship with other structures in the immediate area in terms of height, bulk and design. The project requires a mixture of scales in building design, it should relate to the human scale, both horizontally and vertically, and be compatible and reflect the scale of surrounding structures, including the neighborhoods to the south of the corridor. The project given its prominent location on a corner lot, the design should provide lower scale elements and create more of a pedestrian scale on both of its street facing frontages.

The horizontal and vertical building mass is not sufficiently articulated to relate to the human scale; it has variation and depth of building elevations to avoid large blank walls; and the residential elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies.
scale of immediately adjacent properties, and it needs to improve its transition with adjacent lower-scaled two and three-story structures.; and
The landscaping is not generous and inviting, the landscape and hardscape complements the building and is well integrated with the building architecture and surrounding streetscape, and the landscape includes substantial street tree canopy.
308
Item 2.
292
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2021)

Page 8 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Los Altos, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 4350 El Camino Real project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Los Altos, California.

Date(s) Required Actions
October 21, 2021 to December 5, 2021
(Tentative)
AB52 Consultation: Tribal consultation under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)) for the
mitigation of potential project impacts to tribal
cultural resource for the above referenced project.

A 30-day review period is proscribed by Public
Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (d), the
tribal entity.

December 5, 2021 to December 19, 2021 Upon completion of AB52 Tribal Consultation, if these comments include substantial evidence that a
potential environmental effect may occur despite the
project revisions or mitigation measures included in
the MND, the Lead Agency must either require
further revisions to the project which would
effectively avoid or mitigate that effect.

To be Determined Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to be mailed to required parties, noticed
in a paper of general circulation, and posted at City
Hall and the Santa Clara County Clerks Office, and
any additional noticing will occur as required under
Section 15072 of the California Environmental
Quality Act.

To Be Determined A 30-day public review and comment period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as
required under Section 15.073 of the California
Environmental Quality Act. During this period, the
IS and MND will be available to local, state, and
federal agencies and to interested organizations and
individuals for review
309
Item 2.
293
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
October 22, 2021(Revised on October 23, 2021)

Page 9 ends

Date(s) Required Actions
To Be Determined The City, as Lead Agency, will consider the comments it receives during the review period prior
to adopting an MND.

If these comments include substantial evidence that a
potential environmental effect may occur despite the
project revisions or mitigation measures included in
the MND, the Lead Agency must either require
further revisions to the project which would
effectively avoid or mitigate that effect, or if that is not possible, prepare an EIR.

To Be Determined Planning Commission Meeting
To Be Determined Planning Commission Meeting
To Be Determined City Council Meeting
As the project planner assigned to this project, you may contact me directly at (650) 947-2641 or [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Sean K. Gallegos
Associate Planner
Guido Persicone, AICP
Planning Services Manager
Cc: Architect
310
Item 2.
294
Agenda Item # 3.

Community Development Department
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022
September 23, 2021 (Revised October 27, 2021)
Gregory and Angela Galatolo
Via Email: [email protected]
4350 El Camino Real
Los Altos, CA 94022
Subject: 4350 EL CAMINO REAL (Application No. 19-D-01, 19-UP-01 and 19-SD-01) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Galatolo:

This letter is an updated response to the plans and documentation for the Commercial Design Review, Use Permit and Subdivision applications for a new multiple-family building at 4350 El Camino Real.

Based on City staff review, the application has been deemed complete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (California Government Code section 65920). This letter is a list of the items that will need to be addressed or provided in order for the application to be deemed complete.

The text in black pertains to the incompleteness letter June 30, 2019, and the comments in red reflect the City’s new comments related to the updated submittal materials dated August 21, 2020 and the traffic report dated July 9, 2020. The City’s comments in green reflect the new comments related to the updated submittal materials dated October 12, 2020. The City’s comments in blue reflect the new comments related to the updated submittal materials dated November 17, 2020 and November 24, 2020. The City’s comments in brown reflect the new comments related to the updated submittal materials dated January 27, 2021. The City’s comments in pink reflect the new comments related to the updated submittal materials dated May 17, 2021. The City’s comments in purple reflect the new comments related to the updated submittal materials dated July 7, 2021. The City’s comments in orange reflect the comments related to the updated submittal materials dated August 23, 2021.

In this letter, we have included comments from the Planning Division. Your timely response to these comments will help expedite your project’s review. For questions regarding the following comments from the Planning Division, please contact Sean Gallegos, Associate Planner at 650-947-2641.

Per Zoning Code Section 14.78.050, all necessary plan revisions, documentation and information to address the comments in this letter must be submitted within 180 days of the date of this letter in order to avoid this application from being deemed expired. This application will be deemed expired on March 16, 2021. If additional time is necessary to fully address the City’s comments, you may submit a written request for an extension of up to an additional 180 days. The request should include justification for the extension and outline the circumstances that have caused a delay in the submittal of the required information.

ATTACHMENT I
311
Item 2.
295
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
September 23, 2021 (Revised October 27, 2021)

Page 2 ends

Public Meeting Schedule
The dates for the required public meetings before the Planning Commission and the City Council have not yet been scheduled and are contingent upon the application being deemed complete and publication of the environmental initial study.

Compliance with City Ordinances, Policies, and Guidelines This application has been reviewed for compliance with the following City documents. The remaining comments in this letter are based on the following:

General Plan
Other City Policies
Zoning Ordinance
Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance
Multi Family Design Review Submittal Requirements
Density Bonus Report Requirements
Story Pole Requirements – New Development
Construction Management Plan Submittal Requirements
Public Art Impact Fee handout
Multi-Family Design Review
The comments from other City Departments are included as enclosures and the comments from the Planning Division are outlined in this letter. Consistent with 14.78.050 (Initial Application Review) of the Los Altos Municipal Code (LAMC), the following additional comments shall be addressed to comply with the Submittal requirements for Multi-Family Design Review and the Los Altos Municipal Code:

Planning Division (Sean K. Gallegos, 650-947-2641)
List of Incompleteness Items
Consistent with 14.78.050 (Initial Application Review) of the Los Altos Municipal Code (LAMC), the following additional comments shall be addressed to comply with the Submittal requirements for Multi-Family Design Review and the Los Altos Municipal Code:

1. Story Pole Exception - Incompleteness Items
As specified in the Zoning Code (Sec. 14.78.050), the following additional comments shall be addressed to comply with the Submittal requirements for Multi-Family Design Review. The story pole submittal must be revised to comply with the submittal requirements and City Council conditions of approval from the January 26, 2021 meeting. The City Council Direction conditions include the following:

The City Council Subcommittee shall work with applicant and staff on the following revisions to the story pole plan:
a. 3D Model
The pedestrian-level and flyover 3D digital models shall be revised to include more information, such as sidewalk widths, and the proposed development and adjacent buildings within the broader 312
Item 2.
296
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
September 23, 2021 (Revised October 27, 2021)

Page 3 ends

streetscape area that represent the three-dimensional qualities of the proposed building within the existing context of the site’s surroundings.

Response from the City: The City has not received a revised story pole submittal to address the comment. Therefore, the incompleteness issue has NOT been addressed by the applicant.

Response from the City: The City has not received a revised story pole submittal to address the incompleteness item. Therefore, the incompleteness issue has NOT been addressed by the applicant.

The applicant’s response letter received on July 7, 2021, states the City Council accepted the pedestrianlevel and flyover 3D at its meeting on April 14, 2020. However, the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council on Tuesday, January 26, 2021, states that “Council Member Lee Eng and Vice Mayor Enander shall work with the applicant and staff with the goal to make several changes to the plan by improving the flyover and street level/pedestrian video.” The attached minutes indicate the City Council has not accepted the 3D models, and staff must again request the applicant work with Council Members Lee Eng and Vice Mayor Enander and staff to update the pedestrian-level and flyover 3D models. We must request the applicant provide confirmation the Council subcommittee has agreed to the proposed revisions to the 3-D digital model.

Response from the City regarding the submittal materials dated August 23, 2021: The previous incompleteness item has been resolved by the applicant. The item is now complete. b. Public Notice Billboard No. 1 - Photorealistic Rendering The public notice billboard No. 1 text shall be replaced with a photorealistic rendering, based on input from the Peninsula Real Homeowner's Association.

Response from the City: The City has not received a revised story pole submittal to address the comment. Therefore, the incompleteness issue has NOT been addressed by the applicant. For further clarification, the photorealistic rendering should be consistent with the perspective on Sheet A3.0a of the project plans dated November 17, 2020. The following text required from the Public Notice Sign Requirements for New Commercial Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Projects Handout shall be located along the top of the billboard:
4350 El Camino Real

The following text shall be added at the bottom quarter (or less) of the billboard:

Project Description: The proposed design for 4350 El Camino Real provides 40 new market rate condominium residences, and 7 affordable residences.

Applicant/owner name, applicant/owner phone number and applicant/owner email address Project planner name, project planner phone number and project planner email address.

Response from the City: The City has not received a revised story pole submittal that addresses the incompleteness item from the letter dated June 26, 2021. For further clarification, the incompleteness letter dated June 26, 2021 required the photorealistic rendering be consistent with the perspective on Sheet A3.0a of the project plans dated November 17, 2020. In the resubmittal, the billboard No. 1 includes three perspectives with the required text, including the perspective on Sheet A3.0a. However, the incompleteness letter requested that billboard No. 1 shall have a (one) photorealistic rendering, which shall be consistent with perspective on Sheet A3.0a of the project plans dated November 17, 2020 with the required text.
313
Item 2.
297
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
September 23, 2021 (Revised October 27, 2021)

Page 4 ends

Therefore, the applicant has not addressed the incompleteness issue. We must request the billboard be revised consistent with the incompleteness letter dated June 26, 2021. As stated in the incompleteness letter dated June 26, 2021, and the City Council minutes of January 26, 2021, the applicant was required to work with the Council subcommittee, comprised of Council Member Lee Eng and Enander related to the billboard. We must request the applicant provide confirmation the Council subcommittee has agreed to the proposed revisions to the story pole plan.

Staff does acknowledge the billboard provides the correct text on the billboard, and no further action is required for the billboard text.

Response from the City regarding the submittal materials dated August 23, 2021: The previous incompleteness item has been resolved by the applicant. The item is now complete. c. Public Notice Billboard No. 1 - Location
The public notice billboard No. 1 shall be relocated to be closer and better angled to the sidewalk to improve its visibility for pedestrians, with consideration of safety concerns.

Response from the City: The incompleteness issue has NOT been addressed by the applicant.

Response from the City: The City has not received a revised story pole submittal to address the comment. Therefore, the incompleteness issue has NOT been addressed by the applicant. For further clarification, billboard No. 1 shall be located along the eastern edge of the gas station (the one abutting PRLA), and it should be closer and better angled to the sidewalk to improve its visibility for pedestrians, with consideration of safety concerns.

Response from the City: As advised in the previous incompletes letter dated June 16, 2021, billboard No. 1 was to be revised to improve its visibility for pedestrian, with considerations for safety. In the City Council minutes of January 26, 2021, the applicant was to discuss the billboard’s location with the adjacent Homeowners Association and look at the repositioning of billboard No. 1 to be more proximate and visible from the sidewalk, with due respect for safety concerns and as determined and discussed with the staff and applicant. In your response, you indicate the location of billboard No. 1 was adjusted to 1) provide the greatest visibility from the street and sidewalk; 2) recognize the safety concerns of both adjacent driveways; and allow for staff approval of the actual location prior to installation. In the resubmittal received by the City on July 7, 2021, the billboard plan continues to show billboard No. 1 in the same location as considered by the City Council on January 26, 2021.

In reviewing the Council direction from the January 26, 2021, you were directed to discuss the billboard’s location with the HOA. In the resubmittal, staff did not receive documentation to confirm compliance with the incompleteness item, including proof of discussions with the HOA. However, staff separately has an email between an HOA representative, Eric Steinle and the applicant, Angie Galatalo. In the email, Mr. Steinle requested the following related to sign No. 1: the location shall be along “the eastern edge of the gas station (the one abutting PRLA) should have no text at all, and it should have a large picture showing what the building is expected to look like.” In reviewing the billboard No. 1 location in the story pole plan, staff confirms the billboard is located along the eastern property line consistent with the direction from the HOA. Therefore, the applicant has resolved the incompleteness item related to the location of billboard No. 1, and no further action is required for the billboard text. As stated in your response to the City’s incompleteness letter, staff will approve the actual location prior to installation.
314
Item 2.
298
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
September 23, 2021 (Revised October 27, 2021)

Page 5 ends

Response from the City regarding the submittal materials dated August 23, 2021: The previous incompleteness item has been resolved by the applicant. The item is now complete.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Environmental Review
The City of Los Altos, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 4350 El Camino Real project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Los Altos, California.

Timeline, Process and Resubmittal
Based on City staff review, the Commercial Design Review, Use Permit and Subdivision applications for a new multiple-family building at 4350 El Camino Real is deemed complete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (California Government Code section 65920).

Based on the determination of completeness, staff can provide the following preliminary and tentative schedule for the project:

Date(s) Required Actions
September 28, 2021 to November 5, 2021
(Tentative)
AB52 Consultation: Tribal consultation under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)) for the
mitigation of potential project impacts to tribal
cultural resource for the above referenced project.

A 30-day review period is proscribed by Public
Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (d), the
tribal entity.

November 5, 2021 to November 19, 2021 Upon completion of AB52 Tribal Consultation, if these comments include substantial evidence that a
potential environmental effect may occur despite the
project revisions or mitigation measures included in
the MND, the Lead Agency must either require
further revisions to the project which would
effectively avoid or mitigate that effect.

To Be Determined A 30-day public review and comment period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as
315
Item 2.
299
Agenda Item # 3.
4350 El Camino Real
September 23, 2021 (Revised October 27, 2021)

Page 6 ends

Date(s) Required Actions
required under Section 15.073 of the California
Environmental Quality Act. During this period, the
IS and MND will be available to local, state, and
federal agencies and to interested organizations and
individuals for review
To Be Determined The City, as Lead Agency, will consider the comments it receives during the review period prior
to adopting an MND.

To Be Determined Planning Commission Meeting
To Be Determined Planning Commission Meeting
To Be Determined City Council Meeting
In order to maintain the potential hearing dates, the following shall be submitted:
12 half-sized plan sets; and
One digital version of plan set;
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 947-2641 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sean K. Gallegos
Associate Planner
Guido Persicone, AICP
Planning Services Manager
Cc: Architect
316
Item 2.
300
Agenda Item # 3.
317
Item 2.
301
Agenda Item # 3.

BLDG
PERMIT No.
21 2452 PLANREVIEW No.

DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project shall comply with the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2016 edition, as adopted by the City of Los Altos Municipal Code (LAMC), California Code of Regulations (CCR) and Health & Safety Code.

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 105,660 SF five-story, 47-unit condominium development with two levels of underground parking.

Plan Status:

Plans are APPROVED with the following conditions. (Rev. 06/09/21 KB) Plan Review Comments:

1. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes.

Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

2. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As noted on Sheet A0.0.1) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CFC Sec. 903.2 as adopted and amended by LOSPMC.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2/S-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
105,660
AREA
Gregory & Angela Galatolo
ApplicantName

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
5+2UG
IIIA/IA 1
DATE
LOS 06/08/2021
Baker, Kathy

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Commercial Development
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 4750 75% 1500

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
4350 El Camino Real Los Altos

ATTACHMENT J
318
Item 2.
302
Agenda Item # 3.

BLDG
PERMIT No.
21 2452 PLANREVIEW No.

DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS

3. Water Supply Requirements: (As noted on Sheet C4.0) 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.

4. Standpipes Required: (As noted on Sheet A0.0.1) 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. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. CFC Sec. 905.

5. Public/Private Fire Hydrant(s) Required: (As noted on Sheet C4.0) Provide public fire hydrant (s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company.

Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 1,500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C.

6. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings: (As noted on Sheet A0.0.1) 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.

7. Two-way communication system: (As noted on Sheet A0.0.1) Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 72 (2016 edition), the California Electrical Code (2013 edition), the California Fire Code (2016 edition), the California Building Code (2016 edition), and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed, policies, and City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2/S-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
105,660
AREA
Gregory & Angela Galatolo
ApplicantName

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
5+2UG
IIIA/IA 2
DATE
LOS 06/08/2021
Baker, Kathy

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Commercial Development
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 4750 75% 1500

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
4350 El Camino Real Los Altos
319
Item 2.
303
Agenda Item # 3.

BLDG
PERMIT No.
21 2452 PLANREVIEW No.

DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
standards. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72.

8. Fire Alarm System Requirement: (As noted on Sheet A0.0.1) The building shall be provided with a fire alarm system in accordance with CFC #907.2.9.

9. Required Aerial Access: (As noted on Sheet A8.0) Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1. Fire Lane shall be provided along the full length of the Los Altos Avenue side of the structure.

10. Fire Lanes Required: (As noted on Sheet C2.0) Required fire apparatus access roads to include areas required for aerial apparatus access, shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.

11. Required Fire Dept. Access: (As shown on Sheet C4.0) Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. CFC Sec.903 as adopted and amended by LOSMC.

12. Fire Department Connections: (As noted on Sheet C4.0) Fire department connections shall be located within 10' of the main PIV and 100' of a public hydrant and with respect to hydrants, driveways, buildings and landscaping, shall be so located that fire apparatus and hose connected to supply the system will not obstruct access to the buildings for other fire apparatus. They shall be in a City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2/S-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
105,660
AREA
Gregory & Angela Galatolo
ApplicantName

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
5+2UG
IIIA/IA 3
DATE
LOS 06/08/2021
Baker, Kathy

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Commercial Development
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 4750 75% 1500

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
4350 El Camino Real Los Altos
320
Item 2.
304
Agenda Item # 3.

BLDG
PERMIT No.
21 2452 PLANREVIEW No.

DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
visible location on the street address side of the building and be immediately accessible and without obstructions at all times. A working space of not less than 36 inches, both in width and depth and 78 inches in height shall be provided and maintained. Physical protection in accordance with Section 312 shall be provided if subject to impact by a motor vehicle. Signs shall be provided and mounted on the FDC and shall indicate the location and connection they are serving. [CFC Section 912] [SCCFD SP-2 and W-3].

13. 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

14. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke 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. CFC Sec. 505.1 This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the Fire Code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6] City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2/S-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
105,660
AREA
Gregory & Angela Galatolo
ApplicantName

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
5+2UG
IIIA/IA 4
DATE
LOS 06/08/2021
Baker, Kathy

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Commercial Development
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 4750 75% 1500

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
4350 El Camino Real Los Altos
321
Item 2.
305
Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, April 7, 2022

Page 1 of 6 ends

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022 BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. HELD VIA VIDEO/TELECONFERENCE PER EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the Commission will meet via teleconference only. Members of the Public may call (650) 419-1505 to participate in the conference call (Meeting ID: 147 620 2356 or via the web at https://tinyurl.com/s3uyy4v7) Members of the Public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Chair and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. Members of the public are also encouraged to submit written testimony prior to the meeting at [email protected].

Emails received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record.

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Peter Mills of Solana Drive provided SB9 Objective Standards comments and stated his concern about narrow streets and access. He invited the commissioners to walk his street with him to show his concerns.

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Planning Commission Minutes
Approve minutes of the Study Session and Regular Meeting of March 17, 2022.

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Bodner, seconded by Commissioner Ahi, the Commission recommended approval of the minutes from the March 17, 2022 Study Session and Regular Meeting with a correction by Commissioner Bodner that she joined before the first item of the Regular Meeting.

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

AYES: Chair Doran and Vice-Chair Mensinger, Commissioners Ahi, Bodner and Roche, NOES:

ABSENT: Steinle, Marek

PUBLIC HEARING

2. 19-D-01, 19-UP-01 and 19-SD-01 – Gregory and Angela Galatolo – 4350 El Camino Real Multiple-Family Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Subdivision map for a new multiple-family development with a five-story building with 47 condominium units PRESENT: Chair Doran and Vice-Chair Mensinger, Commissioners Ahi, Roche, Bodner ABSENT: Commissioners Marek and Steinle
STAFF: Interim Planning Services Manager Golden, Contract Planner Hayagreev, and Deputy City Attorney Ramakrishnan

ATTACHMENT H
306
Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, April 7, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

along El Camino Real with two levels of underground parking. The proposal includes seven affordable units with four moderate-income units and three very-low-income units, and a density bonus with development incentives to allow for increased building height and a reduced parking aisle width. A Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be considered. Project Planner: Hayagreev THIS ITEM WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 17, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

Chair Doran noted that Commissioner Steinle had to recuse himself because he has a conflict of interest because he lives within 500 feet of the project at 4350 El Camino Real.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Contract Planner Hayagreev presented the staff report recommending Planning Commission denial to the City Council of Multiple-Family Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus and Development incentives Applications for 19-D-01, 19-UP-01 and 19-SD01 for 4350 El Camino Real per the findings and conditions contained in the resolution and gave a brief overview.

Deputy City Attorney Ramakrishnan said that the Planning Commission should not deliberate over the conformance of story pole installation.

COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Commissioner Bodner asked about the density bonuses of other projects that were approved along El Camino Real.

Interim Planning Services Manager Golden said that is some research that staff could do and bring back to the Commission.

Deputy City Attorney Ramakrishnan said the maximum density bonus was 35% under state law and above that is discretionary unless you are 100% affordable. The project would have to conform to the objective standards in order to get the protection of the Housing and Accountability Act if they were resubmit under SB330.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Applicant Angie Galatolo introduced the project and provided a presentation.

Project Architect Michael Rizza provided a project presentation and went over the project details.

COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT
Commissioner Ahi
• What is the color supposed to be on the equitone stone siding on the entryway? o Answer Michael Rizza: Gray colored stone.
• Garage ramp with two doors, one doesn’t seem wide enough, and why is one pushed back and not one opening?
o Answer Michael Rizza: They are on two different planes, one is 10 feet wide and the other is 8.5 feet.
o Answer Michael Rizza and Alex Seidel: It has an adequately sized width for one-way traffic but could be looked at and adjusted if needed.
307
Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, April 7, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

• Why do the bedrooms face the neighboring complex, questioned the windows in the closets of the bedroom and if there are egress windows?
o Alex Seidel Answer: This is a five-story building that is Type III construction and does not need egress windows.
o Alex Seidel Answer: There are recessed windows against Peninsula Real. o Alex Seidel Answer: He will look into the “closet” window and can adjust it as needed.

Vice-Chair Mensinger
• What other El Camino Real projects is the density bonus of 86% consistent with? o Answer Project applicant Angie Galatolo: The density bonus she is asking for is comparable to the 4898 and 4656 El Camino Real projects that were approved. • Are you open to change in distribution of the Below Market Rate (BMR) units? o Answer Angie Galatolo: Have discussed with staff in the past. The fifth floor pays for the construction of the extra three BMR units they are providing but would explore. • Surprised the project is not meeting the objective standards after staff conveyed the inconsistencies.
o Answer Angie Galatolo: We had to keep the inconsistencies to make the project viable for construction given the current economics.

Deputy City Attorney Ramakrishnan stated standard means any standard, including density that is quantifiable and objective.

Chair Doran
• Where will the mechanical HVAC systems be located?
o Answer Alex Seidel: Split system HVAC and condensers are located on the rooftop. • Is the risk safety net the fifth floor of market rate units? o Answer Angie Galatolo: That is correct.

Commissioner Bodner
• Density bonus questions on this project vs. past projects? o Answer Deputy City Attorney Ramakrishnan: Do not know what was done two years ago, but the density standard has been the same and the State density bonus has increased. Also, the type of BMR unit distribution for this project does not meet the current inclusionary standards of density bonus law for affordable housing.

Commissioners Bodner and Ahi note their confusion with the density bonuses previously approved for projects and this one.

Deputy City Attorney Ramakrishnan stated this is a discretionary bonus.

Vice-Chair Mensinger asked a clarification question on how to calculate the density bonus being allowed. Is it based on the number of units provided, not on the square footage of those units? Deputy City Attorney Ramakrishnan stated the density bonus is based on units and not square footage and separate from that is the City’s inclusionary ordinance standards.

