Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, September 26, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, September 26, 2023
via Videoconference and In Person
Please Note: The City Council will meet in person as well as via Telephone/Video Conference https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/82931380168?pwd=NjlzSk5sYjRzWERIenlKVlJuTmRFQT09 Webinar ID: 885 8752 5597
Passcode: 757756
Telephone: 1-669-444-9171
TO PARTICIPATE IN-PERSON: Members of the public may also participate in person by being present at the Los Altos Council Chamber at Los Altos City Hall located at 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA.

TO PARTICIPATE VIA VIDEO: Follow the link above. Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of ZOOM installed (available at https://zoom.us/download). To request to speak, please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.

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

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

PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE
Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper must be received by 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Correspondence received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record. .

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

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM
1 9/26/2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 3

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Speakers are generally given two or three minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period. According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.
09-26-2023 Written Public Comments

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

1. Approve Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting of September 12, 2023

2. Treasurer’s Report – Month Ended June 30, 2023

PUBLIC HEARINGS

3. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications SC22-0029 & V23-0002 at 5790 Arboretum Drive This item was continued from the Regular Meeting of June 27, 2023

4. Introduce and Waive Further Reading of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments which implement programs identified in the adopted housing element, Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts, Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza, Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and multi-family, Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings applicable to housing Developments, Program 3.N: Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts and consideration of the City of Los Altos Planning Commission’s September 7, 2023 decisions; Action (1) on Program 3.C, PASSED (4-Yes, 1-No, 1-Rescue, 1-Absent); Action (2) on Program 3.B, 3.F, 3.G, 3.N, PASSED (6-Yes, 1-Absent) both recommendations approved the proposed amendments with minor modifications. The proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since there would be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment

DISCUSSION ITEMS

5. Confirmation of City Council Appointments to City Commissions and Committee 2 9/26/2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 3

6. Council consideration of Vice Mayor Weinberg’s request to discuss remedial action regarding Planning Commissioner Kate Disney’s violation of the City’s Norms and policies

7. Cities Association of Santa Clara County's request for approval of Joint Powers Agreement to establish the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Joint Powers Agency

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY

8. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

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

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

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

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

If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. 3 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Marie Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 4:32 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: re Item #4, 9/26/23 City Council Agenda
Dear Mayor Meadows and Members of the Los Altos City Council, As a longtime resident and homeowner (since 1976) of Los Altos, I am increasingly concerned with misinformation circulating about the possible redevelopment of Rancho Shopping Center. Although I don’t live in that neighborhood, I shop at businesses there regularly.

Apparently many people don’t understand the powers and limitations the City Council has, nor, apparently is the role of the property owner well understood.

In this case, the Council is simply following the law, having committed to rezoning parts of the City through the Housing Element. If they were not to do so, we could face harsh penalties from the State. I commend you for herculean efforts to keep R-1 (single family housing in place.

The city does not build housing. The owner of Rancho is in the driver’s seat in that regard and could, if he so desired, raze all of Rancho and replace it with housing now, regardless of Council decisions about zoning.

Some 34.2% of responses to The Town Crier’s admittedly unscientific poll last week favor including both retail and housing at Rancho, which seems like a smart way to go especially given the age and condition of the current buildings.

Marie Young
Los Altos
4 September 24, 2023
Re: September 26, 2023, Meeting, Agenda Item #4
(Zone Text Amendments)
Dear Mayor Meadows and Members of the City Council:

The League of Women Voters (LWV) supports policies that encourage the development of housing, particularly affordable housing.

The LWV supports the staff recommendations and the proposed Zone Text Amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2023.

These amendments should encourage housing development that will allow Los Altos to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals. While the current zoning allows for residential units in mixed-use development, the proposed Commercial Neighborhood (CN) would allow all residential development. Height limits in mixed-use zones were noted as a serious constraint to redevelopment, as were the floor-area-ratios (FARs) at Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza. Allowing residential mixed use in various districts and multi-family uses in appropriate areas of mixed-use districts as a permitted use rather than a conditional use will provide greater certainty to developers and reduce the permitting time.

Please send any questions about this email to Sue Russell, Co-Chair of the Housing Committee, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Katie Zoglin
President
LWV of Los Altos-Mountain View Area
C: Gabe Engeland, City Manager
Melissa Thurman, City Clerk
Nick Zornes, Development Services Director
[email protected]
5 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Penny Lave <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:43 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Zoning Ordinance
I doubt any Los Altos resident is happy with the loss of local control that the State of California has appropriated in order to force cities to allow more housing to be built. The plain truth is we operate under the governance of the Federal System, the State, the County and lastly the City. The City has experienced in the past the futility of defying State housing laws. It has meant large fines and damages.

But, in addition to the fiscal penalties, it is important to recognize and follow the law. Council members can not be expected to defy the state when they disagree with it. Nor should they. City government has to have a legal foundation or it will not be respected on any level.

While the Council may, or may not, agree with State mandates, it must follow them.

Penny Lave
Sent from my iPad
6 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Jeanine Valadez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Administration; Public Comment; City Council; Gabriel Engeland Subject: Public Comment - Not on the Agenda: Opposition to 5g node on San Juan Ct City Manager Gabe Engeland, Honorable Mayor Sally Meadows, and Esteemed Members of the City Council, I am hereby submitting this public comment to outline the reasons for my opposition to the installation of a 5g small cellular node on my cul de sac, San Juan Court.

First, I want to mention that I appreciate past efforts by Staff and the City Council to draft standards by which such installations might occur. I supported these criteria and also supported the issuance of the Urgency Ordinance. I am also aware that in the time since, decisions were made determining that installations shall proceed. I itemize my concerns and objections below.

1. Deceptive Information
: Once again, we learned of this change by opening what looked like junk mail this past weekend.

Notices of this kind should be labeled on the envelope exterior clearly with “Urgent: Need your input on <topic or change> by <deadline>!” Moreover, there was no real information in the letter to explain why our street was chosen, or whether other small cell nodes will be installed nearby now or in the near future. There should have been included in this letter a local map showing proposed node placement, say 1000ft around this proposed node location. Additionally, some of the pictures, specifically the large one on the back of the actual letter, show only the tall extension at the top of the current pole; this picture does not show the equipment hung on the body of the pole.

2. Fear and Health Concerns
: Despite federal prohibitions against using health concerns when installing 5g nodes; science should still rule the day. There remains a large body of data that supports more restraint when it come to exposing our brains, particularly young and very old brains, to electromagnetic waves, especially highfrequency ones. Egan is adjacent to our cul de sac. There is also the hum and whirring of fans; never good when it goes on 24-7.

3. Property Value, Visual and Auditory Blight
: Impact on property value will be negative, particularly if a resident on this cul de sac foresees selling their house in the next 10 years, which is likely how long it will take to really miniaturize 5g nodes and deploy a fully functional network. Whether allowed as a valid objection or not, the fears of potential buyers about health risks will lower buying interest in my home. The height of the pole extension is far taller than the picture ATT provided years ago. Additionally, this equipment is ugly and hangs too low on the pole (probably required else the pole would be top-heavy). The equipment is obtrusive and interferes with one’s regular line-of-site on our street. Our street wires are bad enough. Having this bulky equipment so visible is sure to sway buyers away. This is not a taller housing development with a 7 2
beautiful façade seen through tall trees across San Antonio (should LASD build teacher housing at Egan); this is right in our faces. If you look at the pictures in the letter, that big box and the other ancillary components just above my neighbors’ mailboxes are in scale. They will be bigger and taller than their mailbox columns! They will be what my neighbors, Pat, Bonnie, Marie, and Al immediately see when they look out their windows and walk out their doors. The fans will be audible 24-7. The rest of us will all see and hear that bulky equipment every day. Clearly ATT lied, and what this really betrays is that 5g remains "not ready for prime time." It's still big, clunky and hot.

4. San Juan Court is too small
: Right in front of one’s home is NOT the place for a 5g node - atop one’s home is NOT the place – one’s backyard is NOT the place. Our street is too small for this level of intrusion. There is no lack of AT&T coverage on our narrow cul de sac. We have no lights, no curbs, no sidewalks, and parking on the street prevents easy two-way traffic – as a result, maintenance trucks are a major negative impact for us. San Juan Ct is neither a main thoroughfare nor a collector street. Why, then, is our street’s pole a target for a small cell node?

5. We Don’t Need It
: The reason ATT and other telecom companies are so hyped up about 5g is because it will enable them to charge customers lots of money for advanced services like gaming, high-data-content transmissions, and more data processing-oriented services like surveillance, customer tracking, self-driving cars, etc. It will also allow ATT and other providers to charge people more money for different levels of access to the internet (keep in mind the internet (the web) was designed to be free and available to ALL; 5g likely kills that principle). There may be other residents or neighborhoods that want these nodes on their streets; the City should conduct surveys to ID these neighborhoods and put these small nodes there.

But the most important reality here is that the 5g that ATT is currently deploying is not really 5g. It’s a rebranded 4g. ATT continues to rush to install nodes in order to lay claim to the pole as theirs for future technology.

6. Risk Mitigation Fallacies
: ATT is also using bogus justifications like improving Public Safety (Police and Fire) communications during fires and natural disasters. That’s poppycock. 5g waves are tiny and are easily disrupted by obstructions like trees, buildings, smoke, clouds, etc. Besides, our telephone poles are flammable. Say goodbye to those poles during a fire. In my house, we are totally satisfied with our cellular and satellite services. Our wifi routers and repeaters can sense almost all our neighbors’ wifi networks (of course we have passwords!), so there is no service gap or hole we can see. We’d highly prefer fiber to the curb for more bandwidth, NOT 5g, which is unreliable. We also hope that someday, our street will agree to underground our ugly and dangerous sky wires. Undergrounding is the best way to maximize public safety during a natural disaster.

7. Environmental Waste
: For many people, they will need to buy a new phone to really get the services offered by true 5g.

Studies have shown that transitioning to 5g-ready handheld devices will create an enormous worldwide amount of environmental waste. 8 3

8. Where ATT sits, other companies will follow
: Another reason this tech is not ready for prime time in neighborhoods is because the equipment is still all proprietary. So, when Verizon comes along, they’ll need just as much pole real estate to attach their equipment. Then when T-Mobile comes along, same thing. We’re a small street and this much intrusion is beyond reasonable. Please place this node elsewhere where it is wanted.

Respectfully,
Jeanine Valadez
15 San Juan Court (homeowner since 1989)
Disclosure: I am a PARC commissioner but am speaking as a member of the public. 9 September 25, 2023
Dear Mayor Meadows and Councilmembers,
We fully support the text amendments submitted by Staff to bring the city’s zoning ordinance into compliance with our adopted Housing Element. These changes to zoning will meaningfully encourage development in our mixed-use districts and will accommodate the potential for more housing in our CN and R3 districts. We also believe that removal of Conditional Use Permits in certain instances, as outlined by Staff, are important to remove barriers to development.

The Housing Element process has been a long journey towards approval, and we applaud the Council and Staff for working diligently to ensure that our City is in compliance. More importantly, the changes that we have already made and will make during this 6th Cycle will create the conditions so that more housing can be created. More homes—whether they are apartments, condominiums, single-family homes, or townhomes—create space for more neighbors so that we can continue to celebrate a vibrant community with people from all backgrounds and all incomes.

Respectfully,
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
Committed to educating and inspiring the Los Altos community to build housing that is affordable for those who live and work in Los Altos
https://losaltosaffordablehousing.org/
10 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Nancy Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 12:00 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Tonight’s meeting - An urgent request to postpone approving removing the FAR and height restrictions for 90+ days
Dear City Council and City manager,
Now that Housing Element Plan has been approved and we are safe from the Builder’s Remedy and potential fines (good job btw!) myself and others would like to ask that you NOT make any decisions on modifying the FAR ratio and building height restrictions at this time.

The residents are very upset over removing the existing FAR ratio, which would greatly contribute to unthinkable mass and bulk in the designated housing sites.

Since the city is not under a deadline to make these decisions at this time, the residents would like to request at least 90 days to evaluate the need for removing all these very important restrictions.

As you have probably noticed, the residents have just begun to understand what’s happening with the state mandated housing program. The outreach didn’t make the definition and scope of how drastic the changes would be.

At the last meeting, most residents were shocked and angry to learn that Rancho shopping center and five others are slated to be torn down and replaced with huge five story structures.

I’m speaking for a large group of people who would like the time to evaluate OTHER other potential sites for the 200+ units Rancho would serve, as well as Altos Oaks and our downtown.

I hope you will grant this request as representatives of the residents who elected you and now look to you for help on this massive intrusion by the state. It will help calm the anger and begin a positive step with residents working together.

Thank you,
Nancy Martin
.
11 1
Melissa Thurman
From: John Meaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Public comment re: Draft Housing Element plan/ Concerns about Rancho site Hi,
I am writing again with concerns about the housing element plan submittal as it impacts the re-development of the Rancho shopping center. We live in the residential area surrounding Rancho and foresee any development of this area that contributes to increased traffic and reduced shopping options would negatively affect our lifestyle and property values. Rancho is unique when compared to Woodland Plaza (Lucky) and Foothill Plaza (Trader Joes) in the proximity of single-family residential neighborhoods surrounding three sides of the property.

I understand the need to make hard choices in order to meet the state mandate for housing. Specifically, I would ask that mixed-use development, including commercial, be a requirement if housing is to be incorporated in the zoning for Rancho and Woodland Plaza, i.e. it could not be re-developed for housing only without retaining a commercial component. I would also ask that mixed-use (commercial and residential) be included at Foothill Plaza. I did not see Foothill Plaza including in the Housing Element plan and assume this is currently commercially zoned according to the Los Altos Zoning Map.

Thank you for considering my email as part of the public comments to city council.

John
John Meaney
650-823-3051
Begin forwarded message:

From: John Meaney <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment re: Draft Housing Element plan
Date: January 9, 2023 at 5:06:56 PM PST
To: [email protected]
I would like to strongly recommend against rezoning the Rancho Shopping Center for housing to meet the draft Housing Element plan. There would be significant negative impacts to our community of this rezoning effort and other more attractive options exist.

I am a 28-year resident of Los Altos and have raised two children in the neighborhoods here. We love the community feel of our Loyola Corners / central Los Altos neighborhood and Rancho Shopping Center is the primary social gathering center here where people walk their dogs, meet at Starbucks for coffee, children stop for ice cream and snacks on their way home from Loyola school, and everyone stops at Andronicos on the way home for grocery shopping. Rancho is a place where we run into our neighbors and friends, and a place of community connection. Increasing housing density at that busy intersection would be a game-changer for our neighborhood in a negative sense and would destroy the village feel of Rancho.
12 2
Already, the intersection at the main entrance to Rancho Shopping Center is busy and sometimes dangerous with 2 lanes from Magdalena collapsing to a single lane at Springer at the traffic light where all the kids are trying to cross on their way to and from Loyola school. Anyone who lives in this neighborhood has experienced near-collisions many times as people try to beat the light from Fremont Ave to get onto Foothill Expressway at the same time shoppers are exiting from Rancho shopping center. I can hardly imagine how this all changes for the better when you increase density and multi-use of this shopping center.

I’m sure there is no shortage of developers that would love to re-develop the Rancho site, but what is in the best interest of our local residents that live and go to school here? What about alternative sites? How about the shopping center where Lucky market is located at Grant Rd and the intersection of Arboretum? Lucky market is on a underutilized site that gets much less traffic and is adjacent to other retail/ commercial zoning on both sides that could also be put to better and higher use. In fact, the Goodwill donation truck that sits in the corner of the parking lot is a sign that this site could use some re-imagining as a more central South Los Altos meeting place. It is on a public bus line and nearby both 280 and Hwy 85, is not nearby a school, has very little foot traffic, and has fewer direct residential neighbors. It’s walking distance to many services at the Foothill Plaza and could easily absorb a higher density housing element without negatively impacting neighbors and traffic patterns.

Loyola Corners has already been negatively impacted by expansions of the post office and water company that have turned it into one large parking lot for mail delivery and repair trucks. A long-running multi-use development project that seems to have been abandoned for more than 5 years have turned it into an eye sore. My neighbors and I feel that the City of Los Altos has done a poor job in planning and development of this important part of our neighborhood and it is no longer representative of the characteristic charm and attractiveness of Los Altos.

Rancho is the only pedestrian accessible shopping and gathering spot in central Los Altos and it retains the village character that we all appreciate about Los Altos. We strongly stand against rezoning Rancho.

Respectfully,
John Meaney
650-823-3051
13 CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Sally Meadows, Mayor
Jonathan Weinberg, Vice Mayor
Pete Dailey, Councilmember
Neysa Fligor, Councilmember
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Sally Meadows, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmembers were present and in person.

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG – Neysa Fligor, Councilmember, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION – No reportable action was taken during the Closed Session meeting of September 12, 2023.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the order of the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
 Jacob Sterling-Silver
 Kim Mosley
 Jennifer Lantz
 Nancy Martin
 Roberta Phillips
 Shrikanth Shankar

SPECIAL ITEMS
Presentation from Silicon Valley Clean Energy on the Electric Showcase Awards Justin Zagunis, SVCE's Director of Decarbonization Programs and Policy, announced the Electric Showcase Award Winner as Los Altos resident Tom Twiddell.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following members of the public spoke regarding Item 9 of the Consent Calendar:
 Roberta Phillips
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, requested to pull Item 9 from the Consent Calendar.

Neysa Fligor, Councilmember, requested to pull Item 4 and Item 10 from the Consent Calendar.

Sally Meadows, Mayor, announced that Items 9, 4 and 10 would be heard after Item 13 on the Discussion Item.
14 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

Motion by Dailey and Seconded by Weinberg to approve the Consent Calendar, excluding pulled Items 4, 9 and 10. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote for Items 1-6 and Items 8-

11. Motion for Item 7 carried 3-2 with Councilmembers Fligor and Lee Eng opposed.

1. Approve the Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for the meetings of August 22, 2023

2. Quarterly Investment Portfolio Report – Quarter Ended June 30, 2023

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute a not-to-exceed contract with C2R Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $100,000 to provide on-call sanitary sewer spot repairs and CCTV inspection services

4. Waive second reading and adopt Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments implementing programs identified in the adopted housing element, Program 4.C Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers consistent with AB 101, Program 4.D Allow transitional and supportive housing consistent with State law, Program 4. E Allow employee/farmworker housing consistent with State law, Program 4.F Reasonably accommodate disabled persons’ housing needs. The proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since there would be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment

5. Waive second reading and adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter 12.72 Penalty for Expired Permits and amending Chapter 12.08 and 12.10 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

6. Waive second reading and adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter 11.14 Mechanical Equipment to Title 11 Miscellaneous Property Regulations of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

7. Authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year funding agreement with Community Services Agency in the amount of $25,000 annually

8. Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 1 to Joint Exercise Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, for the period of October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2020 and subsequent automatic renewals unless terminated

DISCUSSION ITEMS

9. Introduce and waive further reading of an ordinance of bidding procedures under the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act; find that the adoption of the ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061
15 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

June Du, Finance Director, presented the report.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

Motion by Weinberg and Seconded by Dailey to waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance of bidding procedures under the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act; find that the adoption of the ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.

Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

10. Authorize the City Manager to sign a new contract with the Los Altos History Museum in the initial amount of $120,000 annually for five years Anthony Carnesecca, Assistant to the City Manager, and Dr. Elizabeth Ward, Los Altos History Museum Director, presented the report.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

Motion by Fligor and Seconded by Lee Eng to authorize the City Manager to sign a new contract with the Los Altos History Museum in the initial amount of $120,000 annually for five years.

Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

11. Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with the Los Altos Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $67,500 annually for five years as previously directed during the budget process (Previously Item 9 on the Consent Calendar)
Motion by Dailey and Seconded by Weinberg to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with the Los Altos Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $67,500 annually for five years as previously directed during the budget process. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

12. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement for a Downtown Parking Strategy (Previously Item 4 on the Consent Calendar) Motion by Weinberg and Seconded by Dailey to authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement for a Downtown Parking Strategy. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

The City Council took a recess at 8:50 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 9:02 p.m.

13. Approve amendments to the Commission Handbook sections on ad hoc subcommittees, Council liaisons, and conflicts of interest (Previously Item 10 on the Consent Calendar) Neysa Fligor, Councilmember, requested an amendment to the Commission Handbook:
 In the event that a Commission is not able to select a Commission member as a liaison to another board, commission, or agency and a staff member cannot serve in that capacity, the Commission may recommend an individual resident to represent the Commission upon approval by the Commission and City Council.
16 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

Motion by Fligor and Seconded by Lee Eng to approve amendments to the Commission Handbook sections on ad hoc subcommittees, Council liaisons, and conflicts of interest, as amended.

14. Consider the Public Arts Commission recommendation to purchase and place three sculptures by artist Matthew Duffy at locations within the City Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager, presented the report.

The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
 Eric Steinle
 Monica Waldman
 Roberta Phillips
Motion by Meadows and Seconded by Dailey to approve the purchase of one heart-art sculpture, and to direct the PARC to identify a location in Los Altos that is deficient of public art, to place the sculpture. Motion carried 4-1 with Vice Mayor Weinberg opposed.

15. Discuss the recommended appointment process and schedule and make changes as appropriate
Sally Meadows, Mayor, opened the item.

There were no speakers regarding this item.

The City Council provided the following direction regarding the Commission appointment process:
 Commission interviews will be held on September 19, 2023 at 5:00 p.m.  Applicants will be given three questions prior to the meeting  Applicants will be given three self-managed minutes to answer the three questions  Council may ask additional questions, if necessary

16. Discuss the California Business Roundtable (CBRT) Measure and Provide Direction to the City of Los Altos Voting Delegate regarding potential petitioned resolutions at the CalCities Annual Conference in Sacramento, CA on September 20-22, 2023 Neysa Fligor, Councilmember, presented the report and announced she would abstain from voting on the item due to her position on CalCities
Motion by Meadows and Seconded by Weinberg to provide direction to the City of Los Altos Voting Delegate (Mayor Meadows) to oppose the California Business Roundtable Measure (CBRT) at any meeting the Voting Delegate would be taking a position. Motion carried 3-0-2 by roll call vote with Councilmembers Lee Eng and Fligor abstained.

Motion by Fligor and Seconded by Meadows to authorize the City of Los Altos Voting Delegate (Mayor Meadows), or future Voting Delegates, to vote in opposition to any measure that is similar to the 2022 CalCities Annual Conference resolution that was brought forth by petition. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
17 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

17. Determine whether the City wishes to provide a donation to an organization in the wake of the wildfires in Maui
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, presented the report and to announce an event held at the Los Altos History Museum raising funds for Lahaina and to rescind the request for city funds for a donation.

There were no speakers for this item.

Due to the item being rescinded, no motion was taken.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY

18. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Jonathan Weinberg – Requested a future agenda item for discussion regarding remedial action of Planning Commissioner Kate Disney for violation of the Commission Handbook pursuant to Council Norms and Procedures, Section 4.5. (Supported by Dailey and Meadows)
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of September 26, 2023.
_________________________________ __________________________________ Sally Meadows, Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The September 12, 2023 City Council meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced on these minutes were live at the time the minutes were published.
18 Agenda Item # 1.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 26, 2023
Subject Treasurer’s Report – Month Ended June 30, 2023
Prepared by: Minh Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: June Du, Finance Director
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund

2. Cash Balances by Fund
Initiated by:

Staff.

Fiscal Impact:

None
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
 None
Summary:

As indicated in the City’s response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report, the City is providing this report as desired by the Grand Jury. The following attachment provides various financial transaction data for the City of Los Altos for the month of June 30, 2023.

Staff Recommendation:

Receive and accept the Treasurer’s Report through June 30, 2023. 19 Agenda Item # 2.

FUND
Estimated Ending
Balance 05/31/2023 Revenue Expenditures
Capital
Expenditures
Transfer
In/(Out)
Estimated Ending
Balance 06/30/2023

RESERVE FUND
Grant Reimbusement Fund 324,063 - 92,229 - - 416,292
Fiscal Policy Reserve 8,757,349 - - - - 8,757,349
Vets Memorial 8,615 - - - - 8,615
General Fund 16,768,738 8,291,536 (5,847,261) - - 19,213,013 Total General Fund: 25,858,766 8,383,764 (5,847,261) - - 28,395,269

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Sewer Fund (1) 3,378,065 25,694,296 (961,582) (36,494) - 28,074,285 Solid Waste Fund 4,990,329 153,308 (138,359) - - 5,005,277 Storm Drain Fund - - - - - -
Total Enterprise Funds: 30,684,625 3,531,373 (1,099,941) (36,494) - 33,079,563

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Capital Projects Fund 4,788,571 92,285 - (387,393) - 4,493,463 Equipment Replacement Fund 634,775 - - - 634,775
Total Capital Improvement Funds: 5,423,346 92,285 - (387,393) - 5,128,238

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
PERS & OPEB Reserve 551,314 - - - - 551,314
Technology Reserve 1,422,523 20,099 - - - 1,442,622
Dental/Vision Fund (352,678) - (28,973) - - (381,652)
Unemployment Fund 96,698 - - - - 96,698
Workers Compensation Fund 1,846,789 - (30,233) - - 1,816,556 Total Internal Service Funds: 3,564,646 20,099 (59,206) - - 3,525,538

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Road Maintenance (SB1) 1,150,362 64,183 - - - 1,214,545 CDBG Fund - - - - - -
Grants Fund-ARP Act - - - - - -
Downtown Parking Fund 963,867 6,539 - - - 970,406
Estate Donation Fund 18,351 - - - - 18,351
Gas Tax Fund 2,930,330 71,287 - - - 3,001,617
Prop 1B Road Maintenance 130 - - - - 130
Measure B 1,690 757,011 - - - 758,701
In Lieu Park Fund 8,277,470 - - - - 8,277,470
Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund 272,564 - - - - 272,564 TDA Fund 88,600 - - - - 88,600
Traffic Impact Fee Fund (190,954) - - - - (190,954)
Vehicle Registration Fund 1,385,042 - - - - 1,385,042
PEG Fees 255,227 - - - - 255,227
Public Art Fund 512,627 - (1,500) - - 511,127
Storm Drain Deposits 56,086 - - - - 56,086
AB-1379 CASP Fee 10,484 548 - - - 11,032
Vehicle Impound Fund 4,291 1,568 - - - 5,859
Total Special Revenue Funds: 15,736,165 901,135 (1,500) - - 16,635,801

DEBT SERVICE FUND
General Obligation Bond 372,892 1,466 - - - 374,358
Community Center Lease 517,977 - (517,976) - - 1
Total Debt Service Fund: 890,869 1,466 (517,976) - - 374,359

AGENCY FUND
Blue Oaks Line Sewer 70,020 21,454 - - - 91,474
Total Debt Service Fund: 70,020 21,454 - - - 91,474
ALL FUNDS TOTAL 12,951,576 82,228,436 (7,525,884) (423,887) - 87,230,241 (1) Sewer Fund Balance includes $15,335,666 in Nonspendable Capital Assets June 2023 Activities* (Unaudited)
20 Agenda Item # 2.

