Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, January 27, 2026 (part 4 of 8)

DN
UP
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
TRASH
MAIN
ELEC.

MAIL
ROOM
ENTRY
LOBBY
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
A23
A20
A21
A22

JORDAN AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
CAR LIFT 02
CAR LIFT 01

COMMUNITY
ROOM

WAITING
AREA

WAITING
AREA
101
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
102
UNIT 1A
750 SF
103
UNIT 1A
750 SF
104
UNIT 1A
750 SF
105

UNIT SA
520 SF
106

UNIT SA
520 SF
107
UNIT 1A
750 SF
108
UNIT 1A
750 SF

PATIO PATIO PATIO
PATIO

PATIO PATIO
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

LINE OF

FLOOR BELOW

PAD MOUNTED

TRANSFORMERS
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 2
OLF OL
200 2
OLF OL
15 25
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 2
OLF OL
300 2

RECYCLE
3 CYD BIN
TRASH
3 CYD BIN

TRASH (SPARE)
3 CYD BIN

RECYCLE (SPARE)
3 CYD BIN

GREEN WASTE
65 GAL CART

GREEN WASTE
(SPARE)
(2) 65 GAL CART

ROLL UP
DOOR
2' - 3" 4' - 0" 4' - 0"
2' - 2"
15' - 6"
ELEV.

ELEV.

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41
FIRE

COMMAND
CENTER

BIKE LOCKS

CAPACITY
9 BIKES PER 8FT BIKE RACK MODULE
REQUIRED SPACES (PER LAMC 14.75.040)

1.5 CLASS I SPACES PER 1 UNIT
1 CLASS II SPACES PER 20 UNITS

PROVIDED SPACES

CLASS I (BICYCLE STORAGE ROOM)

CLASS I (AUTOMATED PARKING SYSTEM)

CLASS II (OUTDOOR BICYCLE RACKS)
128 SPACES
5 SPACES
108 SPACES
20 SPACES
5 SPACES

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

5. ROADWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, BUILDING OPENINGS AND ROOF ACCESS SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN CFC CHAPTER 5 AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD DETAIL AND SPECIFICATION A-1. AERIAL TRUCK ACCESS SHALL BE AS DESCRIBED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED SD&S.

5. A TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDNACE WITH NFPA 72 (2022 EDITION) AND OTHER APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. THIS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WILL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEM.

6. HIGH-RISE BUILDING DECLARATION: THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES AS A HIGHRISE BUILDING PER CBC SECTION 403.1, AS THE HIGHEST OCCUPIED FLOOR IS MORE THAN 75 FEET ABOVE THE LOWEST LEVEL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE ACCESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE BUILDING IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CBC SECTIONS 403.2 THROUGH 403.7.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 68
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A11
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIRST FLOOR PLAN

Page 496 of 1184 ends

UP
DN
UP
DN
A26
A26
A27 A27
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
A23
A20
A21
A22
TRASH
201
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
202
UNIT 1A
750 SF
203
UNIT 1A
750 SF
204
UNIT 1A
750 SF
205
UNIT 1A
750 SF
208

UNIT SB
600 SF
209
UNIT 1A
750 SF
210
UNIT 1A
750 SF

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
200
UNIT 2B
870 SF
206
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
207
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4

BMR (VERY LOW)

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A12
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SECOND FLOOR PLAN

Page 497 of 1184 ends

DN
DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
301
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
302
UNIT 1A
750 SF
303
UNIT 1A
750 SF
304
UNIT 1A
750 SF
305
UNIT 1A
750 SF
308

UNIT SB
600 SF
309
UNIT 1A
750 SF
310
UNIT 1A
750 SF

DECK DECK DECK

DECK DECK
300
UNIT 2B
870 SF
306
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
307
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
DECK
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
DECK
DECK
DECK

BMR (VERY LOW)
DECK

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A13
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino THIRD FLOOR PLAN

Page 498 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
401
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
402
UNIT 1A
750 SF
403
UNIT 1A
750 SF
404
UNIT 1A
750 SF
405
UNIT 1A
750 SF
408

UNIT SB
600 SF
409
UNIT 1A
750 SF
410
UNIT 1A
750 SF
400
UNIT 2B
870 SF
406
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
407
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A14
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FOURTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 499 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
501
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
502
UNIT 1A
750 SF
503
UNIT 1A
750 SF
504
UNIT 1A
750 SF
505
UNIT 1A
750 SF
508

UNIT SB
600 SF
509
UNIT 1A
750 SF
510
UNIT 1A
750 SF
500
UNIT 2B
870 SF
506
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
507
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A15
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIFTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 500 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
601
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
602
UNIT 1A
750 SF
603
UNIT 1A
750 SF
604
UNIT 1A
750 SF
605
UNIT 1A
750 SF
608

UNIT SB
600 SF
609
UNIT 1A
750 SF
610
UNIT 1A
750 SF
600
UNIT 2B
870 SF
606
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
607
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A16
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SIXTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 501 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
701
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
702
UNIT 1A
750 SF
703
UNIT 1A
750 SF
704
UNIT 1A
750 SF
705
UNIT 1A
750 SF
708

UNIT SB
600 SF
709
UNIT 1A
750 SF
710
UNIT 1A
750 SF
700
UNIT 2B
870 SF
706
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
707
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A17
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SEVENTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 502 of 1184 ends

UP
DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
801
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
802
UNIT 1A
750 SF
803
UNIT 1A
750 SF
804
UNIT 1A
750 SF
805
UNIT 1A
750 SF
808

UNIT SB
600 SF
809
UNIT 1A
750 SF
810
UNIT 1A
750 SF
800
UNIT 2B
870 SF
806
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
807
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A18
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino EIGHTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 503 of 1184 ends

DN
DN
A26
A26
A27 A27
ELEV.

MECHANICAL
2,075 SF
TRASH
ROOF

TERRACE
3,250 SF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
A23
A20
A21
A22
ELEV.

SOLAR
2280 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
125' - 9"

LINE OF
ROOF
ABOVE

LINE OF

ROOF ABOVE

ROOF ACCESS
PER CRC R324.6.1

TPO ROOF AT
1/4:12 SLOPE, TYP.