Interim Planning Services Manger Golden commented on the previous project approved on El Camino Real and stated that mix of types of BMR units and categories were different compared to 308
Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, April 7, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

4350 El Camino Real. The City accepted a higher number of low- and very-low-income units over moderate-income for those projects. This project proposes four moderate income units and three low-income units.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Resident Terri Couture gave her support for the project and the additional housing along El Camino Real.

Resident Diana Leung from 4388 El Camino Real stated there is lots of development in the area; traffic light timing is getting longer with so many residential units being added; it is hard to find parking especially on trash collection day; is concerned about the loss of the gas station; the removal of the gas station and its hazardous chemicals; the extra noise and pollution from construction; and about setbacks due to loss of fresh air, natural light and privacy that will be impacted.

Resident Don Gardner stated concern with the five-story tall building being put in front of a threestory building, the privacy impacts, and the developer maximizing profit with a five-story building when it should only be three-stories.

Resident Anne Paulson stated that the applicant should follow the rules about the number/type of the affordable BMR units and distribution of them as the other previously approved projects, and if they do, give the density bonus to them.

Resident Cindy of 4388 El Camino Real and Los Altos High student stated concerns about the environment and impacts to the surrounding residents, general pollution (wildlife, noise, light, etc.), from the project as well as CO2 emissions from construction.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Project Applicant Angie Galatolo stated that the gas station has pollution if it remains, the site would be remediated after removal of the gas station and environmental issues removed, and the land value will increase with this project.

THE PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Roche
• Could benefit from a comparison of data for BMR and density approvals granted on other projects.
• Concerned about the height, size and bulk of the building, and the lack of human scale. • Concerned about parking and that there is no guest parking being provided. • Concerned about the type, size, and distribution of the BMR units in the building.

Vice-Chair Mensinger
• Appreciates staff’s recommendation and staff report.
• Cannot support project as presented.
• The project should have a different distribution of BMR housing units that meet our standards.

Commissioner Bodner
309
Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, April 7, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

• Should apply our standards equitably to different projects for consistency. • Conflicted about how to review this project and staff’s recommendation that seems inconsistent.
• Need to have more discussion about the design of the project. • Concerned about the mix of density and distribution of the affordable BMR units.

Chair Doran
• Concerned that the economics of the project is the reason why the fifth floor is needed, and the expensive units are exclusively on the top floor and the affordable BMR units on the lower floors.
• Should revisit and look at the distribution of BMR affordable housing units. • Relook at visitor parking.
• Suggested moving the project forward and conditioning the project for approval.

Commissioner Ahi
• Ok with the density bonus request.
• Height and access concessions are fine.
• Get advice on the unit distribution of BMR housing from industry experts. • Architecture
o The corner condition is not designed in an effective way. o Entryway should have more distinguishable features such as awnings over the lobby, a building number and more visible lobby.
o More landscaping needed in the front.
o The dark gray and the size of the pattern of the siding makes it look too heavy. Use larger panels or a lighter color for that portion of the building. o Driveway should be modified to have one single entry. o Does not endorse the glass railings.
o Concerned about the areas facing the neighboring buildings on page A3.2 of the plan because of the dark and heavy materials. Need to break the material up and reduce the verticality.
o Could condition the project and move it forward as they have in the past.

Interim Planning Services Manager Golden and Deputy City Attorney Ramakrishnan clarified the actions needed for this project at tonight’s meeting.

Commissioner Bodner asked about the specific design recommendations by staff in the report.

Contract Planner Hayagreev responded, explained the recommendations in the staff report, and pointed out the design findings that need to be made for the project.

Project applicant Angela Galatolo said she is willing to look at the design issues and the BMR unit distribution and make revisions.

Commissioner Ahi stated concern about moving this project forward with so many of the elements needing change.

Vice-Chair Mensinger said she would prefer the project return to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Bodner said she would prefer the project return to the Planning Commission, staff should have housing experts weigh in with the correct mix of affordable housing units, and change some of the design elements of the project.

Commissioner Roche said he prefers that the project return to the Planning Commission. 310 Agenda Item # 3.

Planning Commission
Thursday, April 7, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

Chair Doran said she preferred to continue the project.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner Bodner the Commission recommends continuance of Multiple-Family Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus and Development incentives Applications 19-D-01, 19-UP01 and 19-SD-01 for 4350 El Camino Real with the following direction:
• Address the design comments on pages 13-17 of the staff report; and • Revise the size, mix, and distribution of the BMR units, including getting advice from a housing expert.

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

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

POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Chair Doran, Commissioners Roche and Ahi asked to put the Joint Commission subcommittees for SB9 on a future agenda for discussion.

Interim Planning Services Manager Golden gave an overview of future agenda items.

Staff is looking at mechanical parking lifts in late spring/early summer for field visits with the Commission.

Chair Doran asked to have a discussion on the application of modular construction for mid-rise and high-rise buildings and the design elements.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Doran adjourned the meeting at 9:08 PM.

Steve Golden
Interim Planning Services Manager
311
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A0.0

COVER SHEET
6/16/2022
4 3 5 0 E L C A M I N O R E A L

L O S A L T O S , C A L I F O R N I A

DRAWING INDEX
A0.0 COVER SHEET
A0.0.1 PROJECT INFORMATION
A0.1 CONTEXT PLAN
A0.2 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHECKLIST
A1.0 SITE PLAN
A2.0 LOWER GARAGE PLAN
A2.1 UPPER GARAGE PLANS
A2.2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A2.3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A2.4 THIRD FLOOR PLAN
A2.5 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
A2.6 FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
A2.7 ROOF PLAN
A2.8 ENLARGED BICYCLE ROOM AND DETAILS
A3.0a PERSPECTIVE VIEW @ EL CAMINO REAL + LOS ALTOS AVE.

A3.0b PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM EAST ON EL CAMINO REAL
A3.0c PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM SOUTH ON LOS ALTOS AVE.

A3.0d PERSPECTIVE VIEW ON LOS ALTOS AVE LOOKING NORTH EAST A3.0e COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM EAST
A3.1 ELEVATIONS
A3.2 ELEVATIONS
A3.3 STREETSCAPE ELEVATIONS
A3.3a ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBITS
A3.4 BUILDING SECTIONS
A3.5 ENLARGED TRASH AREA
A4.1 FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS
A4.2 FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS
A4.3 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
A5.1 MATERIAL BOARD
A6.1 UNIT PLANS
A6.2 UNIT PLANS
A6.3 UNIT PLANS
A6.4 UNIT PLANS
A6.5 UNIT PLANS
A7.1 EXTERIOR DETAILS
A7.2 EXTERIOR DETAILS
A8.0 SCHEMATIC FIRE APPARATUS DIAGRAMS
L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1.3 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN

TM VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
C1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
C2.0 SITE PLAN
C3.0 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
C4.0 UTILITY PLAN
C5.0 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
CM1.0 CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
CM2.0 CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
CM3.0 CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Currently occupied by a gas station, 4350 El Camino Real is planned to be redeveloped as a 47 unit residential community. The corner site is located at the intersection of El Camino Real and Los Altos Avenue in the Commercial Thoroughfare zone. It is adjoined on the two other sides by the Peninsula Real, a 3 story multifamily condominium development. Several hotels are located across the streets, as well as a new 5 story multifamily development across El Camino Real.

The project features landscaped setbacks on both street frontages, and provides an intimate pedestrian plaza at the main building lobby at the intersection of the two streets. Additional individual residence stoop entries are located on Los Altos Avenue. The plan is configured in an “L” shape creating a large sheltered landscaped courtyard within the site that will provide outdoor amenities for the residents, as well as providing pleasant vistas for residents of the adjacent property. The open space provided on site significantly exceeds the amount required by the zoning. Privacy for the adjacent residents has been protected by carefully locating out looks from primary rooms so they do not directly face the neighbors in the locations close to property lines.

The vehicular and bike entrance is located off of El Camino Real, as well as a truck loading zone for convenient deliveries and pick up. A new VTA bus shelter meeting current standards will be located in the landscaped set back along El Camino Real.

The 5 story building exceeds the zoning by 1 story, and a 9’ increase above the 45’ height limit is requested in this proposal. The building design incorporates both horizontal and vertical articulation to create an appropriate scale and character for the project. The 5
th
floor has been setback from the face of the
building and has been given a more glazed character to reduce the mass. Exterior materials including masonry, plaster, wood siding, and weathering steel (Corten) provided variety and articulate the massing into residential scaled elements.

The design team has been working with the planning staff to reflect updated aspects of the Los Altos planning code, including differentiating the base, body and top of the building, and incorporating residential details including recessed windows, projected precast sills and belt courses, ornamental metal railings, architectural sunshades, and painted metal windows to imbue the community with high quality residential character.

An 84 space 2 level parking garage is located entirely below grade. A resident bike storage and maintenance facility is also located within the garage. The project seeks a garage aisle width reduction to 24’ from the 26’ standard.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT TEAM

APPLICANT / OWNER

ANGIE & GREG GALATOLO
4350 El CAMINO REAL

LOS ALTOS, CA

ARCHITECT

SEIDEL ARCHITECTS
109 STEVENSON STREET, 6TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
P: 415.397.5535

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SITE

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

REED GILLIAND
1060 CORONA ROAD
PETALUMA, CA 94594
P: 707.765.9582

CIVIL ENGINEER

BKF ENGINEERS
1730 NORTH FIRST STREET, SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
P: 408.467.9192
312
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A0.0.1

PROJECT INFORMATION
6/16/2022

PROJECT INFORMATION

UNIT TABULATION

PARKING TABULATION
(*) DENOTES MODERATE INCOME AFFORDABLE BELOW MARKET RATE UNIT) (**) DENOTES VERY LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE BELOW MARKET RATE UNIT) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:

THOUROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL (TC)
ZONING:

COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE (CT)
APN:
167-11-041
LOT AREA:
.656 ACRES / 28,562 SF
BUILDING COVERAGE:
48%
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
47 DENSITY:
25 PERMITTED (38 DU/AC)
47 PROVIDED (72 DU/AC)
(INCL. DENSITY BONUS)
SETBACKS (SEE A1.0 & A2.2): REQUIRED
FRONT: 25'-0" MIN.

EXTERIOR SIDE 15'-0" AVG., 4' MIN.
(LOS ALTOS AVE):

INTERIOR SIDE 7'-6" AVG
(GROUND LEVEL)
REAR: 0'-0"

PROPOSED
FRONT: 25'-0"

EXTERIOR SIDE
(LOS ALTOS AVE): 15'-0"

INTERIOR SIDE
(GROUND LEVEL): 42'-11"
REAR: 7'-6 1/2"

PROPOSED UNIT MIX
10 ONE BEDROOM UNITS (580-774 SF)
31 TWO BEDROOM UNITS (767-1449 SF)
6 THREE BEDROOM UNITS (1023-1675 SF)
47 TOTAL UNITS

PROPOSED BMR UNIT MIX
2 ONE BEDROOM UNITS (VERY LOW INCOME)
1 TWO BEDROOM UNITS (VERY LOW INCOME)
3 TWO BEDROOM UNITS (MODERATE INCOME)
1 THREE BEDROOM UNITS (MODERATE INCOME)
7 TOTAL BMR UNITS

PROPOSED BEDROOM COUNT
77 MARKET RATE
13 BELOW MARKET RATE
90 TOTAL BEDROOMS
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS:

R-2 RESIDENTIAL
S-2 PARKING GARAGE
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

TYPE IA (GARAGE)

TYPE IIIA (RESIDENTIAL)
INCENTIVES (PER LAMC 14.28.040):
11' HEIGHT INCREASE ABOVE 45'
24' PARKING AISLE VERSUS 26'
USE:

CURRENT: SERVICE STATION

CONVENIENCE STORE
PROPOSED: FIVE STORY RESIDENTIAL

AND TWO SUBGRADE

PARKING LEVELS
COMMON OPEN SPACE (SEE A4.3):

REQUIRED: 2,400 SF
PROVIDED: 12,103 SF
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (SEE A4.3):

REQUIRED: 50 SF/ UNIT
PROVIDED: 63 SF/ UNIT
FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
#2: Fire sprinklers will be provided and installed throughout per CFC sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is more restrictive. A state of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a complete permit application and approptiate fees to the fire department for review and approval prior to beginning the work. #4: Standpipes shall be provided and installed in accordance with CFC Sec. 905 and NFPA 14.
#6: Emergency Responder Radio Coverage shall be provided. #7: A Two-way Communication System shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 72, the California Electrical Code, the California Fire Code, the California Building Code, and the city ordiances where two way system is being installed, policies, and standards. Other standards containing design/instllation criteria for specific life safety related equipment are referred to in NFPA 72.
#8: Fire Alarm System shall be provided in accordance with CFC # 907.2.9.
#9: See sheet C2.0 for the the Red Curb Marking note which identifies the location of the Fire Lane at Los Altos Avenue. See Landscape Site Plan on 1/ L1.0 and Fire Aparatus Clearance Diagram on 1/A8.0 indicating how the landscaping has been redesigned to accommodate aerial access.

Unit Mix (% Units) 21.3% 66.0% 12.8%
Totals 10 31 6 47
4 1 1 1 2 1 3 10 4 7 1 2 0 2 1 1 3 1 1 1
5th floor 1 1 4 2 1 9
4th floor 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 10
3rd floor 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 10
2nd floor 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 10
Ground floor 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 8
SF* 718 718 764 774 580 580 1022 1449 1184 1326 1326 1146 767 767 767 1343 1675 1601 1023 1461 RANGE 580-774 767-1449 1023-1675
Unit Type 1A IA** 1B 1C 1D 1D** 2A 2B 2B-2 2C 2C* 2C-2 2D 2D* 2D** 2E 3A 3A-2 3B 3C* TOTALS 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM
*LMAC14.28.040C;G2 (PARKING REQUIREMENT ALTERATION STANDARDS) SUPERSEDES LMAC 14.74.080 (PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A CT DISTRICT). THIS DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTS THE STATE DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENTS.

Parking Provided 10 74 84
Parking Required
(LAMC Chapter14.24.040; G2)
10 UNITS X 1 SPACE = 10 37 UNITS X 2 SPACES = 74 84
1 SPACE PER 1 BEDROOM 2 SPACES PER 2-3 BEDRROM

PARKING REQUIREMENTS

EVCS REQUIREMENTS

BIKE PARKING TABULATION
EV Spaces Provided 5
EV Spaces Required 84 UNITS * 3% = 2.52
Cal Green 4.106.4.2 3% of Total Parking Spaces

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACE (EV SPACE) REQUIREMENTS Bike Parking Provided 40 4
Bike Parking Required 47 UNITS / 3 = 15.67 47 UNITS / 15 = 3.13 Per VTA Technical Guidelines (Table10-3) 1 Class 1 Space Per 3 Units 1 Class 2 Space Per 15 Units

BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
2 2
313
Agenda Item # 3.

GM
STOP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP

E L C A M I N O R E A L

L O S A L T O S A V E

EXISTING

MULTIFAMILY
3 STORY (40')

EXISTING
MULTIFAMILY 2 STORY

LODGING RETAIL

EXISTING

LODGING
3 STORY

EXISTING
RETAIL
1 STORY

SENIOR HOUSING

EXISTING

SINGLE FAMILY
1 STORY

BUFFER ZONE
LOBBY

RESIDENTIAL
5 STORY

BUS STOP

EXISTING

DRIVEWAY
GARAGE
ENTRY
+/- 104'-0"

EXISTING

MULTIFAMILY
5 STORY
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A0.1

CONTEXT PLAN
6/16/2022
0' 15' 60' 30'
TRUE
N

EXTENT OF

CT ZONE
R1-10 ZONE
314
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A0.2

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHECKLIST
6/16/2022
315
Agenda Item # 3.

STOP
FD
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
A3.4
1 TRASH STAGING
ROOM
LOBBY
±66.85
±66.0
±65.5

E L C A M I N O R E A L

L O S A L T O S A V E
STAIR
STAIR
TRASH
ROOM

PROPERTY LINE

BUS STOP
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LIN
E
GARAGE
RAMP

PLANTER
15'-0"
25'-0"
25'-0"

67.30'
MAIL

PLANTER
7'-2" MIN.
10'-0"
63'-9"
84'-6"

COURTYARD

67.30'

67.30' 67.30'

67.30'

67.30'
4 GUEST BIKE

PARKING SPACES

FIRE ACCESS ROAD
26'-0"
7'-6 1/2"
7'-8 1/2"
11'-0"

REAR SETBACK

EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK

FRONT SETBACK
1 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18
17 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 A3.4
2 A
B
E
C
2 3
4 28'-0"
40'-0" 25'-0"
SEE SHEET C2.0 FOR RED CURB

MARKING WHICH IDENTIFIES

THE LOCATION OF THE FIRE
LANE AT LOS ALTOS AVENUE.

67.30'

66.50'

65.30'

67.30'
26'-3"
15'-0"
15'-0"
D
25'-0"
20'-0"
28'-0"
1 GRAPHIC LEGEND:

EXTENT OF GARAGE BELOW

A DIRECTION OF RENDERED
PERSPECTIVE VIEW. SEE SHEETS
A3.0x
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A1.0

SITE PLAN
6/16/2022
0' 15' 30'
TRUE
N

TREE IDENTIFICATION
NO. RADIUS SPECIES
1 6'-0" MAYTEN (MAYTENUS BOARIA)
5 12'-0" LONDON-PLANE (PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA)
6 10'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
7 8'-0"
8 6'-0"

CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)

CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
9 7'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
10 7'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
11 7'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
12 10'-0" BRISBANE BOX (LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS)
13 10'-0" BRISBANE BOX (LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS)
14 10'-0"
15 6'-0" PINE, CANARY ISLAND (PINUS CANARIENSIS)
16 4'-0"
17 5'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
18 6'-0"
19 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
20 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
21 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
22 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
23 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
24 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
25 10'-0"
26 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
27 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)
28 6'-0" CRAPE MYRTLE (LARGERSTOEMIA INDICA)

BRISBANE BOX (LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS)

PINE, CANARY ISLAND (PINUS CANARIENSIS)

PINE, CANARY ISLAND (PINUS CANARIENSIS)
2 3
4 6'-0" JUNIPER, HOLLYWOOD (JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS) - TO BE REMOVED* 5'-0"
5'-0"
JUNIPER, HOLLYWOOD (JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS) - TO BE REMOVED* JUNIPER, HOLLYWOOD (JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS) - TO BE REMOVED* NOTES:

1. THERE ARE NO OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES THAT IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE BUIDLING FROM THE FIRE ACCESS ROAD.

2. THE FIRE ACCESS ROAD EXCEEDS 26' IN WIDTH (IT IS APPROXIMATELY 40' WIDE).

3. THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING LOS ALTOS AVENUE IS MORE THAN 15' AND LESS THAN 30' FROM THE FIRE ACCESS ROAD.

PROJECTS HAVING A GROSS BUILDING AREA OF UP TO 124,000 SQUARE FEET MAY HAVE A

SINGLE APPROVED FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WHEN ALL BUILDINGS ARE EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH APPROVED AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. THE BUILDING IS

EQUIPPED WITH AN APPROVED SPRINKLER SYSTEM, AND THEREFORE ONE FIRE ACCESS ROAD IS REQUIRED.
316
Agenda Item # 3.

STAIR
FAN
40 BIKES
24'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
UP
TYP.
9'-0"
7'-6"
15'-3 3/4"
14'-7 7/8"
34'-11"
15'-1 1/8"
A3.4
2 STAIR

STOP STOP
18'-0" TYP.
•
10 %
20 %
•
14 %
NOTE: 4 BIKE SPACES RESERVED FOR GUESTS
1 A2.8
A8.0
1 © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A2.0

LOWER GARAGE PLAN
6/16/2022
0' 10' 5' 20'
TRUE
N
44 SPACES
317
Agenda Item # 3.

STAIR
ELEC.

TRASH
FAN
24'-0"
UP
A3.4
1 24'-0"
8'-2" MIN.

HEAD ROOM

CLEARANCE
DN
9'-5 1/2" HEAD
ROOM
TYP.
9'-0"
A3.4
2 STAIR

STOP STOP
1'-4"
18'-0" TYP.
4 YD.

TYP.
16'-8"13'-9"
•
20 %
10 %
•
•
1 %
4 10
%
18'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
10'-4" AT WALL
9'-0"

STRUCTURAL COLUMN WHERE
OCCURS
CLEAR
8'-4 1/2"
CLEAR
8'-0"
CLEAR
8'-4 1/2"
1'-0"
NOTE: USE
THESE DIM'S.

FOR SPACES

NOT BOUNDED

BY COLUMN OR
OTHER

OBSTRUCTIONS

ADJACENT WALL WHERE OCCURS
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A2.1

UPPER GARAGE PLANS
6/16/2022
40 SPACES
0' 10' 5' 20'
TRUE
N

PARKING DIMENSIONS AND STRIPING (NON-ACC)
NOTE: TRASH BINS TRANSPORTED

BY OWNER TO THE AT GRADE

TRASH STAGING ROOM USING THE
CUSHMAN UTILITY VEHICLE.
318
Agenda Item # 3.

STOP
FD
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP

TRASH STAGING ROOM
•

COURTYARD
A3.4
1 STAIR
STAIR
1B
2C
GARAGE
STAIR
1A
MAIL
A5.1
1 1C
A3.1 2
1 A3.2
A3.1
1 *

PLANTER
3C 2B
2C

EXTENT OF GARAGE
BELOW, TYP.

A3.4
2 67.30'

67.30'

67.30'
LOBBY

PLANTER
25'-0"
10'-0" 15'-0"
METERS
TRASH
10'-0"
P.T. SLAB EXTENSION BEYOND

FACE OF GARAGE WALL BELOW,

SLAB RECESS SHOWN IN HATCH
*
AVERAGE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK CALC.

INTERIOR SIDE: 5,432 126'-8" 42'-11"

SETBACK SF LENGTH
AVG.

SETBACK
SF / LENGTH = AVG. SETBACK

INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK
15'-0"

TOP OF GARAGE RAMP
28'-8"
20'-0"

RETAINING WALL

DRIVEWAY
SLOPE 2% MAX.

GARAGE

RAMP DN
10% 20%

FLOOR DRAIN

67.30'

67.30'
11'-0"
CUSHMAN VEHICLE 35LR54

66.50' 67.30'

67.30'
7'-8 1/2"
7'-2" MIN.
26'-3"
2E

65.30'

BOLLARDS

65.30'

65.30'
20'-0"
10' X 25' LOADING
7'-6 1/2"

BUS STOP

BUS PAD
4'-0"
28'-0"
*

COLOR LEGEND

MODERATE

INCOME UNIT

VERY LOW

INCOME UNIT
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A2.2

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
6/16/2022
0' 10' 5' 20'
TRUE
N
NOTE: ( * ) DENOTES AFFORDABLE UNIT

IN UNIT DESIGNATION
319
Agenda Item # 3.

A3.4
1 3A
STAIR
STAIR
2C
2C
1A
2A
2B
2B 2B
15'-0"
10'-0"
1D
2D
A3.4
2 DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
TRASH
**
*
AVERAGE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK CALC.

INTERIOR SIDE: 5,417 126'-8" 42'-9 1/4"

SETBACK SF LENGTH
AVG.

SETBACK
SF / LENGTH = AVG. SETBACK

INTERIOR SIDE

SETBACK

COLOR LEGEND

MODERATE

INCOME UNIT

VERY LOW

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
6/16/2022
NOTE: ( * ) DENOTES AFFORDABLE UNIT

IN UNIT DESIGNATION
0' 10' 5' 20'
TRUE
N
320
Agenda Item # 3.
3A
STAIR
STAIR
A3.4
1 2C
2C
1A

DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
2B
2B 2B
3B
1D
2D
A3.4
2 TRASH
*
AVERAGE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK CALC.

INTERIOR SIDE: 5,417 126'-8" 42'-9 1/4"

SETBACK SF LENGTH
AVG.