FUND
Estimated Ending Cash
Balance 05/31/2023 Debit Credit
Estimated Ending Cash
Balance 06/30/2023

RESERVE FUNDS
General Fund 25,671,886 9,095,385 (6,127,721) 28,639,551 Grant Reimbusement Fund 368,090 67,043 - 435,133
Payroll Liability Fund - 1,630,677 (1,630,677) -
Total General Fund: 26,039,976 10,793,105 (7,758,397) 29,074,684

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Sewer Fund 11,485,594 3,717,348 (297,273) 14,905,670
Solid Waste Fund 5,271,418 153,308 (184,659) 5,240,067
Storm Drain Fund 802 - - 802
Total Enterprise Funds: 16,757,814 3,870,656 (481,931) 20,146,539

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Capital Projects Fund 7,758,249 - (2,924,442) 4,833,807 Equipment Replacement Fund 673,655 - (38,880) 634,775
Total Capital Improvement Funds: 8,431,904 - (2,963,322) 5,468,582

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
PERS & OPEB Reserve 551,314 - - 551,314
Technology Reserve 1,422,523 20,099 (6,189) 1,436,432
Dental/Vision Fund (352,678) - (28,973) (381,652)
Unemployment Fund 96,698 - - 96,698
Workers Compensation Fund 6,449,739 - (20,364) 6,429,375 Total Internal Service Funds: 8,167,595 20,099 (55,527) 8,132,167

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Road Maintenance (SB1) 1,154,571 64,183 - 1,218,754
CDBG Fund - - - -
Downtown Parking Fund 962,471 1,575 - 964,046
Estate Donation Fund 18,321 - - 18,321
Gas Tax Fund 2,933,834 71,287 - 3,005,120
Prop 1B Road Maintenance (98) - - (98)
Measure B (2,278) 757,011 - 754,733
In Lieu Park Fund 8,262,488 - - 8,262,488
Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund 272,564 - - 272,564
TDA Fund 36,207 - - 36,207
Traffic Impact Fee Fund (190,948) - - (190,948)
Vehicle Registration Fund 1,383,658 - - 1,383,658
PEG Fees 254,559 - - 254,559
Public Art Fund 512,627 - - 512,627
Storm Drain Deposits 56,086 - - 56,086
AB-1379 CASP Fee 10,484 548 - 11,032
Vehicle Impound Fund 4,291 1,568 - 5,859
Total Special Revenue Funds: 15,668,835 896,171 - 16,565,006

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
General Obligation Bond 196,346 - - 196,346
Community Center Lease 517,977 - (517,976) 1
Total Debt Service Fund: 714,323 - (517,976) 196,347

AGENCY FUND
Blue Oaks Line Sewer 22,979 21,095 - 44,074
Total Debt Service Fund: 22,979 21,095 - 44,074
ALL FUNDS TOTAL 15,601,126 75,803,427 (11,777,153) 79,627,401 June 2023 Activities* (Unaudited)
21 Agenda Item # 2.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 26, 2023 This item was continued from June 27, 2023 Subject Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications SC22-0029 & V23-0002 at 5790 Arboretum Drive Prepared by: Jia Liu, Associate Planner
Stephanie Williams, Planning Services Manager
Reviewed by: Nick Zornes, Development Services Director Jolie Houston, City Attorney
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Draft Resolution

2. Project Plans

3. Appeal Application Form

4. May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes

5. May 18, 2023, Planning Commission Agenda Report

6. Appellant Request for Continuance

7. Letters from the Appellant for September 26, 2023 Meeting Initiated by:

Marwan and Lisa Eways, Applicant
Previous Council Consideration:

None
Fiscal Impact:

None
Environmental Review:

If the City Council upholds the Planning Commission’s decision, then no environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (“Projects Which are Disapproved”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which are disapproved. If the City Council approves the appeal application, then it may find that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (“Existing Facilities”) of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves an alteration and addition to an existing single-family dwelling in a residential zone within 22 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications (SC22-0029 & V23-0002) at 5790 Arboretum Drive September 26, 2023 Page 2
size limits specified in Section 15301(e), and none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

Summary:
 The project applicant applied for a Design Review and Variance applications to allow an addition to an existing single-family residence consisting of an approximately 190 square-foot addition and 465 square-foot deck on the first story and an eight square-foot addition and 327 square-foot deck on the second story. The variance is requested for a 16-foot and six-inch, second-story side setback for the second-story deck, where a 25-foot side setback is required.  The Planning Commission considered the project at a public hearing on May 18, 2023, and unanimously denied the request.
 The applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s “straw vote” decision and results.

Background
Property History and Existing Site Conditions
The 4,697 square foot home was originally approved in 2003 by the County of Santa Clara when the property was within the County’s jurisdiction. In 2006, the neighborhood, commonly known as Woodland Acres Neighborhood, was annexed into the City. As one of the properties in the annexed neighborhood, any new development on the property is subject to current City standards.

As the original development was subject to the County’s zoning regulations, which have less restrictive setbacks than current city regulations, the existing house is a legal non-conforming structure. The nonconformities include the two side setbacks that currently require 20-foot first story setback and 25-foot second story setback compared to the existing house’s 15-foot side setbacks for both the first and second stories (see Attachment 2 – Project Plans).

The property is a sloped lot with the home located on the more level portion of the property towards the street and the rear yard is sloped with an approximately 30-foot elevation difference within a 100-foot depth. The rear yard also appears to remain undisturbed with some existing vegetation including two trees that are close to the proposed deck areas.

Design Review Commission Meeting
On February 15, 2023, the Design Review Commission (DRC) discussed the proposed design review application in a public meeting. The staff report recommended approval to the DRC, subject to a specific condition that requires the revision of the second-story deck to comply with the required second-story setback resulting in a setback of 25 feet instead of the proposed sixteen feet and six inches. However, the applicant opposed this condition and expressed the intent to the DRC to seek a variance to allow the non-compliant side setback for the deck as proposed. The DRC subsequently continued the item to a meeting date uncertain and advised the applicant to apply for a concurrent variance application to proceed per the applicant’s request.
23 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications (SC22-0029 & V23-0002) at 5790 Arboretum Drive September 26, 2023 Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting
Following the zoning code amendments to implement the City's 2023-2031 Housing, the Design Review Commission has since been dissolved and the review authority for design review applications for singlefamily residential developments has been delegated to the Zoning Administrator and the review for variance applications delegated to the Planning Commission. Because the variance request is subject to Planning Commission review, the design review request was bundled with the variance request and was considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting of May 18, 2023. It should be noted that there was one commissioner absent from the meeting for a total of six commissioners present at the meeting.

Staff recommended denial of the project to the Planning Commission due to the inability to make all three required variance findings codified in Los Altos Zoning Code (LAZC) Section 14.76.070 B. Because of the recommendation of denial for the variance, staff also recommended denial to the design review as the project does not meet the underlying zoning development standards and cannot meet the findings of the design review per LAMC Section 14.76.060.

During deliberation and discussion, three Commissioners verbally expressed support and three Commissioners expressed opposition to the requested variance. After consideration of staff’s recommendation, public testimony, and the applicant’s presentation which expressed their desire for their project to be heard by the City Council, the Planning Commission unanimously voted (6-0 vote with one commissioner absent) to deny the project.

Appeal
On May 31, 2023, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council within the permissible 14-day appeal period. The application appeal form with the applicant’s reason for appeal can be found in Attachment 3.

Discussion/Analysis
Design Review Application
As discussed previously, the existing home is a nonconforming structure. The proposed 190 square-foot addition on the first floor and eight square-foot addition at the second floor are consistent with the current City development standards, including the side setbacks. The proposed first floor deck expansion along the rear elevation has a proposed 15-foot side setback, where the required minimum setback is 20 feet (shown as the area in red in Figure 1 below) which is allowed per Section 14.10.080 E. of the Zoning Code which allows limited nonconforming expansions without a variance as follows:

Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon currently required setbacks, the city planner may approve one encroaching setback to be extended by no more than twenty (20) feet or fifty (50) percent, whichever is less, along its existing building line without a variance, subject to the following provisions:
24 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications (SC22-0029 & V23-0002) at 5790 Arboretum Drive September 26, 2023 Page 4

1. The extension may only be applied to the first story.

2. Only one such administrative extension may be permitted for the life of the building. Other extensions may be considered, subject to the filing of a variance application.

3. Extensions are only permitted for the main structure and cannot result in a further encroachment into any required setback area.

Figure 1
The second story deck (shown as the red area in Figure 2 below) is located on top of the proposed first story addition with a side setback of 16 feet and six inches where 25 feet is required and the allowance for limited nonconforming expansions without a variance only applies to the first story. To achieve the proposed design, the applicant is requesting a variance. 25 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications (SC22-0029 & V23-0002) at 5790 Arboretum Drive September 26, 2023 Page 5
Figure 2
Variance Application
The variance being requested is for a reduction to the second story side setback. The proposed second story deck is proposed atop the first-story addition that will result in an eight-foot and six-inch encroachment into the required 25-foot setback. The encroachment is highlighted in yellow shown in Figure 3 below.
26 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications (SC22-0029 & V23-0002) at 5790 Arboretum Drive September 26, 2023 Page 6
Figure 3
Pursuant to LAMC Section 14.76.070 B., a variance may be granted only when all three findings cited below can be made. The third criterion derives from state law (see Government Code Section 65906) and shall be strictly construed.

1. That the granting of the variance will be consistent with the objectives of the zoning plan set forth in Article 1 of Chapter 14.02;

2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; and

3. That variances from the provisions of this chapter shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications.

As part of the variance application submittal requirements, the applicant provided a variance justification letter that is enclosed as part of the Planning Commission agenda report in Attachment 4. This letter outlines the applicant's explanation why they believe the requested variance should be granted by demonstrating how each finding is met.
27 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications (SC22-0029 & V23-0002) at 5790 Arboretum Drive September 26, 2023 Page 7
Regarding Finding No. 1, the applicant believes the project meets two objectives set forth in LAMC Chapter 14.02 including Subsection F - To protect and enhance real property values within the city; and Subsection G - To conserve the city's natural beauty, to improve its appearance, and to preserve and enhance its distinctive physical character.

Based on the given statement, staff has found that this finding cannot be justified because it does not meet the objective of ensuring a harmonious and convenient relationship among land uses, as specified in Subsection B that will deviate the second story side setback standard from the city’s zoning regulations.

Furthermore, staff finds the granting of the variance is not necessary to allow the property owners the reasonable enjoyment of their property because there are alternative deck design options available that can achieve the same goal. For example, the proposed deck can be expanded towards the north to comply with the second-story side setback while still providing the same size deck in a slightly different configuration. Another option to consider is expanding the existing second-story terrace through the hallway. With the possibility of other design solutions, staff does not believe that this finding can be made.

Regarding Finding No. 2, the applicant felt the finding could be made for several reasons. First, the deck is located at the rear of the house, making it invisible from the street, and its small size and lower elevation than the street further contribute to its inconspicuousness. Second, there are no privacy concerns since the deck is not aligned with neighboring structures but is instead proposed to be built with a proposed privacy screening wall. The deck will also be screened by existing screening vegetation. Additionally, the neighbors have expressed support, and two adjacent properties already have non-compliant second-floor decks.

However, staff found that granting this variance could have negative impacts on the surrounding area because the project does not meet the zoning setback standards established to provide better ventilation, sound isolation, reduced lighting and glare, increased landscaping, and access to emergency services between properties and structures. Additionally, staff found that the two adjacent properties with noncompliant second-floor decks do not establish a pattern because:
 The property at 5810 Arboretum Drive, located to the south side, was developed prior to the annexation of the Woodland Acres Neighborhood. The existing non-compliant deck is a legal nonconforming structure, like the house.  The property at 5770 Arboretum Drive, located to the north side, was granted a variance and design review application (12-V-11 and 12-SC-56) in 2013 by the Design Review Commission for construction of a new two-story house. The granted variance includes a reduction in the side setbacks at both stories. However, staff does not believe that this example is analagous since the property at 5770 Arboretum Drive has an average lot width that is less than 100 feet. In 2015, a zoning code amendment was adopted through Ordinance No. 2015-114 that allows properties with a lot width less than 100 feet in the R1-20 Zoning District to be subject to the R1-10 Zoning District's 28 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on the Design Review and Variance Applications (SC22-0029 & V23-0002) at 5790 Arboretum Drive September 26, 2023 Page 8
development standards. Therefore, the reduced side setbacks at both floors at 5770 Arboretum Drive are currently compliant.

Regarding Finding No. 3, the applicant believes that the property has several special circumstances that justify this variance application for approval. These circumstances include steeply sloping topography, the inability to comply with design guidelines without exception to the side yard setback, the existing legal non-conforming structure compared to the current City's setback requirements due to development prior to annexation, and the need to preserve a mature oak tree while designing an outdoor space.

Staff acknowledged the existence of the site’s conditions with a steep slope throughout the rear yard. Due to this topography, staff is supportive of the proposed idea of a second story deck with a larger size than other proposed second-story decks on relatively flat lots. However, the slope is not considered special circumstance that would deprive the property owners’ privileges because the owners have other options to achieve similar results for the enjoyment of their property by implementing a modified deck design as staff explained earlier in the report.

In addition, the non-conformity of the existing home due to its development under the County’s regulations does not justify further deviations from the current City setback requirements. The applicant has already utilized an administrative zoning code exception to align the expansion of the first-story deck with the existing non-conforming first-story side setback. Staff believes that the current zoning code recognizes the existence of non-conforming structures and acknowledges the homeowners' desire to align new developments with these structures in a limited manner, ensuring fairness for all residential property owners.

Recommendation

1. Uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Design Review and Variance Applications SC22- 0029 & V23-0002 at 5790 Arboretum Drive and find no environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (“Projects Which are Disapproved”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which are disapproved.

2. On June 17, 2023 the appellant notified staff that they would be unable to attend the Public Hearing scheduled for June 27, 2023 and requested a continuance of the item (Attachment 6).

Staff’s recommendation is to continue the Public Hearing to date certain of September 26, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. based on the appellant’s request.
29 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2023- Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS DENYING APPEAL NO. 23-0001 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS

FOR RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXSTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 5790 ARBORETUM DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos received applications for Design Review (File Number SC22- 0009) and Variance (File Number V23-0002) from Marwan and Lisa Eways, (Applicant), for the construction of a 190 square-foot addition and a 465 square-foot deck expansion at the first story and an eight square-foot addition and a new 327 square-foot outdoor deck at the second story to the existing single-family residence, hereafter referred to as the “Project”; WHEREAS, said Project is located in the R1-20 District, which allows single-family housing as a permitted use and shall be developed per Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.10; and WHEREAS, the variance is requested for a reduction in the required second story side setback from 25 feet to 16 feet and six inches for the second story deck; and WHEREAS, the property owner submits that the property's unique topography, as well as the location of existing trees and structures, make it difficult to comply with the required second story side setback; and
WHEREAS, said Project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects which are disapproved; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, the Design Review Commission held a public meeting to discuss the design review of said Project and continued to the project to a meeting date uncertain; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, upon the approval of the zoning code amendments to implement the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element by the City Council, the Planning Commission is the approval authority for said Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon the Project, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission denied said project; and WHEREAS, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council by Marwan and Lisa Eways in a time and manner prescribed by the City of Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter

1.12; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon the appeal, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council denied said appeal and upheld the decision of the Planning Commission; and
30 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2023- Page 2
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby denies appeal No. 23-0001 and upholds the Planning Commission’s denial of design review and variance applications for residential improvements to an existing single-family residence at 5790 Arboretum Drive subject to the Findings in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 27th day of June 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

___________________________
Sally Meadows, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, City Clerk
31 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2023- Page 3

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
SC22-0029 & V23-0002 at 5790 Arboretum Drive
Design Review
With regard to the improvements to the existing two-story residence, the Planning Commission finds the following in accordance with Section 14.76.060 of the Municipal Code:

A. The proposed structure or alteration complies with all provisions of this chapter; This finding cannot be made because:

The proposed second-story deck does not meet the objective side setback requirements set forth in LAMC Sections 14.10.080 and 14.66.210.

B. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure or addition, when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, and will consider the topographic and geologic constraints imposed by particular building site conditions;
This finding cannot be made because:

The height, elevations, and placement on the site of the proposed addition to the existing house is found not compatible when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, and will not consider the topographic and geologic constraints imposed by particular building site conditions because the proposed project, specifically for the secondstory deck does not comply with the objective setback requirement and is further found not compatible with the location of the residential structures on adjacent lots that are developed after annexation of the neighborhood.

C. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes shall be minimized;
This finding cannot be made because:

The natural landscape will not be preserved insofar as practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes shall be minimized because the proposed project will disturb existing grading and conduct soil removal or soil filling in order to construct the first story addition situated on the natural slope.

D. The orientation of the proposed main or accessory structure or addition in relation to the immediate neighborhood will minimize excessive bulk;
This finding cannot be made because:

The orientation of the house in relation to the immediate neighborhood will not minimize excessive bulk because the proposed second story deck with a five-foot and six-inch solid screening wall will encroach into the required side yard resulting a bulky appearance due to the close distance than allowed in the zoning code.
32 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2023- Page 4
E. General architectural considerations, including the size and scale, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and similar elements have been incorporated in order to insure the compatibility of the development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings on the same project site; and
This finding cannot be made because:

General architectural considerations, including the size and scale, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials, and similar elements have not been incorporated in order to insure the compatibility of the development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings on the same project site because the proposed second story deck is eight feet and six inches less than the required second story setback will lead to an incompatible pattern with the character of adjacent buildings that are subject to the current city standards for development.

F. The proposed structures have been designed to follow the natural contours of the site with minimal grading, minimal impervious cover and maximum erosion protection. A stepped foundation shall be required where the average slope beneath the proposed structure is ten (10) percent or greater.

This finding cannot be made because:

The proposed house improvements have not been designed to follow the natural contours of the site with minimal grading, minimum impervious cover, and maximum erosion protection because of the proposed addition will alter the natural topography by placing the first story addition, the staircase to the second story deck, and the expansion of the first story deck. 33 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2023- Page 5
Variance
With regard to the improvements to the existing two-story residence, the Planning Commission finds the following in accordance with Section 14.76.070 B. of the Municipal Code:

A. That the granting of the variance will be consistent with the objectives of the zoning plan set forth in Article 1 of Chapter 14.02.

This finding cannot be made because:

Granting of the variance will not be consistent with the objectives of the zoning plan because it does not meet the objective of ensuring a harmonious and convenient relationship among land uses, as specified in Section 14.02.020 B. of the Municipal Code that will deviate the second story side setback standard from the city’s zoning regulations. Furthermore, granting the variance is not necessary to meet other objectives. Staff found that there are alternative design options available for the proposed deck that can achieve the same goal.

B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.

This finding cannot be made because:

Granting the variance could have negative impacts on the surrounding area because the project does not meet the zoning setback standards established to provide better ventilation, sound isolation, reduced lighting and glare, increased landscaping, and access to emergency services between properties and structures.

C. That variances from the provisions of this chapter shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications.

This finding cannot be made because:

The steeply sloping topography is not considered special circumstance that would deprive the property owners’ privileges because the owners have other options to achieve similar results for the enjoyment of their property by implementing a modified deck design as staff explained earlier in the report. The non-conformity of the existing home due to its development under the County’s regulations does not justify further deviations from the current City setback requirements. The exception to allow the first-story deck’s expansion in the zoning code acknowledges a nonconforming structure’s existence and the desire from homeowners to align new development with the structure in a limited way.
34 Agenda Item # 3.

OWNER: MARWAN
EWAYS
5790ARBORETUMDRIVE
LOSALTOS,CA94024
PH.:415.806.7410
EM.:[email protected]
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A REMODEL/ADDITION FOR:EWAYS FAMILY5790 ARBORETUM DRIVELOS ALTOS, CA 94024 P.D.12.20.22
FILE:22101_DRR1_cover.v2022

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
squarethreearchitectureinc
900 high street suite 3
palo alto, ca 9 4 3 0 1
6 5 0 • 3 2 6 • 3 8 6 0
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
A0.01

PROJECTDESCRIPTION
4 SITE: 5790

ARBORETUMDRIVE,
LOSALTOS,CA94024
2 PROJECTDIRECTORY1
THIS PROJECTS INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING:

1. NEW±188SFEXTENSIONONTHELOWERFLOORANDNEW±8SFEXTENSIONONUPPERFLOOR.

2. A±584SFEXTENSIONTOANEXISTINGLOWERFLOORDECK.

3. CONSTRUCTIONOFANEW±284SFROOFDECKONTHEUPPERFLOOR.

SHEETINDEX3
VICINITYMAPN.T.S.6PROJECTDATA
ARCHITECT: SQUARE THREE

ARCHITECTURE
900HIGHSTREET,SUITE3
PALOALTO,CA94301
PH.:650.326.3860X112,X115
EM.:[email protected]
[email protected]
CONTACT:TOMCARRUBBA

CAMDENSANTO
A0.01PROJECTINFORMATION,NEIGHBORHOODCONTEXT,SHEETINDEX

ZONINGCOMPLIANCE
C-5EXISTINGPRELIMINARYGRADING&DRAINAGEPLAN
C-6EXISTINGTOPOGRAPHICSURVEY
EC1EXISTINGSITEPLAN
EC2EXISTINGLOWERFLOORPLAN
EC3EXISTINGUPPERFLOORPLAN
EC4EXISTINGROOFPLAN
EC5-EC6EXISTINGEXTERIORELEVATIONS
A1.01PROPOSEDSITEPLAN
A1.02EXISTINGPRIVACYSCREENINGPHOTOS
A2.01PROPOSEDLOWERFLOORPLAN
A2.02PROPOSEDUPPERFLOORPLAN
A2.03PROPOSEDROOFPLAN
A2.04FLOORAREAANDCOVERAGECALCULATIONDIAGRAM
A3.01PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONS
A3.02PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONS
A3.03EXISTINGEXTERIORVIEWS
A5.01PROPOSEDBUILDINGSECTIONS

SITE DATA
A.P.N.342-04-093
OCCUPANCYGROUPR,DIVISION3

BUILDINGTYPEV-B
ZONER1-20

EXISTINGPROPOSEDALLOWED/ REQUIRED

ZONING COMPLIANCE

SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN

EXISTINGCHANGE INTOTAL PROPOSED

LOT CALCULATIONS
TOTALHARDSCAPEAREA(EXISTINGANDPROPOSED):6,163.6SF
EXISTINGSOFTSCAPE(UNDISTURBED)AREA:15,526.4SF
NEWSOFTSCAPE(NEWORREPLACEDLANDSCAPING)AREA:0SF

SUMOFALLTHREESHOULDEQUALTHESITE'SNETLOTAREA
LANDSCAPING BREAKDOWN: LOT COVERAGE: LAND AREA COVERED
BYALL

STRUCTURESTHATAREOVER
6FEETINHEIGHT
FLOOR AREA:

MEASUREDTOTHEOUTSIDE

SURFACESOFEXTERIOR
WALLS SETBACKS: FRONT REAR RIGHT SIDE (1S
T/2ND)
LEFTSIDE(1ST/2ND)
HEIGHT:
3,482.1 SQUARE FEET
(16.05%)
1ST FLR: 1,494.5 SF
2ND FLR: 3,202.9 SF
TOTAL: 4,697.4 SF
(21.66%)
30FT
35FT
20FT/25FT
20FT/25FT
30FT
35FT
20FT/25FT
20FT/25FT
30FT
35FT
20FT/25FT
20FT/25FT
4,764.2 SQUARE FEET
(21.96%)
5,423 SQUARE FEET
(25%)
1ST FLR: 1,683.1 SF
2ND FLR: 3,210.6 SF
TOTAL: 4,893.7 SF
(22.56%)
4,919 SQUARE FEET
(22.68%)
± 25' - 7"± 25' - 7"± 27' - 0"
HABITABLE LIVING AREA:

INCLUDESHABITABLE

BASEMENTAREAS
NON-HABITABLE AREA:

DOESNOTINCLUDECOVERED

PORCHESOROPEN

STRUCTURES
4,399.4 SQUARE FEET
494.3 SQUARE FEET
NET LOT AREA:
21,690 SQUARE FEET
FRONT YARD HARDSCAPE AREA:

HARDSCAPEAREAINTHEFRONTYARDSETBACK
SHALLNOTEXCEED50%
1,316.9 SQUARE FEET
(41.61%)
4,203.1 SQUARE FEET
494.3 SQUARE FEET
196.3 SQUARE FEET
0 SQUARE FEET

NEIGHBORHOODCONTEXTMAP

PROJECTDIRECTORY

SHEETINDEX

PROJECTDESCRIPTION

PROJECTDATA

VICINITYMAP

NEIGHBORHOODCONTEXT
A
R
B
O
R
E
T
U
M
D
R
I
V
E

RAISEDPATIOOFFOF

LOWERLEVEL

BALCONYOFFOFUPPER
LEVEL

NEWROOFDECKOFF

UPPERLEVEL

EXPANDEDDECKOFFOF

LOWERLEVEL

RAISEDPATIOOFFOF

LOWERLEVEL
5810 ARBORETUM DRIVE
(E) 2-STORY HOME
5770 ARBORETUM DRIVE
(E) 2-STORY HOME
5790 ARBORETUM DRIVE
(E) 2-STORY HOME
NOTUSED7
1"=30'
5 1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
1 1
NOTUSED8
1 1
35 Agenda Item # 3.
36 Agenda Item # 3.
37 Agenda Item # 3.
date
job no.
sheet title
revision date
1 INCH AT FULL SCALE, IF NOT 1 INCH

THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
(NOT TO SCALE SHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A
F
EA
SA
BILITY
S
T
U
D
Y
F
O
R:

E
WAY
S
FA
MILY
5 79
0 A
R
B
O
R
E
T
U
M
D
RIV
E
L
O
S
A
L
T
O
S, CA
9 4
0 2
4 P.D. 12.20.22
FILE: 22101_DRR1_EC_sht.plans.v2022
square three architecture inc
900 high street suite 3
palo alto, ca 9 4 3 0 1
6 5 0 • 3 2 6 • 3 8 6 0
D
E
SIG
N R
EVIE
W A
P
P
R
OVA
L S
E
T - N
O
T F
O
R C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TIO
N
COPYRIGHT 2022

SQUARE THREE ARCHITECTURE, INC
EC1

EXISTING SITE PLAN
EXISTING SITE PLAN 1
(E) TWO-STORY RESIDENCE
5790 ARBORETUM DRIVE
4,719 SF
G
DN.
(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

DOUBLE DASHED LINES OF RETAINING

WALL BELOW

DOUBLE DASHED LINES OF INTERIOR

WALL BELOW
20'-0" SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK
20'-0" SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK
35'-0" REAR
YARD

BUILDING

SETBACK
3 0'-0" F
R
O
N
T
YA
R
D
B
UIL
DIN
G
S
E
T
BA
C
K
PROPERTY LINE - 216.21'
PROPERTY LINE - 166.10'
PROPERTY LINE - 27.79'
PROPERTY LINE - 74.23'
PROPERTY LINE - 11.90'

DASHED RED LINE INDICATING
ROOF LINE, TYP.
(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
TREE TRUNK, TYP.