MECHANICAL SCREENING
WALL, 5'-0" TALL MIN.

ROOF TERRACE WALL,
5'-0" TALL MIN.

ROOF TERRACE SCREENING
WALL, 5'-0" TALL MIN.

ROOF TERRACE WALL,
5'-0" TALL MIN.

SOLAR SCREENING
WALL, 3'-0" TALL MIN.

ROOF TERRACE WALL,
5'-0" TALL MIN.

SOLAR SCREENING
WALL, 3'-0" TALL MIN.

OLF OL
15 216
A20
A21
A22
A23
A41

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

7. SMOKE PROOF ENCLOSURE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY PER CBC 403.5.4.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

15.00°
3' - 0"
(CRC R324.6.1)
3' - 0" MIN. PER
1' - 8" +/-

PARAPET

SOLAR PANEL

ROOF TOP
5' - 0"

PARAPET MECHANICAL UNIT

ROOF TOP
+/- 3' - 0"
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
September 23, 2025 A19
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino ROOF PLAN
1 ROOF PLAN
2 SOLAR PANEL ELEVATION
3 MECHANICAL SCREENING

Page 504 of 1184 ends

Page 505 of 1184 ends

Page 506 of 1184 ends

Page 507 of 1184 ends

Page 508 of 1184 ends

August 1, 2025 A24
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino AXONOMETRIC VIEWS

FRONT - RIGHT VIEW

RIGHT - REAR VIEW
September 23, 2025 Page 509 of 1184
August 1, 2025 A25
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino AXONOMETRIC VIEWS

REAR - LEFT VIEW

LEFT - FRONT VIEW
September 23, 2025 Page 510 of 1184

FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
12' - 3 3/4"

THIRD FLOOR
23' - 7 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
34' - 11 1/4"

ROOF DECK
92' - 2 1/4"

TOP OF STAIR

TOP OF ELEVATOR
109' - 7 1/4"

ROOF TERRACE
93' - 4 3/4"

VEHICLE

STORAGE
ROOF
TERRACE STAIR 1

BASEMENT
-19' - 0"

FIFTH FLOOR
46' - 3"

SIXTH FLOOR
57' - 6 3/4"

SEVENTH FLOOR
68' - 10 1/2"

EIGHTH FLOOR
80' - 2 1/4"
17' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 5' - 0"
102
UNIT 1A
750 SF

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
4' - 0" 13' - 0"
202
UNIT 1A
750 SF
302
UNIT 1A
750 SF
402
UNIT 1A
750 SF
502
UNIT 1A
750 SF
602
UNIT 1A
750 SF
702
UNIT 1A
750 SF
802
UNIT 1A
750 SF
ELEV. ELEV.
109' - 9"
12' - 4"
17' - 0"
(80.53) -1 1/2"
T.O. PLATE
AVG. GRADE

OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT
(MEASURED TO AVERAGE GRADE)
T.O. PLATE
5' - 0"
3' - 0" 2' - 0"
15' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
August 1, 2025 A26
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino BUILDING SECTION
September 23, 2025 Page 511 of 1184

FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
12' - 3 3/4"

THIRD FLOOR
23' - 7 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
34' - 11 1/4"

ROOF DECK
92' - 2 1/4"

TOP OF STAIR

TOP OF ELEVATOR
109' - 7 1/4"

ROOF TERRACE
93' - 4 3/4"

VEHICLE

STORAGE
ROOF

TERRACE

BASEMENT
-19' - 0"

FIFTH FLOOR
46' - 3"

SIXTH FLOOR
57' - 6 3/4"

SEVENTH FLOOR
68' - 10 1/2"

EIGHTH FLOOR
80' - 2 1/4"

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR ENTRY TO

AUTOMATED

PARKING

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
17' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
6' - 2 1/2"
20' - 6 1/2"
4' - 6 1/2"
206
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
306
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
406
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
506
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
606
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
706
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
806
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
201
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
301
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
401
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
501
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
601
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
701
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
801
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
101
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
(80.53) -1 1/2"
11' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
AVG. GRADE
5' - 0"
3' - 0"
SOLAR
5' - 0"
12' - 4"
17' - 0"
8' - 0"
10' - 9"

OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT
(MEASURED TO AVERAGE GRADE)109' - 9"
3' - 0"
17' - 3"
17' - 0 1/2"
24' - 1 1/2"
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
T.O. PLATE
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
August 1, 2025 A27
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino BUILDING SECTION
September 23, 2025 Page 512 of 1184
September 23, 2025 14, 2025

Page 513 of 1184 ends

FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
12' - 3 3/4"

THIRD FLOOR
23' - 7 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR

ROOF DECK
34' - 11 1/4"
92' - 2 1/4"

TOP OF ELEVATOR
109' - 7 1/4"

ROOF TERRACE
93' - 4 3/4"

BASEMENT
-19' - 0"

FIFTH FLOOR
46' - 3"

SIXTH FLOOR
57' - 6 3/4"

SEVENTH FLOOR
68' - 10 1/2"

EIGHTH FLOOR
80' - 2 1/4"

ELEVATOR PIT
-5' - 0"
12' - 0" 11' - 3 3/4" 11' - 3 3/4" 11' - 3 3/4" 11' - 3 3/4" 11' - 3 3/4" 11' - 3 3/4" 12' - 3 3/4" 5' - 0" 15' - 3" UNDERSIDE OF ROOF
(OVERALL TOWER HEIGHT)
17' - 5" 14' - 0"

CLEAR OVERHEAD
14' - 7"
8" HOISTBEAM

ELEVATOR CAB

CAB HEIGHT
9' - 0"

VEHICLE

STORAGE
August 1, 2025 A29
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino ELEVATOR SECTION
September 23, 2025 Page 514 of 1184
August 1, 2025 A30
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino ELEVATOR SPEC SHEET
September 23, 2025 Page 515 of 1184

FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
12' - 3 3/4"

THIRD FLOOR
23' - 7 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
34' - 11 1/4"

ROOF DECK
92' - 2 1/4"