SETBACK
SF / LENGTH = AVG. SETBACK

INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK

COLOR LEGEND

MODERATE

INCOME UNIT

VERY LOW

INCOME UNIT
2 *
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A2.4

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
6/16/2022
0' 10' 5' 20'
TRUE
N
NOTE: ( * ) DENOTES AFFORDABLE UNIT

IN UNIT DESIGNATION
321
Agenda Item # 3.

A3.4
1 3A
STAIR
STAIR
2C
2C
2A
2B
2B 2B
1D
2D
A3.4
2 DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK
TRASH
**
AVERAGE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK CALC.

INTERIOR SIDE: 5,417 126'-8" 42'-9 1/4"

SETBACK SF LENGTH
AVG.

SETBACK
SF / LENGTH = AVG. SETBACK

INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK
7'-6"

COLOR LEGEND

MODERATE

INCOME UNIT

VERY LOW

INCOME UNIT
1A
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A2.5

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
6/16/2022
NOTE: ( * ) DENOTES AFFORDABLE UNIT

IN UNIT DESIGNATION
0' 10' 5' 20'
TRUE
N
2 2
322
Agenda Item # 3.

A3.4
1 3A-2
STAIR
STAIR
2C-2
2B-2
2B-2
1A
2A
2C-2
2B-2
2B-2

BUILDING

SETBACKS IN
GREEN
DECK
DECK
DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
A3.4
2 TRASH
12'-9"
22'-11"
12'-8"
10'-6"
31'-
7 "
18'-0"
24'-6"
35'-4"
31'-4
"
AVERAGE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK CALC.

INTERIOR SIDE: 5,445 128'-6" 42'-4 1/2"

SETBACK SF LENGTH
AVG.

SETBACK
SF / LENGTH = AVG. SETBACK

INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A2.6

FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
6/16/2022
0' 10' 5' 20'
TRUE
N
323
Agenda Item # 3.

A3.4
1 STAIR
BOILER
ROOM

ELEVATOR

CONTROL
ROOM
PREFAB. PERFORATED
MECH. SCREEN, (TYP.) SEE

ROOF TOP
CONDENSERS (TYP.)
A3.4
2 A3.5
3 5
A7.1
AVERAGE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK CALC.

INTERIOR SIDE: 5,488 123'-8" 44'-4 1/2"

SETBACK SF LENGTH
AVG.

SETBACK
SF / LENGTH = AVG. SETBACK

INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK
ROOF
DECK
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A2.7

ROOF PLAN
6/16/2022
0' 10' 5' 20'
TRUE
N
324
Agenda Item # 3.

BIKE STORAGE
ROOM
40 BIKES
18'-4 1/2"
23'-4 3/4"

DERO - ULTRA SPACE SAVER
SQUARED BIKE RACK, TYP.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A2.8

ENLARGED BICYCLE ROOM AND DETAILS
6/16/2022
A2.8 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 LOWER GARAGE BIKE PARKING AREA
325
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.0a
PERSPECTIVE VIEW @ EL CAMINO REAL + LOS ALTOS AVE.
6/16/2022
326
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.0b

PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM EAST ON EL CAMINO REAL
6/16/2022
327
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.0c
PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM SOUTH ON LOS ALTOS AVE.
6/16/2022
328
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.0d

PERSPECTIVE VIEW ON LOS ALTOS AVE LOOKING NORTH EAST
6/16/2022
329
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.0e

COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM EAST
6/16/2022
330
Agenda Item # 3.

COMPOSITE

WOOD SIDING

PAINTED ALUMINUM
WINDOW

PAINTED METAL

RAILING

METAL / WOOD

SUNSHADE
PLASTER 2
CORTEN

STONE SIDING

STONE BASE
ECR
ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'
T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
AVERAGE LOT ELEVATION = ± 66.15
53'-10 1/4"

PRECAST CONCRETE
SILL
PLASTER 1

STONE SIDING
CORTEN

COMPOSITE

WOOD SIDING

PAINTED METAL

RAILING

PAINTED ALUMINUM
WINDOW

COMPOSITE

WOOD SIDING
PLASTER 2

ALUMINUM

STOREFRONT
WINDOW
AVERAGE LOT ELEVATION = ± 66.15
LOS ALTOS AVE.

ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'
T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
57'-4 1/4" 5'-6"
53'-10 1/4"
42'-1 3/4"
7'-6"

PRECAST

CONCRETE SILL
PLASTER 1
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.1

ELEVATIONS
6/16/2022
0' 4' 8' 16' LOS ALTOS AVE ELEVATION

EL CAMINO REAL ELEVATION
331
Agenda Item # 3.

COMPOSITE

WOOD SIDING
PLASTER 2

STONE BASE

PAINTED ALUMINUM
WINDOW

EL CAMINO REAL
ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'
T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
AVERAGE LOT ELEVATION = ± 66.15'
57'-4 1/4" 5'-6"
12'-1 3/4"
53'-10 1/4"
7'-6"

COMPOSITE

WOOD SIDING
PLASTER 1

PAINTED

ALUMINUM
WINDOW

PAINTED METAL

RAILING
LOS ALTOS AVE.

ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'
T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
AVERAGE LOT ELEVATION = ± 66.15
5'-6" 57'-4 1/4"
53'-10 1/4"
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.2

ELEVATIONS
6/16/2022

EAST ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION
0' 4' 8' 16'
332
Agenda Item # 3.

LOS ALTOS AVE.

PL PL
AVERAGE LOT ELEVATION = ± 66.15

65.30' 66.81' (PER BKF SURVEY) 38.3' to T.O. PARAPET
105.11'

EL CAMINO REAL
PL PL
AVERAGE LOT ELEVATION = ± 66.15

66.40' 66.81' (PER BKF SURVEY) 39.16' to T.O. PARAPET
105.97'
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.3

STREETSCAPE ELEVATIONS
6/16/2022

STREETSCAPE ELEVATION - ECR

STREETSCAPE ELEVATION - LOS ALTOS AVE
0' 8' 16' 32'
333
Agenda Item # 3.
1ST / GROUND FLOOR
+67.30'
2ND FLOOR
+77.30'
3RD FLOOR
+87.30'
4TH FLOOR
+97.30'
5TH FLOOR
+107.30'
PLATE
+117.30'
ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'
T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
PL

AVERAGE LOT
ELEVATION = ± 66.15
(PER BKF SURVEY)

38.3' to T.O. PARAPET

65.30'

66.81'
105.11'
1ST / GROUND FLOOR
+67.30'
2ND FLOOR
+77.30'
3RD FLOOR
+87.30'
4TH FLOOR
+97.30'
5TH FLOOR
+107.30'
PLATE
+117.30'
ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'
T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
PL
AVERAGE LOT ELEVATION = ± 66.15

ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBITS
6/16/2022
ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBIT - ECR ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBIT - LOS ALTOS AVE. 334
Agenda Item # 3.
1ST / GROUND FLOOR
+67.30'
2ND FLOOR
+77.30'
3RD FLOOR
+87.30'
4TH FLOOR
+97.30'
5TH FLOOR
+107.30'

UPPER GARAGE
+55.00'

EL CAMINO
REAL
PL
3 STORY
CONDOS

0.0_LOWER GARAGE
+45.50'
PLATE
+117.30'

UNITS UNITS
2 STORY ±12'-0"

TOWNHOUSE
R1-10 ZONE CT ZONE

SINGLE FAMILY
±130'-0"

COURTYARD

64.65'
ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'

65.30'
GARAGE
TRASH
T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
PL
12'-3 1/2" 9'-6"

AVERAGE LOT
ELEVATION = ± 66.15
9'-5 1/2"
4'-8"
5 A7.1
57'-4 1/4"
53'-10 1/4"

AVERAGE LOT
ELEVATION = ± 66.15
7'-5 5/8" 9'-0"
1ST / GROUND FLOOR
+67.30'
2ND FLOOR
+77.30'
3RD FLOOR
+87.30'
4TH FLOOR
+97.30'
5TH FLOOR
+107.30'

UPPER GARAGE
+55.00'

0.0_LOWER GARAGE
+45.50'
PLATE
+117.30'

UNITS UNITS

GARAGE GARAGE
PL
PL
ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'

LOS ALTOS
AVE.

T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
12'-3 1/2" 9'-6"
9'-0" 53'-10 1/4"

AVERAGE LOT
ELEVATION = ± 66.15
53'-2 1/4"

AVERAGE LOT
ELEVATION = ± 66.15
7'-5 5/8"
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.4

BUILDING SECTIONS
6/16/2022
A3.4 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION
0' 8' 16' 32'
A3.4 1/16" = 1'-0"
2 EAST WEST SECTION
335
Agenda Item # 3.

STOP
UP
UP
A3.5
2 A3.5
4 TRASH STAGING ROOM
STAIR
A3.5
3 25'-0"
10'-0"

FLOOR DRAIN

HOSE BIB

BOLLARDS
4 YD.

TYP.
20'-0"

RETAINING WALL

65.30'
CUSHMAN 35LR 54

VEHICLE

DRIVEWAY
SLOPE 2% MAX.

GARAGE

RAMP DN
10 %

65.30'

65.30'
10' X 25' LOADING

BUS STOP
20%
20'-0"

65.30'

65.30'
1ST / GROUND FLOOR
+67.30'
2ND FLOOR
+77.30'

UPPER GARAGE
+55.00'

0.0_LOWER GARAGE
+45.50'

10.00%

12.5 7.75%
3%

LOS ALTOS AVE STAIR
EL CAMINO STAIR +66.50'
+65.30'
1ST / GROUND FLOOR
+67.30'
2ND FLOOR
+77.30'
3RD FLOOR
+87.30'
4TH FLOOR
+97.30'
5TH FLOOR
+107.30'

UPPER GARAGE
+55.00'

0.0_LOWER GARAGE
+45.50'
PLATE
+117.30'

65.30'
P
L

64.65'
9'-0"
2'-0"
31'-2 3/4"

67.30'
ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'
9'-5 1/2"

LOS ALTOS AVE STAIR
EL CAMINO STAIR +66.50'
+65.30'
1ST / GROUND FLOOR
+67.30'

UPPER GARAGE
+55.00'

0.0_LOWER GARAGE
+45.50'
7'-10"
P
L
P
L

65.30'

20.00%

10.00%

13.37%

LOS ALTOS AVE STAIR
+66.50' EL CAMINO STAIR
+65.30'
20'-0"

2.00% MAX 10.00%

10.00%
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A3.5

ENLARGED TRASH AREA
6/16/2022
A3.5 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 01_GROUND TRASH STAGING
0' 4' 8' 16'
TRUE
N
A3.5 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 EAST-WEST GARAGE SECTION AT ENTRANCE RAMP
A3.5 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 SECTION AT TRASH STAGING ROOM
A3.5 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 NORTH-SOUTH GARAGE SECTION AT ENTRANCE RAMP
336
Agenda Item # 3.

UP
UP
13,695 SF
BLDG
13,946 SF
BLDG
19,041 SF
BLDG
17,805 SF
BLDG
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A4.1

FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS
6/16/2022
A4.1 1" = 20'-0"
3 1ST / GROUND FLOOR
A4.1 1" = 20'-0"
4 2ND FLOOR

GROSS FLOOR AREA SCHEDULE

LEVEL AREA
1ST / GROUND FLOOR 13,695 SF
2ND FLOOR 13,946 SF
3RD FLOOR 13,958 SF
4TH FLOOR 13,959 SF
5TH FLOOR 12,375 SF
PLATE 644 SF
68,577 SF

BUILDING COVERAGE
1ST / GROUND FLOOR 13,695 SF
13,695 SF / 28,562 SF = 48 %

GROSS AREA

NET RENTABLE

CIRCULATION
/ OTHER
68,577SF
54,952 SF
13,625 SF
A4.1 1" = 20'-0"
1 0.0_LOWER GARAGE
A4.1 1" = 20'-0"
2 UPPER GARAGE

GARAGE FLOOR AREA

LEVEL AREA

0.0_LOWER GARAGE 19,041 SF
UPPER GARAGE 17,805 SF
36,845 SF

NET RENTABLE

CIRCULATION/OTHER
GARAGE
TOTAL
54,952 SF
13,625 SF
36,845 SF
105,422 SF
337
Agenda Item # 3.

UP
13,959 SF
BLDG
12,375 SF
BLDG
399 SF
BLDG
246 SF
BLDG
13,958 SF
BLDG
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A4.2

FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS
6/16/2022
A4.2 1" = 20'-0"
2 4TH FLOOR
A4.2 1" = 20'-0"
3 5TH FLOOR
A4.2 1" = 20'-0"
4 ROOF PLATE
A4.2 1" = 20'-0"
1 3RD FLOOR
338
Agenda Item # 3.

UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
6,126 SF

COURTYARD
5,225 SF

FRONT YARD
83 SF

1.1 DECK
60 SF

1.2 DECK
41 SF

1.3 DECK
70 SF

1.4 DECK
105 SF

1.5 DECK
75 SF

1.6 DECK
75 SF

2.3 DECK 40 SF

2.4 DECK
59 SF

2.5 DECK
60 SF

2.6 DECK
91 SF

2.7 DECK
64 SF

2.8 DECK
62 SF

2.1 DECK
37 SF

2.2 DECK
95 SF

4.3 DECK 40 SF

4.4 DECK
58 SF

4.5 DECK
60 SF

4.6 DECK
93 SF

4.7 DECK
64 SF

4.8 DECK
63 SF

4.1 DECK
37 SF

4.2 DECK
142 SF

5.5 DECK
158 SF

5.4 DECK
64 SF

5.3 DECK
143 SF

5.1 DECK
143 SF

5.8 DECK
93 SF

5.7 DECK
143 SF

5.6 DECK
161 SF

5.2 DECK
753 SF

ROOF DECK
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A4.3

OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
6/16/2022
A4.3 1" = 20'-0"
1 1ST / GROUND FLOOR
A4.3 1" = 20'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
A4.3 1" = 20'-0"
4 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR
A4.3 1" = 20'-0"
5 5TH FLOOR

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE SCHEDULE
AREA Name
63 SF 4.1 DECK
37 SF 4.2 DECK
95 SF 4.3 DECK
40 SF 4.4 DECK
58 SF 4.5 DECK
60 SF 4.6 DECK
93 SF 4.7 DECK
64 SF 4.8 DECK
143 SF 5.1 DECK
161 SF 5.2 DECK
64 SF 5.3 DECK
158 SF 5.4 DECK
142 SF 5.5 DECK
143 SF 5.6 DECK
93 SF 5.7 DECK
143 SF 5.8 DECK
2,989 SF

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE SCHEDULE
AREA Name
83 SF 1.1 DECK
60 SF 1.2 DECK
41 SF 1.3 DECK
70 SF 1.4 DECK
105 SF 1.5 DECK
75 SF 1.6 DECK
62 SF 2.1 DECK
37 SF 2.2 DECK
75 SF 2.3 DECK
40 SF 2.4 DECK
59 SF 2.5 DECK
60 SF 2.6 DECK
91 SF 2.7 DECK
64 SF 2.8 DECK
64 SF 3.1 DECK
37 SF 3.2 DECK
95 SF 3.3 DECK
40 SF 3.4 DECK
59 SF 3.5 DECK
60 SF 3.6 DECK
93 SF 3.7 DECK
64 SF 3.8 DECK
COMMON OPEN SPACE SCHEDULE PE...

AREA Name
6,126 SF COURTYARD
5,225 SF FRONT YARD
753 SF ROOF DECK
12,103 SF
/ 47 UNITS = 63.59 SF PER UNIT
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: 50 SF PER UNIT
PROVIDED: 63.59SF PER UNIT
COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: 2,400 SF
PROVIDED: 12,103 SF
*PRIVATE AND COMMON OPEN SPACE

REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL

PROJECTS PER LOS ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 14.50.150 - OPEN SPACE (TC)
A4.3 1" = 20'-0"
3 ROOF
339
Agenda Item # 3.
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A5.1

MATERIAL BOARD
6/16/2022

CORTEN STEEL
PANEL
PLASTER 1

BAY SALT
DET642
PLASTER 2

BEAMING SUN
DE5218

WOOD SIDING

TRESPA PURA

AGED ASH

STONE SIDING

EQUITONE
TE10
PLASTER 3

WOODED ACRE
DE6130

ALUMINUM

STOREFRONT
BRONZE

ALUMINUM
WINDOW
BRONZE

STEEL SUNSHADES

AND METAL FASCIA

CHARCOAL SMUDGE
DE6370
GLASS

GUARDRAIL

HORIZONTAL

FLAT BAR

RAILING
340
Agenda Item # 3.
x

GREAT ROOM
21' - 2" 15' - 0"
x
BATH
9' - 11" 7' - 8"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 3" 11' - 7"
x

GREAT ROOM
24' - 0" 18' - 5"
x

STORAGE
5' - 0" 5' - 5"
x
BATH
6' - 9" 10' - 2"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 3" 13' - 4"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 0" 11' - 9"
x
BATH
6' - 11" 11' - 9"
x
BATH
5' - 8" 10' - 3"
x

GREAT ROOM
19' - 2" 12' - 2"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 7" 11' - 5"
x

GREAT ROOM
24' - 0" 18' - 5"
x
BATH
6' - 9" 10' - 2"
UNIT 1B
764 SF
CLOSET
COAT

CLOSET W/D
33'-10 1/4"
UNIT 1C
774 SF
32'-7 1/2"
24'-10 1/4"
W/D
DECK
COAT
CLOSET
CLOSET
UNIT 1A & 2A
718 SF & 1022 SF
W/D
W.I.C.

COAT
CLOSET
W/D
CLOSET
DECK
32'-0"
14'-5 1/2" 10'-8 3/4"
31'-0"
COAT
CLOSET
CLOSET
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A6.1

UNIT PLANS
6/16/2022
0' 2' 4' 8'
341
Agenda Item # 3.
x
MST. BEDROOM
11' - 8" 13' - 5"
x
BATH
8' - 10" 10' - 6"
x
BATH
13' - 10" 8' - 3"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 7" 11' - 7"
x
DEN
11' - 7" 10' - 0"
x

GREAT ROOM
21' - 3" 24' - 2"
x

GREAT ROOM
28' - 2" 17' - 4"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 0" 11' - 3"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 5" 13' - 5"
x
BATH
6' - 9" 8' - 9"
x
BATH
11' - 5" 10' - 6"
x
BATH
7' - 4" 8' - 9"
x
BATH
9' - 1" 10' - 6"
x

BEDROOM
10' - 3" 10' - 1"
x

BEDROOM
10' - 3" 9' - 1"
x

GREAT ROOM
15' - 8" 20' - 10"
x

BEDROOM
10' - 2" 9' - 11"
x

GREAT ROOM
11' - 8" 23' - 2"
UNIT 2B
1449 SF
CLOSET
CLOSET

W/D CLOSET
DECK
UNIT 2B-2
1186 SF
CLOSET
ROOF
COAT
CLOSET
W/D
DECK

SLIDING GLASS WALL
CLOSET
27'-7 1/4"
UNIT 1D + 2D
580 & 767 SF
W/D
W/D
W.I.C
COAT
CLOSET
COAT
CLOSET
30'-0"
46'-3 5/8"
CLOSET
CLOSET
DECK
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A6.2

UNIT PLANS
6/16/2022
0' 2' 4' 8'
342
Agenda Item # 3.
x
BATH
11' - 2" 8' - 8"
x

BEDROOM
12' - 5" 11' - 8"
x
BATH
9' - 11" 7' - 1"
x
MST. BEDROOM
13' - 2" 14' - 7"
x

GREAT ROOM
25' - 1" 17' - 4"
x
BATH
10' - 11" 13' - 3"
x

BEDROOM
12' - 5" 11' - 8"
x
BATH
9' - 11" 7' - 1"
x
MST. BEDROOM
12' - 6" 14' - 7"
x

GREAT ROOM
31' - 11" 20' - 4"
W.I.C.

COAT CLOSET
CLOSET
W/D
UNIT 2C-2
1146 SF
DECK

SLIDING GLASS WALL
29'-1 1/2"
42'-0"
26'-1 1/2"
W.I.C.

CLOSET
COAT
CLOSET
W/D
DECK
UNIT 2C
1326 SF
26'-1 1/2" 6'-10 3/4"
42'-0"
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A6.3

UNIT PLANS
6/16/2022
0' 2' 4' 8'
343
Agenda Item # 3.
x
BATH
11' - 5" 6' - 0"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 5" 10' - 8"
x

GREAT ROOM
21' - 3" 25' - 4"
x
MST. BEDROOM
11' - 5" 14' - 1"
x
BATH
11' - 5" 10' - 6"
x
MST. BEDROOM
12' - 9" 13' - 0"
x

GREAT ROOM
22' - 11" 27' - 11"
x

BEDROOM
17' - 2" 11' - 1"
x

BEDROOM
10' - 6" 10' - 10"
x
BATH
12' - 8" 7' - 8"
x
BATH
11' - 1" 18' - 10"
UNIT 2E
1325 SF
DECK
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
W/D
6'-0" 36'-0"
UNIT 3A
1675 SF
COAT
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
45'-10 1/4"
37'-3" 2'-11 1/2"
W.I.C.

W/D LINEN
DECK
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A6.4

UNIT PLANS
6/16/2022
0' 2' 4' 8'
344
Agenda Item # 3.
x

BEDROOM
8' - 10" 9' - 10"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 7" 11' - 5"
x
BATH
7' - 2" 10' - 3"
x

GREAT ROOM
13' - 7" 18' - 5"
x
BATH
6' - 9" 10' - 2"
x

BEDROOM
11' - 3" 13' - 4"
x

BEDROOM
x 11' - 7" 11' - 7"

BEDROOM
9' - 11" 11' - 7"
x

GREAT ROOM
24' - 10" 21' - 3"
x
MST. BEDROOM
14' - 1" 11' - 5"
x
BATH
10' - 6" 8' - 10"
CLOSET
DECK
UNIT 3B
1023 SF
CLOSET
CLOSET
UNIT 3C
1461 SF
CLOSET
COAT

CLOSET W/D
DECK
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A6.5

UNIT PLANS
6/16/2022
0' 2' 4' 8'
345
Agenda Item # 3.

1. WELD ALL STL. CONNECTIONS &
GRIND SMOOTH, TYP.

2. HOT DIP GALVANIZE AND PAINT
ALL STEEL COMPONENTS.

3. REFER TO THIS SHEET FOR
ENLARGED PLANS.

NOTES:

WALL PER PLAN
MC8 x 18.7 AT INSIDE
F.O. CANOPY
C8 x 11.5 @ FASCIA

SIGNAGE LOCATION
(6) 1/4" x 6" FINS EVENLY
SPACED

SEE ELEVATION
4'-4"
3/4" x 8" FLAT BAR @ 2 SIDES
3 1/2" U.O.N.
8"
4'-7 1/2" U.O.N.

WALL PER PLAN
WINDOW W.O.

STUCCO J MOLD

HARDI ARTISAN V-RUSTIC SOFFIT
OVER WRB OVER GYP. SOFFIT BD.

FRY FPM-75-200 CONT. TYP.

SINGLE PLY ROOF O/ 1/4" GYP.

ROOF PANELS, WELD TO FLASHING

VENTED BLOCKING

TAPERED INSULATION OVER LEVEL
PLYWD. DECK, OR AT CONTRACTORS
OPTION, PLYWD. OVER RIP STRIPS @
16" O.C.

THERMAL INSULATION PER
TITLE 24 CALCULATIONS. S.M.D.
2x12 FASCIA, S.S.D.

PTD. GSM FLASHING W/ GRAVEL STOP,
FULLY WRAP FASCIA & PNT., MAINTAIN
CONSISTENT HT. AROUND PERIMETER
GUTTER W.O.

HIGH TEMPERATURE SASM
TAMLYN SNAP 2" SOFFIT VENT
STRUCT. FRAMING W.O.