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
TREE DRIPLINE, TYP.

BAY WINDOW

BAY WINDOW
(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
(E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY

DOWNSPOUT AND
GUTTER, TYP.
25'-0" SECOND STORY BUILDING SETBACK
25'-0" SECOND STORY BUILDING SETBACK
14" Ø OAK
14" Ø OAK
4" Ø HOLLY - 14' TALL
26" Ø OAK
4" Ø SWAMP BAY - 6' TALL
12" Ø CHERRY PALM - 18' TALL
12" Ø HOLLY - 20' TALL
4" Ø SWAMP BAY - 12' TALL
12" Ø OAK
18" Ø EVERGREEN
(SPECIES UNKNOWN)
12" Ø OAK
14" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
6" Ø OAK
6" Ø OAK
14" Ø OAK
18" Ø OAK
30" Ø EUCALYPTUS
16" Ø EUCALYPTUS
16" Ø EUCALYPTUS
16" Ø EUCALYPTUS
8" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
12" Ø PINE 12" Ø PINE
18" Ø OAK 12" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
12" Ø JAVA PLUM - 18' TALL
6" Ø DECIDUOUS - 14' TALL
6" Ø DECIDUOUS - 18' TALL
6" Ø HOLLY - 15' TALL
4" Ø SWAMP BAY - 8' TALL
1/8"
1 I.R. COMMENTS 12/16/22
"X" INDICATES TREES THAT WERE

REMOVED AFTER CIVIL SURVEY BUT PRIOR

TO THE CURRENT OWNERS PURCHASING
THE PROPERTY. TREES WER REMOVED

PRIOR TO PROPERTY BEING ANNEXED

INTO LOS ALTOS WHEN PROPERTY WAS

STILL UNDER SANTA CLARA COUNTY
JURISDICTION.
38 Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A FEASABILITY STUDY FOR:EWAYS FAMILY5790 ARBORETUM DRIVELOS ALTOS, CA 94024 P.D.12.20.22
FILE:22101_DRR1_EC_sht.plans.v2022
squarethreearchitectureinc
900 high street suite 3
palo alto, ca 9 4 3 0 1
6 5 0 • 3 2 6 • 3 8 6 0

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
EC2

EXISTINGLOWERFLOORPLAN
EXISTINGLOWERFLOORPLAN1

SITTING ROOM
BEDROOM 1BEDROOM
2 BEDROOM 3
HALL
HALL

SHARED BATHROOM
CLOSET
BATHROOM 3

EXTERIOR DECK
UP.

BAR

CONCRETERETAININGWALL

CRAWLSPACEACCESSDOOR

ENTERTAINMENTCABINET

DASHEDLINEOFFLOORABOVE

ROOFDECKANDOVERHANDABOVE

CHIMNEYABOVE
1/4"
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
39 Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
EC3

EXISTINGUPPERFLOORPLAN
EXISTINGUPPERFLOORPLAN1
G
LIVING
FAMILY
FOYER

HALLTERRACE

PRIMARY BEDROOM

PRIMARY BATHROOM

WALK-IN CLOSET
OFFICE
DINING

KITCHEN

LAUNDRY
GARAGE
HALL
DN.

FIREPLACE

ATTICACCESS
HATCH

BUILT-IN

SHELVING

ATTICACCESS
HATCH
VEST.

OPENTO
BELOW

GUARDRAIL
1/4"
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
40 Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
EC4

EXISTINGROOFPLAN
EXISTINGROOFPLAN1
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12

CHIMNEYFLUEANDSPARKARRESTOR
DOWNSPOUT,TYP.

GUTTER,TYP.

DOUBLEDASHEDLINESOF

SECONDFLOORWALLSBELOW
SOLARPANELS,TYP.

RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
RIDGE
HIP

HIP VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY VALLEY
RIDGE
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY

VALLEY RID
GE
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
1/4"
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
41 Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A FEASABILITY STUDY FOR:EWAYS FAMILY5790 ARBORETUM DRIVELOS ALTOS, CA 94024 P.D.12.20.22
FILE:22101_DRR1_EC_elevs.sects.v2022
squarethreearchitectureinc
900 high street suite 3
palo alto, ca 9 4 3 0 1
6 5 0 • 3 2 6 • 3 8 6 0

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
EC5

EXISTINGEXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
1/4"2
1/4"1

EXISTINGSIDE(SOUTH)EXTERIORELEVATION

EXISTINGREAR(WEST)EXTERIORELEVATION
F.F.-2NDFLR.

HEAD-2NDFLR.

PLATE-2NDFLR.

F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.469.67')
HEAD-1STFLR.

PLATE-1STFLR.

F.F.-GARAGE
F.F.-2NDFLR.

HEAD-2NDFLR.

PLATE-2NDFLR.

PLATE-LIVING
T.O.ROOF
±11'-2"
7'-10"
10'-0" 1'-1 1/2"
2'-2"
±28'-3"
7'-10"
11'-5" 10'-5" 6'-4 3/4"
2'-2" 1'-5" 7'-10" 2'-2" 5"
200AMPELECTRICSERVICE

METERANDDISCONNECTPANEL

GASMETER

FIRESPRINKLERRISER
DOWNSPOUT,TYP.

ASPHALTCOMPOSITION

SHINGLEROOF

CHIMNEYFLUEAND

SPARKARRESTOR

CONCRETERETAININGWALL

METALHANDRAIL
PL
±28'-3"
AVE.GRADE
(ELEV.476.00')
NOTE:

GRADEINDICATEDISFOR

THEPURPOSEOFESTABLISHING

THEDAYLIGHTPLANE&IS

MEASUREDFROMTHE

AVERAGEELEVATIONOFTHE
SIDEPROPERTYLINE.
7'-10" 2'-2"
10'-0"
1'-5"
10'-0"
7'-10" 2'-2" 5"
6'-9 3/4"
1'-8"
F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.469.67')
F.F.-2NDFLR.

HEAD-1STFLR.

T.O.ROOF
PLATE-1STFLR.

HEAD-2NDFLR.

PLATE-2NDFLR.

PLATE-LIVING
F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.469.67')
F.F.-2NDFLR.

HEAD-1STFLR.

T.O.ROOF
PLATE-1STFLR.

HEAD-2NDFLR.

PLATE-2NDFLR.

PLATE-LIVING
20'-0" FIRST STORY SIDE YARD BLDG. SETBACK
25'-0" SECOND STORY SIDE YARD BLDG. SETBACK

DAYLIGHT
PLANE
METAL

GUARDRAIL
DOWNSPOUT,TYP.

CLAYTILEROOF

CHIMNEYFLUEAND

SPARKARRESTOR

EXTERIORSTAIRS

WOODGUARDRAIL

STUCCOEXTERIOR
FINISH,TYP.
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
42 Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
EC6

EXISTINGEXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
1/4"2
1/4"1

EXISTINGSIDE(NORTH)EXTERIORELEVATION

EXISTINGFRONT(EAST)EXTERIORELEVATION
F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.469.67')
HEAD-1STFLR.

PLATE-1STFLR.

F.F.-2NDFLR.

HEAD-2NDFLR.

PLATE-2NDFLR.

PLATE-LIVING
T.O.ROOF
±28'-3"
7'-10"
11'-5" 10'-11" ± 5'-11"
2'-2" 1'-5" 7'-10" 2'-2" 11" ± 8'-2"
F.F.-2NDFLR.

HEAD-2NDFLR.

PLATE-2NDFLR.

PLATE-LIVING
F.F.-GARAGEF.F.-GARAGE
HEAD-2NDFLR.

F.F.-2NDFLR.

PLATE-2NDFLR.

T.O.ROOF
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
43 Agenda Item # 3.
date
job no.
sheet title
revision date
1 INCH AT FULL SCALE, IF NOT 1 INCH

THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
(NOT TO SCALE SHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
/A
D
DITIO
N
F
O
R:

E
WAY
S
FA
MILY
5 79
0 A
R
B
O
R
E
T
U
M
D
RIV
E
L
O
S
A
L
T
O
S, CA
9 4
0 2
4 P.D. 12.20.22
FILE: 22101_DRR1_sht.plans.v2022
square three architecture inc
900 high street suite 3
palo alto, ca 9 4 3 0 1
6 5 0 • 3 2 6 • 3 8 6 0
D
E
SIG
N R
EVIE
W A
P
P
R
OVA
L S
E
T - N
O
T F
O
R C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TIO
N
COPYRIGHT 2022

SQUARE THREE ARCHITECTURE, INC
A1.01

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1
(R) TWO-STORY RESIDENCE
5790 ARBORETUM DRIVE
4,919 SF
G
W
W WM
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DN.
(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

DOUBLE DASHED LINES OF LOWER

FLOOR RETAINING WALLS

DOUBLE DASHED LINES OF LOWER

FLOOR INTERIOR WALL
20'-0" SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK
20'-0" SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK
35'-0" REAR
YARD

BUILDING

SETBACK
3 0'-0" F
R
O
N
T
YA
R
D
B
UIL
DIN
G
S
E
T
BA
C
K
PROPERTY LINE - 216.21'
PROPERTY LINE - 166.10'
PROPERTY LINE - 27.79'
PROPERTY LINE - 74.23'
PROPERTY LINE - 11.90'

DASHED RED LINE INDICATING
(R) ROOF LINE, TYP.
(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

LONG DASHED LINES OF

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
(E) TREE DRIPLINE AND TREE
TRUNK, TYP.
(E) BAY WINDOW
ABOVE
(E) BAY WINDOW ABOVE
(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
(E) PAVER DRIVEWAY
(E) DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
25'-0" SECOND STORY BUILDING SETBACK
25'-0" SECOND STORY BUILDING SETBACK

DASHED LINE OF (N) ROOF

DECK ABOVE
UP

BLUE SHADED AREA INDICATES
±190 SF OF (N) FLOOR AREA
(E) DECK TO REMAIN AND BE REFINISHED
(N) WOOD COMPOSITE DECK
ARB
O
R
ET
U
M
D
RIVE
F.F. - UPPER LEVEL
(ELEV. 484.92')
F.F. - LOWER LEVEL
(ELEV. 473.50')
(N) SLIDING DOOR
(E) OUTDOOR AIR CONDITIONING UNIT
(E) GAS METER
(E) MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL
± 12'-3" ± 30'-8 1/2" ± 41'-6 1/2"
± 28'-10"
± 14'-10 1/2" ± 7'-6" ± 16'-6" ± 12'-8 1/2" ± 2
0'-7 1/2"
± 3'-7 1/2"
± 14'-11 1/2"
± 8'-10 1/2"
± 14'-10"
(E) WATER METER
(E) SANITARY SEWER LINE
(N) CONCRETE STAIRS
(E) EXTERIOR PERIMETER WALLS TO REMAIN
(N) EXTERIOR PERIMETER
WALLS
2 A5.01
2 A5.01
1 A5.01
1 A5.01
(N) STEEL POST AND CABLE GUARDRAIL
(N) WOOD COMPOSITE STAIRS
(E) WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN
14" Ø OAK
14" Ø OAK
4" Ø HOLLY - 14' TALL
26" Ø OAK
4" Ø SWAMP BAY - 6' TALL
12" Ø CHERRY PALM - 18' TALL
12" Ø HOLLY - 20' TALL
4" Ø SWAMP BAY - 12' TALL
12" Ø OAK
18" Ø EVERGREEN
(SPECIES UNKNOWN)
12" Ø OAK
14" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
6" Ø OAK
6" Ø OAK
14" Ø OAK
18" Ø OAK
30" Ø EUCALYPTUS
16" Ø EUCALYPTUS
16" Ø EUCALYPTUS
16" Ø EUCALYPTUS
8" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
12" Ø PINE 12" Ø PINE
18" Ø OAK 12" Ø OAK
8" Ø OAK
12" Ø JAVA PLUM - 18' TALL
6" Ø DECIDUOUS - 14' TALL
6" Ø DECIDUOUS - 18' TALL
6" Ø HOLLY - 15' TALL

LOCATION OF GRADE

ADJACENT TO HIGHEST RIDGE

LINE TO DETERMINE DAYLIGHT
PLANE. SEE SHEET A3.01 AND
A3.02 FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
4" Ø SWAMP BAY - 8' TALL

SOLID LINE OF APPROXIMATE

LOCATION OF (E) PRIVACY

VEGETAION SCREENING AND
TRUNK, TYP.
483.15'
1/8"
"X" INDICATES TREES THAT WERE

REMOVED AFTER CIVIL SURVEY BUT PRIOR

TO THE CURRENT OWNERS PURCHASING
THE PROPERTY. TREES WER REMOVED

PRIOR TO PROPERTY BEING ANNEXED

INTO LOS ALTOS WHEN PROPERTY WAS

STILL UNDER SANTA CLARA COUNTY
JURISDICTION.
1 I.R. COMMENTS 12/16/22
1 1
1 44
Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A REMODEL/ADDITION FOR:EWAYS FAMILY5790 ARBORETUM DRIVELOS ALTOS, CA 94024 P.D.12.20.22
FILE:22101_DRR1_sht.plans.v2022
squarethreearchitectureinc
900 high street suite 3
palo alto, ca 9 4 3 0 1
6 5 0 • 3 2 6 • 3 8 6 0

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
A1.02

PRIVACYSCREENINGPHOTOS
PROPOSEDSITEPLAN1
G
W
W
M
SS
SS
SS
1/8"
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
1 1
"X"INDICATESTREESTHATWERE

REMOVEDAFTERCIVILSURVEYBUTPRIOR

TOTHECURRENTOWNERSPURCHASING
THEPROPERTY.TREESWERREMOVED

PRIORTOPROPERTYBEINGANNEXED

INTOLOSALTOSWHENPROPERTYWAS

STILLUNDERSANTACLARACOUNTY
JURISDICTION.
45 Agenda Item # 3.
date
job no.
sheet title
revision date
1 INCH AT FULL SCALE, IF NOT 1 INCH

THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
(NOT TO SCALE SHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
/A
D
DITIO
N
F
O
R:

SQUARE THREE ARCHITECTURE, INC
A2.01

PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR
PLAN
PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN 1
(R) SITTING ROOM
(E) BEDROOM 1
(R) BEDROOM 2
(± 14'-4" X 11'-5")
(E) BEDROOM 3
(R) HALL
(E) HALL
(E) SHARED BATHROOM
(E) CLOSET
(E) BATHROOM 3
UP.
(E) BAR
(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
(E) CRAWL SPACE ACCESS DOOR

DASHED LINE OF (E) FLOOR ABOVE
(E) ROOF DECK AND OVERHANG ABOVE
(E) CHIMNEY ABOVE
UP.
(N) GYM
(± 13'-7" X ±16'-6")

DASHED LINE OF (N) ROOF DECK ABOVE
DN.
(R) EXTERIOR DECK
(N) EXTERIOR DECK
±36'-9" X ± 12'-8"
BLUE SHADED AREA INDICATES ± 190 SF ADDITION
(N) 11'-6" X 7'-10" SLIDING DOORS
DN.
(E) SLIDING DOORS
(N) STEEL CABLE GUARDRAIL, TYP.
(N) 6'-0" X 8'-0" SLIDING DOOR. TRIM

TO MATCH (E) EXTERIOR DOOR
(N) WINDOWS, TYP.
(E) PATIO

DASHED LINES INDICATE WALLS,

WINDOWS, AND DOORS TO BE
DEMOLISHED, TYP.
tv
(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
3'-0" CASED OPENING IF NEEDED
14'-10 1/2" 7'-6" 16'-6" 12'-8 1/2" 20'-7 1/2"
10'-7 1/2"
2'-0"
7'-8" 16'-1"
± 11'-4" ± 27'-3" ± 14'-4 1/2" ± 20'-11" ± 14'-8"
± 2
8'-10" ± 1'-10 1/2" ± 12'-3"
3'-11"
4'-10"
(N) EXTERIOR PERIMETER WALS
(N) 5'-8" X 7'-10" SLIDING DOOR
1 A5.01
1 A5.01
2 A5.01
2 A5.01
(N) STEEL AND WOOD PRIVACY SCREEN
1/4"
1 I.R. COMMENTS 12/16/22
1 46
Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
A2.02

PROPOSEDUPPERFLOOR
PLAN
PROPOSEDUPPERFLOORPLAN1
G
(E) LIVING
(R) FAMILY
(E) FOYER
(E) HALL (E) TERRACE
(E) PRIMARY BEDROOM
(E) PRIMARY BATHROOM
(E) WALK-IN CLOSET
(E) OFFICE
(E) DINING
(E) KITCHEN
(E) LAUNDRY
(E) GARAGE
(E) HALL
DN.
(E)FIREPLACE
(E)ATTIC
ACCESS
HATCH
(E)ATTIC
ACCESS
HATCH

DASHEDLINESOFLOWER

LEVELWALLSBELOW
(E)ATTIC
ACCESS
HATCH
(E) VEST.

OPENTO
BELOW
(E)GUARDRAIL
(N) ROOF DECK
±21'-11"X±14'-11"
(N)STEELAND

WOODPRIVACY
SCREEN
DN.
books AV
(N)STEELCABLEGUARDRAIL,TYP.

DN.
(N)PLANTERBOXES
(N)10'-0"X8'-0"

FOLDINGDOOR
landing

GRAYDASHEDLINEINDICATING
AREATOBEDEMOLISHED,TYP.

BLUESHADEDAREAINDICATES±9

SFADDITION
(N)MEDIACABINETAND

BOOKCASES
tv
(E)FIREPLACETOREMAIN(E)
ENTRY
(N)WOODDECKING
tv
18'-41/2"7'-8"16'-6"12'-81/2"20'-71/2"
8'-9" 7'-11" 37'-10 3/8"
±6'-0"±11'-81/2"±17'-0"±14'-3"
± 20'-2" ± 15'-1 1/2"
±24'-3"±4'-01/2"
± 52'-1"
1 A5.01
1 A5.01
2 A5.01
2 A5.01
1/4"
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
47 Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
A2.03

PROPOSEDROOFPLAN
PROPOSEDROOFPLAN1
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
(E)CHIMNEYFLUEANDSPARKARRESTOR
(E)DOWNSPOUT,TYP.
(E)GUTTER,TYP.

DOUBLEDASHEDLINESOF(E)

SECONDFLOORWALLSBELOW
(E)SOLARPANELS,TYP.

RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
RIDGE
HIP

HIP VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY VALLEY
RIDGE
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY

VALLEY RID
GE
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP

SHADEDAREAINDICATESNEWROOFTOBEADDED
±4'-6"
± 4'-6"

NEWGUTTERTOBECONNECTEDTOEXISTING
1 A5.01
1 A5.01
2 A5.01
2 A5.01
1/4"
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
48 Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
A2.04

FLOORAREACOVERAGEAND

CALCULATIONDIAGRAM
FLOORAREACOVERAGEANDCALCULATIONDIAGRAM1
G
M
A
L
H
D
K
F
I
G
J
B
CEN
AA
BB
1/8"
O
V
U
R
T
S
P
W
Q
BB
CC

UPPER FLOOR AREA

SECTIONDIMENSIONAREA
A±21'-10"x±45'-10"916.7SF
B24'-2"x5'-10"140SF
C±10'-4"x±14'-5"142.6SF
D36'-10"x6'-8"246.4SF
E7'-7"x11'-9"89.6SF
F±16'-5"x±16'-0"246.8SF
G11'-2"x3'-0"33.5SF
H3'-9"x8'-7"32.5SF
I6'-4"x6'-3"39.7SF
J5'-0"x6'-6"32.7SF
K17'-0"x14'-11"253.9SF
L14'-2"x13'-9"534.2SF
M24'-2"x20'-6"494.3SF
TOTAL EXISTING UPPER FLOOR AREA = 2,708.6 SF
GARAGE FLOOR AREA (M) = 494.3 SF

LOWER FLOOR AREA

SECTIONDIMENSIONAREA
O19'-10"x29'-9"581.6SF
P24'-0"x16'-9"402.1SF
Q16'-5"x2'-0"32.8SF
R15'-8"x1'-2"18.6SF
S12'-7"x2'-4"29.4SF
T12'-10"x9'-11"127.3SF
U6'-9"x12'-3"83.2SF
V13'-9"x15'-12"219.4SF
TOTAL EXISTING LOWER FLOOR AREA = 1,494.5 SF

PROPOSEDFLOORAREA

SECTIONDIMENSIONAREA
N±3'-11"x±3'-11"7.7SF
W±14'-9"x±16'-2"188.6SF
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (N+W) = 196.3 SF
TOTAL FLOOR AREA = 4,893.7 SF
DECK FLOOR AREA*
AA±21'-11"x±14'-11"284SF
BB±57'-4"x±12'-8"713SF
CC±33'-4"x±10'-0"285.1SF
TOTAL DECK AREA (O+Y+Z) = 1,282.1 SF
*HATCHED AREA INDICATING AREA COUNTED FOR SITE COVERAGE. SEE PROJECT TABULATION 4/A0.01 FOR ADDITIONAL INFO.
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
1 49
Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A REMODEL/ADDITION FOR:EWAYS FAMILY5790 ARBORETUM DRIVELOS ALTOS, CA 94024 P.D.12.20.22
FILE:22101_DRR1_elevs.sects.v2022
squarethreearchitectureinc
900 high street suite 3
palo alto, ca 9 4 3 0 1
6 5 0 • 3 2 6 • 3 8 6 0

DESIGN APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
A3.01

PROPOSEDEXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
1/4"2
1/4"1

PROPOSEDSIDE(SOUTH)EXTERIORELEVATION

PROPOSEDREAR(WEST)EXTERIORELEVATION
(E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-LIVING
T.O.(E)ROOF
±36'-7"
7'-10"
11'-5" 10'-5" ± 6'-5"
2'-2" 1'-3" 7'-10" 2'-2" 5"
(E)F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.473.50')
(E)HEAD-1STFLR.
(E)PLATE-1STFLR.
(N)F.F.-ROOFDECK
±19'-8"
5'-6"
(E)400AMPELECTRICSERVICE

METERANDDISCONNECTPANEL
(E)GASMETER
(E)FIRESPRINKLERRISER
(E)DOWNSPOUT,TYP.
(E)CLAYTILEROOF
(E)CHIMNEYFLUEAND

SPARKARRESTOR
(E)CONCRETERETAININGWALL
(E)CONCRETERETAININGWALL
(E)METALGUARDRAIL
(N)ROOFDECK
(N)EXTERIORSLIDINGDOORS
(N)STEELANDWOOD

PRIVACYSCREEN
(N)STAIRS
(N)STEELCABLE
GUARDRAIL,TYP.
(N)WINDOWS
12 4
12 4
1 A5.01
1 A5.01
PL
±39'-6"
7'-10" 2'-2"
10'-0"
1'-3"
10'-0"
7'-10" 2'-2" 5"
± 6'-10"
20'-0" FIRST STORY SIDE YARD BLDG. SETBACK
25'-0" SECOND STORY SIDE YARD BLDG. SETBACK
5'-6"

NATURALGRADE
(ELEV.483.15')
NOTE:

GRADEINDICATEDISFOR

THEPURPOSEOFESTABLISHING

THEDAYLIGHTPLANE&IS

MEASUREDALONGTHESIDE

PROPERTYLINEADJACENTTO
THEHIGHESTRIDGELINE.