TOP OF STAIR

TOP OF ELEVATOR
109' - 7 1/4"

BASEMENT
-19' - 0"

FIFTH FLOOR
46' - 3"

SIXTH FLOOR
57' - 6 3/4"

SEVENTH FLOOR
68' - 10 1/2"

EIGHTH FLOOR
80' - 2 1/4"
August 1, 2025 A31
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino WALL SECTIONS
METAL CLAD WINDOWS 3-COAT STUCCO
SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE

TRESPA SIDING

FRENCH WALNUT
STONE

CULTURED STONE

CAST-FIT CARBON

TRESPA BROOKLYN

CLASSIC

COPING PAINTED
SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE

LIGHT FIXTURE
2X6 METAL COPING PROFILE

IN COLOR TO MATCH TRESPA
BROOKLYN CLASSIC , TYP. 3-COAT STUCCO TO

MATCH COLOR OF BLACK

WINDOW FRAMING
September 23, 2025 Page 516 of 1184

FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
12' - 3 3/4"

THIRD FLOOR
23' - 7 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
34' - 11 1/4"

ROOF DECK
92' - 2 1/4"

BASEMENT
-19' - 0"

FIFTH FLOOR
46' - 3"

SIXTH FLOOR
57' - 6 3/4"

SEVENTH FLOOR
68' - 10 1/2"

EIGHTH FLOOR
80' - 2 1/4"

FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
12' - 3 3/4"

THIRD FLOOR
23' - 7 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
34' - 11 1/4"

ROOF DECK
92' - 2 1/4"

BASEMENT
-19' - 0"

FIFTH FLOOR
46' - 3"

SIXTH FLOOR
57' - 6 3/4"

SEVENTH FLOOR
68' - 10 1/2"

EIGHTH FLOOR
80' - 2 1/4"
August 1, 2025 A32
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino WALL SECTIONS
METAL CLAD WINDOWS 3-COAT STUCCO
SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE

CULTURED STONE

CAST-FIT CARBON

ALUMINUM

STOREFRONT

WINDOWS & DOORS

METAL CLAD WINDOWS
& DOORS 3-COAT STUCCO
SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE

METAL GUARD RAIL

FACE MOUNTED
+ 42" FROM DECK

TRESPA SIDING

FRENCH WALNUT

TRESPA BROOKLYN

CLASSIC

TRESPA SIDING FRENCH
WALNUT

TRESPA BROOKLYN

CLASSIC

LIGHT FIXTURE

COPING PAINTED
SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE

COPING PAINTED TO

MATCH TRESPA FRENCH

WALNUT SIDING

COPING PAINTED
SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE

COPING PAINTED TO

MATCH TRESPA FRENCH

WALNUT SIDING
LIGHT FIXTURE 3-COAT STUCCO COLOR
IN SW 0077 CLASSIC
FRENCH GREY, TYP.
2X4 METAL COPING PROFILE
IN COLOR SW 0077 CLASSIC
FRENCH GREY, TYP.
2X6 METAL COPING PROFILE

IN COLOR TO MATCH TRESPA
BROOKLYN CLASSIC , TYP. 3-COAT STUCCO TO

MATCH COLOR OF BLACK

WINDOW FRAMING
2X6 METAL COPING PROFILE

IN COLOR TO MATCH TRESPA
BROOKLYN CLASSIC , TYP.

September 23, 2025 Page 517 of 1184
W/D
14' - 6"

DINING/

KITCHEN

BEDROOM/
LIVING
ENTRY
24' - 3 1/4"
15' - 6"
35' - 6"
BATH
BATH

BEDROOM
LIVING

DINING/

KITCHEN
ENTRY
20' - 6"
24' - 3 1/4"
W/D
21' - 6"
35' - 6"
0' 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
August 1, 2025 A33
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino UNIT FLOOR PLANS

UNIT SA FLOOR PLAN UNIT SB FLOOR PLAN

UNIT SA SQUARE FOOTAGES
GROSS LIVING 520 SF

UNIT SB SQUARE FOOTAGES
GROSS LIVING 600 SF
September 23, 2025 Page 518 of 1184

WALK-IN
CLOSET
ENTRY
W/D
BATH

KITCHEN
DINING
DECK
11' - 9" x 12' - 1"
LIVING
11' - 0" x 13' - 8"

BEDROOM
24' - 0 1/2"
35' - 6"
UNIT 1A FLOOR PLAN
0' 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
August 1, 2025 A34
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino UNIT FLOOR PLANS
UNIT 1A SQUARE FOOTAGES
GROSS LIVING 750 SF
September 23, 2025 Page 519 of 1184

KITCHEN

PRIMARY
BA 2 BATH
W/D

DECK DINING
11' - 9" x 11' - 1"
BEDROOM 2
13' - 6" x 11' - 10"

BEDROOM
12' - 2" x 11' - 5"
LIVING
ENTRY
29' - 1 1/2"
38' - 9"

PRIMARY

KITCHEN
13' - 10" x 11' - 4"

BEDROOM
11' - 7" x 11' - 1"
BEDROOM 2 W/D
DECK
26' - 4"
38' - 9"

PRIMARY
BATH
11' - 7" x 12' - 10"
LIVING
ENTRY
UNIT 2A FLOOR PLAN
0' 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
August 1, 2025 A35
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino UNIT FLOOR PLANS
UNIT 2B FLOOR PLAN
UNIT 2B SQUARE FOOTAGES
GROSS LIVING 870 SF
UNIT 2A SQUARE FOOTAGES
GROSS LIVING 1020 SF
September 23, 2025 Page 520 of 1184
August 1, 2025 A36
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SHADOW STUDY
MARCH 20TH - 9:00AM MARCH 20TH - 12:00PM MARCH 20TH - 3:00PM JUNE 21ST - 9:00AM JUNE 21ST - 12:00PM JUNE 21ST - 12:00PM September 23, 2025 Page 521 of 1184
August 1, 2025 A37
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SHADOW STUDY
SEPTEMBER 23RD - 9:00AM SEPTEMBER 23RD - 12:00PM SEPTEMBER 23RD - 3:00PM DECEMBER 21ST - 9:00AM DECEMBER 21ST - 12:00PM DECEMBER 21ST - 3:00PM September 23, 2025 Page 522 of 1184
September 23, 2025 A38
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino BUILDING AREA SUMMARY

FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
CIRCULATION 195 SF
PARKING 13494 SF
BASEMENT 13688 SF

THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR FIFTH FLOOR

BASEMENT

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 137 SF
DECK 566 SF
DWELLING UNIT 9032 SF
CIRCULATION 1730 SF
FOURTH FLOOR 11464 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 137 SF
DECK 553 SF
DWELLING UNIT 9032 SF
CIRCULATION 1730 SF
SECOND FLOOR 11452 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 716 SF
AMENITIES 1481 SF
DECK 370 SF
DWELLING UNIT 5805 SF
CIRCULATION 1880 SF
PARKING 1020 SF
FIRST FLOOR 11272 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 137 SF
DECK 566 SF
DWELLING UNIT 9032 SF
CIRCULATION 1730 SF
THIRD FLOOR 11464 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 137 SF
DECK 566 SF
DWELLING UNIT 9032 SF
CIRCULATION 1730 SF
FIFTH FLOOR 11464 SF

Page 523 of 1184 ends

ROOF DECK

SIXTH FLOOR SEVENTH FLOOR EIGHTH FLOOR
August 1, 2025 A39
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino BUILDING AREA SUMMARY

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 137 SF
DECK 566 SF
DWELLING UNIT 9032 SF
CIRCULATION 1730 SF
SIXTH FLOOR 11464 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 137 SF
DECK 566 SF
DWELLING UNIT 9032 SF
CIRCULATION 1730 SF
SEVENTH FLOOR 11464 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 137 SF
DECK 566 SF
DWELLING UNIT 9032 SF
CIRCULATION 1730 SF
EIGHTH FLOOR 11464 SF

CATEGORY SUBTOTALS
UTILITY 1960 SF
SOLAR 3453 SF
COMMON OPEN SPACE 3211 SF
CIRCULATION 608 SF
ROOF 1665 SF
ROOF DECK 10898 SF
BUILDING TOTAL 116107 SF
September 23, 2025 Page 524 of 1184
SCALE: 3' = 1'-0"

HORIZONTAL JOINT VERTICAL JOINT

FURRING STRIPS
METAL "T" MOLDING

TRESPA PANELS

WALL STUD
TYP.
1/2" GAP
TYP.
1/2" GAP
SCALE: 3' = 1'-0"

FURRING STRIPS

TRESPA PANEL

SEALANT
DOOR

GSM FLASHING

METAL FLASHING
- COLOR TO MATCH

ADJACENT SIDING
SCALE: 3' = 1'-0"
ALUM. WINDOW
3-COAT STUCCO
ALUM. WINDOW
3-COAT STUCCO
2x RIGID FOAM TRIM

W/ STUCCO OVER
2x RIGID FOAM TRIM

W/ STUCCO OVER
SCALE: 3' = 1'-0"

STOREFRONT FRAME

CLEAR GLASS

CLEAR GLASS
3-COAT STUCCO

EXPANSION MATERIAL
CONC. SLAB W/ DECORATIVE TILE

OVER - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS

INTERIOR EXTERIOR
GYP
SCALE: 3' = 1'-0"
ALUM. WINDOW
0' - 6"
ALUM. WINDOW
2x WOOD TRIM

GSM FLASHING

TRESPA PANEL

GSM FLASHING

TRESPA PANEL
SCALE: 3' = 1'-0"

STEEL SIDE MOUNT FLANGE
DECK

STRUCTURE

FRONT ELEVATION
2x8 WOOD CAP
2" x 2" METAL HSS VERTICAL

BALUSTER POSTS WITH END CAPS
1/2" x 3" METAL HSS HORIZONTAL

RAILS WITH END CAPS FASTENED OR

WELDED TO EACH BALUSTER POST

STEEL SIDE MOUNT FLANGE
SCALE: 3' = 1'-0"

EXTERIOR SIDING
- SEE ELEVATIONS

METAL COPING - COLOR TO

MATCH ADJACENT SIDING
* SEE ELEVATIONS FOR

PARAPET HEIGHT
August 1, 2025 A40
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino DETAILS

PARKING & TRASH ENCLOSURE

SECURITY ROLL UP GATES
1 TRESPA PANEL JOINTS, TYP. 2 DOOR HEAD 3
4 WINDOW 5 STOREFRONT 6 RECESSED WINDOW 7 ROOF PARAPET & CORNICE 8 METAL RAILING September 23, 2025 Page 525 of 1184

Page 526 of 1184 ends

±
±

CUBIC YARDS WITHIN BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

OUTSIDE

BUILDING

FOOTPRINT

TOTAL CUBIC
YARDS
CUT 5,500
FILL 0
EXPORT 5,500

Page 527 of 1184 ends

±±

Page 528 of 1184 ends

±±

Page 529 of 1184 ends

±
±
” ”

Page 530 of 1184 ends

±
±
” “ ”
“ ”

Page 531 of 1184 ends

±
±

DEVELOPMENT AREAS EXISTING
TOTAL S.F.

BUILDINGS
12,100
3,924 SQUARE FEET (NET INCREASE) *

FLOOR AREA

TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA

NET CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA

PROPOSED
TOTAL S.F.

REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR

PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
TOTAL SITE AREA 18,919 SQUARE FEET (0.434 ACRE)

TOTAL DISTURBED AREA

REMOVED NEW
TOTAL S.F. TOTAL S.F. - PATIOS & WALKWAYS - DRIVEWAY & PARKING 12,100 18,919 SQUARE FEET (0.434 ACRE)
16,024
11,073
1,412
3,539
12,100
-
- 12,100
16,024
11,073
1,412
3,539
* RUNOFF FROM ADDITIONAL INCREASE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA WILL BE RETAINED BY ONSITE STORMFILTER

Page 532 of 1184 ends

±±

Page 533 of 1184 ends

MANHOLE COVER
RIM: 79.95
INV: 75.78
INV: 75.18

Page 534 of 1184 ends

’

Page 535 of 1184 ends

±±

Page 536 of 1184 ends

EX SS EX SS SD SD SD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY
DATE LAST WORKED ON:

NOT TO SCALE
JOB NO.:

SCALE: DRAWN:

DATE:

SHEET
OF
SHEETS
CHECKED:

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT
NO. DATE

JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLAN

JOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILS

JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEET

JOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION
AR
MAY, 2025
225069
RG

REVISIONS BY

JOINT TRENCH DETAILS
JT5
JT4
JT1
JT2
JT3
8/4/2025
1 CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, 85 UNITS.
1 NEW TELEPHONE AND CATV SERVICE COMPLETION.
2 NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPLETIONS.
250 L.F. OF JOINT TRENCH

SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THIS JOINT TRENCH PLAN SET

EX GAS
JT

EX JT
SVC
EEUG
ETUG
CUG
EUG
TUG
ESL
EUUG

ALFONSO REYES

NAVEET ARON
-

BENJAMIN LOPEZ
225069 (925) 240-2595
- 225069
225069
225069
-
(650) 209-6500
DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: STATUS:
08-04-2025 R
-
-
-

EVERGREEN DESIGN GROUP
-
A = APPROVED · ANS = APPROVED NOT SIGNED · NA = NOT APPROVED· F = FIRST SUBMITTAL · SS = SECOND SUBMITTAL · R = RECEIVED -
-
-
-
- -
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
08-04-2025
AT&T

LEA & BLAZE ENGINEERING

COMCAST

CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - -
SDG 08-04-2025 R
813 First Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 240-2595
(925) 240-7013 fax
www.tarrar.com
·Planning
·Design
·Estimating
·Joint Trench
·Street Lighting
·Fiber Optic
·T-24
·PG&E Gas Design
·PG&E Elec Design
·M.E.P. Design
·Cost Analysis
·Due Diligence
-

SUBSTRUCTURE VERIFICATION STAMP
ROOSEVELT GEORGE (650) 872-6062
- - -

APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL

ALFONSO REYES

QUALIFIED APPLICANT DESIGNER
(832) 547-1603

Page 537 of 1184 ends

SHEETS
SHEET
OF

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

NOT TO SCALE
JOB NO.:

SCALE: DRAWN:

DATE:

CHECKED:

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT
NO. DATE
AR
225069
RG

REVISIONS BY
MAY, 2025 DATE LAST WORKED ON: 8/4/2025
813 First Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 240-2595
(925) 240-7013 fax
www.tarrar.com ·Planning ·Design ·Estimating ·Joint Trench ·Street Lighting ·Fiber Optic ·T-24 ·PG&E Gas Design ·PG&E Elec Design ·M.E.P. Design ·Cost Analysis ·Due Diligence

Page 538 of 1184 ends

"A"
"B"
SHEETS
SHEET
OF

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

NOT TO SCALE
JOB NO.:

SCALE: DRAWN:

DATE:

CHECKED:

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT
NO. DATE
AR
MAY, 2025
225069
RG

REVISIONS BY
DATE LAST WORKED ON: 8/4/2025
813 First Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 240-2595
(925) 240-7013 fax
www.tarrar.com
·Planning
·Design
·Estimating
·Joint Trench
·Street Lighting
·Fiber Optic
·T-24
·PG&E Gas Design
·PG&E Elec Design
·M.E.P. Design
·Cost Analysis
·Due Diligence

Page 539 of 1184 ends

SHEETS
SHEET
OF

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

NOT TO SCALE
JOB NO.:

SCALE: DRAWN:

DATE:

CHECKED:

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT
NO. DATE
AR
MAY, 2025
225069
RG

REVISIONS BY
DATE LAST WORKED ON: 8/4/2025
813 First Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 240-2595
(925) 240-7013 fax
www.tarrar.com ·Planning ·Design ·Estimating ·Joint Trench ·Street Lighting ·Fiber Optic ·T-24 ·PG&E Gas Design ·PG&E Elec Design ·M.E.P. Design ·Cost Analysis ·Due Diligence

Page 540 of 1184 ends

EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS

EX SD

EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD

EUG EUG EUG EUG JT JT

EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG EEUG

EUG EUG EUG EUG
EUG

EUG EUG EUG
EUG
EUG
EEUG
EEUG

EEUG EEUG EEUG

EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT

EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX SS EX SS EX SS

EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD

EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SHEETS
SHEET
OF

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY
1" = 10'
JOB NO.:

SCALE: DRAWN:

DATE:

CHECKED:

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT
NO. DATE
KT
May 2025
225069
AR

REVISIONS BY
N
DATE LAST WORKED ON: 8/4/2025
813 First Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 240-2595
(925) 240-7013 fax
www.tarrar.com
·Planning
·Design
·Estimating
·Joint Trench
·Street Lighting
·Fiber Optic
·T-24
·PG&E Gas Design
·PG&E Elec Design
·M.E.P. Design
·Cost Analysis
·Due Diligence

U GROU N
NDE R
AL

D SE RV I CE
E R
EF B
CAL L
D
O
U
RE YO
T
I G

APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL

ALFONSO REYES

QUALIFIED APPLICANT DESIGNER

Page 541 of 1184 ends

4 6
1 2
7 1 PRECAST CONCRETE WALL CAP
8" L. X 6" W. X 16" L. BLOCK ORCO BLOCK - OR

APPROVED EQUAL
2 3" PERF PIPE WITH 2" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN
FABRIC - REFER TO CIVIL ENG. DRAWINGS FOR

DRAIN CONNECTION
3 4 ADJACENT HARDSCAPE. SEE PLAN

COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL

RECOMMENDATIONS
5 CONCRETE FOOTING PER STRUCTURAL

ENGINEER
6 ELDORADO STONE VENEER - SANDERLING

MARQUEE LIMESTONE VENEER TO MATCH ARCH
13 3

PLANTER WALL ADJACENT

TO HARDSAPE
4 6
1 2
7 3

PLANTER WALL ADJACENT

TO GRAVEL
5 5
4 6
1 2
7 3

PLANTER WALL FULL

ENCLOSURED PLANTER
5 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS
PRELIM

NOTES &
IMAGES
L-0

GENERAL GRADING AND PLANTING NOTES

1. BY SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCOPE OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR CONFIRMS THAT HE HAS READ, AND WILL COMPLY WITH, THE ASSOCIATED NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS, AND DETAILS WITH THIS PROJECT.

2. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL EXISTING VEGETATION (EXCEPT WHERE NOTED TO REMAIN).

3. IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE PLANS, NOTES, AND SPECIFICATIONS, "FINISH GRADE" REFERS TO THE FINAL ELEVATION OF THE SOIL SURFACE (NOT TOP OF MULCH) AS INDICATED ON THE GRADING PLANS. a. BEFORE STARTING WORK, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THE ROUGH GRADES OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS ARE WITHIN +/-0.1' OF FINISH GRADE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR MORE DETAILED INSTRUCTION ON TURF AREA AND PLANTING BED PREPARATION.
b. CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN FINISH GRADES AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLANS, AND CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN SLOPES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY

FROM STRUCTURES AT THE MINIMUM SLOPE SPECIFIED IN THE REPORT AND ON THE GRADING PLANS, AND AREAS OF POTENTIAL PONDING SHALL BE REGRADED TO BLEND IN WITH THE SURROUNDING GRADES AND ELIMINATE PONDING POTENTIAL.
c. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE EXPORT OF ANY SOIL WILL BE NEEDED, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ROUGH GRADE PROVIDED, THE AMOUNT OF SOIL AMENDMENTS TO BE ADDED (BASED ON A SOIL TEST, PER SPECIFICATIONS), AND THE FINISH GRADES TO BE ESTABLISHED. d. ENSURE THAT THE FINISH GRADE IN SHRUB AREAS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO WALKS AND OTHER WALKING SURFACES, AFTER INSTALLING SOIL AMENDMENTS, IS 3" BELOW THE ADJACENT FINISH SURFACE, IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR PROPER MULCH DEPTH. TAPER THE SOIL SURFACE TO MEET FINISH GRADE, AS SPECIFIED ON THE GRADING PLANS, AT APPROXIMATELY 18" AWAY FROM THE WALKS. e. ENSURE THAT THE FINISH GRADE IN TURF AREAS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO WALKS AND OTHER WALKING SURFACES, AFTER INSTALLING SOIL AMENDMENTS, IS 1" BELOW THE FINISH SURFACE OF THE WALKS. TAPER THE SOIL SURFACE TO MEET FINISH GRADE, AS SPECIFIED ON THE GRADING PLANS, AT APPROXIMATELY 18" AWAY FROM THE WALKS. f. SHOULD ANY CONFLICTS AND/OR DISCREPANCIES ARISE BETWEEN THE GRADING PLANS, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, THESE NOTES AND PLANS, AND ACTUAL CONDITIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY BRING SUCH ITEMS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, AND OWNER.

4. ALL PLANT LOCATIONS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. ACTUAL LOCATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER PRIOR TO PLANTING. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY ARE MET (I.E., MINIMUM PLANT QUANTITIES, PLANTING METHODS, TREE PROTECTION METHODS, ETC.). a. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PLANT QUANTITIES; PLANT QUANTITIES SHOWN ON LEGENDS AND CALLOUTS ARE FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE PLAN AND THE PLANT LEGEND, THE PLANT QUANTITY AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN (FOR INDIVIDUAL SYMBOLS) OR CALLOUT (FOR GROUNDCOVER PATTERNS) SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE. b. NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. IF SOME OF THE PLANTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN WRITING (VIA PROPER CHANNELS).
c. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, AT A MINIMUM, PROVIDE REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS OF ALL PLANTS PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER/OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO INSPECT, AND APPROVE OR REJECT, ALL PLANTS DELIVERED TO THE JOBSITE. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTALS.

5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE IN A HEALTHY CONDITION FOR 90 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE FOR THE START OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD, AND FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE AT THE END OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD.

6. SEE SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS FOR FURTHER REQUIREMENTS.

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED SUCH CRITERIA FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN.

9.23.2025
__________ ________________________________________ ____________ BLAKE TOMILLOSO-RHINEHART, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DATE CA LICENSE #6255 8-31-26
__________ __________________________________ ____________ REGISTRATION EXP. DATE

EVERGREEN DESIGN GROUP
BISHOP RANCH 3, STE 200
SAN RAMON, CA 94583

I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. __________ ___________________________________ ________________________ APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER DATE

DECLARATION OF WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE

SOILS NOTE
FOR SOILS LESS THAN 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN
THE TOP 6 INCHES OF SOIL, COMPOST AT A RATE
OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000

SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE

INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO

THE SOIL EXCEPT WITHIN THE TPZ OF PROTECTED
TREES, WHICH SHALL RECEIVE 4 - 6” OF
HARDWOOD CHIP MULCH.

MWELO NOTES

1. A DIAGRAM OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN

SHOWING HYDROZONES SHALL BE KEPT WITH

THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER FOR
SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES.

2. A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE

FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE

DESIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS,

IRRIGATION PLANS, OR THE LICENSED
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT.

3. AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT BY A

DISINTERESTED THIRD PARTY SHALL BE

COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL

INSPECTION

4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A SOILS
MANAGEMENT REPORT. THE SOIL

MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE BOTH

INTEGRATED INTO THE PLANS AND SUBMITTED
AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT.

5. PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE

REQUIRED IF WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR

EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF
THE SPECIFIED IRRIGATION DEVICES.

6. CHECK VALVES OR ANTI-DRAIN VALVES ARE

REQUIRED ON ALL SPRINKLER HEADS WHERE
LOW POINT DRAINAGE COULD OCCUR.

IRRIGATION CONCEPT

1. AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AND OPERATIONAL BY THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. THE ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED BY A LICENSED AND QUALIFIED IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR.

2. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL OPERATE ON POTABLE WATER, AND THE SYSTEM WILL HAVE APPROPRIATE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES INSTALLED TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF THE POTABLE SOURCE.

3. ALL NON-TURF PLANTED AREAS SHALL BE DRIP IRRIGATED. SODDED AND SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH SPRAY OR ROTOR HEADS AT 100% HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE.