PAINTED METAL FLAT
BAR TYP. SEE
6 A7.1
3" x 3" x 1/4" STEEL PLATE
5/8" GALV. THROUGH BOLTS TYP.

TUBE ENDS CRIMPED
2" ⌀ x .120 STL. TUBING TYP.

HAT CHANNEL

CLEVIS WITH LEFT

HAND THREADS
5/8" DIA. BOLT

TIGHTENED

IN PLACE
1" THREADED

ROD - CUSTOM

RIGHT HAND

THREADS ONE

END / LEFT

HAND THREADS
OPPOS. END

NUT WITH

LOCK WASHER
3" x 3" x 1/4" STEEL PLATE
3" x 3" x 1/4" STEEL PLATE HOLE

PRE-PUNCHED
PERFORATED STL. PTD.
4x8 x 8" L. BLKG. @ POSTS
ROOFING MEMBRANE OVER GYP.

ROOF PANELS

FLASHING

BOOT W/ DRAW

BAND, WELD

TO ROOF

MEMBRANE
V.I.F. W/ EQUIP. HT.

V.I.F.
2'-3"
2" OD x 3/16" TUBING

BASE FRAME
1/2" x 6" x 6" BASE PLATE
5/8" GALV. THROUGH BOLTS TYP.

MFR'S. PREFAB PENETRATION BOOT

EQUIPMENT
BEYOND
DECK FRAMING, S.S.D.

SLOPE PER

PLAN TO

INTERNAL
DRAIN
FRY DS-875-875 DRIP SCREED CONT.
2'-0" 1'-0"
3/4" TYP.

FIN. FLR.
1x6 SPACED COMPOSITE

WOOD SIDING
3'-6" MIN. A.F.F.

GSM FLASHING, WRAP WALL
FACE 4" EA. SIDE, OVER SASM
OVER P.T. NAILER
ALUM. HANDRAIL MOULDING
1/2" TEMPERED MONOLITHIC GLASS

GLASS GUARDRAIL BASE CONNECTOR

PAINTED METAL
4" TYP.

DECK FRAMING, S.S.D.

SLOPE PER

PLAN TO

INTERNAL
DRAIN
FIN. FLR.
3'-6" MIN. A.F.F.

GSM FLASHING, WRAP WALL
FACE 4" EA. SIDE, OVER SASM
OVER P.T. NAILER
PAINTED METAL FLAT BAR TYP.

PAINTED METAL
1'-6" MIN.

TYP.
4"
4"
4"
W *
T
4" FLASHING
FLANGE
MIN. EA. SIDE
4"
6"

LAP ROOF MEMBRANE

O/ SCUPPER FLANGE
& UP AND OVER T.O.

PARAPET W.O.

NOTES:

1. SOLDER ALL JOINTS WATERTIGHT.

2. SHOP GALVANIZE ALL COMPONENTS.

3. SCUPPER MAT'L. TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH ROOM
MEMBRANE. WELD ROOF MEMBRANE TO SCUPPER
AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE THEY OVERLAP.
20 GA. GSM CONDUCTOR HEAD
W.O., WIDTH (W + 3") x 14" H. x
9" D.

PROVIDE SASM ALL AROUND
OPENING, EXTEND 8" MIN. @ TOP &

SIDES OF WALL
SOLDER
22 GA. GSM SCUPPER
SOLDER
3" DIA. OVERFLOW OUTLET
HOLE TYP. EA. SIDE
SLOPE BOT. OF COLLECTOR HEAD
2x P.T. STUCCO STOP

SOLDER DOWNSPOUT TO

COLLECTOR HEAD
GSM DOWNSPOUT, S.P.D.

PLASTER DRIP EDGE
W/ 1/4" GAP & BACKER

ROD & SEALANT
(2x SCALE)
1" FLANGE FOR CONDUCTOR HEAD
ATTACHMENT TYP. 3 SIDES

LAP ROOF MEMBRANE
O/ SCUPPER BOT.

FLANGE & WELD
* W = 6" MIN. OR EQUAL TO

CIRCUMFERENCE OF ROOF DRAIN
REQUIRED FOR AREA SERVED, E.G.
8" @ 2" SQ. REQ'D. DOWNSPOUT
12" @ 3" SQ. REQ'D. DOWNSPOUT
16" @ 4" SQ. REQ'D. DOWNSPOUT
S.P.D. FOR DOWNSPOUT SIZE

REQUIREMENTS
T, V.I.F.
6 1/4" 5 1/2" 4"
3/4"
3 1/2"

PROVIDE SASM UNDER SCUPPER &

BEHIND STUCCO STOP, CARRY
DOWN F.O.W. 12" MIN.
1 3/8"
4"
DECK FRAMING, S.S.D.

SLOPE PER

PLAN TO

INTERNAL
DRAIN
FIN. FLR.

GSM FLASHING, WRAP WALL
FACE 4" EA. SIDE, OVER SASM
OVER P.T. NAILER

PAINTED METAL
2'-10" MIN.
6"
PAINTED METAL FLAT BAR TYP.
3'-6" MIN. A.F.F.

TYP.
4"
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A7.1

EXTERIOR DETAILS
6/16/2022
A7.1 3/4" = 1'-0"
1 STEEL SUNSHADE - OUTRIGGER
A7.1 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
2 FLAT EAVE AT PLASTER WALL
A7.1 1" = 1'-0"
5 EQUIPMENT SCREEN
A7.1 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
3 GUARDRAIL @ DECK W/ WOOD
A7.1 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
4 GUARDRAIL @ DECK W/ PLASTER
A7.1 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
7 ROOF SCUPPER & CONNECTION HEAD
A7.1 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
6 GUARDRAIL @ DECK W/ PLASTER @ 5TH FL.
346
Agenda Item # 3.

VINYL WINDOW W/ BLOCK FRAME,

JAMB NO NAIL FIN
HEAD
2 PC. 22 GA. G.I. BRAKE FORM
AROUND SPACER TYP. ALL AROUND
1/2" GAP W/ BACKER ROD AND
SEALANT TYP. ALL AROUND
PLASTER EXT. WALL
WD. SPACER, VERIFY DIM'S.

IN FIELD

EDGE BEAD
W/ 1/8" GAP
AND CONT.

SEALANT
TYP. ALL
AROUND
SHIM SPACE TYP.

EXTEND SASM INTO JAMB & LAP
OVER BRAKE FORM TYP. ALL
AROUND
WDW. INSTALL
MATCH TYP.

SEE FLOOR PLANS

VINYL WINDOW W/ SQUARE

EDGE PROFILE
3/4" TYP.
1x6 SPACED COMPOSITE

WOOD SIDING

PLASTER WALL BEYOND

SLOPE PER

PLAN TO

INTERNAL
DRAIN

GLASS GUARDRAIL, SEE

PLASTER WALL
SINGLE PLY ROOF O/ 1/4" GYP.

ROOF PANELS, WELD TO FLASHING

TAPERED INSULATION OVER LEVEL
PLYWD. DECK
FRY FPM-75-200 CONT. TYP.
2x12 FASCIA, S.S.D.

PTD. GSM FLASHING W/

GRAVEL STOP, FULLY
WRAP FASCIA & PNT.,
MAINTAIN CONSISTENT HT.

AROUND PERIMETER

HIGH TEMPERATURE SASM
STRUCT. FRAMING W.O.
6 A7.1
TAMLYN SNAP 2" SOFFIT VENT

VINYL WINDOW W/ SQUARE

EDGE PROFILE
3/4" TYP.
1x6 SPACED COMPOSITE

WOOD SIDING

CORTEN WALL BEYOND

SLOPE PER

PLAN TO

INTERNAL
DRAIN

GLASS GUARDRAIL, SEE
4 A7.1

CORTEN WALL
SHAPED P.T. TOP PLATE
CORTEN CAP FLASHING W/ CONT.
3"
MTL. CLEAT
18" SASM, WRAP UP AND OVER

LOWER TOP PLATE
ALLOW 1/4" MIN. VENTILATION GAP

INSECT MESH
4"

CORTEN WALL PANEL W/ DRIP

EDGE PROFILE

GSM DRIP FLASHING

CORTEN SOFFIT PANEL OVER
MFR'S. STD. BACKUP GIRT
SEE PLAN 6"
2'-0"
6"

DRAIN ROCK

SOIL LAYER

PLANTING LAYER

CHAMFERED
EDGE, TYP.

EXPANSION
JOINT, TYP.

PAVING AS
OCCURS.

DRAIN SYSTEM
3"
HEAD
2 PC. 22 GA. G.I. BRAKE FORM
AROUND SPACER TYP. ALL AROUND
1/2" GAP W/ BACKER ROD AND
SEALANT TYP. ALL AROUND
PLASTER EXT. WALL
WD. SPACER, VERIFY DIM'S.

IN FIELD

EDGE BEAD
W/ 1/8" GAP
AND CONT.

SEALANT
TYP. ALL
AROUND
SHIM SPACE TYP.

SEE FLOOR PLANS
PLYWD. SHEATHING, S.S.D.

VINYL WINDOW, INSTALL PER
SIM.
2ND LAYER WRB OVER SASM SILL

FLASHING

WALL PER PLAN
SLOPE 1/2:12
LAP SASM OVER 1ST LAYER WRB

CUSTOM PROFILE PRECAST

SLOPING SILL BY NAPA VALLEY

CAST STONE
8"
6" MIN.

SILL
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A7.2

EXTERIOR DETAILS
6/16/2022
A7.2 3" = 1'-0"
2 WINDOW HEAD/JAMB AT SHALLOW RECESSED OPENING
A7.2 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
3 RECESSED WINDOWS W/ WOOD SPANDRELS
A7.2 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
4 CORTEN CLADDING @ RECESSED WINDOWS
A7.2 1" = 1'-0"
5 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER
A7.2 3" = 1'-0"
1 WINDOW HEAD/JAMB AT SHALLOW RECESSED OPENING WITH PRECAST SILL 347
Agenda Item # 3.
1ST / GROUND FLOOR
+67.30'
2ND FLOOR
+77.30'
3RD FLOOR
+87.30'
4TH FLOOR
+97.30'
5TH FLOOR
+107.30'

UPPER GARAGE
+55.00'

0.0_LOWER GARAGE
+45.50'
PLATE
+117.30'
ROOF
+120.00'
T.O. PARAPET
+123.50'
T.O. ROOF TOP ENCLOSURE
+129.00'
UNITS
GARAGE
PL
LOS ALTOS AVE.
53'-2 1/4"
25'-0 3/4"
10'-9"
8'-6"
60'-10 3/4"

APPARATUS LADDER
7'-11 1/2"
26'-0" FIRE ACCESS WIDTH
40'-0 3/4"

AT MATURITY
20'-0" MAX.

LOS ALTOS AVE STAIR
EL CAMINO STAIR +66.50'
+65.30'
© SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2022 No Copies, transmissions, reproductions, or electronic manipulation of any portion of these drawings in whole or in part are to be made without the express permission of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All design indicated within these drawings are property of SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED. All copyrights reserved © 2022. 4350 EL CAMINO REAL A8.0

SCHEMATIC FIRE APPARATUS DIAGRAMS
6/16/2022
A8.0
1 EAST WEST SECTION - FIRE APPARATUS CLEARANCE DIAGRAM
0' 10' 5' 20'
NOTE: CREPE MYRTLE STREET TREE TO BE MAINTAINED
AT MAXIMUM 20' HEIGHT BY PROPERTY OWNER
348
Agenda Item # 3.
349
Agenda Item # 3.

STREETSCAPE PRECEDENT IMAGES

COURTYARD PRECEDENT IMAGES

FIRE FEATURE WOOD DECK

COURTYARD PAVERS

COURTYARD PRECEDENT IMAGE

COURTYARD SEATING PEBBLES

ENTRY PAVERS
350
Agenda Item # 3.

ENTRY AND COURTYARD BOLLARD LIGHTS

EMERGENCY PATH BOLLARD LIGHTS
351
Agenda Item # 3.
©

ROOF DECK PRECEDENT IMAGES

ROOF DECK PEDESTAL PAVERS

ROOF DECK PRECEDENT IMAGES
352
Agenda Item # 3.
353
Agenda Item # 3.
© 354
Agenda Item # 3.
© 355
Agenda Item # 3.
© 356
Agenda Item # 3.
© 357
Agenda Item # 3.
© 358
Agenda Item # 3.
© 359
Agenda Item # 3.
© 360
Agenda Item # 3.
© 361
Agenda Item # 3.
© 362
Agenda Item # 3.

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]
363
Agenda Item # 3.

From: Donald Gardner
To: Public Comment
Subject: Project: 4350 El Camino Real
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 9:35:10 PM
Attachments: Los Altos Ave and El Camino Real.png
To the Los Altos City Council,
I am writing in regards to the project proposed for 4350 El Camino Real on the corner of Los Altos Ave. This project consists of an enormous five-story building with 47 condominiums and two levels of underground parking on an about a one-half acre lot. The lots for houses just 150 feet away down Los Altos Ave. tend to be one quarter to one third of an acre, so this is a significant departure from the surrounding density. The buildings directly adjacent to the proposed building on the southeast and southwest sides are three story high and behind them are single and two story houses. A building that is five stories or even four stories high would therefore dominate and look into the bedrooms of many homes. The nearest five story building in Mountain View has the fifth floor set back from the edge of the building so that it does not look out into other homes. In addition, the amount of traffic that this project would bring is high being that 47 condos would have at least 47 cars and potentially as many as 100+ cars. Los Altos Ave. already tends to have cars parked up and down Los Altos Ave. (see image attached taken next to the building site). This would really add congestion on this corner.

I believe that the builders proposed a five story building in hopes of having a four story building approved, but because of so many three story homes right next to and across Los Altos Ave. as well as single story houses on lots behind them, there really should be a three story building at 4350 El Camino Real.

With best regards,
Donald Gardner, Ph.D.
180 Larsens Landing
Los Altos, CA 94022
364
Agenda Item # 3.

From: Nancy Williams
To: Public Comment
Subject: Galatolo Project at 4350 El Camino Real
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 9:37:05 PM
We live about two blocks from Gregory and Angela Galatolo's proposed project at 4350 El Camino Real. (We have owned our current residence, address below, since 1990.) We are delighted to learn that the property will be developed, that it will help mitigate the housing shortage in our community, and that it obviously will make that corner more attractive. We are grateful for folks like the Galatolos who spend effort and treasure to enhance our neighborhood. We fully endorse the proposal and urge the Los Altos City Council to approve it without delay.

Nancy and Robert (Bob) Williams
1167 Laureles Dr.

Los Altos, CA 94022
365
Agenda Item # 3.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
366
Agenda Item # 3.

From: Carol Redfield
To: Public Comment; Radha Hayagreev
Subject: Development of 4350 El Camino Real
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:33:46 AM
Dear Sir/Mam -
We are at a loss to understand how you can justify your approval of the design for the new construction at 4350 El Camino. This is grossly unfair to the Los Altos residents near the development. These residents bought their property with the understanding that Los Altos has strict building restrictions that would protect their neighborhood were the corner property ever to be developed. The Planning Commission has ignored many of the local building codes in approving the current design and thereby betrayed the trust of the local community. The justification that the committee gives is that the developer is building higher density housing with low income units. We fully support the inclusion of these higher density and low income units, but not at the expense of exceeding many of the building restrictions for the local neighborhood.

We expect you to do your job and enforce the local height restrictions, density restrictions, parking requirements, and setback requirements. The condominiums adjacent to the property have the most to lose, but those of us in single family homes nearby will also have a dramatic change to our skyline and community. You can’t arbitrarily enforce the restrictions for some developers and not others. Your job is to protect the community by enforcing the current building codes. We respectfully suggest that you do so.

Chris and Carol Redfield
1101 Los Altos Ave
367
Agenda Item # 3.

September 3,2022
Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Agenda Item #3 – 4350 El Camino Real Development, Council Meeting September 6 Dear Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council:

The LWV supports inclusionary zoning as a method to increase the supply of safe, decent, adequate housing for all Californians. We have consistently commended Los Altos for its below-market-rate (BMR) program as it has been the key way that Los Altos has been providing affordable housing.

One of the main tenets of BMR programs is that the affordable units are dispersed throughout the housing developments, are reflective of the overall mix of bedroom types, and are not able to be distinguished from the market-rate units. Therefore, we are pleased to see that the developers of 4350 El Camino Real have once again improved the proposed mix of BMR units since their earlier proposals and are now including more two-bedroom units, as recommended by the Planning Commission and by the LWV in our letter to the Planning Commission. We appreciate Staff and the Planning Commission paying close attention to implementation of the BMR ordinance and commend the Council for doing the same with past developments. (Please send any questions about this email to Sue Russell at [email protected]) Karin Bricker, President LWV of Los Altos/Mountain View Area Cc: Gabe Engeland. Nick Zornes Steve Golden Radha Hayagreev Angel Rodriguez 368
Agenda Item # 3.

From: Radha Hayagreev
To: Public Comment
Cc: Steve Golden; Angel Rodriguez
Subject: Fwd: Development of 4350 El Camino Real
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 8:49:29 AM
From: Carol Redfield <c t>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:33:09 AM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>; Radha Hayagreev <[email protected]>
Subject: Development of 4350 El Camino Real
Dear Sir/Mam -
We are at a loss to understand how you can justify your approval of the design for the new construction at 4350 El Camino. This is grossly unfair to the Los Altos residents near the development. These residents bought their property with the understanding that Los Altos has strict building restrictions that would protect their neighborhood were the corner property ever to be developed. The Planning Commission has ignored many of the local building codes in approving the current design and thereby betrayed the trust of the local community. The justification that the committee gives is that the developer is building higher density housing with low income units. We fully support the inclusion of these higher density and low income units, but not at the expense of exceeding many of the building restrictions for the local neighborhood.

Your job is to protect the community by enforcing the current building codes. We respectfully suggest that you do so.

Chris and Carol Redfield
1101 Los Altos Ave
369
Agenda Item # 3.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
Interim Finance Director

GE JH SN

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 6, 2022
Subject Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations Prepared by: Los Altos Environmental Commission-Reach Code Subcommittee Reviewed by: Jolie Houston, City Attorney
Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Council Presentation from Environmental Commission-Reach Code Subcommittee

2. Code Details for Recommended Reach Code(s)

3. Reach Codes Survey Results

4. City of Los Altos Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Initiated by:

City Council
Previous Council Consideration:

Reach Codes:

July 12, 2022, Study Session
November 10, 2020, Council adopted Current reach codes
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)
March 08, 2022, Council adopted current CAAP
Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to the City for the creation of this report.

The City may incur costs if the City Council chooses to complete a cost analysis (recommended) to determine the financial impacts that will occur for residents, businesses, or property owners required to comply with new adopted ordinance(s).

Additional costs could be incurred during the building plan check process as city specific building code regulations will require specialized review from either in-house staff or third-party consultants. Should in-house building division staff be required to facilitate additional plan check 370
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations September 6, 2022 Page 2
review this could necessitate additional staffing resources to conduct the plan review or provide inspection services.

Environmental Review:

The adoption of an Ordinance that amends the California Green Building Standards Code is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) but is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), which exempts from CEQA any project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of the proposed Ordinance would not be an activity with potential to cause significant adverse effect on the environment because the changes made to the California Green Building Standards Code within are enacted to provide more protection to the environment, and therefore is exempt from CEQA. It is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15308 which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies for the enhancement and protection of the environment. As such, the Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA, and none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

Policy Questions for Council Consideration:
● Does the City Council wish to direct staff to bring back Reach Code ordinance(s), and other relevant items, to adopt the model building and electric vehicle reach codes as recommended? If Council answers affirmatively,
o Does the City Council also wish to complete a cost analysis based on the Reach Codes recommendations of the Environmental Commission to determine or quantify any fiscal impacts associated with Code Compliance? o Does the City Council also wish to refer the recommended Codes to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for comment?
o Does the City Council also wish to affirm or re-adopt the current Reach Codes to continue after 12/31/2022? The State Codes will pre-empt local ordinances that are not adopted again after this date.

Summary:

On March 08, 2022 the City Council adopted the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP).

Among other goals, the CAAP aims to achieve an 85% reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2035. These are bold but achievable objectives.

The implementation of all proposed CAAP strategies and actions by each sector will allow us to meet these objectives. The Transportation and Energy sectors are the two largest sectors in which the greatest reductions are needed in order to achieve these goals. 371
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations September 6, 2022 Page 3
With regards to the energy sector, the CAAP notes: Los Altos is comprised of mostly residential buildings, therefore community and energy use reduction and use of renewable energy is especially important to reduce GHG emissions in this sector. Joining Silicon Valley Clean Energy in 2017 greatly reduced emissions from the energy sector, GHG emissions from non-SVCE customers and from the burning of methane gas in buildings remains a major problem. The strategies in this area address opportunities for residents and businesses to switch from non-renewable energy sources to renewable ones, accelerate electrification of buildings, conserve energy, and maximize energy efficiency.

The CAAP set goals around greenhouse gas reductions as follows:
• Switch from fossil fuels to clean renewable electrical energy in our buildings and residences (page 42, page 44-49)
• Reduce vehicle miles traveled (page 39)
• Electrify transportation (page 41)
• Increase walking, bicycling and shared transportation in our lives and work (page 38) Additionally, the CAAP set goas for Electric Vehicle infrastructure as follows:
 Page 41: Goal 1.4 Reach 80% community-wide electric vehicle adoption by 2035  Page 41: Goal 1.5 Accelerate community-wide electric vehicle supply equipment sufficient to support 80% EVs
The Environmental Commission Recommendations include the items listed below.  Develop Reach Codes that Modify the 2022 CA Building Code for  Newly Constructed Buildings
 And Changing the Definition of what is determined to be New Construction  Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
 Adopt Reach Codes for 1/1/2023 Effective Date
Purpose:

The Environmental Commission to provide a presentation to City Council with their recommendations for Reach Codes and to report on the feedback received from the public.

Background:

In November 2020, the City Council adopted four ordinances providing amendments to State Energy Code regulations collectively known as Reach Codes. These Reach Codes required newly 372
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations September 6, 2022 Page 4
constructed buildings to be all-electric (with certain exceptions) and contain infrastructure for electric vehicle charging.

In April 2022, the Environmental Commission formed the Reach Code Subcommittee with the intent of exploring additional Reach Codes. On June 6 and 8, 2022, the Environmental Commission conducted community workshops regarding potential new reach codes. The Environmental Commission further discussed Reach Codes at their June, July and August 2022 Commission meetings.

On July 12, 2022, the Reach Code Subcommittee provided an informational presentation to the City Council. At the conclusion of the meeting the Subcommittee was instructed to obtain public feedback and then provide a formal recommendation to the City Council for consideration.

On August 8, 2022, the Environmental Commission voted to recommend the City Council adopt new Reach Codes to be effective January 1, 2023.

On August 10, 2022, the Public Engagement Survey was released to obtain feedback regarding Reach Codes. Results of the survey were provided to the Reach Code Subcommittee on August 31, 2022.

Discussion/Analysis:

The Environmental Commission recommends that the City of Los Altos pursue adoption of the Bay Area Model Reach Code. The Model Reach Code effectively creates an all-electric requirement for all “Newly Constructed Buildings”. It is important to note that the Model Reach Code amends the definition of new construction by creation of a 50% modification threshold to foundation or framing. In practical terms this means that any building which proposes modification of 50% or more of the home would require the conversion to all electric.

At the July 12, 2022 City Council Study Session, the Environmental Commission-Reach Code Subcommittee provided an information presentation on Reach Codes. At that same meeting the City Council provided direction to seek meaningful engagement from the community by conducting outreach, and then return with a recommendation. The Environmental Commission considered Reach Code options at the August 8, 2022 meeting where it then voted on the recommendation before the council tonight. The community engagement survey (attachment 3) was released on August 10, 2022, and closed on August 30, 2022. Community input from the survey is available for the City Council to consider this evening.