DAYLIGHT
PLANE 25.00°
±19'-8"
(E)F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.473.50')
(E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)HEAD-1STFLR.

T.O.(E)ROOF
(E)PLATE-1STFLR.
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-LIVING
(E)F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.473.50')
(E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)HEAD-1STFLR.

T.O.(E)ROOF
(E)PLATE-1STFLR.
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-LIVING
(N)F.F.-ROOFDECK
± 2'-11"
3'-6"
5'-6"
3'-6"
(N)STEEL
CABLE

GUARDRAIL,
TYP.
(E)CLAYTILEROOF
(E)CHIMNEYFLUEAND

SPARKARRESTOR
(N)STUCCOEXTERIOR
FINISH,TYP.TOMATCH

EXISTING
(N)WINDOWS
(N)ROOFDECK
(N)EXTERIORSTAIRS
(N)PLANTER
T.O.(E)RETAINING
WALL
(N)STEELANDWOOD

PRIVACYWALL
(N)DECKEXTENSION
(N)POST
12 4
12 4
2 A5.01
2 A5.01
(N)STEELCABLEGUARDRAIL,
TYP.
(N)WALLTRIMTOMATCH

EXISTING
(N)CLAYTILEROOFTOMATCH

EXISTING
(N)STEELANDWOOD

PRIVACYWALL
1 1
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
50 Agenda Item # 3.
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

DESIGN APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
A3.02

PROPOSEDEXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS

PROPOSEDSIDE(NORTH)EXTERIORELEVATION
1/4"2
±39'-6"
7'-10"
11'-5" 10'-11" ± 5'-11"
2'-2" 1'-3" 7'-10" 2'-2" 11" ± 11'-4"
(E)F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.473.50')
(E)HEAD-1STFLR.
(E)PLATE-1STFLR.
(E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-LIVING
T.O.(E)ROOF
(N)F.F.-ROOFDECK
± 22'-7"
± 25'-7"
3'-6" 2'-0"
(E)CHIMNEYFLUEAND

SPARKARRESTOR
(N)ROOFDECK
(N)WINDOWS
(N)STEELCABLE
GUARDRAIL,TYP.
(N)STAIRS

DASHEDLINEINDICATING
(N)GUARDRAIL,TYP.
(E)DOWNSPOUT,TYP.
(E)OUTDOORHVACUNITS
(R)DECK
(N)STEELCABLE
GUARDRAIL,TYP.

AREAOFNEW±190SF

ADDITION
12 4
12 4
1 A5.01
1 A5.01
(N)5'-6"PRIVACYSCREEN
PROPOSEDFRONT(EAST)EXTERIORELEVATION-NONEWWORKPROPOSED1/4"1 (E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-LIVING
(E)F.F.-GARAGE
(ELEV.483.50')
(E)F.F.-GARAGE
(ELEV.483.50')
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.

T.O.(E)ROOF
12 4
12 4
1 1
51 Agenda Item # 3.
date
job no.
sheet title
revision date
1 INCH AT FULL SCALE, IF NOT 1 INCH

THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
(NOT TO SCALE SHOWN)
scale

12.20.22 22101
A
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
/A
D
DITIO
N
F
O
R:

E
WAY
S
FA
MILY
5 79
0 A
R
B
O
R
E
T
U
M
D
RIV
E
L
O
S
A
L
T
O
S, CA
9 4
0 2
4 P.D. 12.20.22
FILE: 22101_DRR1_elevs.sects.v2022
square three architecture inc
900 high street suite 3
palo alto, ca 9 4 3 0 1
6 5 0 • 3 2 6 • 3 8 6 0
D
E
SIG
N A
P
P
R
OVA
L S
E
T - N
O
T F
O
R C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TIO
N
COPYRIGHT 2022

SQUARE THREE ARCHITECTURE, INC
A3.03

EXISTING EXTERIOR VIEWS
EXISTING VIEW TO SOUTH WEST FROM UPPER FLOOR WINDOW (SAME VANTAGE POINT AS NEW ROOF DECK) 1/4" 2 EXISTING VIEW TO WEST FROM EXISTING LOWER FLOOR DECK (SAME VANTAGE POINT AS NEW DECK AREA) 1/4" 1 52 Agenda Item # 3.

N
EW2'-10"X5'-10"WINDOWS
PL
±28'-3"
7'-10" 2'-2"
10'-0"
1'-3"
10'-0"
7'-10" 2'-2" 5"
± 6'-10"
20'-0" FIRST STORY SIDE YARD BLDG. SETBACK
25'-0" SECOND STORY SIDE YARD BLDG. SETBACK
(E)F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.473.50')
(E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)HEAD-1STFLR.

T.O.(E)ROOF
(E)PLATE-1STFLR.
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-LIVING
(E)F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.473.50')
(E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)HEAD-1STFLR.

T.O.(E)ROOF
(E)PLATE-1STFLR.
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-LIVING
(N)F.F.-ROOFDECK
5'-6"

DAYLIGHT
PLANE

25.00°
3'-6"

NATURALGRADE
(ELEV.483.15')
NOTE:

GRADEINDICATEDISFOR

THEPURPOSEOFESTABLISHING

THEDAYLIGHTPLANE&IS

MEASUREDALONGTHESIDE

PROPERTYLINEADJACENTTO
THEHIGHESTRIDGELINE.

GYM
DECK
12 4
12 4
(N)STEELCABLEGUARDRAIL,TYP.
(N)STEELANDWOOD

PRIVACYSCREENS
(N)PLANTERBOXES
(N)BIFOLDDOOR
2-2-
date job no.
sheet title
revisiondate
1INCHATFULLSCALE,IFNOT1INCH

THISDRAWINGHASBEENREPRODUCED
(NOTTOSCALESHOWN)
scale

DESIGN APPROVAL SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT2022

SQUARETHREEARCHITECTURE,INC
A5.01

BUILDINGSECTIONS
1/4"2
1/4"1

PROPOSEDSIDE(SOUTH)SECTION

PROPOSEDREAR(WEST)SECTION
±28'-3"
7'-10"
11'-5" 10'-11" ± 5'-11"
2'-2" 1'-3" 7'-10" 2'-2" 11"
(E)F.F.-1STFLR.
(ELEV.473.50')
(E)HEAD-1STFLR.
(E)PLATE-1STFLR.
(N)F.F-ROOFDECK
(E)F.F.-2NDFLR.
(ELEV.484.92')
(E)HEAD-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-2NDFLR.
(E)PLATE-LIVING
T.O.(E)ROOF
± 6'-11"

NATURALGRADE
(N)STEELANDWOOD

PRIVACYSCREEN
(N)STEELCABLEGUARDRAIL,TYP.

WINDOWSILLTRIMTO

MATCHEXISTING
12 4
1-1-
1I.R.COMMENTS12/16/22
1 53
Agenda Item # 3.
54 Agenda Item # 3.

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
7:00 PM - Thursday, May 18, 2023
Telephone/Video Conference and In-Person
Community Meeting Chambers, Los Altos City Hall
1 North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m. Vice-Chair Ahi called the meeting to order.

ESTABLISH QUORUM
PRESENT: Vice-Chair Ahi, Commissioners Beninato, Disney, Doran, Roche and Steinle ABSENT: Chair Mensinger
STAFF: Development Services Director Zornes, Planning Services Manager Williams, and Associate Planner Liu

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Commissioner Doran made comments about bike electrification.

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Planning Commission Minutes
Approve the minutes of the special Joint Planning Commission/Complete Streets Commission meeting of March 23, 2023.

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Steinle, seconded by Commissioner Roche, the Commission recommended approval of the minutes of the special Joint Planning Commission/Complete Streets Commission meeting of March 23, 2023 as written.

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

AYES: Doran, Ahi, Beninato, Disney, Roche and Steinle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mensinger

PUBLIC HEARING

2. SC22-0029 and V23-0002 - Bryan Lee - 5790 Arboretum Drive Design Review for a 190 square-foot addition at the first story and a 327 square-foot second story deck to an existing single-family home. A variance is requested for a 16-foot and six-inch, second-story side setback for the second-story deck, where a 25-foot side setback is required in the R1-20 Zoning District. The project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (“Existing Facilities”). Project Planner: Liu Associate Planner Liu gave the staff report presentation and answered Commissioner questions. 55 Agenda Item # 3.
1/5/2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 2 Project architect Bryan Lee provided a project presentation and went over the project details.

Vice-Chair Ahi opened the public comment period.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Resident Jerry Schoening and Evangeline provided public comments.

Vice-Chair Ahi closed the public comment period and Commission discussion proceeded.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Beninato, seconded by Commissioner Steinle, the Commission recommended denial of the requested design review application (SC22-0029) and variance application (V23-0002) per the findings contained in the attached resolution and find the project exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 (“Projects Which are Disapproved”).

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

AYES: Ahi, Beninato, Doran, Disney, Roche and Steinle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mensinger

COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Commissioners Beninato made comments.

ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chair Ahi adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM.

Stephanie Williams
Planning Services Manager
56 Agenda Item # 3.

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 18, 2023
Subject: SC22-0029 & V23-0002 - 5790 Arboretum Drive
Prepared by: Jia Liu, Associate Planner
Initiated by: Marwan and Lisa Eways, Applicant
Attachments:

A. Draft Resolution
B. February 15, 2023 DRC Meeting Minutes
C. Applicant Variance Justification Letter
D. Project Plans
Recommendation
Deny the requested design review application (SC22-0029) and variance application (V23-0002) per the findings contained in the attached resolution and find the project exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 (“Projects Which are Disapproved”).

Summary
The proposed project is a request for design review and variance to allow an addition to an existing single-family residence consisting of an approximately 190 square-foot addition and 465 square-foot deck on the first story and an eight square-foot addition and 327 square-foot deck on the second story.

The variance is requested for a 16-foot and six-inch, second-story side setback for the second-story deck, where a 25-foot side setback is required.

Subject: SC22-0029 & V23-0002 - 5790 Arboretum Drive
May 18, 2023 Page 2
As the original development was subject to the County’s zoning regulations, which have less restrictive setbacks than current city regulations, the existing house is a legal non-conforming structure. The nonconformities include the two side setbacks that currently require 20-foot first story setback and 25- foot second story setback compared to the existing house’s 15-foot side setbacks for both the first and second stories.

The property is a sloped lot with the home located on the more level portion of the property towards the street and the rear yard is sloped with an approximately 30-foot elevation difference within a 100- foot depth. The rear yard also appears to remain undisturbed with some existing vegetation including two trees that are close to the proposed deck areas.

Following the zoning code amendments to implement the City's 2023-2031 Housing Element earlier this year, the Design Review Commission has since been dissolved and the review authority for design review applications for single-family residential developments has been delegated to the Zoning Administrator and the review for variance applications delegated to the Planning Commission.

Because the variance request is subject to Planning Commission review, the design review request is being bundled with the variance request for the Commission’s consideration.

Analysis
Design Review Application
As discussed previously, the existing home is a nonconforming structure. The proposed 190 square-foot addition on the first floor and eight square-foot addition at the second floor are consistent with the current City development standards, including the side setbacks. The proposed first floor deck expansion along the rear elevation has a proposed 15-foot side setback, where the required minimum setback is 20 feet (shown as the area in red in Figure 1 below) which is allowed per Section 14.10.080 E. of the Zoning Code which allows limited nonconforming expansions without a variance as follows:

Subject: SC22-0029 & V23-0002 - 5790 Arboretum Drive
May 18, 2023 Page 3

1. The extension may only be applied to the first story.

2. Only one such administrative extension may be permitted for the life of the building. Other extensions may be considered, subject to the filing of a variance application.

3. Extensions are only permitted for the main structure and cannot result in a further encroachment into any required setback area.

Subject: SC22-0029 & V23-0002 - 5790 Arboretum Drive
May 18, 2023 Page 4
Figure 2
After thorough analysis of the requested variance, staff found that the variance findings cannot be made as will be further discussed in the next section. Due to the recommendation of denial to the Planning Commission for the variance, staff also recommends denial to the design review as the project does not meet the underlying zoning development standards and cannot meet the findings of the design review per LAMC Section 14.76.060. Alternatively, the Planning Commission can approve the design review permit conditioned on changes to the project to be consistent with the City’s standards.

Variance Application
The variance being requested is for a reduction to the second story side setback. The proposed second story deck is proposed atop the first-story addition that will result in an eight-foot and six-inch encroachment into the required 25-foot setback.

Pursuant to LAMC Section 14.76.070 B., a variance may be granted only when all three findings cited below can be made. The third criterion derives from state law (see Government Code Section 65906) and shall be strictly construed.

1. That the granting of the variance will be consistent with the objectives of the zoning plan set forth in Article 1 of Chapter 14.02;
60 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: SC22-0029 & V23-0002 - 5790 Arboretum Drive
May 18, 2023 Page 5

As part of the variance application submittal requirements, the applicant provided a variance justification letter enclosed in Attachment C for the Commission’s reference. This letter outlines the applicant's explanation why they believe the requested variance should be granted by demonstrating how each finding is met. Regarding Finding No. 1, the applicant believes the project meets two objectives set forth in LAMC Chapter 14.02 including Subsection F - To protect and enhance real property values within the city; and Subsection G - To conserve the city's natural beauty, to improve its appearance, and to preserve and enhance its distinctive physical character.

Furthermore, staff would like to raise the question of whether granting the variance is necessary to meet the two objectives that the applicant believes the project meets. Upon review, staff found that there are alternative design options available for the proposed deck that can achieve the same goal. For example, the proposed deck can be expanded towards the north to comply with the second-story side setback while still providing the same size deck in a slightly different configuration. Another option to consider is expanding the existing second-story terrace through the hallway. With the possibility of other design solutions, staff does not believe that this finding can be made.

However, staff found that granting this variance could have negative impacts on the surrounding area by establishing a precedent, which could undermine the integrity of zoning regulations in the area. Also, staff found that the two adjacent properties with non-compliant second-floor decks are not existing precedents because:
• The property at 5810 Arboretum Drive, located to the south side, was developed prior to the annexation of the Woodland Acres Neighborhood. The existing non-compliant deck is a legal non-conforming structure, like the house.
• The property at 5770 Arboretum Drive, located to the north side, was granted a variance and design review application (12-V-11 and 12-SC-56) in 2013 by the Design Review Commission for construction of a new two-story house. The granted variance includes a reduction in the side 61 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: SC22-0029 & V23-0002 - 5790 Arboretum Drive
May 18, 2023 Page 6
setbacks at both stories. However, staff does not believe that this example would be a precedent to the subject variance application since the property at 5770 Arboretum Drive has an average lot width that is less than 100 feet. In 2015, a zoning code amendment was adopted through Ordinance No. 2015-114 that allows properties with a lot width less than 100 feet in the R1-20 Zoning District to be subject to the R1-10 Zoning District's development standards. Therefore, the reduced side setbacks at both floors at 5770 Arboretum Drive are currently compliant.

Additionally, the non-conformity of the existing home due to its development under the County’s regulations does not justify further deviations from the current City setback requirements. The exception to allow the first-story deck’s expansion in the zoning code acknowledges a non-conforming structure’s existence and the desire from homeowners to align new development with the structure in a limited way.

Alternatives
The following alternatives to staff’s recommendation may be considered by the Planning Commission:

1. Approve the project as proposed.

2. Deny the variance application and conditionally approve the design review application subject to a condition of approval requiring modifications to the project to be consistent with the City’s standards.

Environmental Review
If the Planning Commission adopts the staff recommendation, then no environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (“Projects Which are Disapproved”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which are disapproved. If the Planning Commission approves the project, then it may find that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 (“Existing Facilities”) of the CEQA Guidelines because it involves an alteration and addition to an existing single-family dwelling in a residential zone within size limits specified in Section 15301(e), and none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
62 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: SC22-0029 & V23-0002 - 5790 Arboretum Drive
May 18, 2023 Page 7
Public Notification and Community Outreach
A public meeting notice was posted on the property, mailed to property owners within a 300’ radius, and published in the Town Crier. The applicant also posted the public notice sign (24” x 36”) in conformance with the Planning Division posting requirements.

The applicant contacted the adjacent neighbors to the southside and northside in the immediate area for the community outreach. No comments from neighbors have been received by staff as of the writing of this report.
63 Agenda Item # 3.
1 Melissa Thurman
From: Marwan Eways <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 1:24 PM
To: Melissa Thurman
Subject: [External Sender]Re: Appeal Public Hearing - 5790 Arboretum Dr Hi Melissa,
After checking with the team, we kindly request to be on the agenda for September 26th, 2023. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks very much,
Marwan Eways | [email protected] | Cell: 415-806-7410
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:08:54 AM PDT, Melissa Thurman <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Mr. Eways,

The City Council does not meet on September 5th. They meet the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, except for the months of July (no second meeting), August (no first meeting), November (no second meeting) and December (no second meeting). The first meeting in September would be September 12th.

If September 12th works for you, please confirm as soon as possible. Please note the Council can continue your public hearing to one date certain; if after they continue the item you are unable to attend the next scheduled meeting, you will have to fund the next advertisement for another public hearing date.

Thank you and please confirm if September 12, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. works for your schedule.

Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
City of Los Altos
www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
64 Agenda Item # 3.
2 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Marwan Eways <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 7:03 PM
To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appeal Public Hearing - 5790 Arboretum Dr

Good evening Melissa,
I had a very full day today and apologize for the brief message. Thank you very much for your help! After looking at the schedules, can we request to be on the Sept 5th agenda? Regards,
Marwan Eways | [email protected] | Cell: 415-806-7410
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 09:57:43 AM PDT, Marwan Eways <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
Marwan Eways - 415-806-7410
On Jun 20, 2023, at 9:48 AM, Melissa Thurman <[email protected]> wrote:

65 Agenda Item # 3.
3 Hello Mr. Eways,

Thank you for your email. As the Public Hearing has already been noticed the item will be listed on the June 27th City Council agenda; however, staff will recommend to Council that they continue the item to a date certain of Tuesday August 22, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. The City Council is taking a summer break and does not have any meetings scheduled between July 11 and August 22.

Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you.

Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
City of Los Altos
www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Marwan Eways <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 11:24 AM
To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appeal Public Hearing - 5790 Arboretum Dr

Good Morning Melisa,
Thanks for your note. My wife and I have a conflict on that day, my daughter is having surgery. Can we target the meeting on July 25th?
When speaking to Angel Rodriguez, I mentioned our conflicts: June 27, surgery for Ayden Eways, and July 11, Architect out, and asked if we could tentatively plan for late July or August. 66 Agenda Item # 3.
4 Thanks,
Marwan Eways | [email protected] | Cell: 415-806-7410
On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 07:25:42 AM PDT, Melissa Thurman <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Mr. and Mrs. Eways,

The appeal of Planning Commission Decision for Planning Division File No. SC22-0029 and V23-0002 has been scheduled as a Public Hearing before the City Council on Tuesday June 27, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter.

The appeal you submitted to the City of Los Altos on May 31, 2023 is attached to this email, for reference, as is the Public Hearing notice which was advertised in the Daily Post on June 16, 2023. As we get closer to the meeting date, I will send another email to you with specifics for the appeal, including the length of time you will have to present your appeal to the City Council.

Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Please note the City of Los Altos will be closed on Monday June 19, 2023, in observance of Juneteenth.

Thank you.

<image001.png>
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
City of Los Altos
www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
67 Agenda Item # 3.
5 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

68 Agenda Item # 3.
1 MARWAN & LISA EWAYS
5790 Arboretum Drive
Los Altos, CA
September 20, 2023
Honorable Mayor and esteemed Council Members:

I am Marwan Eways, a retired Technology Executive, and my wife, Dr. Lisa Eways, is a practicing Physician in our community. Our family has proudly called Los Altos home, actively participating in various community initiatives, schools, and our local Church since 2006.

As Los Altos residents, we are invested in the well-being of our city and are reaching out to address a matter of importance regarding our application for Variance V23-0002.

A meeting with the Planning Commission to consider our application on V23-0002 on 5/18 concluded with an informal split vote because a commissioner was absent. The Planning Commission recommended that we appeal. In order to allow our application to move forward with an appeal, the Commission voted 6 – 0 to deny our application.

Our application seeks approval to construct a second-story patio that is adjacent to the home's common area (family room and kitchen), above a small room addition on the first floor that serves as deck support and provides additional living space on the first floor. The design adheres to conventional construction, safety, and earthquake standards and is compatible with the design of our existing home.

Our proposed design aligns seamlessly with the existing hillside style of our home and remains within our allocated budget. The project includes an extension of our lower-level deck and establishes a connection to the upper patio with the addition of stairs, allowing access from the upper deck to the back yard. Our design objective is to create a safe and accessible inside-outside area that can accommodate our large extended family, including aging and disabled members. We aim to establish a space where our family can gather and enjoy quality time together.

We are grateful to have the support of our adjacent neighbors who live and own the properties at 5810 and 5770 Arboretum Drive, as well as the property owners behind our property at 2100 Woods Lane. All the surrounding neighbors have written letters or emails to the city supporting our design plans. Jerry Schoenig, who lives at 5810 Arboretum Dr and is our adjacent neighbor who was the builder of our home, spoke in favor of our project at a planning commission meeting.

We kindly request careful consideration of our Variance Appeal because our plans do not negatively impact the community and city as a whole, nor our neighbors. Attached are supporting materials for our appeal.

Thank you for your time and dedication to serving the citizens of Los Altos.

Sincerely,
Marwan and Lisa Eways
69 Agenda Item # 3.
2 Overview
Our residence, located at 5790 Arboretum Dr, sits on one of the steepest lots in the Woodland area. Positioned downhill from the street, our home's entrance on the top (second) floor is accessed via a sloping driveway with a 12-foot elevation difference below the street. In total, our property spans a significant elevation change of 57 feet from top to bottom. Our house follows an inverted floor plan, with common areas (kitchen, family room, breakfast area and living room) on the top floor. Our bedrooms, a small media room, and the only access to the back yard are on the lower floor.

It is important to note that our home is a legally conforming property constructed in 2003 – 2004 in accordance with Santa Clara County standards with 15 foot side setbacks where 25 foot setbacks are required under current City code. We are in Woodland Acres, which was under Santa Clara county jurisdiction until it was annexed to the City of Los Altos in 2006.

Seeking to enhance our home, we are applying to build a deck adjacent to our family room and kitchen, extending along the existing nonstandard setback. This design aligns architecturally and aesthetically with our property and is similar to what is enjoyed by many of our neighbors.

The planning department expressed concern about a minor ~8 ft second-story setback difference. We firmly believe that the Los Altos setback code intends to address remodels where second-story additions may intrude upon neighboring homes, preventing privacy concerns. However, that is not the case with our neighbors. Our neighbors have two-story homes that are above and overlook our property and yard. Both neighbors support the addition of a second-story deck. Moreover, our proposed patio will be situated significantly lower down the hill, mitigating any potential privacy issues. The presence of trees and the incorporation of a partition to the south further ensure privacy (see above rendering).

The city did not support our design and variance application based on the following reasons:
70 Agenda Item # 3.
3 1. Our lot is not considered “special” compared to others in the area.

2. Comparisons were made to homes built under county standards or legal construction following Los Altos standards.

3. Concerns were raised about setting a precedent with our request.

4. The city believes that we have other available options.

Background
We would like to provide background that supports our variance appeal by way of at least one example of the city applying inconsistent rulings and application of the zoning standards for the property at 5770 Arboretum next door to our property (15-V-06 - 5770 Arboretum Drive - June 17, 2015).

Specifically, we would like to address the city's lack of support for our variance application due to the perception that our lot does not qualify for “special circumstances”. However, our lot does qualify for special circumstances – development under County standards, location of common areas on the second floor, and the steepness of our lot.

The houses on both sides of our home have decks accessible from common areas – similar to what we are seeking and most all other homes in our neighborhood that are on flat lots have accessible outdoor areas adjacent to their common area. Our home is virtually the only home in the neighborhood with no useable outdoor space for entertainment adjacent to the home’s common area.

Variance application 15-V-06 for the adjacent property at 5770 Arboretum requested and received approval for a front yard setback and increased impervious surface for a paver driveway. The homeowners requested to deviate from the 50% impervious area limit to add pathways on their steep lot. In their application, the homeowners sought permission to use a nonstandard percentage of pavers for constructing walkways leading to their houses. Of note, the adjacent lots specifically referenced as precedents include our property at 5790 Arboretum Dr and 5810 Arboretum Dr, both of which were built under the county codes – not city codes with 15 foot side setbacks.