4. ALL PLANTS SHARING SIMILAR HYDROZONE CHARACTERISTICS SHALL BE PLACED ON A VALVE DEDICATED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY WATER REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO THAT HYDROZONE.

5. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, TO CONSERVE WATER BY USING THE FOLLOWING DEVICES AND SYSTEMS: MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATE TECHNOLOGY ON ROTOR AND SPRAY HEADS (WHEREVER POSSIBLE), RAIN SENSORS, AND MULTI-PROGRAM COMPUTERIZED IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS FEATURING SENSORY INPUT CAPABILITIES.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS NEAR ALL NEWLY-PLANTED TREES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN FIVE (5) FEET OF PAVING OR CURBS. ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE "CENTURY" OR "DEEP-ROOT" 24" DEEP PANELS (OR EQUAL). BARRIERS SHALL BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO HARDSCAPE. INSTALL PANELS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE CONTRACTOR USE ROOT BARRIERS OF A TYPE THAT COMPLETELY ENCIRCLE THE ROOTBALL.

ROOT BARRIERS

MULCHES
AFTER ALL PLANTING IS COMPLETE, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 3" LAYER OF SHREDDED RECYCLED HARDWOOD MULCH, NATURAL (UNDYED), IN ALL PLANTING AREAS (EXCEPT FOR TURF AREAS). ABSOLUTELY

NO EXPOSED GROUND SHALL BE LEFT SHOWING ANYWHERE ON THE PROJECT AFTER MULCH HAS BEEN INSTALLED (SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE "GENERAL GRADING AND PLANTING NOTES" AND SPECIFICATIONS).

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT PLANS ARE CURRENT AND APPROVED.

2. WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE (LOS ALTOS / COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA).

3. THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON IMPROVEMENT PLANS BY LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING,. INC.

DATED (DATE).

4. THE GEOTECHNICAL SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT BY (GEOTECH. SOILS ENG. CO. NAME) DATED (DATE) IS A PART OF THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO HIS WORK.

5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY AND/OR REQUIRED PERMITS AND PAY ALL RELATED FEES AND/OR TAXES REQUIRED TO INSTALL THE WORK ON THESE PLANS.

6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE IN WHICH THE WORK TAKES PLACE.

7. A SEPARATE PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTION WILL BE REQUIRED FROM THE BUILDING

INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING.

8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BEGINNING

THE WORK AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING WITH THE OWNER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, GOVERNING AGENCIES AND OTHER TRADES.

9. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY ERRORS,

OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES IN EXISTING CONDITIONS OR WITHIN THE PLANS PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK.

10. UNIT PRICES FOR ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS A PART OF THE

CONTRACT WITH THE PROJECT OWNER AND PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS OF MATERIAL AND/OR LABOR.

11. DETERMINATION OF "EQUAL" SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE ONLY BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

12. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED NO LESS THAN 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY SITE OBSERVATIONS OR MEETINGS.

13. SITE OBSERVATIONS AND MEETINGS SHALL INCLUDE:

A. PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE
B. SELECTION AND TAGGING OF SPECIMEN TREES AT NURSERIES C. LANDSCAPE GRADING PRIOR TO PLANTING
D. LAYOUT AND INSTALLATION OF HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES IN RELATION

TO DESIGN INTENT
E. PLANT MATERIAL QUALITY AND INSTALLATION AT THE PROJECT SITE F. OBSERVATION TO ESTABLISH 90-DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD (PRE-MAINTENANCE) G. FINAL OBSERVATION AT THE END OF THE 90-DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD (FINAL) NOTE: "LANDSCAPE" SHALL REFER TO ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY THIS OFFICE.

14. SITE OBSERVATIONS BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DURING ANY PHASE OF THIS PROJECT

DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF HIS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND GOVERNING CODES.

15. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE BACKCHARGED FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S TIME WHEN

OBSERVATIONS ARE CALLED FOR AND IT IS FOUND THAT THE WORK IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY READY UPON OBSERVATION OR THE APPOINTMENT IS NOT KEPT. TIME WILL BE CHARGED

ON AN HOURLY BASIS, PLUS TRANSPORTATION, FOOD AND LODGING COSTS, IF ANY, AT THE THEN EXISTING HOURLY RATE FOR THE PERSONNEL PROVIDING THE OBSERVATIONS.

16. THIS FIRM DOES NOT PRACTICE OR CONSULT IN THE FIELD OF SAFETY ENGINEERING. THIS

FIRM DOES NOT DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS, AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF PERSONNEL OTHER THAN OUR OWN ON THE SITE; THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD NOTIFY THE

OWNER IF HE CONSIDERS ANY OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS PRESENTED HEREIN TO BE UNSAFE.

GENERAL NOTES
TREE # BOTANICAL NAME DBH (in.)

ARBORIST REPORT SUMMARY TABLE
NOTES:

1. REFER TO THE UPDATE TO THE 5/15/2019 ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED ON 8/1/202 BY NEW CISTA INC TREE SERVICE, THOMAS LAMAS, WE-13399A FOR MORE INFORMATION.

2. BOTH TREES ARE LOCATED OFF-SITE.

COMMON NAME HEIGHT (ft.)