In previous years the California Energy Commission (CEC) mandated the review of any Reach Codes that go above or beyond the California Energy Codes which had to be supported by a Cost 373
Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations September 6, 2022 Page 5
Effectiveness Analysis. Recently the CEC has taken the position that Reach Codes are not energy conservation standards that require their approval. Throughout the industry it has been discussed that some jurisdictions are taking the safe approach to adopting local Reach Codes by following the previous standard process of preparation of a Cost Effectiveness Study, and submission to the CEC for review; this is previously what the City of Los Altos has done.

At the time of this report City Staff and the City Attorney have not been provided information regarding the cost effectiveness of the Bay Area Model Reach Codes.

Environmental Commission Recommendation:

The Environmental Commission recommends adoption of the model building and EV reach codes as outlined in the attached PowerPoint slides and detailed in the excel spreadsheet.

Staff Recommendation:

The recommendation of the Environmental Commission furthers key goals and benchmarks as identified in the City of Los Altos Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (Attachment 4).

If the City Council accepts the recommendation from the Environmental Commission:

Staff recommends the completion of a cost effectiveness study based on the recommendations of the Environmental Commission on Reach Codes to determine or quantify any fiscal impacts associated with Code Compliance.

Staff recommends the City Council refer the recommended Codes to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for comment.

Staff recommends the City Council affirm or re-adopt the current Reach Codes to continue after 12/31/2022, should the CEC review or cost effectiveness study not be completed by this date. The State Codes will pre-empt local ordinances that are not adopted again after this date.

Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to review what other peer and local agencies have adopted with regards to Reach Codes after the new State Codes take effect on 1/1/2023. 374
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission
Reach Code Recommendations
(Commission Meeting of 8/8/2022)
City of Los Altos
 Develop Reach Codes that Modify the 2022 CA
Building Code for
 NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS
 ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE
 Adopt Reach Codes for 1/1/2023 Effective Date
(Environmental Commission continues to work on CAAP actions related to Electrification of Existing Buildings and may make recommendations in the future)
375
Agenda Item # 4.

Newly Constructed Buildings
City of Los Altos
2022 CA Building Code
Mandatory Bay Area Model Reach Code
Current Los Altos Reach
Code
Environmental Commission
Recommendations
Effective /
Expiration Date Effective 1/1/2023
Amends Building Code.

Effective after Adoption /
State Filing. Expires 1/1/2026 Expires 1/1/2023
Amend Building Code.

Effective after Adoption /
State Filing. Expires 1/1/2026
New Buildings*
(Not previously
used/occupied)
(Applies if >50% foundation
or framing modified)
(Not previously
used/occupied)
(Applies if >50% foundation
modified or >50% framing
modified)
Air Heating/Cooling EHP EHP EHP EHP
Water EHP or G EHP EHP EHP
Clothes Drying E or G E E E
Cooking / Fireplaces E or G E E or G E
Exterior (Pool, SPA,
Firepit) N/A No G N/A
No G (and no extension of
existing exterior G)
*Does not apply to Building Alterations, Renovations, Tenant Improvements EHP = Electric Heat Pump, E = Electric, G = Natural Gas (must be wired for replacement) 376
Agenda Item # 4.

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
City of Los Altos
2022 CA Building
Code Mandatory Bay Area Model Reach Code
Current Los Altos Reach
Code
Environmental Commission
Recommendations
Effective / Expiration
Date Effective 1/1/2023
Amends Building Code. Effective
after Adoption / State Filing.

Expires 1/1/2026 Expires 1/1/2023
Amend Building Code. Effective
after Adoption / State Filing.

Expires 1/1/2026
Single Family
Residence
1-L2 EV Ready 1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L1 EV Ready 1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L2 EV Ready
1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L2 EV Ready
Multi Family
Residence and Other
Buildings
Various Requirements Various Requirements Various Requirements Apply Requirements the Greater
of Bay Area Model or Current Los
Altos
Off-Street Loading
Docks N/A Applies N/A Apply Requirements of Bay Area
Model
Parking Addition,
Alteration,
Renovation
N/A Applies N/A Apply Requirements of Bay Area
Model
377
Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Single Familly Residential Construction Premits
From 1/26/2021 - 5/11/2022
Permit Type Number
Single Family Residence 39
Detached ADU 58
Additions > 750 SF 39
Additions < 750 SF 109
Residential Alterations 419
Water Heaters 109
Furnace/AC 321
Total 1094
378
Agenda Item # 4.

Percent of Permits

3.6%

5.3%

3.6%

10.0%

38.3%

10.0%

29.3%
100.0%
379
Agenda Item # 4.

Los Altos Environmental Commission
Reach Codes Subcommittee
Building Code Energy Title 11 Reach Codes
Revised 08-10-2022
Requirement / Building Type 2022 CA ENERGY CODE Mandatory Residential and Non-Residential Heat Pump Space Heating, Wire all gas appliances New Construction Additional Vent gas stoves, E storage readiness New Construction
Alterations/Tenant Improvements
Selected Exclusions
Residential - Cooking, fireplaces
Residential - No All-Elec Compliance Path
Non-Residential Commercial Food Equip
Non-Residential - No All-Elec Compliance Path
Non-Residential Hotels / Motels
380
Agenda Item # 4.

Los Altos Ordinance No. 2020-470 Proposed 2022 Model All Electric Part 11 Reach Code All electric; exclusions for cooking, comfort, exterior All electric, can select exclusions If >50% foundation or framing modified
None Not considered new construction
Yes - Wiring and elec capacity No
Yes - Wiring and elec capacity Yes - Wiring, elec capacity and physical space Yes - Cooking only Yes - Equipment to include ventilation treatment Yes - Wiring and elec capacity Yes - Wiring, elec capacity and physical space N/A Yes - Clothes drying for more than 80 rooms
381
Agenda Item # 4.

Los Altos Environmental Commission
Reach Codes Subcommittee
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Requirements
Revised 08-10-2022
Requirement / Building Type 2022 CAL GREEN Mandatory
Residential Parking New Construction
Residential Parking Additions/Changes
Residential R-3 1-L2 EV Ready
Shared Parking New Construction
Shared Parking Additions/Changes
Residential R-2 Multi Family **
Affordable Housing 5% L2 EV Ready with EVCS
25% Low Power L2 EV Ready
10% L2 EV Capable
All other 5% L2 EV Ready with EVCS
25% Low Power L2 EV Ready
10% L2 EV Capable
Non-Residential Offices 5% L2 EV Ready with EVCS
15% L2 EV Capable
--------
Hotel and Motel 5% L2 EV Ready with EVCS
15% L2 EV Capable
--------
Other Non-Residential 5% L2 EV Ready with EVCS
15% L2 EV Capable
Direct Current Fast Charge
Upgrade Multi-Fam and Non-Residential
Off-Street Loading
* Exception if increase construction cost by average of more than $4,500 per parking space ($400 per parking space for afford ** SVCE is committed to paying for the Reach Code delta for EV charging at affordable housing 382
Agenda Item # 4.

Los Altos Ordinance No. 2020-471
Attached / detached garages
None
1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L2 EV Ready
Office or other
None
10% L2 EV Ready
--------
90% L1 EV Ready
>20 units: 25% (but not < 21) L2 EV Ready, ALMS permitted >20 units: 75% (but not > total - 21) L1 EV Ready, ALMS permitted <21 units: 100% L2 EV Ready, ALMS permitted
>10 spaces: 50% L2 EV Ready with EVCS
>10 spaces: 30% L2 EV Capable
>10 spaces: 20% L1 EV Ready
Considered Other
--------
--------
>10 spaces: 6% L2 EV Ready with EVCS
>10 spaces: 5% L1 EV Ready
1 substitutes for 6 L2 EV Ready with EVCS
None
None
han $4,500 per parking space ($400 per parking space for affordable housing) V charging at affordable housing
383
Agenda Item # 4.

Proposed Model Part 11 Reach Code
Off-Street Parking
Yes (Elec pannel spaces and capacity for rqmts)
1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L1 EV Ready, *
By building type
Yes (10% added/altered L2 EV Ready with EVCS), *
40% L2 EV Ready with EVCS, ALMS permitted, *
--------
60% L1 EV Ready, *
15% L2 EV Ready with EVCS, ALMS permitted, *
85% Low Power L2 EV Ready, *
--------
20% L2 EV Ready with EVCS, ALMS permitted, *
30% L2 EV Capable, *
--------
5% L2 EV Ready with EVCS, ALMS permitted, *
25% Low Power L2 EV Ready, *
10% L2 EV Capable, *
10% L2 EV Ready with EVCS, ALMS permitted, *
10% L2 EV Capable, *
1 substitutes for 5 L2 EV Ready with EVCS
L1 EV Capable per constr permit to L1 EV Ready
Requirements by Building size, *
384
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations Survey 1 / 7

6.79% 38

90.18% 505

15.89% 89

50.89% 285
Q1 Select all descriptions that apply to you (check all that apply) Answered: 560 Skipped: 3
Total Respondents: 560
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above
Live in Los
Altos
Work in Los
Altos
Own Property
in Los Altos

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above
Live in Los Altos
Work in Los Altos
Own Property in Los Altos
385
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations Survey 2 / 7

2.86% 16

2.14% 12

11.25% 63

57.68% 323

26.07% 146
Q2 My age group is
Answered: 560 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 560
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
18 years old
and under
19 - 30 years
old
31 - 49 years
old
50 - 70 years
old
Older than 70
years old

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
18 years old and under
19 - 30 years old
31 - 49 years old
50 - 70 years old
Older than 70 years old
386
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations Survey 3 / 7

66.90% 376

19.40% 109

8.36% 47

5.34% 30
Q3 Are you concerned about climate change?
Answered: 562 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 562
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very concerned
Concerned
Slightly
concerned
Not concerned

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Very concerned
Concerned
Slightly concerned
Not concerned
387
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations Survey 4 / 7

35.17% 191

22.28% 121

37.75% 205

19.52% 106
Q4 Which actions would you support the Los Altos City Council taking? (check all that apply)
Answered: 543 Skipped: 20
Total Respondents: 543
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No reach codes
(default to...

Continue Los
Altos' curre...

Adopt
Environmenta...

Adopt reach
code stricte...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
No reach codes (default to 2022 California Energy Code) Continue Los Altos' current reach code
Adopt Environmental Commission's reach code recommendations Adopt reach code stricter than Environmental Commission's reach code recommendations 388
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations Survey 5 / 7

29.60% 164

56.14% 311

56.86% 315

63.00% 349

47.83% 265

54.51% 302

41.70% 231

33.94% 188
Q5 Which appliances do you support requiring to be electric in newly constructed buildings as defined above (check all that apply) Answered: 554 Skipped: 9
Total Respondents: 554
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above
Water heater
(heat-pump)
Space heater
(heat-pump)
Dryer
(heat-pump o...

Indoor Stove
(induction o...

Pool/spa
heaters
Fireplace
Firepit

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above
Water heater (heat-pump)
Space heater (heat-pump)
Dryer (heat-pump or electric resistance)
Indoor Stove (induction or electric resistance)
Pool/spa heaters
Fireplace
Firepit
389
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations Survey 6 / 7

6.20% 34

25.55% 140

4.01% 22

8.76% 48

55.47% 304
Q6 If you own an electric vehicle, do you have a charger installed in your home?
Answered: 548 Skipped: 15
TOTAL 548
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Level 1 (120v)
Level 2 (240v)
Not sure of
level
No home charger
No electric
vehicle

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Level 1 (120v)
Level 2 (240v)
Not sure of level
No home charger
No electric vehicle
390
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission Reach Code Recommendations Survey 7 / 7
Q7 Please provide your additional comments, concerns and/or thoughts on the Environmental Commission recommendations for all-electric newly constructed buildings and additional electric vehicle infrastructure.

Answered: 249 Skipped: 314
391
Agenda Item # 4.

Los Altos is one of the worst cities in terms of new home constructions. Less regulations, please! It makes sense to require EV charging hook ups on new construction. Also, I would be in support of REACH codes on new constructions that allow the option to have gas appliances, but only if the new construction also required hook ups for electricity as well, that would allow for conversion to electricity at a future time when clean electricity becomes more abundant. Clean electricity still is not abundant nationwide, or even in California. According to the EPA, in 2019, 25% of the nation's carbon emissions were due to generation of electricity. I don't think it is appropriate just yet to encourage increased demand for electricity that cannot be met with clean electricity. This increased demand will result in increased burning of fossil fuel to meet the increased demand for electricity.

The electricity generation plants are generally located in or near lower economic neighborhoods, which means lower income people will have to suffer more, just so that the incessant and increasing consumption of electricity of people in more affluent areas (such as Los Altos) can be met. The emphasis on "electrification" gives the false impression that people can use electricity with impunity-- and all they want--and gives them a false sense of doing the right thing. People need to reduce their consumption of ALL forms of energy in general, to the extent that they can, and practice conservation habits. I'm bothered by the hypocrisy that I see among many affluent people in this area who feel sanctimonious because they can afford to buy EVs and electrify their houses, and yet live in HUGE, energy guzzling house, take numerous commercial airline flights per year for non-essential reasons, and are uber consumers of newly manufactured products--which contribute greatly to their carbon foot print. I feel that the city and the environmental commission should try to raise awareness of the fact that it has been shown (through scientific studies) that people in affluent areas are energy hogs and leave a disproportionately large carbon footprint in comparison to less affluent people.

Electrifying their houses and driving EVs is a drop in the bucket compared to other areas of consumption. It has been estimated that one round trip flight from New York to Paris emits the same amount of carbon as two years of eating meat, or 8 months of driving a car. There have been ads on TV lately encouraging people to fly to Paris to do their shopping! I read that the US is the only developed country that does not impose a carbon tax on airlines. It has been noted, based on an Oxfam study done five years ago, that ",,,it is estimated that the world's richest 1% probably emit 30 times more than the poorest 50% of the planet". This is very relevant to Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and other Bay Area Cities which are the home to many "one percenters." We have not replaced our car with an EV, because we are retired and rarely drive a car. My husband is still able to do most of our errands on a bike--but not everyone is in a position to do this. Purchasing a new EV would on balance require far more fossil fuel and resources (such as Lithium, which is a disaster from an environmental standpoint) than continuing to drive an older car (occasionally) that gets good gas mileage and has low emissions. Also, electricity is very expensive. Not everyone can afford the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to get solar panels, nor is it cost effective for everyone. We had a solar expert come and do an analysis, and due to the fact that we have a lot of trees surrounding our house, we probably would be dead by the time solar would generate enough electricity to pay for itself. Also, we did not like the idea that was floated recently that people should have to electrify before selling their house! In particular, this does not make sense for older houses. In our neighborhood, there was a very nice house on Berry that was sold within the last couple of years. The original owners had done upgrades, such as replacing every window with energy efficient windows, probably at great cost.

Well, just recently (I think this week), the new owners had the house bulldozed and razed to the ground! All this did was use up resources that then were destroyed! Does that make sense? Also, solar has some downsides which have not been addressed yet. For example, the panels can be a disaster for the environment when they end up in the landfill due to the fact that it is not cost effective to recycle the materials. The government may need to step up to the plate and subsidize 392
Agenda Item # 4.
recycling or we could be looking at a mess when they start to reach the end of their life, or get damaged prematurely. Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback.

Government should not tell me what kind of stove I must have.

The commission’s lack of coordination with those entities responsible for the already stressed grid is concerning. Our concern is if we run ahead of the capacity of the grid - it will lead to more than "periodic" power shut-offs.

All rules should consider unintended consequences and balance all energy sources. If everything is electric and there is no electricity ... even with some solar ... there will be issues. Options are key! Thank you for reaching out to the public on this critically important issue. Costs of going all electric are going down and becoming less expensive than gas. The urgency of climate change and reality that we're behind the curve individually and collectively in addressing it makes the case for Los Altos to be taking a more aggressive position than the State. And by doing so we will have an exceptionally healthy, thriving, and livable community to show for this in 20 years. You can bet on it! China is opening as many coal plants each year as are still running in the US. Any tiny decrease in CO2 emission here is swamped by their output. America is for freedom, let people have a choice.

I am against mandating regulations. This is too much intrusion in people’s lives. Responsible, environmentally conscious people can make the changes themselves We have now lived in 4 neighborhoods in Los Altos and in 2 of those 4 we had to close our windows almost every night due to smoke coming from chimneys. It's 2022. We can do better than that kind of air pollution.

Currently, our electric infastructre can't handle a significant increase in demand, as a result of eliminating gas appliances. Only a few years ago, we had rolling blackouts...and yet, these laws will make that issue worse? Doesn't make sense... Also, the VERY small amount of damange done by these gases, on a global scale, cannont be measured...literally. Why is a small city like Los Altos, wasting time on this issue, when other LOCAL issues are more important. We are NOT going to have ANY global impact on the problem, by passing these restricive laws. California, will pass laws at some point...which will be restricitive enough....likley far more restrictive than most states....but that's not good enought for Los Altos? What a joke!!! If the City fills strongly, educate residents on the "advantage" of electric and let the local, intelligent citizens make their own decisions. Just becuase a person is on a commitee, board, or council, does not make them smarter than the community at large. We can, and should, have the right to make our own decisions on this issue. 100% against wasting more time and money on this ridiculous topic, at the local level.

Ride a bike more often.

The reach codes cause us to use out of state Coal, and natural gas instead of clean natural gas. To make clean power CCA's wash the power in paperwork. Unfortunately the Coal is still polluting the environment. They are bad for the environment, bad for rate payers. We pay 3 times the national average for unreliable power. An electric car is really a "Coal Car" Don't make our ranges "Coal Ranges". Look up efficiency of electric ranges its about 4 watts to get 1 watt of work. MUCH more 393
Agenda Item # 4.
greenhouse gases!! About 70% of the grid is fossil fuels. DO NOT PUSH THEM PLEASE! Bad for the environment!
I do not support aggressive steps that are promoted by a few and not supported by the community at large. The political divides in our community are exacerbated by a minority pushing their viewpoints into the homes of others. While I support taking action to address the environment I believe that we need to stay in alignment of what the community wants and avoid the temptation to think a few “know what’s best” and force their agenda on others.

We have an electric car but use the existing plug for our dryer to charge.

Love the idea of requiring all-electric appliances of all types. Fully support the environmental commission's recommendations!
If restaurants are opened in new buildings, they should be allowed to have gas cooktops--induction cannot replace gas in all instances (e.g., high heat required for some Asian cuisines). Gas should still be permissible outdoors for BBQs in all homes (as part of new home construction, or landscape project in existing backyard)...still cleaner than charcoal + lighter fluid. Don't agree with EV infrastructure requirement--fuel cell cars provide another clean alternative. I think contractors building homes to sell on the open market will add them as a selling feature and many people building/rebuilding will install them on own. So, in most instances they'll go in anyway, but it shouldn't be a requirement. I agree there should be no requirement for appliance replacement in existing homes to switch to electric if they're currently gas. We actually just did this in our own home, and it is a VERY expensive and time consuming undertaking. Also, in older homes, making the conversion often requires a panel upgrade. Finding licensed electricians is extremely difficult, so making such conversion a requirement would pretty much create an unworkable situation for many homeowners. It would be great to see Los Altos support training programs for electricians, installers, etc., to help provide good jobs and maybe slow down ever rising costs for contracting with electricians and other technicians.

As we've seen in recent years the electric greed is not reliable enough, so for now we absolutely need gas as backup
Thank you for the work on behalf of all those of us who live in Los Altos.

Very complicated and noble, but will be offset by adding more immigrants to our State, as Sacramento is intent on doing.

Most the the grid electricity is generated by LNG. Until that moves to solar, hydro, wind or nuclear, electricity is'nt very green. And people are leery of reliance on a single source of energy. They prefer to diversify with LNG.

All new construction and remodels should require electricity only. In addition, there must be a ten year phase out where ALL gas appliances, including furnaces and stoves must be electric. The gas phase out is critical, else residents will retain aging, inefficient furnaces, etc. rather than replace. 394
Agenda Item # 4.

I am concerned about climate change. At this time REACH codes are mostly NIMBYism. Well off Los Altos moves our pollution out of town. When 90% of power comes from renewables then REACH codes make sense. Until then the efficiencies of power plants and power loss in transmission will mean producing more CO2 than we currently do. It is estimated that California will need more than 20 years to reach >90% electric power from renewable resources. During that time Los Altos under REACH codes will be responsible for large amounts of excess CO2 produced at power plants elsewhere. It is still all the same planet.

We have a 240v outlet for charging, not a dedicated charger. I also support limiting the amount of property that can be paved over. Plants capture carbon and we need to have more not less.

If we don’t do something to save the planet, who will?
Oh my goodness. I read the introduction at the top several times and I'm still not completely sure what I voted for in #4. That was really confusing. It'd be nice if there were a summary under each of the four options so I don't have to scroll up to keep checking for the description. Also it'd be helpful if they were listed in order of rules restrictiveness (least to most restrictive or vice versa).

The pg&e infrastructure can not support a switch to most large gas items being switched to electric.

Too restrictive unless there is a cap on electricity rates which have gone up substantially. Unless the city can figure out ways to help homeowners with the expected higher pG&E bills, it seems unfair to assert such burdens on homeowners.

Why is the city so convinced that its limited staff has better knowledge than the state, the market and their citizens of the many trade offs involved in choosing optimal equipment ? Making people go all electric if you do more than 50% is not right. New construction, sure, but not remodels.

Follow the state
I prefer to cook by gas; allotter appliances ok for electric inc. oven How is all this electricity going to be generated? Stored? Paid for? City Council has no business determining what available & legal energy sources we have to use. If 90 percent of reside3nts were in favor, then fine. That is not the case here. Not even close.

Really - Nothing better to do with your time?
It's Ludacris to ban any gas appliances in new homes, remodels and present construction. WHERE does the electricity comes from to power these devices? THE vast majority is from Natural Gas fired Utilities. We should be building nuclear plants NOW! Lawrence Livermore Lab is making progress on fusion power. That is eventually the answer to solving the environmental crises we're in. 395
Agenda Item # 4.

If the City wants to remove the equivalent of 40-85 gas vehicles from the road, simply offer electrical vehicle tax subsidies to the first 40=-85 to apply to the City of Los Altos. Why embroil the entire City of Los Altos in a politicized building permit campaign? What is the plan for recycling the carcinogenic materials ( Selenium, Cadmium Teluride, Galium Arsenide, & Lead ) which are contained in solar cells when the cells reach their end of life? If these cells are sent to land fill they contaminate the soil and ground water. No solar cell supplier has been able to develop a successful recycling program after 15 years of efforts. If the electricity needed for electric appliances does not come from solar or wind it must come from coal and gas fired power plants and the benefit of switching to electric appliances is lost.

Our electric infrastructure will not support going all electric. Natural gas is plentiful. Let us use it.

Electricity only format assumes we have an adequate supply off electricity. 94% of all power generation is carbon base. Alternative green sources are in their infant stages and are not reliable(every wind/solar "farm" has a carbon backup power source). This winter energy costs are expected to increase 100/400% on the East Coast. In Calif we have the highest energy costs of any state and now the local/state government wants to ban the most affordable source of energy for its citizenry. Also I noted that some LA council members are involved in Green companies, not a good optics for impartiality. Bottom line, until green is reliable (no energy when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing) and affordable then stay with a clean carbon source ( natural gas is abundant and affordable and is the primary reason the USA met its co2 carbon emissions under the Paris Accords ( had we kept our membership). If you want to impact the environment focus on China and India, 2 countries that are INCREASING their carbon footprint without suffering any consequence. Summary:
natural gas is a reliable and affordable source of energy that should be available to any homeowner.

One size does not fit all. Diversity. We all can help with climate change and should be able to adapt our own diet of cutbacks/comprises to reach mutually agreed upon goals. 80% of the existing houses in Los Altos do not have a large enough electrical service to support the all electric home They have a 200 amp service and you need a 300 amp service for the all electric home.

The power grid in Los Altos would need a 30 to 50% increase in capacity to support the all electric home and car charger . The Cost For this is way beyond the resources in Los Altos The commission should offer rebates and other incentives to residence in order to transition to more sustainable energy uses.