The city approved the variance for 5770 Arboretum Drive, accepting their justification based on the following factors:
- The topography of their lot was deemed "special," with a 10-foot difference between the street and their garage floor and a total elevation change from the front (high) to the rear (low) of 40 feet.
- They referenced other adjacent lots in the neighborhood that had similar features as justification for their request – notably lots developed under county codes.

In the Staff report for 15-V-06 - 5770 Arboretum Drive, Zachary Dahl, Senior Planner stated:
“There is a special circumstance applicable to the property due to the sloping topography of the lot. Strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications since many of the nearby properties have large driveways and impervious areas in their front yards.”
71 Agenda Item # 3.
4 In contrast, 5770 Arboretum Dr has a 10-foot drop from street and 40-feet overall – the lot topography was deemed “special.” Our property at 5790 Arboretum Dr has a 12-foot difference between the street and our garage floor and a total elevation change of front (high) to rear (low) of 57 feet. However, our lot topography was deemed by staff as “not special”.

Only 7 homes in our neighborhood of over fifty homes have steeply sloping lots and only a very small percentage of lots in the entire City of Los Altos have steeply sloping lots. Of all the steeply sloping lots, very few have their common area located on the second floor. Very few lots in the City were developed under County codes.

We understand that the city has provided other design options in the staff report and during meetings. However, we would like to explain why the options are not viable alternatives for the following reasons.
- Moving the proposed patio to the north and suspending it 23 feet in the air: This approach would necessitate specialized engineering and the use of 23-foot pillars, which is uncommon in residential construction. It raises safety concerns and would also require the removal of one to two protected mature oak trees. - The resulting design would create an odd addition, negatively impacting the flow and diminishing the overall value of our property - not aligning with commonly accepted home design nor the design of the house. Or it would require moving the kitchen and family room at infeasible expense and affecting the use and design of the first floor. In our interviews with several design professionals, all consistently proposed a deck adjacent to the existing common areas.
- Building a patio (with or without a pool) in the lower back yard for outdoor entertainment:

This does not allow easy indoor/outdoor entertaining as the lower back yard is far away from the kitchen and is not readily accessible from the common areas on the second floor, nor is it accessible for elderly and disabled family members. [Lisa’s elderly mother fell going down the stairs to the lower floor since our variance hearing at the Planning Commission requiring hospitalization, surgery and recovery at an extended care facility.] - The suggested options would not allow us to host gatherings where we can be in the common areas together, both inside and outside, as desired. The ideal flow would involve adjacent indoor and outdoor spaces for our guests to enjoy, like our neighbors' properties and other properties in the neighborhood. Alternatives will also diminish the real property value of our home.

Precedent
We understand the city's concern about setting a precedent by approving our variance.

However, we would like to provide some clarifications regarding this issue:

1. Unique lot: Our home is one of only seven properties in the area with steep lot topography zoned R1-20. It is part of Woodland Acres, a neighborhood that was annexed to the city of Los Altos in 2006.

2. Existing adjacent properties: Both of our adjacent neighbors already have decks and/or second-story patios adjacent to their common areas, deviating from the 72 Agenda Item # 3.
5 standard setbacks. This indicates that a precedent already exists within our immediate vicinity.

3. Limited number of homes: In total, there are only seven homes with similar characteristics in our area, many if not all of which already have decks adjacent to their common areas. The number of properties that the city is concerned about setting a precedent for is exceedingly small.

We believe that the intent of the 25-foot second-story setback in the Los Altos code is to address privacy and daylight concerns and avoid mass and bulk when adding second-story space to older single-story homes. However, our home, like our neighboring properties at 5770 and 5810 Arboretum Dr, is relatively new. These properties are both nonstandard and located at higher elevations compared to ours. The proximity of these homes means that they can already overlook our common areas, and approving our variance would not significantly impact privacy concerns. Adding a deck to the roof of a legally permitted first floor addition does not add any bulk or mass the structure. [Note that the first floor addition meets all current setback requirements and is conforming and permitted – it is only the open deck on the second floor that requires a variance.]
It is worth noting that 5810 and 5790 Arboretum Dr were originally one lot that was split into two separate homes. Our home, which we purchased in 2006, has limited usable outdoor space due to the steepness of the lot and budget constraints. Access to our backyard is from the lower floor, away from the main common areas. In contrast, the Schoenig’s at 5810 Arboretum Dr have a large deck accessible from the common areas (kitchen and family room) on the second floor, as well as an additional second-story deck overlooking our home -- all constructed according to the setback requirements of Santa Clara County (which do not appear to conform to current City setbacks). We aspire to enjoy similar outdoor spaces connected to our main living/common areas, providing better flow and gathering opportunities for our family.

In conclusion, we have provided specific responses to the main points raised in the city's staff report. Despite the city's assertion that our lot is not "special," we have demonstrated that our neighbor's lot, which was deemed special, had a less challenging topography than ours. We have also highlighted examples of homes built under county standards and legal construction, such as 5770 Arboretum Dr, which were allowed to deviate from standard setbacks.

Regarding the concern about setting a precedent, we argue that a precedent already exists based on the city's application of the code for 5770 Arboretum Dr, where homeowners were permitted to compare their property to any in the area, including legal non-conforming homes built under County standards. Moreover, we clarify that the alternatives proposed by staff are not feasible and would not achieve our objectives.

In presenting these examples, our intention is not to claim binding precedents, but rather to highlight the inconsistency in rulings considered for variance justifications. We believe it is crucial to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all homeowners when evaluating variance applications.
73 Agenda Item # 3.
6 We believe that our proposed design and variance request align with our needs, preferences, and budget while respecting the existing aesthetics and functionality of our home and have no negative impacts on our neighbors or the City. Considering these arguments, we firmly believe that the information we have provided further justifies our design and variance findings, addresses the city's concerns, and warrants the approval of our appeal by the City Council. 74 Agenda Item # 3.

WILLIAM L. McCLURE
JOHN L. FLEGEL
DAN K. SIEGEL
JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN
MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY
DAVID L. ACH
GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN
NICOLAS A. FLEGEL
KRISTINA A. FENTON
KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER
CAMAS J. STEINMETZ
PHILIP S. SOUSA
___________________
BRITTNEY L. STANDLEY
CHRISTIAN D. PETRANGELO
JOSEPH H. FELDMAN
JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210
MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392
(650) 324-9300
FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227
www.jsmf.com
September 19, 2023

OF COUNSEL

KENT MITCHELL
__________

RETIRED
JOHN D. JORGENSON
MARGARET A. SLOAN
DIANE S. GREENBERG
__________

DECEASED
MARVIN S. SIEGEL
(1936 - 2012)
JOHN R.COSGROVE
(1931 - 2017)
Los Altos City Council
City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Variance Appeal – V23-0002 – 5790 Arboretum Drive
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

I represent Marwan and Lisa Eways, owners of 5790 Arboretum Drive, Los Altos in connection with their appeal of the denial of their variance application for a reduced side yard setback for a second story deck. We believe that staff and the Planning Commission have erred in their denial of the requested variance.

Based on my 27 years of experience as the City Attorney for the City of Menlo Park and reviewing similar applications, I can state unequivocally that there is more than ample evidence and precedent that the variance for the requested reduced side yard setback for the second story deck should be approved and the appeal should be granted. Based on the staff’s recommendations/analysis, the City would never be able to approve a variance for a reduced side yard setback for a second story deck. If ever there ever was a circumstance in which a variance should be granted for a reduced side yard setback, this is it.

I urge you to grant the appeal and approve the variance based on the following proposed findings:

A. That the granting of the variance will be consistent with the objective of the zoning plan set forth in Article 1 of Chapter 14.02 of the Los Altos Zoning Code.

The design of the proposed modest size roof deck is consistent with the objectives of the zoning plan set forth in Article 1 of Chapter 14.02. The granting of the proposed variance is particularly consistent with the following objectives:

F. To protect and enhance real property values within the city; and 75 Agenda Item # 3.

Los Altos City Council

Page 2 ends

Adding an accessible private outdoor space from the main upper level living space (family, breakfast, kitchen) for enjoyment of the rear yard would be a tremendous enhancement to the real property value. It is currently very difficult to access the rear yard and requires traversing many stairs or inaccessible outdoor walkways.

G. To conserve the city’s natural beauty, to improve its appearance, and to preserve and enhance its distinctive physical character.

Strict compliance with the required 25 ft side yard setback for the roof deck, would locate the start of the roof deck at the mid-point of the family, breakfast, kitchen space and shifting the deck toward the north interior of the property, off-set with the proposed lower level addition below intended to support the roof deck. This would require off-setting the addition on the lower level or it would require the addition of a steel support system for a portion of the deck, both of which would be functionally awkward and architecturally incongruous. Additionally, shifting the roof deck further north would interfere with an existing mature oak tree and would likely require its removal. Without the granting of an exception to the side yard setback, it would not be possible to sustainably design an outdoor deck directly accessible from the main living spaces on the main upper level of the residence to comply with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines for remodels and additions so that they “...look as if the original house design included the addition.” (Sec. 5.2)
B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; and
The granting of this application will not be detrimental to health, safety, or welfare persons living or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Due to the fact that the proposed roof deck is only 280 sf and is located entirely at the rear of the existing home, it will not be noticeable from the public view and will not negatively add to the bulk or mass of the existing structure. The elevation of the deck is also about 12 ft lower than the elevation of the street.

Additionally, the proposed roof deck poses no privacy issues with the only two affected side neighboring properties and the neighbors are supportive of the project. There are three primary reasons there are no privacy issues with the proposed roof deck. One, the proposed roof deck is not in alignment with the neighboring structure, two, there are existing mature trees and vegetation along the side yard between the roof deck and the neighboring property and three, we are proposing a 5’-6” high privacy wall on the side of the roof deck facing the neighboring property.

There are several special circumstances applicable to this property, which justify a variance from the strict application the zoning code and they are outlined as follows:
76 Agenda Item # 3.

Los Altos City Council

Page 3 ends

1. The lot is very steeply sloping away from the street creating a significant challenge to access the private rear yard from the main interior living spaces of the home. While there are other sloping lots within the city, there are only a small percentage of lots with steeply sloping topography in this immediate neighborhood zoning district. This lot, by virtue of its topography, is generally inconsistent with the overall character of the neighborhood and the City at large. The vast majority of other properties in the neighborhood and City can simply walk out a few steps down from their residences to enjoy their private rear yard. Other homes with sloping lots have access to decks immediately adjacent to common areas (family room and kitchen).

2. Without the granting of an exception to the side yard setback, it would not be possible to design an outdoor deck directly accessible from the main living spaces on the main upper level of the residence to comply with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines for remodels and additions so that they “...look as if the original house design included the addition.” (Sec. 5.2)

3. The home was built fairly recently, in 2005, yet because it was built to comply with the zoning standards of the County of Santa Clara, now that the property has been annexed to the City of Los Altos, the home is non-compliant for its side yard building setbacks.

Both levels of the home have a side yard setback of 15 ft where the required setbacks are 20 ft for one story structures and 25 ft for two story structures. This particular circumstance is unique to the City and only a very small percentage of properties would have a similar situation.

4. Without the granting of an exception to the side yard setback, it would not be possible to design an outdoor space directly accessible from the main living areas on the upper level of the residence without removing a mature 24” diameter oak tree. The current proposed roof deck design preserves the tree.

Approval of the above findings and approval of the Eways’ appeal and requested variance for a reduced side yard set back for a second story deck is within the City Council’s discretion and authority and is amply supported by the application and the evidence submitted with their application and presented to the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council.

We respectfully request you approve the appeal and approve the variance as requested. We will be available to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
William L. McClure
77 Agenda Item # 3.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE JH

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 26, 2023
Subject: Housing Element Implementing Ordinance
Prepared by: Nick Zornes, Development Services Director Reviewed by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by: Jolie Houston, City Attorney
Approved by: Gabe Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Draft Ordinance

2. Appendix A – Chapter 14.16

3. Appendix B – Chapter 14.18

4. Appendix C – Chapter 14.20

5. Appendix D – Chapter 14.22

6. Appendix E – Chapter 14.24

7. Appendix F – Chapter 14.40

8. Appendix G – Chapter 14.44

9. Appendix H – Chapter 14.48

10. Appendix I – Chapter 14.52

11. Appendix J – Chapter 14.54

12. Appendix K – Chapter 14.80
Initiated by:

City of Los Altos adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, Program 3.B, 3.C, 3.F, 3.G, and 3.N.

Fiscal Impact:

No fiscal impacts are associated with the adoption of these implementing regulations.

Environmental Review:

This Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Summary:

The draft ordinance incorporates regulations implementing Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts, Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza, Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit 78 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Ordinance
September 26, 2023 Page 2
requirement for residential mixed-use and multi-family, Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings applicable to housing Developments, Program 3.N: Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts of the adopted Housing Element.

Staff Recommendation:

Introduce and Waive Further Reading of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments which implement programs identified in the adopted housing element, Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixeduse zoning districts, Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza, Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and multi-family, Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings applicable to housing Developments, Program 3.N: Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts and consideration of the City of Los Altos Planning Commission’s September 7, 2023 decisions; Action (1) on Program

3.C, PASSED (4-Yes, 1-No, 1-Rescue, 1-Absent); Action (2) on Program 3.B, 3.F, 3.G, 3.N, PASSED (6-Yes, 1-Absent) both recommendations approved the proposed amendments with minor modifications. The proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since there would be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

Background:

On January 24, 2023, the Los Altos City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031. As required by law, the adopted housing element has several housing programs contained within. The City of Los Altos identified specific programs in its housing element that will allow it to implement the stated policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives. Programs must include specific action steps the City will take to implement its policies and achieve its goals and objectives. Programs must also include a specific timeframe for implementation, identify the agencies or officials responsible for implementation, describe the city’s specific role in implementation, and (whenever possible) identify specific, measurable outcomes.

Programs 3.B, 3.C, 3.F, 3.G, and 3.N are prescribed under Goal 3 in the adopted Housing Element which is intended to remove constraints to the development of housing. The proposed amendments contained in the draft ordinance help to further Policy 3.1 promote housing through city regulation, and Policy 3.2 modify zoning code to assist in meeting housing needs.

The draft ordinance under consideration implementing Programs 3.B, 3.C, 3.F, 3.G, and 3.N are required to be adopted at various times within the planning cycle. Due to the various requirements and deliverables of the 6th Cycle Housing Element the draft ordinance was prepared early to help ensure that ample time is available to execute several other adopted programs. By providing additional time in amending each chapter of the draft ordinance the city helps to provide additional buffer in creating the regulatory environment to allow for the approval and creation of housing units.
79 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Ordinance
September 26, 2023 Page 3
Analysis:

The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, included Program 3.B. The housing program requires the proposed ordinance amendments to Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts. The draft ordinance included in this agenda packet effectively completes these deliverables as explicitly called out within the housing program.

Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts.

Various mixed-use zoning districts limit development to 30 feet or no more than two stories. To facilitate housing development in mixed-use zoning districts, the City will amend the Zoning Code to increase allowed building heights as referenced in the Downtown Vision Plan height recommendation section, at minimum if not greater, than the following:
 First Street and San Antonio District
o Standalone Residential: 40 feet, 4-stories
o Mixed-Use: 45 feet, 4-stories
 Edith District
o Standalone Residential: 40 feet, 4-stories
 Main and State Street District
o Mixed-Use: 36 feet, 3-stories
The City will then evaluate and update allowed heights in the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District at minimum allowing an additional 10 feet and one story to maintain first floor commercial uses and accommodate residential uses on upper floors to be provided as mixed-use development. This effort will include modifying existing objective design standards as necessary to accommodate anticipated housing capacity while addressing community design goals.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Amendments to Zoning Code for increased building heights in downtown by December 2023; zoning code amendments to increase allowed heights in Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District by December 2024
The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, included Program 3.C. The housing program requires the proposed ordinance amendments to Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza. The draft ordinance included in this agenda packet effectively completes these deliverables as explicitly called out within the housing program.

Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza.
80 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Ordinance
September 26, 2023 Page 4
The City will remove the site-specific 0.35 floor-to-area ratio (FAR) limitation applicable to the Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza, as the FAR limit presents a constraint to housing and is more restrictive than the FAR standard in the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District. The City will create new development standards reflective of a mixed-use zone that requires both commercial and residential uses for the Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza properties.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: December 2024
Objective: Remove site-specific 0.35 floor-to-area ratio (FAR) and create development standards that require both commercial and residential uses for the Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza properties to incorporate needed housing units and preserve essential shopping services.

The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, included Program 3.F. The housing program requires the proposed ordinance amendments to Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and multi-family. The draft ordinance included in this agenda packet effectively completes these deliverables as explicitly called out within the housing program.

Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and multi-family.

To facilitate housing, the City will amend the Zoning Code to allow the following as permitted uses (and no longer requiring a conditional use permit):
 Residential mixed-use in the CN, CD, CRS, CT, and CRS/OAD districts; and  Multi-family in appropriate areas of mixed-use districts (e.g., not on the ground floor, etc.).

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: September 2024
Objective: By allowing the residential use by-right the time for City review of and action on residential mixed-use and multi-family developments will be shortened compared to typical processing times of a conditional use permit (see Appendix C, Table C-8).

The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, included Program 3.G. The housing program requires the proposed ordinance amendments to Amend Conditional Use 81 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Ordinance
September 26, 2023 Page 5
Permits findings applicable to housing developments. The draft ordinance included in this agenda packet effectively completes these deliverables as explicitly called out within the housing program.

Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings applicable to housing developments.

Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval is subject to findings listed in Zoning Code Section 14.80.060. CUP findings will be amended so that only objective findings and standards are applicable to housing developments, including single-room occupancy units, consistent with State law. Additionally, the City will designate the review and approval of conditional use permits for housing developments to the Authority of the Development Services Director.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: March 2024
The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, included Program 3.N. The housing program requires the proposed ordinance amendments to Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts. The draft ordinance included in this agenda packet effectively completes these deliverables as explicitly called out within the housing program.

Program 3.N: Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts.

The City will amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow building heights of 35 feet and three stories in all R3 zoning districts. The City will also increase allowed site coverage in the R3 zoning districts to ensure maximum densities can be achieved.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: December 2026
Discussion:

The actions included within the attached draft ordinance are requirements pursuant to the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element. Once a jurisdiction takes final action by adopting its housing element this requires immediate action in order to remain compliant with State housing law. The City of Los Altos Housing Element contains 26 major action items or milestones that must be completed within the first 12-months post adoption. The draft ordinance will effectively 82 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Ordinance
September 26, 2023 Page 6
accomplish multiple components of the required housing programs within the adopted housing element.

Housing Element Noncompliance:

Should the Los Altos City Council vote not to proceed with the implementing actions discussed in this report the City will be vulnerable to penalties and consequences of housing element noncompliance. HCD is authorized to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local governments actions do not comply with state law.

Examples of penalties and consequence of housing element noncompliance:
 General Plan Inadequacy: the housing element is a mandatory element of the General Plan.

When a jurisdictions housing element is found to be out of compliance, its General Plan could be found inadequate, and therefore invalid. Local governments with an invalid General Plan can no longer make permitting decisions.
 Legal Suites and Attorney Fees: local governments with noncompliant housing elements are vulnerable to litigation from housing rights’ organization, developers, and HCD. If a jurisdiction faces a court action stemming from its lack of compliance and either loses or settles the case, it often must pay substantial attorney fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys in addition to the fees paid by its own attorneys. Potential consequences of lawsuits include:
mandatory compliance within 120 days, suspension of local control on building matters, and court approval of housing developments.
 Loss of Permitting Authority: courts have authority to take local government residential and nonresidential permit authority to bring the jurisdiction’s General Plan and housing element into substantial compliance with State law. The court may suspend the locality’s authority to issue building permits or grant zoning changes, variances, or subdivision map approvals – giving local governments a strong incentive to bring its housing element into compliance.
 Financial Penalties: court-issued judgement directing the jurisdictions to bring its housing element into substantial compliance with state housing element law. If a jurisdictions housing element continues to be found out of compliance, courts can multiply financial penalties by a factor of six.
 Court Receivership: courts may appoint an agent with all powers necessary to remedy identified housing element deficiencies and bring the jurisdiction’s housing element into substantial compliance with housing element law.
83 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Ordinance
September 26, 2023 Page 7
Petition for Writ of Mandate – California Housing Defense Fund, Yes In My Back Yard v.

City of Cupertino.

So that the City Council and public are well-informed the City of Los Altos has included this information with this agenda item so that all circumstances are understood as housing law is rapidly evolving.

Early this year Californians for Homeownership, California Housing Defense Fund, and YIMBY Law had filed 12 lawsuits in Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Marin, and San Mateo County Superior Courts with the intention to file more in the coming weeks. The cities and counties sued include:

Belvedere, Burlingame, Cupertino, Daly City, Fairfax, Martinez, Novato, Palo Alto, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, and Santa Clara County. Each municipality has been sued by one or two of the non-profits.

With the Bay Area’s 109 cities and counties at widely varied stages in the process of Housing Element adoption and compliance, these twelve lawsuits mark the first round of what will likely be many rounds of judicial review for noncompliance with state housing law in the Bay Area. The initial lawsuits focus on cities with a long history of exclusionary housing practices, cities that adopted housing elements unlawfully, and localities that have made little progress in developing their draft housing elements. The organizations will continue to file suits in the coming weeks, prioritizing cities with the most egregious violations in each organization’s judgment.

A Petition for Writ of Mandate in the State of California is used by superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to command lower bodies (such as lower level of government agencies, in this case a city) to do or not do specific actions. In this case, a Writ of Mandate can result in the city being directed to adopt a compliant housing element or other associated actions in order to comply with State law. A Writ of Mandate could also be petitioned for and direct a city to specifically implement programs that were included in their adopted housing element.

Given the current and ongoing legal climate around housing element law it is vital for the City of Los Altos to expeditiously implement the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031. As noted above the potential legal risks associated with housing element noncompliance could be further enforced by similar legal actions.
84 Agenda Item # 4.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2023-__

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING CHAPTER 14.16, 14.18, 14.20, 14.22, 14.24, 14.40, 14.44, 14.48, 14.52, 14.54,

14.80OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM 3.B, PROGRAM 3.C, PROGRAM 3.F, PROGRAM 3.G, AND PROGRAM 3.N OF THE

SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution to make and enforce within the City all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the City Council approved the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 26, 2023, and October 10, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Program 3.B of the Housing Element Update calls for Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, Program 3.B of the Housing Element Update to facilitate housing development in mixed-use zoning districts, the City will amend the Zoning Code to increase allowed building heights as referenced in the Downtown Vision Plan height recommendation section at minimum if not greater; and
WHEREAS, Program 3.C of the Housing Element Update calls for Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza; and WHEREAS, Program 3.C of the Housing Element Update expressly requires the removal of sitespecific 0.35 floor-to-area ratio (FAR) limitation applicable to the Rancho Shopping Center and Woodland Plaza; and
WHEREAS, Program 3.F of the Housing Element Update calls for the reduction of Conditional Use Permit requirements for residential mixed-use and multi-family; and WHEREAS, Program 3.F of the Housing Element Update expressly allows residential and mixed use zoning in the CN, CD, CRS, CT, and CRS/OAD districts; and WHEREAS, Program 3.G of the Housing Element Update calls for amending the Conditional Use Permits findings applicable to housing developments; and WHEREAS, Program 3.G of the Housing Element Update expressly requires CUP findings will be amended so that only objective findings and standards are applicable to housing developments; and
WHEREAS, Program 3.N of the Housing Element Update calls for Modifying standards in the R3 zoning districts; and
85 Agenda Item # 4.
2 WHEREAS, Program 3.N of the Housing Element Update expressly requires the City to increase allowed site coverage in the R3 zoning districts to ensure maximum densities can be achieved; and WHEREAS, having committed itself to implement Housing Element Update in its entirety, the City Council now desires to adopt this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.16 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix A to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.18 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix B to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.20 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix C to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.22 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.22 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix D to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 5. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.24 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix E to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 6. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.40 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix F to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.44 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.44 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix G to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 8. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix H to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 9. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.52 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

14.52 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix I to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion. 86 Agenda Item # 4.
3 SECTION 10. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.54 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

Chapter 14.54 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix J to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 11. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14.80 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

Chapter 14.80 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby amended as set forth in Appendix K to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 12. CONSTITUTIONALITY; AMBIGUITIES. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Any ambiguities in the Los Altos Municipal Code created by this Ordinance shall be resolved by the Director of Development Services, in their reasonable discretion, after consulting the City Attorney.

SECTION 13. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption hereof.

The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on __, 2023, and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on ___, 2023, passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC, CITY CLERK
87 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 14.29
88 Agenda Item # 4.

Title 14 - ZONING
Chapter 14.16 R3-4.5 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST] (Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 1 of 7 ends

Chapter 14.16 R3-4.5 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT1
Sections:

14.16.010 R3-4.5 Districts.

The regulations, general provisions, and exceptions set forth in this chapter and in Chapter 14.66 shall apply in the R3-4.5 District.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.020 Specific purpose.

The specific purpose of the R3-4.5 District is to retain and enhance the character of the Stevens Place and Marshall Court area as a two-family dwelling unit neighborhood. (Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.030 Permitted uses (R3-4.5).

The following uses shall be permitted in the R3-4.5 District:

A. Two-family dwelling units, with not more than one two-family dwelling unit for each nine thousand (9,000) square feet of lot area;
B. Home occupations
C. Animals as provided in Chapter 5.10 of this code; and D. Small family day care.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.040 Site area (R3-4.5).