Environmental Commission should provide provisions (including both incentives and fees) to support installation of EV home chargers, solar and water recapture system.) Solar, charging, water recapture (for garden reuse) should be required for all NEW multi-unit home, office, ADU or mixed use construction.

Think the revised recommendation is excellent.

I believe that allowing/encouraging more housing units to be built in Los Altos will have a far greater (positive) impact on climate change than appliances. If including gas appliances gets more housing built faster, I would go with gas. Requiring people to commute to Los Altos to work is the worst thing the city is doing right now.
396
Agenda Item # 4.

California is in an ongoing multi-year drought. Hydro-electric generation throughout the West is jeopardy as a result of drought. California has one nuclear power plant currently on- line and it's to be decommissioned within a couple of years. Most of California's smaller power plants are natural gas powered; therefore electricity in our homes is GAS powered. Cutting off natural gas simply stresses an already maxed-out California power grid!
We need balanced, common sense Green policies, not these draconian unbalanced (Over) Reach codes that defy common sense. To require people to switch from gas to electric when buying a new appliance is absurd and unjust. Also, the world is in an energy crises (see Europe). Natural gas will remain an important and indispensable source of energy for decades to some. Wind/solar only produces 2-3% of our energy.

Slow your roll. California, and Los Altos specifically, is not ready to go fully electric. This idea only empowers PG&E to play electricity access games with us. Residential solar and wind generators are not readily available for each Los Altos building. Until they are, gas service will still need to be an option. If the city is hell-bent on an all electric future, then it should subsidize solar and wind power generators and battery storage for Los Altos residents.

If you ban extending current gas lines in non-new construction, then you need to consider the effects of people buying outdoor propane heaters instead of extending a gas line for an outdoor space heater. Not sure which is worse-propane from a tank or a natural gas line.

These questions are stupid. For example, induction electric is great; non-induction is awful. Heatpumps are 3x as efficient as resistance heating. If you use this survey, you're spreading misinformation.

There isn't a great electric alternative to gas grills. I'm guessing gas grills are used much less often than water heaters and in-home ranges. Therefore, I'd be ok with folks continuing to install gas grills outdoors. I think it's better than burning propane, right? It is not rationale, nor feasible, for appliances, water heaters, gas furnaces to be all replaced to electric should the current appliances need to be replaced. This is undue hardship, expense for SO SO many. Consider also the issues recently with supply issues, installer/contractor issues, cost of electricity, PG&E rolling black outs and price fixed electric charges by time of day. With current inflation, etc. this is NOT the time to add $$$$ EXPENSES to households. We can each do our part for climate and environment according to what we CAN DO; not forced to do.

Use a carrot vs. a stick approach. For instance, while I have solar panels and EVs and would recommend them, I can encourage others and tell them about the benefits but they may or, may not go to that way for a variety of reasons. Carrot example: I find that Los Altos has overly high building permit fees for installing solar panels or adding to a current solar installation. To encourage solar installations, reduce Los Altos building permit fees for installations. Do similarly for any behavior you would like to encourage. Also, please do not place burdensome costs on current homeowners by requiring changes in housing infrastructure such as gas lines, regulations relating to preparations for sale, or any other regulations that increase costs for homeowners. Also, please be mindful that a wholesale move toward electricity could have expensive ripple effects for seniors and, in fact, any homeowner such as when current electrical panels might not be able to handle increased electrical 397
Agenda Item # 4.
load without expensive upgrades. Or, for instance, a move to electric stoves may require replacing cookware sets, and removing perfectly functional appliances and hauling them to a landfill and thereby creating a different environmental problem. Finally, please consider that every house is different, so a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. For example, an extremely efficient (well insulated) home with gas heat may have far less environmental impact than would ripping out and hauling to landfills the existing equipment, and replacing it with equipment that has to be manufactured along with the environmental impact of the associated manufacturing activities. In other words, please be fair and honest in complete cradle-to-grave assessments of environmental (and $) impact of operation of existing infrastructure in a home versus any alternatives that might be proposed to rip out and replace them. To sum up, please do not force, nor be heavy-handed. One can readily observe that the residents of Los Altos are quickly moving toward electric cars and solar panels and whatever other measures they can take that they personally deem appropriate for themselves and for the environment. Let them proceed and help them with incentives rather than burdensome and expensive regulation/requirements. Thank you.

Stop pushing more restrictions on people. If electric appliances were more economical, you wouldn’t need to pass ordinances to make people buy them. Free market principles work best. Take an Econ 101 course! And quit drinking the SVCE Koolaid!
Let California set the standard. The city’s current stance is too restrictive. We need to supplement electric energy with alternate forms so we are not strictly reliant on electricity. I don’t want rolling black outs and I want an alternate source of energy if I loose electricity for any other reason.

I’ve spoken with multiple pool contractors and none have used electric heating for pools. One even said it was illegal. I think he was referring to old style heaters. Also, this would effectively ban outdoor fire pits. Offer incentives and alternatives before you ban! Our electric panel cannot support these changes. It doesn't appear the California electric GRID can support these changes either. Natural gas is much cheaper than electricity and more reliable. CA has no comprehensive plan to meet the needs of an all-electric future - it's foolhardy. Look at Germany's failures - they are reopening coal plants and saving nuclear which is clean energy.

I think this push for reach codes has more to do with the corruption where the ex mayor got rid of PGE and put in a company to deliver "clean energy" to city of Los Altos for "reduced costs". (which incidentally increased costs and profit for her husband's company) Now they want to increase electricity usage, so that they can profit more. Every time temperatures go above 95F in Los Altos, we are asked to not use air conditioning because grid cannot handle increased load. Why put additional burden on the grid ? We should use all sources, Electricity, Gas, Solar, wind, whatever, so that we do not become dependent on one source and hedge our bets. Get the corrupt people who are backed by realtor mafia OUT of city council.

If Los Altos reaches zero carbon emissions, it has no impact on global climate change. The US itself only accounts for 13% of CO2 emissions, so that even if the US had zero emissions, a few years' growth in China's and India's CO2 emissions would offset that savings. If you extrapolote that to Los Altos, which produces a miniscule portion of US emissions, making Reach codes stricter unfortunately has no demonstrable impact on the issue you're trying to solve for - residents shouldn't pay any taxes to support a policy can be proven beforehand that it will show no impact. It's a frustrating finding, but it's factual, and policy decisions must be based on facts. 398
Agenda Item # 4.

This will not change anything about the environment. This is all cyclical.

Los Altos should get with the program. The temperature rise of the climate is changing rapidly for the worst. We need to do our part. Go electric as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Another way to increase the cost of owning a home and making it more dependent on our marginal electric grid system...

If houses are not ready for higher amp, it could take over a year and significant expenses to install an induction cook stove and another electric operated appliances, etc, especially in the area where electric wire is placed under ground. When we remodeled our kitchen 10 years ago, we were told that we need to have 200+ amp for our house to install an induction cook stove. To upgrade the amp, it would take a year to get approval and construction with PG and E, plus approximately over 40,000 dollars cost, plus additional 4,000 dollars upgrade on our electric box. Having a gas line to a new kitchen location in our house was only 1700 dollars. There was no brainer for us to go with a gas cooking stove. I had to give up having an induction cook stove. Trying to create a clean air environment is good, but why do some residents support some of our council members are prodeveloper and keep approving more constructions for condos that bring more cars in our area? As the city approves more condos, this will bring more cars. Not all the new residents' own electric cars! Trying to control usage of individual house's gas cook stove that may be used 15 to 60 minutes a day or so is non sense micro management, comparing to polluting air with more gas engine cars in our town. Talking about health, having a gas cook stove that is used only 15 to 60 min per day is not as bad as eating unbalanced diet, eating bad prepared /processed non organic food and over eating without exercise or even taking recreational drugs for long term.

It is unwise to demand electrification until risks of rolling blackouts is eliminated.

The commission’s “Background Statement” for this survey is egregiously biased, as is their intent — these “Overreach” codes will significantly increase energy costs for residents and businesses, ultimately create an electrical energy crisis, yet barely make a dent in the city’s so-called “carbon footprint,” all of which they clearly choose to ignore. Shame on this political power grab. But it won’t stop here — the commission has made it clear their ultimate goal is to strip *all* residents and business of their right to make informed decisions about energy use (an intolerable liberty), and will sock expensive upgrades and conversions to those who can least afford financing their pipe dreams:
specifically, seniors living on fixed income. Stop meddling in people’s private lives and drop this selfserving, self-promoting initiative altogether.

Please continue to be the leader in our community by adopting and enforcing laws/policies that help protect our environment. We only have 1 chance to do this right - after that, we are all going to be faced with catastrophic global warming. We do our part, by walking/biking to most places, and conserving water to the best of our ability. Let Los Altos be an example to other. electric pool heaters are not efficient compared to gas Very concerned regarding the push to all electric without any guarantees of infrastructure to insure ability to provide electricity to all items being proposed to be ONLY electric. The #1 of suppy chain management is NEVER SINGLE SOURCE, why are we considering single sourcing energy with no infrastructure in place to support it?
399
Agenda Item # 4.

The recommendations are frankly tiny sacrifices. Please keep pushing. Thanks.

I am a little anxious about the ability to maintain daily activities in an all electric house, esp with power outages possibly becoming more of an issue with PG&E due to environmental factors. We will just need to learn to deal with it.

Our electrical grid is not even stable. It can't support all electrical everything. Gas is cheaper and more environmentally friendly in emission as electricity is still generated through burning fossil fuel. So what's the point?
Yes! Must do this.

I do not feel the government should enact rule and regulations that reach into my home, period. That choice is mine. Not the governments.

We have solar panels, but no electric vehicle - yet. We hope our next car can be electric, and will have a charger installed at home.

Since I don't trust any polls, surveys and the like, I shall withhold any extra comments, except to say that less government is better government, and to regulate in the name of "public good" is so far a failure!
I have serious doubts about whether the electrical grid can support even the current reach codes. I am very concerned that current reach codes will overpower them. Until we have proof that we can deal with that, I completely disagree with expanding the reach codes.

It is more efficient to make heat at the point of use with gas than it is to convert gas to electricity at the power plant, send it through transmission lines and then convert the electricity to heat locally.

The additional cost, waste and CO2 released by all this is a result of clever lobbying by companies who benefit from so-called green tech policies and mandates. When their ideas are bad ones, they have to use the government’s power of force to make their money. So here we are.

Given the drought situation and how it’s negatively affecting dams, the dependence on hydroelectric power is a mistake. Our grids are taxes as it is and we need to have a way to defer some energy needs using natural gas. Being fully dependent on electricity fir cooking and other energy needs is foolish given grid cannot support it. Solar also can’t support nighttime needs. Don’t go further beyond state mandates
Requiring that gas appliances that need to be replaced become electric is a terrible and impractical idea.

We will install charger when we buy an electric car (near term goal) Climate change is our existential challenge!
We need to do this for our children and grandchildren. If we don't then we are being hypocrites.

Past time to step up!
400
Agenda Item # 4.

We should require solar on all new construction
I will send them in a separate email
I don't want the city to prohibit gas furnaces or gas cooktops in any situation. The big culprit is excessive energy use and auto traffic. The city should focus on promoting solar and electric cars by adding charging stations and solar wherever possible.

Please adopt the strictest reach codes.

As an avid cook, I wholeheartedly DO NOT want the city to dictate what type of stove I can use.

Purchasing a home without a gas stove, and no ability to add one, would be a deal breaker for me.

We would not purchase a home in Los Altos with these limitations. It's tough to char spices, tortillas, and vegetables over an induction stove. Roasting marshmallows over a gas fire pit results in a grey coating with a chemical flavor. Building a fire in a non-approved fire pit is dangerous. Please do not limit Los Altos' cooking options.

I think the Environmental Commission has been thoughtful and prudent in its considered recommendation.

This is an existential issue for mankind.

I don't understand why anyone is even allowed to build fireplaces anymore. Wood or gas both pollute and we don't rely on them for heat.

I’ll be happy to advocate for induction stove. I own one after having gas and electric. Induction is so much better. I’ll be happy to explain why. We need restaurant to adopt it too.

This is one of those initiatives where I expect our politicians doing the right thing and not only what a vocal opposition would like to do. Please approve the new code! Congratulations Los Altos!!!
Thank you for working on this! So important that we move this forward, but really appreciate the commission not forcing these changes on existing homes. (Although we’re working on making these changes in our home, slowly but surely.)
Make solar electric system mandatory on all new buildings.

Thank you for your work on this. I support full electrification given our renewable energy agreements and continued solar-ification of buildings. It’s the future; let’s do our best for the sake of our kids and grandkids.

I have a 2017 FIat500e and charge it using a regular outlet since slower charging helps the battery last longer. Thank you for doing all you are to protect the environment.

This survey is confusing
401
Agenda Item # 4.

It needs to be implemented! We owe it to our kids and grankids.

Go for it!!!
when our gas appliances and home Home heating need to be replaced, we are already wanting to make the changes.

I fully support this initiative as necessary to achieve our carbon footprint goals and to live a healthier life
I am very supportive of all measures the city is taking to mitigate climate change. Thank you for all you do!
I am not able to convert to electric at all. This is a draconian control measure that will do less than 1 % help. There are over 20 nations that burn coal. There are many nations that have more gas and oil than we do. By depleting our oil reserves this administration sets us up to be overrun by the communist countries. Shame on you all
This sort of thing should be dealt with at the nationwide level rather than individual cities because large foreign countries such as China and India produce way so much more greenhouse gases than Los Altos every could.
if you care about youth or people of color at all, please take stronger action to reduce the city's emissions
Not familiar with the various reach codes and the 2022 building code to comment. I’m concerned that our electric infrastructure, already strained, will not be able to keep up with an electrification plan that is too aggressive.

This is government over reach. The California electrical grid needs to be way more improved for reach codes to make sense. Note that my comment is based on PGE feedback. Plus if these draconian Reach codes are agreed on by our uninformed, biased council, the city needs to agree on subsidies for low income and elderly to pay for the remodels required by the installation of heat pumps etc.

The 50% improvement rule is discriminatory and should apply to any addition over 750 sq ft, period.

I would support whatever you recommend.

Please plant more trees - especially fruit trees on the streets. Create low water bee/butterfly friendly gardens in public spaces (as default). Make the city carbon neutral. Give homes a property tax credit if they install solar (or charge them more if they do not, or both).

How about including a requirement to install solar panels with a storage battery for new construction?
New gas line extensions to outdoor appliances should be prohibited, but keep option for new indoor gas stoves.

REACH codes violate the laws of thermodynamics.
402
Agenda Item # 4.

I live in nearby Mountain View. I like the idea of having an area-wide reach code since it would avoid confusion and also help builders to streamline procedures and purchasing.

I support having gas stoves and not electric
Los Altos is NOT ready to go all electric. That was a Jan Pepper pipe dream. We still need natural gas as option for some time to come.
bike
A community like Los Altos needs to be a leader on these crucial changes.

I think we should do absolutely all we can. We should be leaders in this area we are sooo fortunate and so rich compared to others in our state, our country and the world. Do the right thing. I have an electric car, solar panels and a heat pump with dual gas and electric function, and an induction cooktop. It’s all good. The only thing that concerns me is the heat pump when it gets cold. Thanks for doing this. I assume people will still grill outdoors with charcoal? I'm very concerned about climate change. We see so many effects now, which are increasing in number and severity - so I support climate solutions!
YIMBY. Currently using heat pump water and whole-home heaters, solar array, and EV, and enjoying the savings.

Need to give more incentives for solar/wind so people can afford the higher electric costs.

I live in Los Altos Hills.

Hope people make the right decisions
Natural gas is plentiful and should remain an option. Our electric grid is already over burdened and unreliable. And I have solar!
I support the Env. Comm. recommendations. Transitions can be uncomfortable and there is a tendency to drag things out to avoid change, but change is coming one way or another, so I support going all in.

Don’t overreach into use cases that have limited impact. Eg prohibiting bbqs.

Where is all this electricity coming from? And what are we supposed to do *every time* PG&E cuts off our electricity?
I don't think it has to be an all or nothing requirement. I do think that before making requirements to be all electric there needs to be development of proper infrastructure to support it all.

I am On the fence about fireplaces but I feel strongly that forcing all-electric cooking is an overreach.

You will drive out restaurants and home chefs who refuse to adapt to cooking with electric.

I strongly oppose the imposition of reach codes. I would not oppose it if the city were to offer tax breaks or rebates for people replacing gas appliances with electric. It has to be a voluntary decision by each resident, according to their preferences.
403
Agenda Item # 4.

This is very misguided. Natural gas is a highly efficient clean fuel.

Our electric grid is not set-up to handle the increased demand of electric vehicles and all electric homes. Power outages happen too often and a full scale battery back-up is not environmentally prudent in each home.

My main concern about going all-electric is if there will be enough electricity if the drought gets so bad that electricity can no longer be generated from the dams. I am glad you are allowing the replacement of current appliances to remain gas if that is what is currently being used.

I think the use of leaf blowers and movers and wood fire places is more destructive than gas I do not know the life cycle carbon foot print of electric vrs gas but I do know our electric grid is under stress
The time is now to address climate change!
It's a bitter pill, but if we don't do it in communities like Los Altos, we can't expect the rest of the US to do it!
Full reliance on monopolized, unreliable electricity from PG&E is not a reasonable solution.

My main concern is not requiring indoor stoves to be gas. Cooking on gas stoves is so much better.

Secondary is the fireplace and firepit.

Environmental Commission recommendations (excluding indoor and outdoor cooking) should be phased in to allow market to improve technology for water heaters, space heaters, pool/spa heaters, etc.
this feels excessively cumbersome to comply on top of already overly expansive building codes in Los Altos. I also don't see the point of making new construction even more expensive which will mean most homes will avoid remodeling - this will make their emissions even worse. I am quite opposed to this change!
I support electric requirements for "extra" appliances not vital to the home. I am the primary cook and have used and do not like electric stoves, at all. I don't have enough experience with electric water heaters but have heard anecdotally that they do not support large families with multiple showers running at same time. Heaters I cannot speak to and would need to learn more about. On top of which, the cost of those items is a huge deal.

It would be helpful no what the estimated cost would be for electric v gas for the different appliances, remodels, etc otherwise answering questions in a vacuum This is imperative, to survive!
Our Planet is in danger. I strongly support any measure that stop CO2 emissions. New houses and big restructuring need to be all electric. Also any change of appliances for existing house should be mandatory electric.
404
Agenda Item # 4.

Grey water systems
If we go all-electric where will the increased demand come from? I changed from all-electric 25 years ago because authorities said gas was cheaper and more efficient. Now I’m told gas is bad and I need to switch back!
I do not support this REACH in any way. Additional implementation of electric appliances should be a choice of homeowners and builders, not a mandate by politicians.

The entire concept of Reach Codes is flawed (Broken!).

This survey is very misleading and a watered down inquiry about resident's wishes regarding Reach Codes. It does not cover what the Reach Codes 2.0 want to do, including forcing replacement of any broken gas appliances with electric to a high cost to the home owner as well as requiring homes for sale replace all gas appliances. Shame on whom ever designed this survey.

Thank you for all of the research you did, the time you devoted, and explaining everything so clearly.

Much appreciated.

For god's sake, we killed this in the last survey. Why the hell do you want another survey. Don't you get the message. Your suggested policies do 0, zip, nothing for the environment and only push contractors to make money installing and maintaining all that crap.

Climate change should not be a concern of the Los Altos government. Focus on realistic issues. We have been told so many lies for years and please note that none of Al Gore's predictions ever came true, so leave us alone with more garbage science.

Everyone needs to do their share to help the planet and fight climate change before total disaster strikes!
I agree with EC recommendations. Additionally, provide financial incentives (rebates, etc.) to replace gas appliances with electric in existing homes and businesses.

We should defer to applicable State or federal requirements. The carbon footprint for Los Altos is tiny and certainly does not warrant additional local controls. Can you imagine the mess if every City has their own set of requirements? J
Electric rates in CA are astronomical/unafforaddable and unreliable.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE LAR SURVEY RESULTS. THE BEST WAY TO MOVE TOWARDS AN ELECTRIC WORLD IS WITH INCENTIVES LIKE BIDEN JUST DID WITH THE IRA BILL. FORCING PEOPLE TO CONVERT WILL NEVER WORK AND IS NOT ENFORCEABLE FOR EXISTING HOMES. PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST.

There will be the right time for all electric, but that is not now. We simply do not have enough sources of available, reliable energy sources that are not generated by fossil fuels or nuclear . People will experience power outages, restrictions and higher costs if all electric requirements are implemented in the next 5 or 10 years. It may take longer.
405
Agenda Item # 4.

Natural gas is a clean source of energy. Globally, it's actually cleaner that electricity that is produced by coal. We are nowhere close to having the infrastructure needed to eliminate fossil fuels. Los Altos needs to stick with the current state codes and not adopt any reach codes.

The electric grid is already stressed in California, don't make it worse. Electric power is made from natural gas in California, so the reach codes will do nothing to change the amount of natural gas used.

Reach codes will increase the carbon footprint of appliances by requiring the replacement of perfectly good appliances which HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRODUCED by new appliances which will have to be reduced. Don't let electric power installers and appliance producers influence our city council to adopt this ridiculous plan. Electric cars may not use gasoline, but their carbon footprint due to shipping components is huge, the battery lifespan is far lower than that of a properly maintained gasoline powered car, and the components of electric car batteries are extremely toxic to the workers who make them. Look at the environmental cost of the entire production chain before making these feel good laws.

The city needs to shut down the Environmental Commission and focus on the things most important to Los Altos Residents such as law enforcement, balanced budget. Don't place unnecessary financial burden on residents. And do not subsidize such waste, as it is derived from additional taxes.

I want to make my own decisions and I don’t want someone else to tell me which appliances I can buy.

The proposed Reach codes are not an effective tradeoff between combatting climate change and imposing onerous restrictions on new and existing residents.

I do not support codes that apply to only some residents. If these codes are important enough that the council needs to mandate them for new construction then they are important enough to impose them on existing homeowners.

I think these over-reach codes accomplish nothing, because >80% of electrical power in the US is produced using natural gas (the cleanest fossil fuel available). So requiring complete electrification of houses just shifts the use of natural gas from the houses to the electrical power plant.

I’m a bit confused but hope this helps.

While I strongly support the goals of Los Altos' enhanced reach codes, I do not agree with disallowing installation of lines for gas grills. There are currently no viable electric grill alternatives. If homeowners cannot use utility natural gas, they will buy propane tanks. That not only defeats the goal, it wastes more resources to transport metal tanks of propane.

There is no reason to go beyond what the State of California requires. Our state is one of the top, if not the top, state in the US regarding climate change. That’s good enough for me. We should preserve as much freedom as possible for individual choice regarding our home appliances.

I strongly support the Environmental Commission's very sensible reach code recommendations.

California does not have sufficient reliable electricity to justify increased dependence on it. Reliance on wind and solar energy is politically driven by people who are not concerned about the cost of socalled green energy (very expensive) or the fact that power from these sources is intermittent.

Although improvements need to be made, in my opinion, there are inadequate electrical appliances:
hot water water heaters (instant electrical ones do not meet title 24) elec fireplaces are awful, and 406
Agenda Item # 4.
until appliances improve to levels that actually work ‘in real life,’ requiring all electrical in any of the situations noted above does not make sense. Also - many homes don’t have adequate electrical service to handle unexpected added electrical load. It seems better to work toward meeting the CA State Building Code, and working at the state level to change the codes for more energy efficiency.

We are not ready to go all electrical. PG&E will just take advantage of this and make residents’ lives more pained than they are now.

I will sue the city for violation of our rights if they try to implement this nonsense Stay out of our lives!!!
I don't know anything about pool heaters and can't comment on gas vs electric for them. Would the new reach codes require solar panels and battery backup to keep the home owner's costs down? What does running a heat pump for a dryer cost?
The government incentivized solar with tax breaks instead of requiring it. That program was and is a big success. The same should be done with household batteries to reduce the strain on the grid and on our environment. Do that before you make the problem worse by requiring conversion to electric appliances. (Check out what the Island of Maui is doing to maximize renewable electric sources.) I do not support Reach Codes requiring home electrification.