The minimum site area shall be nineseven thousand (97,000) square feet for each two-family dwelling unit. (Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

1Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, adopted February 11, 2020, amended Chapter 14.16 its entirety to read as set out herein. Former Chapter 14.16, §§ 14.16.010—14.16.110 pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Prior Code § 10-2.701—10-2.709; Ord. No. 2015-414, § 12, adopted September 8, 2015 and Ord. No. 2018-440 , , § 3, March 13, 2018.
89 Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 2 of 7 ends

14.16.050 Coverage (R3-4.5).

A. The maximum coverage for all structures in excess of six feet in height shall be forty (40) percent of the total gross site area where the height of one-story development does not exceed twenty (20) feet.

B. On sites where the lot coverage exceeds thirty (35) percent, two-story structures shall not be allowed.

A. The maximum coverage for all structures in excess of six feet in height shall be sixty (60) percent of the total gross site area.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.060 Floor area ratio (R3-4.5).

A. For lots with a gross site area not exceeding eleven thousand (11,000) square feet, tThe maximum floor area shall be thirfifty five (355) percent of the gross lot area.

B. For lots with a gross site area exceeding eleven thousand (11,000) square feet, the maximum floor area shall be three thousand eight hundred fifty (3,850) square feet plus ten (10) percent times the lot area minus eleven thousand (11,000) square feet.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.070 Unit Size.

The floor area of the smaller of the two units can be no less than 900 square feet.

No minimum or maximum unit size shall be applicable, except for accessary dwelling units as allowed in Chapter

14.14 of the Los Altos Municipal Code.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.080 Setbacks (R3-4.5).

A. The minimum setbacks shall be as follows:

Property line abutting Fallen Leaf Lane 30 feet
Property line abutting Homestead Road, Stevens Place
or Marshall Court frontage
20 feet
Property lines abutting to an R1-10 District 20 feet
Abutting to Stevens Creek property line (measured
from top of creek bank)
20 feet
Other Interior property line not listed above
First story 5 feet
Second story 10 feet
B. The second story setback shall be measured from the wall of the second story, or in the case of a sloping ceiling or roof where there is no exterior wall, from the point the second story ceiling has a height of five feet or greater from the finished floor.
90 Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 3 of 7 ends

C. When a unit has an existing nonconforming setback and fifty (50) percent or more of the floor area of that unit is voluntarily being rebuilt or replaced, the entire unit shall be brought into conformance with current setback requirements. This threshold is applied to each unit within a two-family dwelling and does not require both units to be brought into conformance when only one unit is being modified under the threshold above. For the purposes of this section, the garage portion of the structure shall be considered a separate unit.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.090 Height of structures (R3-4.5).

A. No structure shall exceed one three storyies or twenty thirty-six (236) feet in height as measured from the existing natural grade immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. from the natural grade, except for those structures indicated in Subsection B.

B. On lots with two-story structures as of December 10, 2019, no structure shall exceed two stories or twentyseven (27) feet in height from the natural grade. (Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.100 Design control (R3-4.5).

A. Building Massing and Articulation.

1. For buildings exceeding the height limit established in the applicable base and overlay zone, the rightof-way-facing façades of the uppermost floor must be embedded in a sloped roof form as allowed by Section 14.16.1100.A.4.

2. Vertical Articulation.
a. Each building volume shall be defined according to one of the following classifications:
i. Main body (one per building): The widest volume of the structure, containing main entrances and the most public interior spaces.
ii. Wing (optional, multiple per main body allowed): A narrower volume attached to a main body volume.
b. Each main body volume shall contain at least one entrance. c. Street-facing wings shall be recessed by no less than three feet relative to the front façade of the Main body.
d. The eave/roof of a wing shall be no higher than the corresponding elements of the main body.

3. R-1 Adjacencies.
a. Building façade planes abutting an R-1 district may not exceed forty-eight (48) feet in width. b. When a building façade abutting an R-1 district exceeds forty-eight (48) feet in width, it must be separated into façade bays no greater than forty-eight (48) feet by a recess five feet wide and five feet deep.
c. Balconies, roof decks and other habitable outdoor space is not allowed on upper-story façades abutting R-1 zones.
91 Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 4 of 7 ends

d. Sliding glass doors, French doors, and floor-to-ceiling windows are not allowed on upper-story façades abutting R-1 zones.

4. Roofline and Roof Design.
a. Acceptable roof forms are limited to:
i. Hipped.
ii. Gable.
iii. Dormer.
b. When the top story is stepped back and embedded in a sloped roof form, the floor below must (and other floors may) be stepped back to meet the slope of the top floor. c. Façade facing R-1 Zone must utilize a hipped or gable roof and may incorporate dormers. d. Roofline at corners shall not exceed roofline of adjacent wallplanes by more than twenty-four (24) inches.

B. Building Design.

1. Façade Composition. Building façades shall be arranged in an orderly composition of bays, defined by vertically aligned openings alternating horizontally with solid walls or columns. The pattern shall be visually expressed through the spacing of openings, recesses, eaves, cornices, overhangs, trellises, exposed rafters, columns, or bay windows.

2. Building Entrances. Building entrances must incorporate one of the following entry features. See Section 14.66.275 (Entrance Type Standards) for design standards applicable to each entrance type listed.
a. Stoop.
92 Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 5 of 7 ends

b. Porch.
c. Dooryard.

3. Primary Entrance Location(s). Locate primary entrance along the front right-of-way and/or interior courtyard.

4. Ground Floor Floor-to-Ceiling Height. Minimum twelve (12) inches taller than typical upper floor floorto-ceiling height.

C. Window Design.

1. All windows must have a sill.

2. Vinyl sliding windows are prohibited on façades visible from a right-of-way.

D. Building Materials.

1. Primary shall mean fifty (50) percent or more of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces.

Permitted primary cladding materials are limited to:
a. Stucco (minimum two-coat stucco; synthetic stucco or EIFS not allowed). b. Siding (lap, vertical, or shingle).
i. All siding shall be wood, composite wood, or cement fiberboard. ii. Wood siding shall be painted or stained.
iii. Vinyl and aluminum are not permitted.
c. Stone.
d. Brick.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 6 of 7 ends

d. Brick (watertable and building base only).
e. Tile.
f. Concrete (watertable and building base only, board-form only, cast concrete not permitted).

E. Screening.

1. Service, trash, and utility areas must be screened from view of the right-of-way.

2. Screening must be architecturally consistent with primary building in terms of materials, colors, and style.

F. Topography and Grading.

1. A stepped foundation is required where the average slope beneath the proposed structure exceeds ten (10) percent.

2. Terracing and plantings must reflect the shape of the natural terrain.

G. Additional Design Standards. See Section 14.66.280 for additional design standards applicable to all multifamily development in the R3-4.5 District. (Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-2020; Ord. No. 2021-478 , § 1, 9-14-2021)

14.16.110 Off-street parking (R3-4.5).

As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.06.120 Basements (R3-4.5).

Basements shall be regulated as follows:

A. Basements shall not extend beyond the floor area of the first floor of the main or accessory structure above;
B. Light wells, ingress and egress wells, patio wells, and other similar elements shall not be permitted within a required front or exterior side yard setback. These elements may be permitted within an interior side or rear yard setback, but in no event closer than five feet to a property line; C. Light wells, ingress and egress wells, patio wells, and other similar elements shall utilize vertical retaining walls. Contour graded slopes, which expose the basement as a story, are prohibited.

D. Light wells, ingress and egress wells, patio wells, and other similar elements shall be at least seventyfive (75) percent open in area to light and air above. (Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.130 Signs (R3-4.5).

As provided in Chapter 14.68 of this title.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)
94 Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 7 of 7 ends

14.16.140 Fences (R3-4.5).

As provided in Chapter 14.72 of this title.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.150 Nonconforming use regulations (R3-4.5).

As provided in Chapter 14.66 of this title.
(Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)

14.16.160 Accessory structures.

As provided in Chapter 14.15 of this title, and with the following parameters:

A. Yard areas adjacent to Homestead Road or an R1 District shall be treated as the rear yards for the purposes of this section.

B. Accessory structures will not be permitted in any other setback area. (Ord. No. 2019-467 , § 1, 2-11-20)
95 Agenda Item # 4.

Title 14 - ZONING
Chapter 14.18 R3-5 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST] (Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 1 of 6 ends

Chapter 14.18 R3-5 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Sections:

14.18.010 R3-5 District.

The regulations, general provisions, and exceptions set forth in this chapter and in Chapter 14.66 shall apply in the R3-5 District.
(Prior code § 10-2.801)

14.18.020 Permitted uses (R3-5).

The following uses shall be permitted in the R3-5 District:

A. Apartments, two family units or more per building with not more than one dwelling unit for each five thousand (5,000) square feet of lot area; provided, however, if after dividing the area of the site by five thousand (5,000), a remainder of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet but more than three thousand nine hundred ninety-nine (3,999) square feet is obtained, one additional dwelling unit may be located on the site Residential Housing Developments with two (2) or more units; and B. For affordable housing requirements, see Chapter 14.28 of this title; C. For density bonus provisions, see Chapter 14.30 of this title; and D. Animals as provided in Chapter 5.10 of this code.
(Prior code § 10-2.802)

14.18.030 Maximum density development requirement.

The maximum density permitted shall be constructed unless it is determined by the city council that a less dense project would be in the best interests of the community. In approving a less dense project, the city council shall make at least one of the following findings:

A. That a maximum density project would 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;
B. That the development of fewer units would enhance opportunities for the development of affordable housing within the project.
(Prior code § 10-2.802.1)

14.18.040 Site area (R3-5).

The minimum site area shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet. one acre. (See Section 14.18.020(A) of this chapter.)
(Prior code § 10-2.803)
96 Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 2 of 6 ends

14.18.050 Coverage (R3-5).

The maximum coverage for all structures shall be thirty (30) percent of the total area of the site.

A. The maximum coverage for all structures in excess of six feet in height shall be sixty (60) percent of the total gross site area.
(Prior code § 10-2.804)

14.18.060 Front yard (R3-5).

The minimum depth of front yards shall be forty (40) feet, landscaped according to a plan approved by the building and planning department, and shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. (Prior code § 10-2.805)

14.18.070 Side yards (R3-5).

A. The minimum width of side yards shall be fifteen (15) feet, except that on a corner lot, the minimum width of the side yard adjoining the street shall be twenty-five (25) feet. The five feet abutting the property line on all side yards shall be landscaped according to a plan approved by the building and planning department and shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. Five feet shall be added to each minimum side yard for each story above the first story or for each ten (10) feet of height, or fraction thereof, above the lowest twelve (12) feet of the structure, whichever requires the lesser addition.

B. Where a side yard abuts on an R1-10 District, the minimum side yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet, of which the ten (10) feet abutting the property in the R1-10 District shall have a six-foot solid fence or wall outside a planting screen of evergreen trees or bushes of a variety, height, and spacing as required and approved by the Zoning Administrator building and planning department, all of which shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. Such ten (10) foot planting strip shall be used exclusively for landscaping purposes. (Prior code § 10-2.806)

14.18.080 Rear yard (R3-5).

The minimum depth of rear yards shall be thirty (30) feet. The five feet abutting the rear property line shall be landscaped according to a plan approved by the building and planning department and shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. Wheren the rear yard abuts on an R1-10 District, the minimum depth shall be forty (40) feet, of which the first ten (10) feet abutting the property in the R1-10 District shall have a six-foot solid fence or wall outside a planting screen of evergreen trees or bushes of a variety, height, and spacing as required and approved by the Zoning Administrator building and planning department, all of which shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. Such ten (10) foot planting strip shall be used exclusively for landscaping purposes. No structure shall be placed within the required rear yard. (Prior code § 10-2.807)

14.18.090 Distances between structures (R3-5).

The requirements set forth in Section 14.66.210 shall apply to this chapter. (Prior code § 10-2.808)
97 Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 3 of 6 ends

14.18.100 Off-street parking (R3-5).
(As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.809)

14.18.110 Height of structures (R3-5).

No structure shall exceed two three stories or thirty-six (306) feet in height as measured from the existing natural grade immediately adjacent to the proposed structure, whichever is the lesser. No structure shall exceed one story or fifteen (15) feet in height if located within one hundred (100) feet of the R-10 District. In no case shall this preclude a basement when used for parking and/or storage. (Prior code § 10-2.810)

14.18.120 Design control (R3-5).

A. Building Massing and Articulation.

2. Vertical Articulation.
a. Each building volume shall be defined according to one of the following classifications:
i. Main body (one per building): The widest volumes of the structure, containing main entrances and the most public interior spaces.
ii. Wing (optional, multiple per main body allowed): A narrower volume attached to a main body volume.
b. Each main body volume shall contain at least one entrance. c. Street-facing wings shall be recessed by no less than three feet relative to the front façade of the main body.
d. The eave/roof of a wing shall be no higher than the corresponding elements of the main body.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 4 of 6 ends

4. Roofline and Roof Design.
a. Acceptable roof forms:
i. Hipped.
ii. Gable.
iii. Dormer.
b. When the top story is stepped back and embedded in a sloped roof form such as a mansard roof or a hipped and/or gabled roof with dormers, the floor below must (and other floors may) be stepped back to meet the slope of the top story.
c. Façade facing R-1 Zone must utilize a hipped or gable roof and may incorporate dormers. d. Roofline at corners shall not exceed roofline of adjacent wallplanes by more than twenty-four (24) inches.

B. Building Design.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 5 of 6 ends

a. Stoop.
b. Porch.
c. Dooryard.

3. Primary Entrance Location(s). Locate primary entrance on the front ROW and/or interior courtyard.

4. Ground Floor Floor-to-Ceiling Height. Minimum twelve (12) inches taller than typical upper floor floorto-ceiling height.

C. Window Design.

1. All windows must have a sill.

2. Vinyl sliding windows are prohibited on façades visible from a right-of-way.

D. Building Materials.

1. Primary shall mean fifty (50) percent or more of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:30 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 6 of 6 ends

c. Stone (watertable and building base only).
d. Brick (watertable and building base only).
e. Tile.
f. Concrete (watertable and building base only, board-form only, cast concrete not permitted).

E. Landscaping.

1. Landscaping must be placed on each side of a driveway at grade or in raised planters.

2. Low walls and/or hedges must screen the parking along the sidewalk. When walls are used, the materials and design must be compatible with and not obscure the architectural style of the building.

F. Screening.

1. Service, trash, and utility areas must be screened from view of the right-of-way.

2. Screening must be architecturally consistent with primary building in terms of materials, colors, and style.

G. Additional Design Standards. See Section 14.66.280 for additional design standards applicable to all multifamily development in the R3-5 District. (Amended during 2/06 supplement; prior code § 10-2.812) ( Ord. No. 2021-478 , § 1, 9-14-2021)

14.18.130 Signs (R3-5).
(As provided in Chapter 14.68 of this code.)
(Prior code § 10-2.813; Ord. No. 2015-414 , § 12, 9-8-2015)

14.18.140 Fences (R3-5).
(As provided in Chapter 14.72 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.814)

14.18.150 Nonconforming use regulations (R3-5).
(As provided in Chapter 14.66 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.815)

14.18.160 Accessory structures.

As provided in Chapter 14.15 of this title.
(Ord. No. 2018-440 , § 3, 3-13-2018)
101
Agenda Item # 4.

Title 14 - ZONING
Chapter 14.20 R3-3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST] (Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 1 of 7 ends

Chapter 14.20 R3-3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Sections:

14.20.010 R3-3 District.

The regulations, general provisions, and exceptions set forth in this chapter and in Chapter 14.66 shall apply in all R3-3 Districts.
(Prior code § 10-2.901)

14.20.020 Permitted uses (R3-3).

The following uses shall be permitted in R3-3 Districts:

A. Apartments, two-family or more, with not more than one dwelling unit for each three thousand (3,000) square feet of lot area; Residential Housing Developments with two (2) or more units; and B. For affordable housing requirements, see Chapter 14.28 of this title; C. For density bonus provisions, see Chapter 14.30 of this title; and D. Animals as provided in Chapter 5.10 of this code.
(Prior code § 10-2.902)

14.20.030 Maximum density development requirement.

14.20.040 Site area (R3-3).

The minimum site area shall be three thousand (3,000) square feet. twenty-one thousand (21,000) square feet.
(Prior code § 10-2.903)
102
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 2 of 7 ends

14.20.050 Coverage (R3-3).

The maximum coverage for all structures shall be thirty (30) percent of the total area of the site.

A. The maximum coverage for all structures in excess of six feet in height shall be sixty (60) percent of the total gross site area.
(Prior code § 10-2.904)

14.20.060 Front yard (R3-3).

14.20.070 Side yards (R3-3).

14.20.080 Rear yard (R3-3).

14.20.090 Distances between structures (R3-3).

The requirements set forth in Section 14.66.210 shall apply to this chapter. 103
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 3 of 7 ends

(Prior code § 10-2.908)

14.20.100 Off-street parking (R3-3).
(As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title for the R3-5 District.) (Prior code § 10-2.909)

14.20.110 Height of structures (R3-3).

No structure shall exceed two three stories or thirty-six (306) feet in height as measured from the existing natural grade immediately adjacent to the proposed structure, whichever is the lesser. No structure shall exceed one story or fifteen (15) feet in height if located within one hundred (100) feet of an R1-10 District. In no case shall this preclude a basement when used for parking and/or storage. (Prior code § 10-2.910)

14.20.120 Design control (R3-3).

A. Building Massing and Articulation.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 4 of 7 ends

B. Building Design.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 5 of 7 ends

3. Primary Entrance Location(s). Locate primary entrance along the front right-of-way and/or interior courtyard.

4. Ground Floor Floor-to-Ceiling Height. Minimum twelve (12) inches taller than typical upper floor floorto-ceiling height.

C. Window Design.

1. All windows must have a sill.

2. Vinyl sliding windows are prohibited on façades visible from a right-of-way.

D. Building Materials.

1. Primary shall mean fifty (50) percent or more of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 6 of 7 ends

b. Siding (lap, vertical, or shingle).
i. All siding shall be wood, composite wood, or cement fiberboard. ii. Wood siding shall be painted or stained.
iii. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not permitted.
c. Stone (watertable and building base only).
d. Brick (watertable and building base only).
e. Tile.
f. Concrete (watertable and building base only, board-form only, cast concrete not permitted).

E. Landscaping.

1. Landscaping must be placed on each side of a driveway at grade or in raised planters.

2. Low walls and/or hedges must screen the parking along the sidewalk. When walls are used, the materials and design must be compatible with and not obscure the architectural style of the building.

F. Screening.

1. Service, trash, and utility areas must be screened from view of the right-of-way.

2. Screening must be architecturally consistent with primary building in terms of materials, colors, and style.

G. Additional Design Standards. See Section 14.66.280 for additional design standards applicable to all multifamily development in the R3-3 District. (Amended during 2/06 supplement; prior code § 10-2.912) ( Ord. No. 2021-478 , § 1, 9-14-2021)

14.20.130 Signs (R3-3).
(As provided in Chapter 14.68 of this code.)
(Prior code § 10-2.913; Ord. No. 2015-414 , § 12, 9-8-2015)

14.20.140 Fences (R3-3).
(As provided in Chapter 14.72 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.914)

14.20.150 Nonconforming use regulations (R3-3).
(As provided in Chapter 14.66 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.915)
107
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 7 of 7 ends

14.20.160 Accessory structures.

As provided in Chapter 14.15 of this title.
(Ord. No. 2018-440 , § 3, 3-13-2018)
108
Agenda Item # 4.

Title 14 - ZONING
Chapter 14.22 R3-1.8 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST] (Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 1 of 7 ends

Chapter 14.22 R3-1.8 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Sections:

14.22.010 R3-1.8 District.

The regulations, general provisions, and exceptions set forth in this chapter and in Chapter 14.66 shall apply in the R3-1.8 District.
(Prior code § 10-2.1001)

14.22.020 Permitted uses (R3-1.8).

The following uses shall be permitted in the R3-1.8 District:

A. Multi-family residential dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit for each one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet of lot area; and
B. For affordable housing requirements, see Chapter 14.28 of this title; C. For density bonus provisions, see Chapter 14.30 of this title; and D. Animals as provided in Chapter 5.10 of this code.
(Ord. 02-410 § 2; prior code § 10-2.1002)

14.22.030 Maximum density development requirement.

14.22.040 Site area (R3-1.8).

The minimum site area shall be seven thousand one hundred (7,100) square feet on vacant property and fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet on properties with existing structures. (Prior code § 10-2.1003)
109
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 2 of 7 ends

14.22.050040 Coverage (R3-1.8).

The maximum coverage for all structures shall be fortysixty-five (4065) percent of the total gross site area of the site, including garages (not including driveways or off-street parking areas). (Prior code § 10-2.1004)

14.22.060050Front yard (R3-1.8).

The minimum depth of front yards shall be twenty (20) feet. The minimum width on a public street shall be fifty (50) feet on vacant property and one hundred (100) feet on property with existing structures. (Prior code § 10-2.1005)

14.22.070060 Side yards (R3-1.8).

The minimum width of side yards shall be seven and one-half feet, except that on a corner lot, the minimum width of the side yard adjoining the street shall be fifteen (15) feet. Five feet shall be added to each side yard for each story above the first story or for each ten (10) feet of height, or fraction thereof, above the lowest twelve (12) feet of the height of the structure, whichever is the lesser, except on the secondary setback on a corner lot. When a garage or carport faces a side yard adjoining a street, the minimum setback to the face of the structure shall be twenty (20) feet. Where R3-1.8 District property abuts on R1-10 District property, the minimum side yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet for one-story structures, of which the ten (10) feet abutting the property in the R1-10 District shall have a six-foot solid fence or wall outside a planting screen of evergreen trees or bushes of a variety, height, and spacing as approved by the building and planning department, all of which shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. Such ten-foot planting strip shall be used exclusively for landscaping purposes. (Prior code § 10-2.1006)
(Ord. No. 2012-375, § 5, 1-24-2012)

14.22.080070 Rear yard (R3-1.8).

The minimum depth of rear yards shall be twenty-five (25) feet, and no structure shall be placed within the required rear yard. When the rear yard Where R3-1.8 District property abuts on R1-10 District property, the minimum depth of rear yards shall be thirty (30) feet, of which the first ten (10) feet abutting on the property in the R1-10 District shall have a six-foot solid fence or wall outside a planting screen of evergreen trees or bushes of a variety, height, and spacing as approved by the Zoning Administrator. building and planning department, all of which shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. Such ten (10) foot planting strip shall be used exclusively for landscaping purposes.
(Prior code § 10-2.1007)

14.22.090080 Off-street parking (R3-1.8).
(As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1008)
110
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 3 of 7 ends

14.22.100090 Height of structures (R3-1.8).

No structure shall exceed twothree stories or thirty-six (3036) feet in height as measured from the existing natural grade immediately adjacent to the proposed structure., whichever is the lesser. No structure shall exceed one story or fifteen (15) feet in height if located within one hundred (100) feet of the R1-10 District. In no case shall this preclude a basement when used for parking and/or storage. (Prior code § 10-2.1009)

14.22.110100 Design control (R3-1.8).

A. Building Massing and Articulation.

1. Upper-story step-backs.
a. Front: Minimum five feet from ground floor façade for third story and above for building façades fifty (50) feet or greater in width.
b. Street side: Minimum five feet from ground floor façade for third story and above for building façades fifty (50) feet or greater in width.
c. For buildings exceeding the height limit established in the applicable base and overlay zone, the right-of-way-facing façades of the uppermost floor must be embedded in a sloped roof form as allowed by Section 14.22.110.A.4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 4 of 7 ends

B. Building Design.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 5 of 7 ends

3. Primary Entrance Location(s). Locate primary entrance on the front ROW and/or interior courtyard.

4. Ground Floor Floor-to-Ceiling Height. Minimum twelve (12) inches taller than typical upper floor floorto-ceiling height.

C. Storage. Each multi-family residential dwelling unit shall have a minimum of ninety-six (96) cubic feet of enclosed storage, excluding closet and garage areas.

D. Window Design.

1. All windows must have a sill.

2. Vinyl sliding windows are prohibited on façades visible from a right-of-way.

E. Building Materials.

1. Primary shall mean fifty (50) percent or more of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces.

2. Secondary shall mean less than fifty (50) percent of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces. Permitted secondary cladding materials are limited to:
113
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 6 of 7 ends

a. Stucco (minimum two-coat stucco; synthetic stucco not allowed, EIFS not allowed). b. Siding (lap, vertical, or shingle).
i. All siding shall be wood, composite wood, or cement fiberboard. ii. Wood siding shall be painted or stained.
iii. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not permitted.
c. Stone (watertable and building base only).
d. Brick (watertable and building base only).
e. Tile.
f. Concrete (watertable and building base only, board-form only, cast concrete not permitted).

F. Landscaping.

1. Landscaping must be placed on each side of a driveway at grade or in raised planters.

2. Low walls and/or hedges must screen the parking along the sidewalk. When walls are used, the materials and design must be compatible with and not obscure the architectural style of the building.

G. Screening.

1. Service, trash, and utility areas must be screened from view of the right-of-way.

2. Screening must be architecturally consistent with primary building in terms of materials, colors, and style.

H. Additional Design Standards. See Section 14.66.280 for additional design standards applicable to all multifamily development in the R3-1.8 District. (Amended during 2/06 supplement; Ord. 02-410 § 3; prior code § 10-2.1011) ( Ord. No. 2021-478 , § 1, 9-14-2021)

14.22.120110 Exceptions (R3-1.8).

On lots facing on Gabilan Street and known as Lots 4 through 14 and Lot 24 of Block 34, Map No. 3, town of Los Altos, the side yard abutting the R1-10 District shall be not less than ten (10) feet for a one-story building, of which five feet shall be landscaped as provided in Section 14.22.070 of this chapter, and no structure shall exceed one story or fifteen (15) feet in height if located within fifty (50) feet of the R1-10 District. (Prior code § 10-2.1012)

14.22.130120 Signs (R3-1.8).
(As provided in Chapter 14.68 of this code.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1013; Ord. No. 2015-414 , § 12, 9-8-2015)

14.22.140130 Fences (R3-1.8).
(As provided in Chapter 14.72 of this title.)
114
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 7 of 7 ends

(Prior code § 10-2.1014)

14.22.150140 Nonconforming use regulations (R3-1.8).
(As provided in Chapter 14.66 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1015)

14.22.160150 Accessory structures.

As provided in Chapter 14.15 of this title.
(Ord. No. 2018-440 , § 3, 3-13-2018)
115
Agenda Item # 4.

Title 14 - ZONING
Chapter 14.24 R3-1 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:32 [EST] (Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 1 of 8 ends

Chapter 14.24 R3-1 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
Sections:

14.24.010 R3-1 Districts.

The regulations, general provisions, and exceptions set forth in this chapter and Chapter 14.66 shall apply in all R3-1 Districts.
(Prior code § 10-2.1101)

14.24.020 Permitted uses (R3-1).

The following uses shall be permitted in R3-1 Districts:

A. Multi-family residential dwelling units, with not more than four dwelling units for the first seven thousand one hundred (7,100) square feet of lot area, plus six units for the next additional seven thousand one hundred (7,100) square feet of lot area and not more than one additional dwelling unit for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area thereafter, not to exceed thirty-eight (38) units per acre. Lands within the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct right-of-way shall not be counted as lot area for the purpose of determining the number of units allowed on a site; B. For affordable housing requirements, see Chapter 14.28 of this title; C. For density bonus provisions, see Chapter 14.30 of this title; and A. Residential Only Development(s); and
D.B. Animals as provided in Chapter 5.10 of this code.
(Prior code § 10-2.1102)

14.24.030 Maximum density development requirement.

14.24.040 Site area (R3-1).

The minimum site area shall be seven five thousand one hundred (7,1005,000) square feet. 116
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 2 of 8 ends

(Prior code § 10-2.1103)

14.24.050 Coverage (R3-1).

The maximum coverage for all structures shall be forty sixty-five (4065) percent of the total area of the site, including garages (not including driveways or off-street parking areas). (Prior code § 10-2.1104)

14.24.060 Front yard (R3-1).

The minimum depth of front yards shall be twenty (20) feet. The minimum width on a public street shall be fifty (50) feet.
(Prior code § 10-2.1105)

14.24.070 Side yards (R3-1).

14.24.080 Rear yard (R3-1).

The minimum depth of rear yards shall be twenty-five (25) feet, and no structure shall be placed within the required rear yard.
(Prior code § 10-2.1107)

14.24.090 Off-street parking (R3-1).
(As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1108)

14.24.100 Height of structures (R3-1).

No structure shall exceed three stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height, whichever is the lesser. No structure located within one hundred (100) feet of an R1-10 District shall exceed two stories or thirty (30) feet in height. In no case shall this preclude a basement when used for parking and/or storage. a. Residential Only Development(s) building height shall be a maximum of forty (40) feet and four (4) stories as measured from the existing natural grade immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. (Prior code § 10-2.1109)
117
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:32 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 3 of 8 ends

14.24.110 Design control (R3-1).

A. Building Placement. A minimum eighty-five (85) percent of the building frontage must be built at the minimum setback line. This standard applies to the building frontage only (exclusive of side setbacks).

B. Building Massing and Articulation.

1. Upper-story step-backs.
a. Front: Minimum five feet from ground floor façade for fourth story and above for building façades fifty (50) feet or greater in width.
b. Street Side: Minimum five feet from ground floor façade for fourth story and above for building façades fifty (50) feet or greater in width.
c. Interior Side and Rear Abutting an R-1 District: Minimum five feet from ground floor façade for fourth story and above.
d. For buildings exceeding the height limit established in the applicable base and overlay zone, the right-of-way-facing façades of the uppermost floor must be embedded in a sloped roof form as allowed by Section 14.24.110.A.5.

2. Vertical Articulation. When a building façade exceeds fifty (50) feet in length along a right-of-way, it must be separated into primary façade bays no greater than fifty (50) feet and secondary façade bays defined by a recess a minimum three feet deep and ten (10) feet wide.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:32 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 4 of 8 ends

c. Balconies, roof decks and other habitable outdoor space is not allowed on upper-story façades abutting R-1 zones.
d. Sliding glass doors, French doors, and floor-to-ceiling windows are not allowed on upper-story façades abutting R-1 zones.

4. Privacy and Line of Sight.
a. Primary living spaces and balconies located along a side setback shall orient principal windows and balconies toward the front and rear of the building. b. Where windows are within ten (10) feet of and oriented toward an interior side setback, glazing shall either be a minimum thirty (30) degree angle measured perpendicular to the adjacent side setback line, have minimum sill height of forty-two (42) inches, or be opaque. c. The maximum sill height for an ingress/egress window is forty-four (44) inches from finished floor.

5. Roofline and Roof Design.
a. Roof designs shall be limited to:
i. Hipped.
ii. Gable.
iii. Dormer.
iv. Parapet.
(a) When used on the first or second floor, a parapet longer than twenty-five (25) feet in length must include at least one but not more than two of the following design elements to break up the length of the parapet:
(1) Steps.
(2) Curves.
(3) Angled surfaces.
(b) Parapet limited to twenty-five (25) percent of cumulative roof perimeter on the third floor and above.
(c) The length of a parapet segment on the third floor and above may not exceed twenty-five (25) feet.
b. When the top story is stepped back and embedded in a sloped roof form such as a mansard roof or a hipped and/or gabled roof with dormers, the floor below must (and other floors may) be stepped back to meet the slope of the top story.
119
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:32 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 5 of 8 ends

c. Façade facing R-1 Zone must utilize a hipped or gable roof and may incorporate dormers. d. Corner Treatment. Roofline/parapet at corners shall not exceed roofline/parapet of adjacent wallplanes by more than twenty-four (24) inches.

C. Building Design.

1. Façade Composition.
a. Building façades must continue the pattern established by existing buildings in Downtown Los Altos by reinforcing the underlying maximum twenty-five (25) foot module along all street frontages through the use of the following techniques:
i. Building façades shall be arranged in an orderly composition of bays, defined by vertically aligned openings alternating horizontally with solid walls or columns. ii. The pattern shall be visually expressed through the spacing of openings, recesses, eaves, cornices, overhangs, trellises, exposed rafters, columns, or bay windows. iii. Façades shall incorporate at least one element that signals habitation, such as porches, bay windows, or balconies.
iv. Non-glazed wall areas (blank walls) must be enhanced with architectural details, landscaping, and/or landscaped trellises or lattices.
b. At least two of the following strategies must be used in a manner that reinforces the maximum twenty-five (25) foot module:
i. Change in roof parapet height or shape.
ii. Change in roof style.
iii. Change in materials palette.
iv. Change in building height, minimum eight-foot difference. v. Change in frontage type or change in details of shopfront frontage type if used. vi. Use of upper floor projections such as bay windows or balconies.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:32 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 6 of 8 ends

d. Gallery.
e. Arcade.
f. Forecourt.
i. Forecourts must feature at least one entry to a shop and/or second floor use. ii. Forecourts for buildings more than seventy (70) feet in length along a right-of-way must have a minimum width and depth of fifteen (15) feet from front façade. Width of forecourt shall be equal to or greater than depth.
iii. The size of the forecourt must be appropriate relative to the size of the building. The maximum ratio of building height to forecourt is 2:1 (height < 2 x width). iv. Forecourt must be enclosed on at least three sides by buildings. v. Forecourt must remain open to the sky (arbors and trellises are allowed). g. Terrace.

3. Primary Entrance Location(s). Locate primary entrance on the front ROW and/or interior courtyard.

4. Individual Entries. Ground floor residential units facing a street must provide individual entries along the street frontage.

5. Interior Courtyard. Interior courtyards must be:
a. Enclosed on at least two sides by buildings.
b. Open to the sky (arbors and trellises are allowed).
c. A minimum width of twenty (20) feet and a minimum area of four hundred (400) square feet.

6. Paseos. Paseos must be:
a. A minimum width of ten (10) feet for through-block paseos. b. A minimum width of four feet for entries to courtyards or individual single businesses.

7. Ground Floor Floor-to-Ceiling Height. Minimum twelve (12) inches taller than typical upper floor floorto-ceiling height.

D. Window Design.
121
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:32 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 7 of 8 ends

1. All windows must have a sill.

2. Vinyl sliding windows are prohibited on façades visible from a right-of-way.

E. Building Materials.

1. Primary shall mean fifty (50) percent or more of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces.

2. Secondary shall mean less than fifty (50) percent of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces. Permitted secondary cladding materials are limited to:
a. Stucco (minimum two-coat stucco; synthetic stucco not allowed, EIFS not allowed). b. Siding (lap, vertical, or shingle).
i. All siding shall be wood, composite wood, or cement fiberboard. ii. Wood siding shall be painted or stained.
iii. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not permitted.
c. Stone (watertable and building base only).
d. Brick (watertable and building base only).
e. Tile.
f. Metal (matte finish or Cor-ten).
i. Ribbed metal, titanium, and mirrored finishes not allowed. g. Concrete Masonry Units (watertable and building base only, and not allowed on any façade facing a right-of-way or a single-family zone).
h. Concrete (watertable and building base only, board-form only, cast concrete not permitted).

F. Landscaping and Paving.

1. Landscaping must be placed on each side of a driveway at grade or in raised planters.

2. Low walls and/or hedges must screen the parking along the sidewalk. When walls are used, the materials and design must be compatible with and not obscure the architectural style of the building.

3. A minimum seventy-five (75) percent of on-site paving material must be pervious/permeable.

G. Screening.

1. Service areas must be located at the rear of lot or along a parking plaza.

2. Screening must be architecturally consistent with primary building in terms of materials, colors, and style.
122
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:32 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 8 of 8 ends

H. Additional Design Standards. See Section 14.66.280 for additional design standards applicable to all multifamily development in the R3-1 District. (Amended during 2/06 supplement; prior code § 10-2.1110) ( Ord. No. 2021-478 , § 1, 9-14-2021)

14.24.120 Signs (R3-1).
(As provided in Chapter 14.68 of this code.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1111; Ord. No. 2015-414 , § 12, 9-8-2015)

14.24.130 Fences (R3-1).
(As provided in Chapter 14.72 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1112)

14.24.140 Nonconforming use regulations (R3-1).
(As provided in Chapter 14.66 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1113)

14.24.150 Conditional uses (R3-1).

Upon the granting of a use permit in accord with Chapter 14.80 of this title, hotels shall be permitted in the R3-1 District.
(Prior code § 10-2.1115)

14.24.160 Accessory structures.

As provided in Chapter 14.15 of this title.
(Ord. No. 2018-440 , § 3, 3-13-2018)
123
Agenda Item # 4.

Title 14 - ZONING
Chapter 14.40 CN COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST] (Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 1 of 15 ends

Chapter 14.40 CN COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
Sections:

14.40.010 CN District.

The regulations, general provisions, and exceptions set forth in this chapter and in Chapter 14.66 shall apply in the CN District.
(Prior code § 10-2.1601)

14.40.020 Specific purposes (CN).

The specific purposes of the CN District are as follows:

A. To retain and enhance the neighborhood convenience character; B. To preserve and improve the existing character by encouraging pedestrian-scale development and amenities, circulation, and landscaping;
C. To retain an emphasis on retail uses, including service and limited office uses; D. To allow for mixed uses of commercial and residential; and E. To buffer the impacts of commercial development on neighboring residential properties. (Ord. 03-256 § 1 (part): prior code § 10-2.1601.1)

14.40.030 Permitted uses (CN).

The following uses shall be permitted in the CN District:

A. Office-administrative services located above the ground floor; B. Office-administrative services uses located on the ground floor on Sherwood Avenue within the Sherwood Gateway specific plan area, and in existing commercial buildings constructed before February 22, 2013, on Grant Road between Newcastle Drive and Farndon Avenue within the Woodland Plaza area, provided that any site with over five thousand (5,000) square feet of existing retail or restaurant space on the ground floor shall retain an equal or greater amount of its existing retail and/or restaurant space on the ground floor;
C. Parking spaces and loading areas;
D. Recycling facilities: (i) small collection facilities, and (ii) reverse vending machines, as provided for in Chapter 14.68 of this title;
E. Restaurants, excluding drive-through services;
F. Retail and personal service establishments; and
G. Medical and dental offices that are less than five thousand (5,000) gross square feet; H. Residential Only Development(s);
124
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:33 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 2 of 15 ends

I. Mixed Use Development(s); and
G. Uses which are determined by the Zoning Administrator city planner to be of the same general character.
(Ord. 07-306 § 3 (part); Ord. 05-280 § 4 (part): Ord. 03-256 § 1 (part): prior code § 10-2.1602) (Ord. No. 2012-389, § 1, 1-22-2013; Ord. No. 2015-406 , § 2, 2-10-2015)

14.40.040 Conditional uses (CN).

Upon the granting of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.80 of this title, the following uses shall be permitted in the CN District:

A. Day care centers that do not displace a retail business. If the space had been a retail business, but that use was vacated for a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) days, it would not be considered to be displacing a retail business;
B. Office-administrative services uses located on the ground floor as part of a new development constructed after February 22, 2013, on Grant Road between Newcastle Drive and Farndon Avenue within the Woodland Plaza area;
C. Housing located above the ground floor;
D. Medical and dental clinics;
E.C. Medical and dental offices that are five thousand (5,000) gross square feet or more; F. Mixed-use projects, including a combination of retail, service, office, and/or residential uses, which are found to be compatible with the intent of the CN District and surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of Section 14.02.020 of Article 1 of Chapter 14.02; G.D. Nurseries or garden supplies provided all equipment, supplies, and merchandise, other than plants, shall be kept within an enclosed structure; and
H.F. Uses which are determined by the planning commission and the city council to be of the same general character.
(Ord. 07-306 § 3 (part); Ord. 05-280 § 4 (part): Ord. 03-256 § 1 (part): prior code § 10-2.1603) (Ord. No. 2012-389, § 2, 1-22-2013; Ord. No. 2015-406 , §§ 2—4, 2-10-2015)

14.40.050 Limited conditional uses (CN).

Upon the granting of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.80, the following uses shall be permitted except within fifty (50) feet of an R1 District:

A. Animal clinics;
B. Cocktail lounges;
C. Commercial recreation;
D. Drive-through facilities, except car washes;
E. Laundry and dry cleaning establishments, including self-serve dry cleaning; F. Printing shops;
125
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:33 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 3 of 15 ends

G. Recycling facilities: large collection facilities as provided for in Chapter 14.68; H. Service stations provided the site has at least one hundred (100) feet of frontage on a street with a minimum site area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The setback of structures shall be determined by the planning commission; and
I. Upholstery shops.
(Ord. 07-312 § 8: Ord. 03-256 § 1 (part): prior code § 10-2.1604)

14.40.060 Required conditions (CN).

The following conditions shall be required of all uses in the CN District:

A. All businesses, services, and processes shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for recycling facilities, parking and loading spaces, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, the sale of gasoline and oil at service stations, or as permitted under the terms of a permit issued pursuant to Section 4.24.020 of Chapter 4.24 of Title 4 of this code.

B. All products produced on the site of any of the permitted uses shall be sold at retail only and on the site where produced.

C. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment, or materials shall be employed which are found by the commission to be objectionable by reason of odor, dust, noise, vibration, illumination, glare, unsightliness, or electrical disturbances which are manifested beyond the premises in which the permitted use is located.

No property owner, business owner and/or tenant shall suffer, permit, or allow the operation of a business on his or her property or on property upon which his or her business operates to violate the required conditions of this chapter. Enforcement shall be as provided for in Chapter 1.10 of this code.

1. General screening standard. Every development shall provide sufficient screening to reasonably protect the privacy, safety, and environment of neighboring residential properties and shield them from adverse external effects of that development.

Walls up to twelve (12) feet in height shall be required for the purpose of attenuating noise (as determined by an acoustical analysis), odor, air pollution, artificial light, mitigation for grade differential between properties and providing privacy and safety.

2. Sites for screening of refuse collection. Every development will be required to provide suitable space for solid waste separation, collection, and storage and shall provide sites for such that are located so as to facilitate collection and minimize any negative impact on persons occupying the development site, neighboring properties, or public rights-of-way.

3. Lighting. Lighting within any lot that unnecessarily illuminates any other lot and/or substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of such other lot is prohibited. Lighting unnecessarily illuminates another lot if (i) it clearly exceeds the minimum illumination necessary to provide for security of property and the safety of persons using such roads, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, and other common areas and facilities, or (ii) if the illumination could reasonably be achieved in a manner that would not substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of neighboring properties.

4. Air pollution. Any use that emits any "air contaminant" as defined by the Bay Area air quality management district shall comply with applicable state standards concerning air pollution.

5. Maintenance of common areas, improvements, and facilities. Maintenance of all common areas, improvements, or facilities required by this chapter or any permit issued in accordance with its 126
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:33 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 4 of 15 ends

provisions shall be required except those areas, improvements, or facilities with respect to which an offer of dedication to the public has been accepted by the appropriate public authority.

6. Odors. No use may generate any odor that may be found reasonably objectionable as determined by an appropriate agency such as the Santa Clara County health department and the Bay Area air quality management district beyond the boundary occupied by the enterprise generating the odor.

7. Noise. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed standards as set forth in Chapter 6.16 of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

In order to attenuate noise associated with commercial development, walls up to twelve (12) feet in height shall be required at a commercial/residential interface. Other conditions may be applied such as, but not limited to, muffling of exterior air conditioning facilities.

D. No building or structure designed for, or intended to be used, or which has been used, or which is presently being used as a dwelling shall be used for the conduct of any business, store, shop, or other permitted use in the CN District unless and until such structure and the property on which it is located comply with the applicable provisions of this chapter, the Uniform Building Code (Chapter 12.08 of this code), and the Fire Code (Chapter 12.24 of this code).

E. No use shall be permitted in setbacks immediately adjacent to single-family residential land uses which can not adequately be mitigated.
(Prior code § 10-2.1605)

14.40.070 Floor area ratio (CN).

The maximum floor area ratio shall be as follows:

District Maximum Floor Area Ratio
Foothill Plaza None
Woodland Plaza 35 percent of total area of site
Rancho Shopping Center 35 percent of total area of site Loyola Corners None
Sherwood Triangle None
No maximum floor area ratio shall be required for any development within the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zoning District.
(Prior code § 10-2.1605.1)

14.40.080 Front yard (CN).

No front yard shall be required, except where the front property line is across a street or alley from property in an R District, in which instance the minimum depth of front yards shall be forty (40) feet, of which a five-foot strip adjoining the public way, except at access driveways, shall be a landscaped strip. The required front yard may be used for parking spaces; provided, however, access to the street or alley may be by driveway only. 127
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:33 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 5 of 15 ends

(Prior code § 10-2.1606)

14.40.090 Side yards (CN).

No side yards shall be required, except where a side property line of the site is across a street or alley from property in an R District, in which instance the minimum width of side yards shall be forty (40) feet, and where a side property line of the sites abuts on property in an R District, in which instance the minimum width of side yard shall be fifty (50) feet, of which the ten (10) feet abutting on the property in the R District shall be a landscaped strip. A required side yard may be used for parking, except for the area required to be planted. (Prior code § 10-2.1607)

14.40.100 Rear yard (CN).

The minimum depth of rear yards shall be twenty (20) feet. Where the rear property line abuts on property in an R District, an appropriate buffer shall be provided, including a noise-attenuating fence or wall. The required rear yard may be used for off-street parking, except for the area required to be planted. (Prior code § 10-2.1608)

14.40.110 Off-street parking (CN).
(As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1609)

14.40.120 Common parking facilities (CN).
(As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1610)

14.40.130 Off-street loading.
(As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1611)

14.40.140 Height of structures (CN).

No structure shall exceed thirty (30) feet in height.
a. Residential Only Development(s) building height shall be a maximum of forty (40) feet and four (4) stories. b. Mixed Use Development(s) building height shall be a maximum of forty-five (45) feet and four (4) stories. c. Non-Residential Use Only Development(s) building height shall be a maximum of thirty (30) feet and three (3) stories.
(Prior code § 10-2.1612)
(Ord. No. 10-349, § 1, 4-27-2010)
128
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 6 of 15 ends

14.40.150 Design control (CN).

A. Building Placement. A minimum seventy-five (75) percent of ground-floor building frontages facing El Camino Real must be built at the minimum setback line. This standard applies to the building frontage only (exclusive of side setbacks).

B. Building Massing and Articulation.

1. Upper-story Step-backs, Front and Street Side.
a. Along all frontages except El Camino Real, the third story must be either stepped back a minimum five feet from the ground floor façade or embedded in a sloped roof form such as a mansard roof or a hipped and/or gabled roof with dormers, as allowed by standards in Section

14.40.150.B.7.
b. For buildings over three stories along all frontages except El Camino Real, the uppermost story must be embedded in a sloped roof form.
c. There are no upper-story step-back requirements for building frontages along El Camino Real in the CN district.

2. Upper Story Step-backs, Side Interior and Rear where Abutting an R-1 District. a. The third story must be either stepped back a minimum ten (10) feet from ground floor façade or embedded in a sloped roof form.
b. For buildings over three stories, the uppermost story must be embedded in a sloped roof form.

3. Vertical Articulation.
a. When a building façade exceeds seventy-five (75) feet in length along a right-of-way, it must be separated into primary façade bays no greater than fifty (50) feet and secondary façade bays defined by a recess a minimum three feet deep and ten (10) feet wide. b. A minimum one entrance shall be provided per primary façade bay. c. The eave/roof of a secondary façade bay shall be no higher than the corresponding elements of the primary façade bay.
129
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 7 of 15 ends

4. Horizontal Articulation. New façades and façade modifications along a street or civic space shall be designed to visually express a base, middle, and top.
a. One or more of the following patterns shall be used to define the base:
i. Watertable: Base material extends from grade to between eight and fifty-four (54) inches above grade.
ii. Podium: The base material encompasses the lowest story (or stories) of the building, with or without mezzanine(s), and terminates in a sill, string course, or cornice at its upper bound (multi-story buildings only).
iii. Watertable and Cornice/String Course: A watertable using the base material is combined with a cornice or string course at the lowest story's upper bound, including any mezzanine (multi-story buildings only).
b. The top of each building mass/bay shall be defined by elements spanning the full length of the façade of the mass/bay. Such elements may include a cornice, eave and/or gable(s), or other elements listed under Section 17.40.150.B.7. These elements shall be consistent with the overall architectural style of the building mass/bay.
130
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 8 of 15 ends

5. Adjacencies.
a. Façades adjacent to an R-1 District.
i. Building façade planes abutting an R-1 district may not exceed forty-eight (48) feet in width.
ii. When a building façade abutting an R-1 district exceeds forty-eight (48) feet in width, it must be separated into façade bays no greater than forty-eight (48) feet by a recess ten (10) feet wide and fifteen (15 feet deep.
iii. Balconies, roof decks and other habitable outdoor space is not allowed on upper-story façades abutting R-1 zones.
iv. Sliding glass doors, French doors, and floor-to-ceiling windows are not allowed on upperstory façades abutting R-1 zones. b. Storefront Façades Adjacent to Storefront Façades.
i. The height of a storefront shall not differ from the height of any adjacent storefront by more than two feet.
ii. The height of ground story shall not differ from height of any adjacent ground story by more than two feet.
iii. Storefronts may transition in height using a module of twenty-five (25) feet in length along a right-of-way.
c. Compatibility with Adjacent Shorter Buildings with Height Difference of One Story or More. When adjacent to an existing shorter building with a height difference of one story or more, a proposed building must utilize two or more of the following strategies:
i. Incorporate the uppermost floor into the roof form.
ii. Break the mass of the building into smaller modules through changes in wall plane, setbacks, and/or height.
iii. Match window heights and/or proportions.
iv. Relate roof cornices and moldings at floor lines.
131
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 9 of 15 ends

6. Privacy and Line of Sight.
a. Primary living spaces and balconies located along a side setback shall orient principal windows and balconies toward the front and rear of the building. b. Where windows are within ten (10) feet of and oriented toward an interior side setback, glazing shall either be a minimum thirty (30) degree angle measured perpendicular to the adjacent side setback line, have minimum sill height of forty-two (42) inches, or be opaque. c. The maximum sill height for an ingress/egress window is forty-four (44) inches from finished floor.