All of us should do our individual and combined best to meet the emerging crisis.

What is needed are incentives for responsible residents instead of reach codes for both new and existing homes. Forcing homeowners to convert gas appliances instead of repairing is unfair due to excessive costs for new wiring or higher capacity service panel. Because it is so expensive it is also going to be ignored if you dare require these changes. And, until we get a bAtery storage for the grid we will be 95% dependent on natural gas whenever the sun does not shine enough.

This all electric proposal is way, way, way too much over-reach by city council. Follow the money.... who is getting paid on the city council to propose and push this? NO to all-electric!!! Stop this nonsense! Listen to the people, not the special interest groups.

Require new buildings to be constructed using all-electric machinery or manual labor, no fossil fueled vehicles or equipment.

We need diversity in energy supplies. Electric grid is unreliable and easy fail in summer heat and winter storms. We should learn the lesson from Europe, especially Germany on relying on single source of energy. Remember, diversity is strength.

I don’t believe Los Altos has the authority, legal or moral, to require any of these things. Let people be! Besides, do you want people to move here or not? I would not move here if there were this kind of restriction.

Live simple and use minimum natural resources are the real ways to cope with climate changes which happen periodically.
407
Agenda Item # 4.

Why do new houses need fireplaces and firepits anyway?
Climate change demands that we cut emissions as much as possible as soon as possible. Newly constructed buildings and major remodels should be all electric with no exception. Gas lines to homes are outdated.

I like my gas stove, bbq & firepit
I strongly support the new recommendations. Such code and regulation changes are precisely the kinds of changes we all need and would benefit from. Climate change cannot be solved with individual behavior change.

A natural gas cook too is essential to gourmet cooking.

There are vast economic incentives provided by the Federal government. Each homeowner needs to always make the best decision. This would be a vast overreach by the Los Altos City Council to go into people's homes and require certain appliances be limited on choices. I would expect any City Council member in favor of dictatorial overreach to not be elected in future elections, and possibly recalled.

I feel the all-electric building push is ahead of its time. Our electric supply infrasturcture is not ready and unstable. Get the infrasture ready and people will naturally mingrate to it.

Reach codes are an over reach.. I will vote against any city council member supporting them.

None of the proposed stricter regulations will have any measurable effect on global warming. They are all symbolic efforts at best. I see no point to making people's lives somewhat miserable for symbolic measures. Nobody asked you to overhaul our society's energy infrastructure and systems just because some overly vocal folks think it might be a good idea. Please restrict your activities in this area. Do something really significant or do nothing at all. Keep your egos in check.

Eliminate the Environmental Commission. They are a bunch of zealots that do not care about the residents or what they want.

Require electrical outlets accessible for gardeners at multiple points in the yard (front/back/sides) to use for landscape appliances, thus reducing the dirtiest pollution sources, ICE-based landscape tools, in Los Altos.

I will believe global warming is a problem when the rich people telling me it is a problem start acting like it is a problem.

Relying on a single source of energy (electric) from a bankrupt utility (PG&E) is a poor decision. I support initiatives to combat climate change, but PG&E burns natural gas to power the grid. There is little carbon savings. Instead, find ways to support solar and wind power on houses for near zero carbon electric power. Leave the gas appliances alone.

Let the public use their own discretion in moving toward all electric The Proposed “Reach Codes” eliminate freedom of choice, claiming that choice must be sacrificed because we have a “climate crisis.” This is no more than virtue signaling that will have no appreciable effect in addressing the so-called “crisis.” The proposals appear oblivious to the fact that more electric appliances require more electricity. In California, already under extreme grid limitations, this 408
Agenda Item # 4.
electricity will often come from natural gas, the supposed target of the Code. More and more scientists, who actually are knowledgeable about climate issues, are having the courage to speak openly about the public ignorance of the actual facts and decrying that complex issues have been hyped into apocalyptic terms by the media and politicians who have no real understanding of the actual data and science. A huge percentage of Los Altans have already made it clear that they oppose these Reach Code proposals. The Environmental Commission members, self-selected zealots, do not reflect the views of the community. They would be well-served to reign in their hubris, be open to the real facts, and listen to the community.

Private homes should be PRIVATE PROPERTY
Nothing but virtue signaling supported by an interested party, SVCE. These measures will do nothing to impact climate change. Reforming China and India is where you need to spend your energy. This is trivial and silly.

Woodland Vista Swim and Racquet Club, 1991 Deodara Drive, has a 75,000-gallon pool heated by 2 x 375,000 BTU gas heaters. Woodland Vista is the only private, commercial club with a swimming pool in Los Altos. Currently, there are no viable alternatives for gas heaters of this size. We heat the pool year-round. There are no heat pumps, that we can find, that would produce enough BTUs in the winter months to heat the pool. We currently heat the pool fully with solar for 7 months of the year, partially for 3 more and completely with gas heaters for the balance of the year. When the current heaters need to be replaced, we would like to be able to replace them with gas heaters. We would be glad to provide input to the committee regarding pools. Contact Jim Mutch, 650-961-8025. Thank you.

While I am concerned about the quality of our environment I am equally concerned about the quality of life-including freedom and choice. I hear (read about) all the dangers of using gas appliances and vehicles, but nothing about all the things necessary to supply the electric power-of which we do not seem to have a sufficient supply. Everything seems to be one sided- personal feelings and opinions, with maybe an 'authoriative' voice thrown in to provide 'proof' of your side. You are dealing with our homes, not just 'a house'.

Every city must do their part to address climate change, and that may mean taking tough decisions while wildfires rage ever closer and drought ever more intense. And that means taking as many steps to reduce fossil fuel infrastructure, even if that may feel a tad costly at the point of renovation/rebuild. But the recent federal news provides some financial assistance that can go a long way, especially if combined with other incentives. Perhaps in the future, there could be some more statistically-powerful polling done, rather than getting the usual supporters/opponents in this survey.

Restaurants should be allowed to continue to use gas stoves.

I haven't followed this very closely even though I am very concerned about the environment. Is it substantially more expensive to use electric vs. gas? Is it substantially more expensive to convert from gas to electric? It also seems like all new construction should be required to have an EV charger or easy ability to put one in.
409
Agenda Item # 4.

The only time a property ( house ) should be forced to switch to all electric is when the house id totally torn down and rebuilt. I strongly disagree that Reach Codes Applies to buildings where 50% or more of framing or foundation of the building is modified. We should only apply it to full scrapes.

I do not support restrictions on natural gas, which is clean. Electrification I support, I have solar and an e-car, but mandates are an over reach and should be motivated by financial benefits. ALL residents should continue to have a choice to choose as I did. Los Altans are educated and wise to make good choices. TRUST YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

We need to ensure we have a reliable electric grid. We are already faced with power outages and requests to reduce electricity during certain hours - very hours we are cooking dinner and home and need appropriate heating and cooling. We can't continue to increase demand for electricity that outpaces the ability to provide reliable electricity. Instead of focusing on Los Altos building, is there anythiny you can do to focus on getting the state to take the needed action to address building a reliable grid with expanded energy supply?
I think the new recommended changes are good.

Newsome just approved keeping the nuclear plant in southern California open for another 10 years s.

He wants to make sure we have as many sources as possible to meet our energy needs. People of California are smart and should have choices on the kind of energy they want to use to heat their homes, get hot water and cook. I disagree that homes that have more than 50% of the foundation and framing be forced to use electric only.
2035 seems like a long way off, but it isn't. The time to act is now.

Older homeowners should not be subjected to any replacement restriction of broken gas appliances.

Also there is no mention of natural gas or propane outside grills. Those should continue.

Make our homes more expensive and dependent on an unreliable electric grid... sounds like good government!
I support use of gas for cooking and for heat. Please keep in mind that the state of CA uses natural gas to create electricity and so the value to the environment is less impactful. Almost 47% of electricity is generated by natural gas in CA. We need to consider the data in the decisions that we make. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020- total-system-electric-generation/2018. In addition, we have a real problem with the infrastructure and power grid and putting even more pressure may be counterproductive if the grid cannot support it. I don't want all my energy use dependent on electricity which is unstable not to mention expensive. I plan to get a hybrid car so that I can contribute to cleaner air on most of my trips but full electric puts my longer trips in jeopardy because of the infrastructure.

Why ask about space heater? Don't you mean furnace? Age is irrelevant. How are you ensuring only residents take the survey and that they only take it once? Asking for a no reach codes options is negative framing and is deceptive. California has reach codes. We would be following those, if we chose not to do our own version. I love that you are suggesting prohibiting gas to outdoor areas. This is a must do in my opinion.

This survey does not ask anything about remodels or appliance replacements. I am not in support of requiring electric replacements for gas appliances (stove, water heater, furnace, dryer, etc.).

City council can stand by our Reach Codes. Don’t be afraid to move forward. 410
Agenda Item # 4.

Electrification is critical to reducing our production of GHG. It is imperative that the City and community do all we can to protect our environment for ourselves and future generations.

Have concerns about the capacity and cost to generate the electricity the new reach codes (in all cities) will require
If businesses are included in Reach Codes, I would hope there will be an exception for businesses who show their business needs require gas infrastructure. (Restaurants and Labs, for example) Greater opportunity to reduce climate change than adding burdensome requirements that are not looking at the basic reasons for reducing climate change. Electric power generation need to be changed to reduce pollution!
This is an incomplete survey and NOT well researched. what about NO reach codes. Tell China and Russia to stop their new over 400 new coal burning plants. This reach code will do NOTHING New homes built with EV car charging capable. Apartments have 2-3 EVchargers per five units, for tenants. Heat a/c from same electric units with Auto temp sensor.

I live in a condominium in which there is no EV charger, and the schools are too far away for me, especially at my age. I would love for there to be more EV chargers available throughout LA, such as in the parking lots downtown and along the streets in the commercial areas of town. Thank you The state should replace income and sales tax with carbon and water taxes. (PS: We just finished a house remodel-- no gas (even capped off), no fireplaces, 'all' heatpumps, solar.) Please revert back to the California building code - no more reach codes! If a homeowner or a developer chooses to go all electric, great, but do not mandate it. Reach codes would have an infinitesimal effect on global warming beyond the gains already locked in with the state building code.

With high electric costs and frequent grid outages due to fires or weather, gas needs to stay an option for cooking and for equity for those struggling to pay bills.

Why do you specify heat pumps as the only method of powering heaters, water heaters and dryers? Why doesn't this survey include switching from gas to electric in remodels or when replacing appliances in existing homes? Those are much bigger issues than new construction.

Stop this nonsense - these will have an absolutely negligible effect on climate change. It is simply virtue signaling, but if people want to build or convert their houses to all-electric, that is certainly their prerogative. But don't make it mandatory for everybody! I support encouraging EV infrastructure and I urge the City to get rid of the Diesel engine constantly running in the Community Center parking lot for the Covid testing. It’s horrid to have that pollution and noise, especially after the City’s efforts to reduce idling engines! What do we need an Environmental Commission for ? Stop trying to control people. If someone wants to go all electric, fine. Don't force the rest of us. FREEDOM OF CHOICE I'm a young person who's very, very concerned about climate change. I'm an advocate for passing the strictest possible reach codes. Even though some older citizens may believe that the disadvantages of implementing reach codes far outweigh the benefits, I say that these "disadvantages" don't matter in 411
Agenda Item # 4.
the face of a climate crisis that may render the world near unlivable in my lifetime. Reach codes are one step we can take to lessen Los Altos' impact on the environment! I believe the reach code recommended for new construction is sensible.

I agree with the environmental commission recommendations for all-electric newly constructed buildings and additional electric vehicle infrastructure, but I believe we should also have this apply to existing buildings if the owners are open to this idea.

I urge the city to adopt the reach codes described above. We need to do all we can to mitigate climate change and care for the environment.

I think the code should also require replacement appliances (e. g., water heaters, furnaces, etc) to be electric.

Many cities with reach codes will be strengthening them this cycle. Removing exceptions will help standardize requirements in our area, and save cost and complexity in new construction.

Humans have the biggest impact on the Climate Change we have seen over the years. We need to do EVERYTHING we can to get as close to carbon neutral as we can. With the number of very large homes being built and rebuilt in Los Altos to move to clean energy. I would like to see programs encouraging residents to move to clean energy as their appliances need to be replaced. My household is doing this and I encourage the Environmental Commission to focus on this as well. Thank you.

Would appreciate guidance on which of our legacy gas appliances we should electrify first to reduce our CO2 exhaust most. I presume our 50-gallon water heater (2012) is the priority, but I'd like confirmation.

I want to support whatever it takes to do our part for our climate change disaster.

Please pass the strongest reach codes for new construction and existing buildings. The Bay Area must decarbonize its building stock to have hope for a livable world for our children and future generations, and to inspire other municipalities to take similar action. I am not a Los Altos residents but I live in a nearby city, and each Bay Area city's actions have an impact on its neighbors, most importantly by inspiring other cities to act. Please be a leader and put the climate, our children and future generations, above any fear you may have of angering a small constituency that will always be on the wrong side of history in obstructing progress on climate change through fear mongering and misinformation tactics. Thank you.

I appreciate Los Altos city leadership taking bold action on climate that will have immediate health benefits as well as help ensure we have a livable planet for generations to come.

The requirements being proposed by the Environmental Commission are actually very minor, particularly in comparison to cities like Menlo Park who are really leading on this effort to decarbonize our buildings. It would be, frankly, embarrassing if Los Altos couldn't even agree to these requirements, which will only affect new development and substantial remodeling projects.

Eventually, we are going to need to tackle all the national gas use in existing building buildings, but these rules are not even getting started on that problem. Let's just not dig the hole any deeper by prevent new gas appliances and infrastructure in new construction. This is also going to save people money in the long run because some day they are going to be forced to switch to electric (by the state, if not the city) and retrofitting that is going to be far more expensive than making smarter choices during construction. And with all of the new federal money from the "Inflation Reduction 412
Agenda Item # 4.

Act" to subsidize the cost of electric appliances, it has suddenly become a lot more economical for people to make the smart choice, too. It should be an absolute no-brainer to approve the new reach codes.

Los Altos needs to step up to be part of the solution rather than lagging behind other cities and contributing to the worsening climate crisis. The Reach Codes proposed by the Environmental Commission are minimal at best and will affect few residents. The cost of the proposed codes are minuscule compared to the total cost of new construction or the 50% remodel. Additionally, there are financing models such as BlockPower, Pays and BeSmart, and new State and Federal laws will be provide funding for climate adaptations for buildings. I also fear about the results of this survey. It is extremely difficult to get the attention of residents on issues like this. The people who care most about the future of the planet are parents of young children, and they are most likely so busy they do not know about the issue of Reach Codes or this survey. The survey results will be slanted towards the opponents - mostly older individuals who are on a distribution list of residents who want no change.

We also need to take actions that will expedite the electrification of existing buildings. 413
Agenda Item # 4.

CLIMATE ACTION &

ADAPTATION PLAN
2022

LOS ALTOS, CA
414
Agenda Item # 4.

Mission
The mission of our Climate Action and
Adaptation Plan is to preserve the unique
character of Los Altos and enhance its natural
environment while improving the quality of
life and health of its people by supporting
transformative change in the areas of climate
action, resilience and equity.

Vision
“To place Los Altos on an accelerated,
sustainable path to carbon neutrality by
advancing bold and effective climate policies.”
2 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 415 Agenda Item # 4.

Executive
Summary
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 4163 Agenda Item # 4.

Executive Summary
Executive Summary Figure 1 Global Warming trends.

Source: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, pg. SPM-7. (IPPC slide deck pg.6)

GLOBAL WARMING TRENDS

SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT
Working Group I – The Physical Science Basis
Changes in global surface temperature relative to 1850-1900 Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years
Call to Action
There is international consensus
on the science of climate change
and actions that must be taken
over the next few years to avoid
some of the potentially catastrophic
impacts on Earth and its ability to
sustain our current population and
civilization. The CAAP’s Introduction
section presents information on the
urgency of action and policies being
developed to address and adapt to
climate change locally, nationally and
internationally in just and equitable
ways. Executive Summary Figure 1
shows that warming of the planet is
unprecedented since the middle of
the 19th Century.

Our Impacts
An updated greenhouse gas
(GHG) inventory was conducted
to understand the current GHG
emissions of Los Altos and to
establish a baseline for the
forecasting and measuring of future
emissions. Executive Summary Figure
2 shows that approximately 96% of
Los Altos’ city-wide community GHG
emissions are from the use of fossil
fuels in the transportation and energy
sectors. To mitigate Los Altos’ impact
on climate change we must:
• Switch from fossil fuels to clean
renewable electrical energy in
our buildings and residences
• Reduce vehicle miles traveled
• Electrify transportation
• Increase walking, bicycling and
shared transportation in our
lives and work
Climate Impacts
A Vulnerability Assessment was
conducted to determine threats
Los Altos is likely to face from the
changing climate, as well as assess
the City’s preparedness and capacity
to address those threats. Los Altos
will experience increased heat
waves, floods, drought, and poor
air quality from regional events and
reverberations from the regional
impacts of climate change on the
natural environment, water supply
4 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 This Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)
assesses the impacts of Los Altos on the climate,
how Los Altos can reduce its impact on the climate
and how Los Altos can adapt to the changing climate.

Executive Summary Figure 2 2018 City-wide emissions
°C
2018 CITY-WIDE EMISSIONS

TRANSPORTATION & MOBILE SOURCES

TRANSPORTATION &

MOBILE SOURCES
63,280

SOLID WASTE
2,653

COMMERCIAL
ENERGY
7,535

RESIDENTIAL
ENERGY
35,661

MUNICIPAL

OPERATIONS
1,128 WATER &

WASTEWATER
1,063

WATER & WASTEWATER

MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS

COMMERCIAL ENERGY

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY

SOLID WASTE
417
Agenda Item # 4.

Executive Summary CONTINUED
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 5 system, and the energy grid
on which we depend. Executive
Summary Figure 3 shows the
forecasted change in expected
temperatures in Los Altos. The
complete Vulnerability Assessment
is included as Appendix E.

Looking to 2050
To determine what the City’s
emissions might look like in 2050,
a series of emissions forecasts
were developed. First a BusinessAs-Usual (BAU) forecast was developed to estimate the City’s
emissions without any additional
action from Federal, State, or local
governments. The City’s Business
As-Usual emissions are expected to
increase from 111,320 metric tons
in 2018 to 116,346 metric tons in
2050. Executive Summary Figure 4
shows the results of the Cit’s BAU
forecast.

Executive Summary Figure 3
Annual average maximum temperatures in Los Altos (image from Cal-Adapt)

ANNUAL AVERAGE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE
Average of all the hottest daily temperatures in a year.

Executive Summary Figure 4 Business-as-usual forecast
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
MTCO2e
BAU Forecast (2018 - 2050)
Transportation & Mobile Sources Residential Energy Commercial Energy Solid Waste Water & Wastewater Employee Commute
Vehicle Fleet Solid Waste Facilities Buildings & Facilities Water & Wastewater Treatment Facilities Street Lights & Traffic Signals BAU FORECAST (2018-2050)
418
Agenda Item # 4.

Emissions Timeline by Scenario (MTCO2e)
Scenario 20051 20181 20302 20352
BAU 184,725 - 112,670 113,650
ABAU -- 83,025 75,700
ABAU+Existing CAP '13 - 111,320 75,885 67,160
CAAP 2022 -- 25,835 3,144 1
Historic Data (data for 2006-2017 not available; 111,320 MTCO2e used as the baseline for all scenarios) 2 Projected data based on models
Executive Summary CONTINUED
6 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 Executive Summary Figure 5 Adjusted business-as-usual forecast 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
MTCO2e
Adjusted BAU Forecast (2018 - 2050)
Transportation & Mobile Sources Residential Energy Commercial Energy Solid Waste Water & Wastewater Vehicle Fleet
Employee Commute Solid Waste Facilities Buildings & Facilities Water & Wastewater Treatment Facilities Street Lights & Traffic Signals To project the City’s emissions in 2050
including the expected impacts of
State and local actions, an Adjusted
Business-As-Usual (ABAU) forecast
was developed which includes
expected increases in fuel economy
and building energy efficiency in
California, increased EV adoption
in Los Altos specifically, and the
expected increase in air conditioning
use due to increased temperatures
related to climate change. This
forecast shows that, with the inclusion
of these additional factors, the City’s
emissions are expected to decline
from 111,320 metric tons in 2018 to
70,800 metric tons in 2050. Executive
Summary Figure 5 shows the results
of the City’s ABAU forecast.

Based on the current and forecasted
greenhouse gas emissions,
implementation of Los Altos’ 2013
Climate Action Plan, and guidance
from City government and the
community, the CAAP is based
on pursuing a goal of Carbon
Neutrality by 2035. Reducing
EMISSIONS TIMELINE BY SCENARIO (MTCO2e)
Executive Summary Table 1 Emissions Timeline by Scenario as many GHG emissions produced
by the City and its residents as
possible and sequestering the
remaining emissions through naturebased solutions, innovative carbon sequestration solutions, communitybased sequestration projects, and local carbon offsets will be required
to reach Carbon Neutrality by 2035.

After factoring in the impacts of the
2021 Reach Codes and 2013 CAP
actions not included or modified in
this update, we will need to reduce
our net emissions by an additional
60,000 metric tons by 2030 and
a further 15,000 metric tons by
2035 to reach our carbon neutrality
goal. Executive Summary Table
1 summarizes the historical and
projected emissions for Los Altos.

Strategic roadmap
To help Los Altos be more resilient
and carbon neutral, a roadmap of
Strategies, Goals and Actions was
developed. This roadmap defines the
actions, their schedule, estimated cost
and expected benefits. The roadmap
is broken into three sections:
• Greenhouse gas mitigation
strategies
• Climate adaptation strategies
• Cross-cutting strategies
(ones that deliver both
mitigation and adaptation
outcomes)
ADJUSTED BAU FORECAST (2018-2050)
419
Agenda Item # 4.
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 MTCO2e
Emission Reductions by Focus Area
Transportation Energy Resource Conservation Municipal Operations -
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 MTCO2e
Emission Reductions by Focus Area
Transportation Energy Resource Conservation Municipal Operations Executive Summary CONTINUED
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 7 Executive Summary Figure 6 shows
the relationship of these three types
of strategies to each other. Some
of the strategies build on existing
efforts within Los Altos like the 2013
CAP, the 2018 Green Infrastructure
Stormwater Management Plan, or the
Complete Streets Master Plan. Most
are new strategies adopted or altered
from other California CAAPs and
programs beyond California. Others
were developed in discussion with
different stakeholders.

Through quantitative and qualitative
analysis, stakeholder engagement,
and survey of best practices, 68
actions were identified and prioritized.

The Strategic Roadmap section of
this plan contains a summary of
the proposed Strategies, Goals and
Actions grouped by Focus Area, as
well as the strategy development
process and a detailed description of
each action. Executive Summary Table
2 lists CAAP strategies by Focus Area.

Executive Summary Figure 7 shows
Los Altos’ forecasted pathway to
carbon neutrality by Focus Area. Note
that approximately 3,144 MTCO2e
remain in 2035 that will need to be
eliminated through the sequestration
solutions mentioned above.

The CAAP strategies entail
transforming the urban landscape
to make it more walkable, bikeable,
and livable; supporting green
transportation options; switching
to clean, renewable energy in our
buildings; reducing consumption
and waste; promoting green
infrastructure and nature-based
solutions; understanding and
reducing climate risks; and leading
through example by addressing
municipal operations.

Executive Summary Figure 6 Relationship between mitigation and adaptation actions

MITIGATION

ADDRESS

THE CAUSE

ADAPTATION

ADDRESS

THE IMPACTS

SUSTAINABLE

TRANSPORTATION
CLEAN
ENERGY

BUILDING

ELECTRIFICATION
WASTE

REDUCTION

BUILDING

WEATHERIZATION
SMART
GROWTH

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

DISASTER

PREPAREDNESS

RESTORATION OF

NATURE AREAS
EQUIP

COMMUNITIES FOR

EXTREME WEATHER

SEA LEVEL RISE

PROTECTION

WATER AND ENERGY

CONSERVATION
Executive Summary Table 2 Strategies by Focus Area
Strategies by Focus Area
Focus Area Strategies
Reduce City-Wide Vehicle Miles Traveled by 25% by 2035
Electrify Transportation
Electrify Off-Road Mobile Sources
Reduce Emissions from Energy Consumption
Facilitate Building Decarbonization
Increase Solar Energy Production
Resource Conservation Reduce Consumption and Waste
Operate Sustainable Municipal Buildings
Promote Green Municipal Practices
Reduce Municipal VMT
Integrate Climate Action and Adaptation into City Functions Green Community Develop Nature-Based Solutions
Climate Risk Understand and Reduce Physical Risk
Emergency Management Integrate Adaptation into Emergency Preparedness and Response Resilient Community Educate and Protect Residents
Transportation
Energy
Municipal Operations

STRATEGIES BY FOCUS AREA
Executive Summary Figure 7 Emissions reductions by Focus Area

EMISSION REDUCTIONS BY FOCUS AREA
420
Agenda Item # 4.
8 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 Executive Summary CONTINUED
Priority Actions
Because most of the CAAP actions
support or reinforce the objectives of
other actions, essentially all the CAAP
actions need to be implemented,
monitored, and achieved to reach
our goal of Carbon Neutrality by
2035. However, all actions cannot be
implemented at once. To assist policy
makers and staff in the allocation of
City resources:
• Each action includes a priority
rating (Priority 1 being the
highest)
• Each action includes an
assessment of the action’s CoBenefits (Cost Effectiveness, Community Benefits, Economic
Benefits, Aligns with State
and Local Policies, Promotes
Equity & Climate Justice)
• The final page of each action
Focus Area contains a timeline
for implementing the highest
priority actions within the
Focus Area.

A summary of key action items is
presented in the Priority Actions by
Focus Area section of the CAAP.

Implementing the CAAP
City policies and resources must
first be directed to Priority 1 Actions
in the Transportation and Energy
Focus Areas. The faster and larger
the GHG reductions made in these
Focus Areas, the better chance Los
Altos will have in meeting its Carbon
Neutrality goal. Progress on selected
Priority 1 Actions in the other Focus
Areas is important while maintaining
attention on Transportation and
Energy. Timelines for each action
are not specified in the CAAP for
several reasons. Available capital
investments budget, available staff,
secured outside funding, committed
community partnerships and
resident support for CAAP actions
will determine which and how many
Priority 1 Actions will be initiated and
maintained each year.

The CAAP contains detailed
information to assist Los Altos policy
makers and staff in prioritizing and
selecting actions including:
• Anticipated GHG reductions
for each action (Appendix D)
• Methods and assumptions
made in determining GHG
reductions, cost and staff
requirements (Appendix E)
• Recommended leaders,
partners, estimated cost and
potential funding sources and
programs (Appendix F)
• A general timeline, key
performance indicators and
performance monitoring
(Appendix G)
Maintaining flexibility in
implementing the CAAP will be
important. As technologies, business
models, funding and political will
evolve, Los Altos will need to
remain flexible in when and how it
implements the actions in the CAAP.

Los Altos must evaluate and adjust
course as necessary.

Monitoring & Reporting
Although actions may have different
milestones to completion and
benchmarks of success, monitoring
and reporting allow implementation
to be evaluated and tracked by
City departments, elected officials,
and the public. Monitoring the
progress towards goals and reporting
on results is a critical step in
implementing the CAAP.

As progress towards key targets is
tracked, Los Altos may need to scale
up or down its efforts depending
on the results observed. The City
should update the CAAP in 2025
and 2030, and report every two
years on greenhouse gas emissions
and progress towards goals. For
monitoring and evaluation of
adaptation actions, the City should
conduct a debrief within one year of
all hazardous events such as floods,
wildfires, and severe air pollution,
then adjust actions as necessary
based on those findings. The City’s
Environmental Commission should be
able to update the CAAP during its
life cycle.

Conclusion
The goals of this plan are to set
the City on a path towards carbon
neutrality and climate resilience.

The goals are ambitious, but
ones that we believe we can
achieve. If we achieve these
goals - carbon neutrality, equity,
sustainability, resilience - we will
create a community that is healthy,
connected, and vibrant. Please
fully participate in implementing
this CAAP, and see Appendix A
presenting personal actions, entitled
“What Can I Do Now?" to find
suggestions for simple actions each
individual can take to help.
421
Agenda Item # 4.

Contents
15 LETTER

FROM THE
MAYOR
The Los Altos
community has
worked together
to shape this vision
through 2035.
21 EQUITY
AND

CLIMATE

JUSTICE
It's important for
the City to reduce
its emissions so as
to not adversely
affect vulnerable
communities
03 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
Los Altans have
been planning for
the sustainable use
of energy, waste,
water and land
resources.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 9 ● LIST OF FIGURES 11
● LIST OF TABLES 12
● ACRONYMS 13
● ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 14
● INTRODUCTION 16
▶▶▶ CALL TO ACTION 17
▶▶▶ BACKGROUND 19
▶▶▶ POLICY BACKDROP 19
▶▶▶ ALIGNMENT WITH CITY 21

PLANS AND POLICIES
▶▶▶ DEVELOPING THE CAAP 21
▶▶▶ EQUITY AND CLIMATE JUSTICE 21
● OUR IMPACTS 22
● CLIMATE IMPACTS 27
● LOOKING TO 2050 30
● STRATEGIC ROADMAP 33
▶▶▶ DEVELOPMENT AND METHODOLOGY 35
▶▶▶ MITIGATION STRATEGIES 36
■ FOCUS AREA 1 37

TRANSPORTATION
■ FOCUS AREA 2 44
ENERGY
■ FOCUS AREA 3 51

RESOURCE CONSERVATION
■ FOCUS AREA 4 54

MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
▶▶▶ CROSS-CUTTING STRATEGIES 58
■ FOCUS AREA 5 61

GREEN COMMUNITY
■ FOCUS AREA 6 64

CLIMATE RISK
▶▶▶ CLIMATE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES 68
■ FOCUS AREA 7 69

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
■ FOCUS AREA 8 73

RESILIENT COMMUNITY
422
Agenda Item # 4.

Contents
93 CONCLUSION
The ambitious goals of this plan are to set the
City on a path towards carbon neutrality and
climate resilience.
10 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 APPENDIX A 96
“WHAT CAN I DO NOW?” GUIDE
APPENDIX B 98

CAAP FACT SHEET
APPENDIX C 103

GLOSSARY
APPENDIX D 105

ACTIONS LIST
APPENDIX E 109

TECHNICAL APPENDIX
APPENDIX F 115

IMPLEMENTATION LEADS, PARTNERS,

COSTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES
APPENDIX G 122

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
AND KPIs
APPENDIX H 127

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
● PRIORITY ACTIONS
● IMPLEMENTING THE CAAP
▶▶▶ IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
▶▶▶ BUDGET
▶▶▶ IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
▶▶▶ MONITORING & REPORTING
■ MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING
■ ADAPTATION MONITORING & REPORTING
▶▶▶ ALIGNMENT WITH FUNDING RESOURCES
■ FUNDING IMPLEMENTATION
■ MITIGATION FUNDING SOURCES
■ ADAPTATION FUNDING SOURCES
▶▶▶ A NOTE ON CONSUMPTION-BASED INVENTORIES
▶▶▶ CONCLUSION
76 77
78 79
84 85
85 85
86 87
88 91
93 94

UNDER SEPARATE COVER
423
Agenda Item # 4.

List of Figures
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 11 ▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE 1 4
Global Warming trends
▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE 2 4
2018 City-wide emissions
▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE 3 5
Annual average maximum
temperatures in Los Altos
▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE 4 5
Business-as-usual forecast
▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE 5 6
Adjusted business-as-usual forecast
▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE 6 7
Relationship between mitigation
and adaptation actions
▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURE 7 7
Emissions reductions by Focus Area
▶▶▶ FIGURE 1 17
Global Warming trends
▶▶▶ FIGURE 2 18
The Five-Step Climate
Action Planning Process
▶▶▶ FIGURE 3 19
Impacts of Climate Change
▶▶▶ FIGURE 4 21
Achieving carbon neutrality
▶▶▶ FIGURE 5 26
2005 Government emissions sources
▶▶▶ FIGURE 6 26
2005 Community emissions sources
▶▶▶ FIGURE 7 26
2018 Government emissions sources
▶▶▶ FIGURE 8 26
2018 Community emissions sources
▶▶▶ FIGURE 9 28
Annual average maximum
temperatures in Los Altos
▶▶▶ FIGURE 10 28
Changes to the water cycle
due to climate change
▶▶▶ FIGURE 11 29
Changes to the water cycle due
to climate change continued
▶▶▶ FIGURE 12 31
Business-as-usual forecast
▶▶▶ FIGURE 13 31
Adjusted business-as-usual forecast
▶▶▶ FIGURE 14 32
Emissions reductions by Focus Area
▶▶▶ FIGURE 15 34
Relationship between mitigation
and adaptation actions
▶▶▶ FIGURE 16 35
CAAP Focus Areas
▶▶▶ FIGURE 17 37
Life cycle GHG emissions of passenger
car segment gasoline ICEVs, PHEVs,
BEVs, and FCEVs registered in the
United States in 2021
▶▶▶ FIGURE 18 78
Mainstreaming climate investments
▶▶▶ FIGURE 19 86
Funding options hierarchy
▶▶▶ FIGURE 20 93
Consumption-based inventories explained
424
Agenda Item # 4.

List of Tables
12 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 ▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE 1 6
Emissions Timeline by Scenario
▶▶▶ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE 2 7
Strategies by Focus Area
▶▶▶ TABLE 1 20
Relevant State policies affecting
climate planning in California
▶▶▶ TABLE 2 23
Greenhouse gas inventory
data sources
▶▶▶ TABLE 3 24
Emissions comparison table
▶▶▶ TABLE 4 25
Most impactful GHG reducing
actions from 2013 CAP
▶▶▶ TABLE 5 32
Emissions by Scenario
(2030 & 2035)
▶▶▶ TABLE 6 80
Mitigation Budget
▶▶▶ TABLE 7 82
Cross-Cutting Budget
▶▶▶ TABLE 8 83
Adaptation Budget
▶▶▶ TABLE 9 87
Local funding mechanisms
▶▶▶ TABLE 10 88
Mitigation funding sources
▶▶▶ TABLE 11 91
Adaptation funding sources
425
Agenda Item # 4.

ABAG
Association of Bay Area
Governments
ABAU
Adjusted Business-As-Usual
ADU
Accessory Dwelling Unit
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
BAU
Business-As-Usual
CAAP
Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan
CAP
(2013) Climate Action Plan
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CBI
Consumption-Based Inventory
CCA
Community Choice Aggregation
CSMP
Complete Streets Master Plan
DCFC
Direct Current Fast Charger
EC
Environmental Commission
EV
Electric Vehicle
EVSE
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
FEMA
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Acronyms
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
GWP
Global Warming Potential
HVAC
Heating, Ventilation and
Air Conditioning
ICLEI
International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
MTC
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
MTCO2e
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
OES
California Office of
Emergency Services
OPR
California Office of Planning
and Research
PSPS
Public Safety Power Shutoff
RCP
Representative Concentration
Pathway
SB 379
California Senate Bill No. 379
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 13 SVCE
Silicon Valley Clean Energy
VA
Vulnerability Assessment
VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled
UWMP
Utility Water Master Plan
ZNE
Zero Net Energy
426
Agenda Item # 4.

CITY COUNCIL
Anita Enander
Mayor
Sally Meadows
Vice Mayor
Neysa Fligor
Councilmember
Lynette Lee Eng
Councilmember
Jonathan Weinberg
Councilmember

ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMISSION
Bruno Delagneau
(CAAP subcommittee)
Raashina Humayun
(CAAP subcommittee)
Don Weiden
(CAAP subcommittee)
Laura Teksler
Shiao-ping Lu
David Klein
Lei Yuan

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

COUNCIL LIAISON
Sally Meadows
Neysa Fligor

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

SUSTAINABILITY

COORDINATORS
Emiko Ancheta
Laura Simpson
CAAP

TASK FORCE
Kirk Ballard
Building Official
Jon Biggs
Community Development Director
Anthony Carnesecca
Economic Development Coordinator
Jamie Chew
Recreation Manager
Ann Hepenstal
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Manny Hernandez
Municipal Services Director
Jennifer Leal
Human Resources Manager
Donna Legge
Recreation and Community
Services Director
Scott McCrossin
Captain of Police
Guido Persicone
Design Review Commission Liaison
Jim Sandoval
Engineering Services Director

COMMUNITY

PARTNERS
GreenTown Los Altos
Los Altos Property Owners Downtown
Los Altos Village Association
Los Altos Chamber of Commerce
LAYCAT
(Los Altos Youth Climate
Action Team)
Los Altos High School
(Green Team Student Club)
Los Altos History Museum
LAUSD Outdoor Educator
Orchard Commons Committee
BATS Block Action Team
Grass Roots Ecology
Los Altos Rotary Club
Parks & Recreation
Commission Liaison
Youth Commission Liaison
Complete Streets Commission Liaison
Senior Commission Liaison

THANKS TO
Abby Young
BAAQMD
Louie Pellegrini,
Mission Trail Waste Systems
Shruti Mukhtyar,
UC Berkeley, College of Natural
Resources
Kasmira Kit
California Governor’s Office
of Emergency Services
Rebecca Lucky
City of Menlo Park

CONSULTANTS
EcoShift Consulting
Fehr & Peers
Urban Planning Partners
Baseline Environmental Consulting
Acknowledgments
14 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 427 Agenda Item # 4.

Letter from Mayor Enander
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 15 California has a long history of
variable climate, drought, and
wildfires. The impact of human
activity is profound, and, together
with the continued population growth
expected in the Bay Area, compels us
to act to mitigate those impacts.

The health and safety of our
residents must be foremost in the
actions of local government. We face
several immediate needs. We must
improve water conservation and find
better ways to manage that precious
resource. Rising sea level will
impact our storm- and wastewater
treatment systems and compel us
to work cooperatively with the City
of Palo Alto on changes needed
to keep our shared wastewater
treatment plant functioning. Because
a single wildland fire can negate
the substantial positive actions
on carbon reduction, we must
encourage proper management
of adjacent wildlands and prevent
the spread of fire into our city. In
planning for significant population
growth as mandated by the State
of California, new ways to work
and to commute are key to making
continued progress on reducing
GHG emissions. Increasing our tree
canopy and enhancing our green
spaces are essential strategies for
mitigating temperature increases
and sequestering carbon.

This Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan documents the tremendous
progress Los Altos has made
since 2005, having achieved a 40
percent reduction in GHG against
a target of 15 percent reduction.

Our success is attributable in
the government sector largely
to changes in work schedule/
commute and to adoption of efficient
lighting and energy consumption
in city buildings. Notable in this
effort was the opening of our new
Community Center, built to LEED
Gold standard. The Center provides
an incredible community resource
that demonstrates the possibilities
with sustainable construction and
operation. Our community also
contributed with huge reductions
from changes in transportation
and energy, the latter resulting
substantially from the move to
sustainable energy production
through Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

The combination of mitigation and
adaptation strategies recommended
in the CAAP show the breadth of
actions needed for the future. The
plan wisely shows that both strategies
are needed as we strive to reduce
our adverse impacts and adapt to
changes we cannot directly control.

The Los Altos community has
worked together to shape this vision
through 2035. City government
can lead some efforts, but many
depend on the actions of individual
residents. Only through the
combined actions of both can we
achieve the goals set out here.

Los Altos has demonstrated it can
achieve what we, as a community,
want to achieve. There is something
here for each of us to contribute to
creating a healthy, environmentally
sustainable community.

Anita Enander, Mayor
428
Agenda Item # 4.

Introduction DRAFT
16 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 429 Agenda Item # 4.

Introduction
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 17

CALL TO ACTION
The citizens and government of Los
Altos have a long history of bold and
forward-looking climate action. Since
the adoption of the City’s first Green
Building Ordinance in 2007, Los Altans
have been planning for the sustainable
use of energy, waste, water and land
resources. In 2013, Los Altos’ first
Climate Action Plan was released,
calling for a 15% reduction in GHG
emissions by 2020 as compared
to 2005 levels. This update to the
City's Climate Action Plan includes
an adaptation section to prepare for
the local impacts of climate change
and represents the next step in the
journey towards a sustainable, healthy,
equitable future.

The next few years are incredibly
important in limiting global
temperature increase to 1.5°C and
avoiding the most catastrophic
impacts of climate change. As Figure
1 shows, warming of the planet is
unprecedented since the middle
of the 19th Century, and has been
accelerating since the 1950s. As of
2020, the planet has already warmed
by 1.1°C1. Figure 3 shows the impacts
this warming has already had on our
planet. By 2030 global emissions need
to be halved, and carbon neutrality
achieved before 2050. The longer
we wait to take action, change will
become increasingly expensive and will
eventually be impossible.

According to the most recent report
from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth
has warmed 1.09°C since 1850
and many changes such as sealevel rise and glacier and arctic ice melt are now virtually irreversible1.

Global temperatures are likely to
increase to a total of 1.5°C by the
mid-2040's which will further stress
our environmental systems and
result in Los Altos experiencing more
1 IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K.

Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press. frequent and more intense heat
waves, winter floods, drought and
wildfire air pollution events. On a
global level, we are rushing to find
solutions, but the most effective
solutions that will be developed
are at the local level. Although Los
Altos has taken action to mitigate
emissions produced locally, we can
do more and need to do more.

Here in Los Altos, we are already
Figure 1 Global Warming trends
Source: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, pg. SPM-7.

SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT
Working Group I – The Physical Science Basis
Changes in global surface temperature relative to 185
Human influence has warmed the climate at
unprecedented in at least the last 2000 year

GLOBAL WARMING TRENDS
430
Agenda Item # 4.

Introduction CONTINUED
18 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 facing periods of severe drought,
heat waves, and poor air quality
more frequently. We’ve seen wildfires
in the hills and the air darkened with
smoke. We are not insulated. While
some responses will need to be
coordinated regionally, it is important
for Los Altos to take quick and
effective action locally if we want to
maintain our quality of life. The good
news is that strong and sustained
transition from combustion engines
and moving away from methane
gas for heating our buildings could
quickly make air quality better and in
20 to 30 years global temperatures
could stabilize.

A five-step Climate Action Planning
process was described in the 2013
CAP, which has been followed here and
is shown in Figure 2. By including a
Vulnerability Assessment and climate
adaptation strategies in this plan, the
City now has a comprehensive set of
actions designed to both reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions and prepare
our community for the future impacts
of climate change. This updated Climate
Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), will
help guide the City’s actions into the
coming decade and beyond.

In the end, we believe Los Altos can
achieve its climate goals within the
next 15 years if we take an aggressive
approach. Following the guidance
in this plan, we need to commit
wholeheartedly to these actions
and get them underway as soon as
possible. To guide this effort, the
City has developed these Vision and
Mission statements.

VISION
“To place Los Altos on an accelerated,
sustainable path to carbon neutrality
by advancing bold and effective
climate policies.”

MISSION
“The mission of our Climate Action
and Adaptation Plan is to preserve
the unique character of Los Altos
and enhance its natural environment
while improving the quality of life and
health of its people by supporting
transformative change in the areas of
climate action, resilience and equity.”
Figure 2 The Five-Step Climate Action Planning Process

T H E F I V E - S T E P C L I M AT E A C T I O N

PLANNING PROCESS
1 INVENTORY

EMISSIONS
2 ESTABLISH A

REDUCTION
TARGET
3 ADOPT

MEASURES

TO ACHIEVE
TARGET
4 IMPLEMENT

MEASURES
5 EVALUATE

PROGRESS
431
Agenda Item # 4.

Introduction CONTINUED
Figure 3 The impacts of climate change.

Source: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Working Group 1– The Physical Science Basis presentation, slides 9.

SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT
Working Group I – The Physical Science Basis
Highest
in at least
2 million years
CO2
concentration
Sea level
rise
Glaciers
retreat
Arctic sea ice
area
Fastest rates
in at least
3000 years
Lowest level
in at least
1000 years
Unprecedented
in at least
2000 years
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 19

BACKGROUND
The City’s 2013 Climate Action Plan
was designed to serve as a guiding
document towards GHG reductions,
both in municipal operations and
community-wide. It was designed
as a comprehensive strategy to
reduce emissions in a manner
consistent with state guidelines and
regulations, and to identify costeffective opportunities for existing and future residents, businesses,
and development projects for a more
sustainable community. At the same
time, the CAP provided a framework
for environmental leadership and
an educational resource to the
community.

This update provides a pathway
to the City’s bolder GHG reduction
target, as well as a framework for
a climate-resilient community. The
goals of this CAAP are:
• Reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions
• Increase climate resilience
(SB 379 compliance)
• Demonstrate leadership
The Los Altos Sustainability
Coordinator and Environmental
Commission (EC) oversaw the
development of the CAAP. In
addition, a City-led climate Task
Force made up of department
heads and City employees was
assembled to provide expert input
and guidance. Together, these
groups helped ensure the CAAP is
realistic, feasible, and relevant to
the residents of Los Altos.

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY BACKDROP
There are many international,
national, State, and local policies
and regulations designed to affect
climate change and sustainability,
and this CAAP was developed with
those policies and regulations as a
guide. This way, the City ensures
it’s doing its part to help meet
larger-scale goals and support
science-based targets. By developing
the Vulnerability Assessment and
Adaptation Framework included in
this plan, the City also helps meet
its SB 379 compliance requirements.

Table 1 describes the most relevant
State policies affecting climate
action planning for cities.
432
Agenda Item # 4.

Table 1 Relevant State policies affecting climate planning in California.

STATE POLICIES
Introduction CONTINUED
20 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 Legislation Year Name Description
AB 32 2006 CA Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006
Requires CARB to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas
emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse
gas emissions levels in 1990 to be achieved by 2020.

SB 32 2016 CA Global Warming Solutions Act:
emissions limit
Requires CARB to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas
emissions are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by
2030.

EO B-55-18 2018 Executive Order to Achieve Carbon
Neutrality Calls for carbon neutrality by 2045.

EO B-16-12 2012 ZEV Mandate Requires State agencies to facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).

EO B-30-15 2015 Executive Order to Achieve Carbon
Neutrality
Sets interim target of greenhouse gas emissions 40% less than 1990 levels by 2030.

AB 1493 (Pavley I) 2002 Automobile Emission Standards State law requiring the first set of greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger vehicles.

SB 379 2015 Climate Adaptation and Resiliency
Strategy
Requires all cities and counties to include climate
adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety
elements of their general plans.

SB 350 2015 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction
Act of 2015
Requires electricity providers, investor-owned utilities, and CCAs to increase their procurement of renewable
generated electricity to 50% by 2030.

SB 100 2018 CA Renewables Portfolio Standard Sets a target of 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045.

SB 1383 2016 Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
Reduction Strategy
Legislation requiring reductions in emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (like methane) by 40-50% below 2013
levels by 2030.

AB 398 2017 Law extending California’s cap-and-trade program through 2030
SB 535 2012 Legislation requiring the state to direct at least 25% of state cap-and-trade revenues to go to projects that
SB 375 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act
Directs CARB to set regional targets for GHG reductions from passenger vehicles
SB 743 2013 Updates the way transportation impacts are measured in California for new development projects
Executive Order Establishing 2030
Emissions Target
state cap-and-trade revenues to go to projects that
benefit disadvantaged communities
Legislation Year Name Description
AB 32 2006 CA Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006
Requires CARB to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas
emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse
gas emissions levels in 1990 to be achieved by 2020.