7. Roofline and Roof Design.
a. Roof designs shall be limited to:
i. Hipped.
ii. Gable.
iii. Shed.
iv. Dormer.
v. Parapet.
(a) Not allowed on frontages facing Fremont Avenue.
(b) When used on the first or second floor, a parapet longer than twenty-five (25) feet in length must include at least one but not more than two of the following design elements to break up the length of the parapet:
(1) Steps.
(2) Curves.
(3) Angled surfaces.
(c) The length of a parapet segment on the third floor and above may not exceed twenty-five (25) feet.
b. When the top story is stepped back and embedded in a sloped roof form such as a mansard roof or a hipped and/or gabled roof with dormers, the floor below must (and other floors may) be stepped back to meet the slope of the top story.
132
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 10 of 15 ends

c. Building façades facing an R-1 district must have a hipped or gable roof and may incorporate dormers.
d. Roofline/parapet at corners shall not exceed roofline/parapet of adjacent wallplanes by more than twenty-four (24) inches.

C. Building Design.

1. Façade Design.
a. Building façades shall be arranged in an orderly composition of bays, defined by vertically aligned openings alternating horizontally with solid walls or columns. The pattern shall be visually expressed through the spacing of openings, recesses, eaves, inset panels, cornices, overhangs, trellises, exposed rafters, columns, or bay windows.
b. The pattern may be shared between the ground floor and upper stories provided the ground floor exhibits enhanced detail or modulation.
c. Residential façades shall incorporate at least one element that signals habitation, such as bay windows, or balconies.
d. Non-glazed wall areas (blank walls) must be enhanced with architectural details, landscaping, and/or landscaped trellises or lattices.

2. Pedestrian-Scaled Entrances.
a. Building entrances must incorporate at least one of the following entry features. See Section

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 11 of 15 ends

iv. Gallery.
v. Arcade.
vi. Forecourt.
(a) Forecourts must feature at least one entry to a shop and/or second floor use. (b) Forecourts for buildings more than seventy (70) feet in length along a right-ofway must have a minimum width and depth of fifteen (15) feet from front façade. Width of forecourt shall be equal to or greater than depth. (c) The size of the forecourt must be appropriate relative to the size of the building. The maximum ratio of building height to forecourt is 2:1 (height < 2 x width).
(d) Forecourt must be enclosed on at least three sides by buildings. (e) Forecourt must remain open to the sky (arbors and trellises are allowed). b. Primary Entrance Location(s). The building entrance shall be located along the primary right-ofway. c. Corner Entrances. Chamfered corners must incorporate a building entrance. Any required entrances may be provided on the corner of the building assuming one of the intersecting sides is a primary frontage.
d. Street-facing Entries to Upper Floors. Street-facing entries to upper floors shall be equal in quality and detail to storefronts. This standard may be satisfied through two or more of the following:
i. Dedicated awning, canopy, or other roof element.
ii. Stairs with a single color applied to treads and a contrasting color or pattern applied to risers.
iii. Dedicated light fixture(s).
iv. Decorative street address numbers or tiles.
v. Plaque signs for upper-floor business tenants.
e. Entry Protection. Primary street-facing entrances shall be protected by a recess in the building frontage at least three feet deep or by a projection extending outward at least three feet measured horizontally from the entrance, and wide enough to clear the building entryway on both sides.
i. Protection may be coterminous with an accent element. 134
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 12 of 15 ends

ii. Protection may take the form of an extended eave, overhang, awning. door canopy, gallery, arcade frontage, or other element that provides shade and shelter from the elements.
iii. The lowest edge of a projecting awning or door canopy shall have a vertical clearance of no more than eight feet.
iv. Recessed entries shall differentiate pavement within the recess through the use of a dedicated paving material or pattern.
f. Accent elements demarcating building frontage, entrance, and common open space areas shall not exceed the height of the ground floor story. Roof elements are excepted.

3. Ground Floor Floor-to-Ceiling Height. Minimum twelve (12) inches taller than typical upper floor floorto-ceiling.

4. Interior Courtyard. Interior courtyards must be:
a. Partially visible from the street and linked to the street by a clear accessible path of travel. b. Enclosed on at least two sides by buildings.
c. Open to the sky (arbors and trellises are allowed).
135
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 13 of 15 ends

d. A minimum width of twenty (20) feet and a minimum area of four hundred (400) square feet.

5. Paseos. Paseos must be:
a. A minimum width of ten (10) feet for through-block paseos. b. A minimum width of four feet for entries to courtyards or individual single businesses.

D. Window Design.

1. Window frames, backbands, and sills.
a. All windows shall have a sill.
i. The sill shall extend horizontally beyond the window opening or frame/casing (if present) at each end.
ii. The sill shall be sloped toward the outside.
iii. The sill shall have a drip at its outer edge.

2. Vinyl windows are prohibited on façades visible from a right-of-way.

3. Tinted glass is not allowed.

E. Building Materials.

1. Primary shall mean fifty (50) percent or more of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces.

Permitted primary cladding materials are limited to:
a. Stucco (minimum two-coat stucco; synthetic stucco or EIFS not allowed). b. Siding (lap, vertical, panelized, or shingle).
i. All siding shall be wood, composite wood, or cement fiberboard. ii. Wood siding shall be painted or stained.
iii. Vinyl and aluminum not permitted.
c. Stone.
d. Brick.

2. Secondary shall mean less than fifty (50) percent of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces. Permitted secondary cladding materials are limited to:
a. Stucco (minimum two-coat stucco; synthetic stucco not allowed, EIFS not allowed). b. Siding (lap, vertical, panelized, or shingle).
i. All siding shall be wood, composite wood, or cement fiberboard. ii. Wood siding shall be painted or stained.
iii. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not permitted.
c. Stone (building base only).
d. Brick (building base only).
e. Tile (for bulkheads below display windows and decorative accents only). f. Metal (matte finish or Cor-ten).
i. Ribbed metal, titanium, and mirrored finishes are not permitted. 136
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 14 of 15 ends

g. Concrete Masonry Units (watertable and building base only, and not allowed on any façade facing a right-of-way or a single-family zone).
h. Concrete (building base only, board-form only, cast concrete not permitted).

F. Ground Level Open Space. Where any required front, rear, or side yard setback is ten (10) feet or greater, onsite ground-level open space shall be provided within the setback.

1. The ground level open space shall be usable and accessible.

2. The minimum dimension for ground level open space shall be eight feet.

G. Landscaping, Paving and Pedestrian Amenities.

1. Landscape elements shall be integrated with the building architecture, parking, and streetscape.

Recommended patterns shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Planters for flowers and shrubs within street frontage. b. Landscape buffers between parking spaces and building façades. c. Landscaping within and/or on walls adjacent to courtyards, open spaces, and setbacks.

2. Within the Loyola Corners Specific Plan Overlay district, landscaping, paving and pedestrian amenities shall be as specified in the Loyola Corners Specific Plan.

3. See Sections 14.66.180 (Maintenance of Landscaped Areas) and 14.70.070 (Landscaped Strips) for additional landscaping standards.

H. Site Circulation and Access.

1. New development on abutting lots shall be designed to allow cross-access for internal pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation systems.

2. Bicycle racks shall be provided:
a. In or within fifty (50) feet of every parking area; and b. Within twenty (20) feet of at least one building entrance.

I. Service Areas and Screening.

1. Service areas must be located at the rear of lot.

2. Service areas must be enclosed in enclosures that are architecturally consistent with primary building in terms of materials, colors, and style.
137
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:34 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 15 of 15 ends

J. Additional Design Standards. See Section 14.66.280 for additional design standards applicable to all residential mixed-use development in the CN District.
(Amended during 2/06 supplement; prior code § 10-2.1613) ( Ord. No. 2021-478 , § 1, 9-14-2021)

14.40.160 Signs (CN).
(As provided in Chapter 14.68 of this code.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1614; Ord. No. 2015-414 , § 12, 9-8-2015)

14.40.170 Fences (CN).
(As provided in Chapter 14.72 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1615)

14.40.180 Nonconforming use regulations (CN).
(As provided in Chapter 14.66 of this title.)
(Prior code § 10-2.1616)
138
Agenda Item # 4.

Title 14 - ZONING
Chapter 14.44 CD COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT*
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:36 [EST] (Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 1 of 17 ends

Chapter 14.44 CD COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT*
Sections:

14.44.010 CD District.

The regulations, general provisions, and exceptions set forth in Chapter 14.66 of this title shall apply in the CD District.
(Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))

14.44.020 Specific purposes (CD).

Specific purposes for CD Districts are as follows:

A. Promote the implementation of the downtown urban design plan; B. Retain and enhance the downtown Los Altos village atmosphere; C. Allow latitude for creative design and architectural variety within limits established; D. Preserve and improve the character of the area immediately surrounding the existing downtown pedestrian district;
E. Provide pedestrian amenities such as paseos, outdoor public spaces and outdoor seating; F. Establish a sense of entry into the downtown;
G. Encourage historic preservation for those buildings listed on the city's historic resources inventory; H. Encourage the upgrading of building exteriors, signs, passageways and rear entries; I. Provide for a full range of retail, office, and service uses appropriate to downtown; J. Develop a landscaped strip along the back of properties that abut Foothill Expressway between Edith Avenue and San Antonio Road;
K. Improve the visual appeal and pedestrian orientation of the downtown; and L. Encourage the use of solar, photovoltaic, and other energy conserving devices. (Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))

14.44.030 Permitted uses (CD).

The following uses shall be permitted in the CD District, provided that any site with over five thousand (5,000) square feet of existing retail or restaurant space on the ground floor shall retain an equal or greater amount of retail and/or restaurant space on the ground floor:

A. Business, professional, and trade schools;
B. Maintenance and repair services;
C.B. Office-administrative services, excluding drive-through facilities; 139
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 2 of 17 ends

D.C. Parking spaces and loading areas;
E.D. Restaurants, excluding drive-through facilities;
F.E. Retail and personal services; and
F. Residential Only Development(s);
G. Mixed Use Development(s); and
G.H. Uses which are determined by the Zoning Administrator city planner to be of the same general character.
(Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))
(Ord. No. 10-349, § 2, 4-27-2010; Ord. No. 2015-406 , § 2, 2-10-2015)

14.44.040 Conditional uses (CD).

Upon the granting of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.80 of this title, the following uses shall be permitted in the CD District:

A. Animal clinics and hospitals;
B. Cocktail lounges;
C. Commercial recreation;
D. Day care centers;
E. Housing located above the ground floor;
F.E. Medical and dental offices clinics;
G. Medical and dental offices that are five thousand (5,000) gross square feet or more; H.F. Service stations provided the site has at least one hundred (100) feet of frontage on a street with a minimum site area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; and I.G. Uses which are determined by the planning commission and the city council to be of the same general character.
(Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))
(Ord. No. 2015-406 , §§ 3, 4, 2-10-2015)

14.44.050 Required conditions (CD).

The following conditions shall be required of all uses in the CD District:

A. All businesses, services, and processes shall be conducted within a completely enclosed structure, except for parking and loading spaces, sale of gasoline and oil at service stations, incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of exterior sales and display area, outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services.

B. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment, or materials shall be employed which are found by the commission to be objectionable by reason of odor, dust, smoke, noise, vibration, illumination, 140
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 3 of 17 ends

glare, unsightliness, or electrical disturbances which are manifested beyond the premises in which the permitted use is located.

C. No property owner, business owner and/or tenant shall permit or allow operation of a business which violates the required conditions of this chapter, including the following general criteria:

1. Refuse collection. Every development, including applications for tenant improvements, shall be required to provide suitable space for solid waste separation, collection, and storage and shall provide sites for such that are located so as to facilitate collection and minimize any negative impact on persons occupying the development site, neighboring properties, or public rights-ofway. Refuse collection areas are encouraged to be shared, centralized, facilities whenever possible.

2. Lighting. Lighting within any lot that unnecessarily illuminates any other lot and/or substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of such other lot is prohibited. Lighting unnecessarily illuminates another lot if: (i) it clearly exceeds the minimum illumination necessary to provide for security of property and the safety of persons using such roads, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, and other common areas and facilities, or (ii) if the illumination could reasonably be achieved in a manner that would not substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of neighboring properties.

3. Air pollution. Any use that emits any "air contaminant" as defined by the Bay Area air quality management district shall comply with applicable state standards concerning air pollution.

4. Maintenance of common areas, improvements, and facilities. Maintenance of all common areas, improvements, facilities, and public sidewalks adjacent to the subject property shall be required.

In the case of public sidewalks, maintenance shall be limited to keeping the sidewalk clean and free of debris, markings, and food and drink stains by means of sweeping, cleaning with water and/or steam cleaning.

5. Odors. No use may generate any odor that may be found reasonably objectionable as determined by an appropriate agency such as the Santa Clara County health department and the Bay Area air quality management district beyond the boundary occupied by the enterprise generating the odor.

6. Noise. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed standards as set forth in Chapter 6.16 of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

In order to attenuate noise associated with commercial development, walls up to twelve (12) feet in height may be required at a commercial/residential interface. Other conditions may be applied such as, but not limited to, muffling of exterior air conditioning facilities.
(Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))

14.44.060 Front yard (CD).

The minimum depth of front yards shall be two feet and shall be landscaped. (Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))
141
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 4 of 17 ends

14.44.070 Side yards (CD).

No side yards shall be required, except when the side property line of a site abuts a public street or a public parking plaza, in which case the minimum width of the side yard shall be two feet and shall be landscaped. (Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))

14.44.080 Rear yard (CD).

Structures above fifteen (15) feet in height must have a minimum rear yard of fifteen (15) feet. Otherwise, no rear yard shall be required except as follows:

A. Where the rear property line of a site abuts a public parking plaza, the minimum depth of the rear yard shall be two feet and shall be landscaped.

B. Where the rear property line of a site abuts a public street or alley, the minimum depth of the rear yard shall be ten (10) feet of which the rear two feet shall be landscaped.

C. A required rear yard may be used for parking, except for the area required to be landscaped. (Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))

14.44.090 Off-street parking (CD).

Parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 14.74 of this title. In addition, parking facilities shall:

A. Reduce the visual impact of parking structures and parking lots by locating them at the rear or interior portions of building sites;
B. Minimize the street frontage of the lot or structure by placing its shortest horizontal edge along the street;
C. When parking structures must be located at street frontage because other locations are proven infeasible, the ground level frontage shall either be used for commercial space or shall provide a landscaped area not less than five feet in width between the parking area and the public right-of-way; D. Keep the number of direct entrances to parking facilities from streets to a minimum; E. Provide a landscaped buffer not less than five feet in width between a parking lot or structure and street frontage or buildings. Where the landscaped strip adjoins a public street or pedestrian walkway, the landscaped strip may be required to include a fence, wall, berm, or equivalent feature; F. Provide a minimum of interior landscaping for unenclosed parking facilities as follows: where the total parking provided is located on one site and is fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety-nine (14,999) square feet or less, five percent of total parking area; where the parking is fifteen thousand (15,000) through twenty-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine (29,999) square feet, seven and one-half percent of total parking area; and where the facility is thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater, ten (10) percent of total parking area.

Parking Area (in square feet) Minimum Landscaping
(% of Parking Area)
< 15,000 5
15,000 — 29,999 7.5
142
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 5 of 17 ends

> 30,000 10
G. Trees in reasonable number shall be provided; ground cover alone is not acceptable. Interior landscaping shall be distributed throughout the paved area as evenly as possible. Provision shall be made for automatically irrigating all planted area. All landscaping shall be protected with concrete curbs or other acceptable barriers. All landscaping shall be continuously maintained. (Ord. 08-320 § 1 (part); Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))

14.44.100 Common parking facilities (CD).
(As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.)
(Ord. 08-320 § 1 (part); Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))

14.44.110 Off-street loading and refuse collection (CD).

A. Where buildings are served by alleys, all service-delivery entrances, loading docks, and refuse collection facilities shall be located to be accessed from the alley. No loading area shall be located at the street frontage or building façade.

B. A minimum of thirty-two (32) square feet of covered refuse collection area shall be provided and shall not be located in any front or street side yard. Where an alley exists, the refuse collection area shall be accessed from the alley. Refuse collection areas shall be on site, but are encouraged to be shared, centralized, facilities whenever possible.

C. On sites not served by an alley, service areas shall be located to the rear, side, or at an internal location where visibility from public streets, public parking plazas and neighboring properties will be minimized.

D. Refuse collection areas shall be enclosed by a screen wall of durable material and planting as necessary to screen views from streets, public parking plazas and neighboring properties. (Ord. 08-320 § 1 (part); Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part))

14.44.120 Height of structures (CD).

No commercial or mixed use structure shall exceed thirty (30) feet in height. The first story shall have a minimum interior ceiling height of twelve (12) feet to accommodate retail use, and the floor level of the first story shall be no more than one foot above sidewalk level.
a. Residential Only Development(s) building height shall be a maximum of forty (40) feet and four (4) stories. b. Mixed Use Development(s) building height shall be a maximum of forty-five (45) feet and four (4) stories. c. Non-Residential Use Only Development(s) building height shall be a maximum of thirty (30) feet and three (3) stories.
(Ord. 08-321 § 1: Ord. 08-320 § 1 (part); Ord. 06-295 § 1 (part)) (Ord. No. 10-349, § 3, 4-27-2010; Ord. No. 2016-428 , § 1, 11-8-2016) 143
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 6 of 17 ends

14.44.130 Design control (CD).

A. Building Massing and Articulation.

1. Upper-story Step-backs.
a. Front: Minimum ten (10) feet from ground floor façade for stories above thirty (30) feet in height as shown in the diagram
b. Street Side: Minimum ten (10) feet from ground floor façade for stories above thirty (30) feet in height, as shown in the diagram
c. For buildings over three stories in height, the uppermost story must be embedded in a sloped roof form such as a mansard roof or a hipped and/or gabled roof with dormers, as allowed by standards in Section 14.44.130.A.6.

2. Vertical Articulation.
a. When a building façade exceeds seventy-five (75) feet in length along a right-of-way, it must be separated into primary façade bays no greater than fifty (50) feet and secondary façade bays defined by a recess a minimum three feet deep and ten (10) feet wide. b. A minimum one entrance shall be provided per primary façade bay. c. The eave/roof of a secondary façade bay shall be no higher than the corresponding elements of the primary façade bay.

3. Horizontal Articulation. New façades and façade modifications along a street or civic space shall be designed to visually express a base, middle, and top.
a. One or more of the following patterns shall be used to define the base:
i. Watertable: Base material extends from grade to between eight and fifty-four (54) inches above grade.
ii. Podium: The base material encompasses the lowest story (or stories) of the building, with or without mezzanine(s), and terminates in a sill, string course, or cornice at its upper bound (multi-story buildings only).
144
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 7 of 17 ends

iii. Watertable and Cornice/String Course: A watertable using the base material is combined with a cornice or string course at the lowest story's upper bound, including any mezzanine (multi-story buildings only).
b. The top of each building mass/bay shall be defined by elements spanning the full length of the façade of the mass/bay. Such elements may include a cornice, eave and/or gable(s), or other elements listed under Section 17.44.130.A.6. These elements shall be consistent with the overall architectural style of the building mass/bay.

4. Adjacencies.
a. Storefront Façades Adjacent to Storefront Façades.
i. The height of a storefront shall not differ from the height of any adjacent storefront by more than two feet.
ii. The height of ground story shall not differ from height of any adjacent ground story by more than two feet.
iii. Storefronts may transition in height using a module of twenty-five (25) feet in length along a right-of-way.
b. Compatibility with Adjacent Shorter Buildings with Height Difference of One Story or More. When adjacent to an existing shorter building with a height difference of one story or more, a proposed building must utilize two or more of the following strategies:
i. Incorporate the uppermost floor into the roof form.
145
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 8 of 17 ends

ii. Break the mass of the building into smaller modules through changes in wall plane, setbacks, and/or height.
iii. Match window heights and/or proportions.
iv. Relate roof cornices and moldings at floor lines.

5. Privacy and Line of Sight.
a. Primary living spaces and balconies located along a side setback shall orient principal windows and balconies toward the front and rear of the building. b. Where windows are within ten (10) feet of and oriented toward an interior side setback, glazing shall either be a minimum thirty (30) degree angle measured perpendicular to the adjacent side setback line, have minimum sill height of forty-two (42) inches, or be opaque. c. The maximum sill height for an ingress/egress window is forty-four (44) inches from finished floor.

6. Roofline and Roof Design.
a. Roof designs shall be limited to:
i. Hipped.
ii. Gable.
iii. Mansard.
(a) Applicable for buildings three or more stories.
iv. Dormer.
v. Parapet.
(a) When used on the first or second floor, a parapet longer than twenty-five (25) feet in length must include at least one but not more than two of the following design elements to break up the length of the parapet:
(1) Steps.
(2) Curves.
(3) Angled surfaces.
(b) The length of a parapet segment on the third floor and above may not exceed twenty-five (25) feet.
b. When the top story is stepped back and embedded in a sloped roof form such as a mansard roof or a hipped and/or gabled roof with dormers, the floor below must (and other floors may) be stepped back to meet the slope of the top story.
146
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 9 of 17 ends

B. Building Design.

1. Façade Design.
a. Building façades must continue the pattern established by existing buildings in Downtown Los Altos by reinforcing the underlying maximum fifty (50) foot module along all street frontages through the use of the following techniques:
i. Building façades shall be arranged in an orderly composition of bays, defined by vertically aligned openings alternating horizontally with solid walls or columns. The pattern shall be visually expressed through the spacing of openings, recesses, eaves, inset panels, cornices, overhangs, trellises, exposed rafters, columns, or bay windows. ii. The pattern may be shared between the ground floor and upper stories provided the ground floor exhibits enhanced detail or modulation.
iii. Residential façades shall incorporate at least one element that signals habitation, such as bay windows, or balconies.
iv. Non-glazed wall areas (blank walls) must be enhanced with architectural details, landscaping, and/or landscaped trellises or lattices.
b. At least two of the following strategies must be used in a manner that reinforces the maximum fifty (50) foot module:
i. Change in roof parapet height or shape.
ii. Change in roof style.
iii. Change in materials palette.
iv. Change in building height, minimum eight-foot difference. 147
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 10 of 17 ends

v. Change in frontage type or change in details of shopfront frontage type if used. vi. Use of upper floor projections such as bay windows or balconies.

2. Ground Level Transparency. A minimum sixty (60) percent of commercial ground floor street-facing façades between two and seven feet in height shall be transparent window surface. Opaque, reflective, or dark tinted glass is not allowed.

3. Pedestrian-Scaled Entrances.
a. Building entrances must incorporate at least one of the following entry features. See Section

14.66.275 (Entrance Type Standards) for design standards applicable to each entrance type listed.
i. Stoop.
ii. Dooryard.
iii. Shopfront.
(a) Shopfronts more than twenty-five (25) feet in width must incorporate variations in bulkhead, awnings, materials and/or color to visually articulate the shopfront into modules not to exceed twenty-five (25) continuous feet. iv. Gallery.
v. Arcade.
vi. Forecourt.
(a) Forecourts must feature at least one entry to a shop and/or second floor use. (b) Forecourts for buildings more than seventy (70) feet in length along a right-ofway must have a minimum width and depth of fifteen (15) feet from front façade. Width of forecourt shall be equal to or greater than depth. (c) The size of the forecourt must be appropriate relative to the size of the building. The maximum ratio of building height to forecourt is 2:1 (height < 2 x width).
(d) Forecourt must be enclosed on at least three sides by buildings. (e) Forecourt must remain open to the sky (arbors and trellises are allowed). 148
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 11 of 17 ends

vii. Terrace.
b. Primary Entrance Location(s). Locate primary entrance on the front right-of-way and/or in the interior courtyard.
c. Corner Entrances. Chamfered corners must incorporate a building entrance. Any required entrances may be provided on the corner of the building assuming one of the intersecting sides is a primary frontage.
d. Street-facing Entries to Upper Floors. Street-facing entries to upper floors shall be equal in quality and detail to storefronts. This standard may be satisfied through two or more of the following:
i. Dedicated awning, canopy, or other roof element.
ii. Stairs with a single color applied to treads and a contrasting color or pattern applied to risers.
iii. Dedicated light fixture(s).
iv. Decorative street address numbers or tiles.
v. Plaque signs for upper-floor business tenants.
e. Entry Protection. Primary street-facing entrances shall be protected by a recess in the building frontage at least three feet deep or by a projection extending outward at least three feet measured horizontally from the entrance, and wide enough to clear the building entryway on both sides.
i. Protection may be coterminous with an accent element. ii. Protection may take the form of an extended eave, overhang, awning. door canopy, gallery, arcade frontage, or other element that provides shade and shelter from the elements.
iii. The lowest edge of a projecting awning or door canopy shall have a vertical clearance of no more than eight feet.
iv. Recessed entries shall differentiate pavement within the recess through the use of a dedicated paving material or pattern.
149
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 12 of 17 ends

f. Accent elements demarcating building frontage, entrance, and common open space areas shall not exceed the height of the ground floor story. Roof elements are excepted.

4. Ground Floor Floor-to-Ceiling Height. Minimum twelve (12) inches taller than typical upper floor floor-to-ceiling.

5. Interior Courtyard. Interior courtyards must be:
a. Partially visible from the street and linked to the street by a clear accessible path of travel. b. Enclosed on at least two sides by buildings.
c. Open to the sky (arbors and trellises are allowed)
d. A minimum width of twenty (20) feet and a minimum area of four hundred (400) square feet.

6. Paseos. Paseos must be:
a. A minimum width of ten (10) feet for through-block paseos. b. A minimum width of four feet for entries to courtyards or individual single businesses.

C. Window Design.

1. Window frames, backbands, and sills.
a. All windows shall have a sill.
150
Agenda Item # 4.

Created: 2023-06-28 07:56:35 [EST]
(Supp. No. 40, Update 2)

Page 13 of 17 ends

Los Altos City CouncilSeptember 26, 2023

Los Altos City Council
September 26, 2023