14.0 35
Platanus x hispanica London Plane Tree 12.0 50
Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache
NOTES

PROTECT

PROTECT
#5
#6
Ginkgo biloba 'Fairmont' Lagerstroemia indica
Agave 'Blue Glow' Anigozanthos
Bouteloua
gracilis
Clytostoma
callistegioides
Chondropetalum
tectorum
Helictotrichon
sempervirens
Juncus Patens
Muhlenbergia capilaris
Phormium
'Bronze Baby'
Prunus
'Bright N' Tight'
Salvia
spathacea
Salvia sonomensis

PLANT AND MATERIAL IMAGERY (FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
Pistachia c. 'Keith Davey'

POT - URBAN RECTANGLE CANTILEVERED WOOD BENCH - WALLY

PROPERTY LINE, TRASH AREA, & PATIO

METAL FENCE TREE GRATE - METORE

CONCRETE
PAVERS

CONCRETE TYPICAL
TOPCAST 50, NAT. GRAY

STONE VENEER ON PLANTER WALLS

CONCRETE PUBLIC SIDEWALK
TOPCAST 50, NAT. GRAY

GARDEN LIGHT WALL LIGHTS

OUTDOOR TAPE LIGHT
TOTAL SITE AREA CALCULATIONS:

GROUND FLOOR AREA: 18,919 SF
BUILDING: 14,530 SF
HARDSCAPE: 1,687 SF
SOFTSCAPE: 2,702 SF
TOTAL SITE AREA % OF LANDSCAPE: 14.7%
FRONT SETBACK AREA CALCULATIONS:
1,587 SF
792 SF
795 SF

50.0%
2,192 SF
1,093 SF
1,099 SF

50.8%
1,421 SF
832 SF
589 SF

41.5%
2,102 SF
1,807 SF
295 SF

14.0%
TOTAL FRONT SETBACK - EL CAMINO:

TOTAL HARDSCAPE:

TOTAL SOFTSCAPE:

TOTAL SETBACK AREA % OF LANDSCAPE:

TOTAL EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK - JORDAN:

TOTAL HARDSCAPE:

TOTAL SOFTSCAPE:

TOTAL SETBACK AREA % OF LANDSCAPE:

TOTAL INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK - SOUTH:

TOTAL HARDSCAPE:

TOTAL SOFTSCAPE:

TOTAL SETBACK AREA % OF LANDSCAPE:

TOTAL REAR SETBACK - WEST:

TOTAL HARDSCAPE:

TOTAL SOFTSCAPE:

TOTAL SETBACK AREA % OF LANDSCAPE:

COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS:

GROUND FLOOR OPEN SPACE: 560 SF
ROOF LEVEL OPEN SPACE: 2,720 SF
PROJECT TOTAL: 3,280 SF
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE: 3,200 SF
BTR/RM
BTR
Date 9.23.2025
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number LIVIO EL CAMINO 4898 EL CAMINO REAL LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA Date Comment Project Name Owner LIVIO 329 S SAN ANTONIO ROAD #4 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 25-266

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND PLANNING · IRRIGATION DESIGN 800.680.6630
www.evergreendesigngroup.com
National Presence. Local Expertise.

EVERGREEN DESIGN GROUP

L ICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCH I TECTL ICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCH I TECT

STAT E OF CA L I FORN I A
BLAKE TOMI LLOSO- RH I NEHART L I CENSE NO . 6255
SIGNATURE RENEWAL DATE DATE 8.31.26

9.23.2025
RECTANGULAR PLANTER - TOURNESOL SITE WORKS, PLANTER 24" TALL RECTANGULAR PLANTER LARGE - TOURNESOL SITE WORKS, PLANTER 36" TALL DOG PARK AREA GATE - WELD WIRE GATE TRANSFORMER SCREENING FENCE

WALL MOUNTED GREEN SCREENS

CONCRETE VEHICULAR SIDEWALK
STAMPED, NAT. GRAY

Page 542 of 1184 ends

Page 543 of 1184 ends

Page 544 of 1184 ends

101
?
A101
1 SIM
Door Tag
Call-Out Keynote
Reference
Room name
0 101
A101
Room Tag
Grid
Elevation
Reference
Ceiling Height
Step
1 Ref
1Ref
1 Ref
1Ref
Name
Elevation
1 A101
SIM
1 / A101
Section
Reference
Spot Elevation
Level
View Reference
0' - 0"
0' - 0" A.F.F.
0 Single Line Tag

SOUND TRANSMISSION

REFERENCE/REFER TO

REFLECTED CEILING PLAN

RESISTANCE (THERMAL)/RISER

SM SHEET METAL

FUT FUTURE

GLASS/GLAZING

GYPSUM BOARD

GLASS MASONRY UNIT

GLAZED STRUCTURAL UNIT

GALVANIZED STEEL
GMU
GSU
GYP BD

GALV STL

GRAB BAR

GALVANIZED

GAUGE/GAGE

GALVANIZED IRON

GENERAL CONTRACTOR
GB
GL
GI
GC
GA
GALV
STOR
SYMM
SUSP
STRUCT
STL
STD

STORAGE

SYMMETRICAL

SUSPENDED

STRUCTURAL

STANDARD

COEFFICIENT
STEEL
SQ
STC
SST
SS
SOG
SLNT
SPEC
SQUARE

SERVICE SINK

STAINLESS STEEL

SPECIFICATION (S)

SLAB ON GRADE

SEALANT

RDGINS RIGID INSULATION

FD FLOOR DRAIN

FLASH FLASHING

FOUNDATION

FOOTING

FOOT/FEET

FACE OF STUD

FIRE RESISTIVE
FTG
FT
FR
FOS
FLR
FDTN
FLOOR

FLOOR CLEAN OUT

FIRE HOSE CABINET

FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION

FIRE EXTINGUISHER
FIN
FCO
FHC
FINISH
FEC
FFEL
FE

SC SEALED CONCRETE
SIM
SHTHG
SHT
SEC
SD
SCHED

SHEATHING

SIMILAR
SHEET

STORM DRAIN

SCHEDULE

SECTION
SB
RP
ROW
RO
RM

SPLASH BLOCK

RADIANT PANEL

RIGHT OF WAY

ROUGH OPENING
ROOM

EWC ELECTRIC WATER COOLER

EXTERIOR

EXPOSED

EXISTING

EXHAUST

FURNISHED BY OTHERS
EXT
FBO
EXH

EXIST/(E)
EXP

ENTRANCE

EQUIPMENT

ENCLOSE (URE)

ELECTRIC (AL)

ELASTIC SHEET ROOFING

EP ELECTRICAL PANEL BOARD
ESR
EQ
EQUIP
EQUAL
ENTR
ENCL
ELEC
RAD. RADIUS
REQ
REM
REINF
RD
RCP
REF

REINFORCING
REMOVE

REQUIRE

ROOF DRAIN
RS
QTY
PVMT
PLYWD
PVC

QUANTITY

PAVEMENT

POLYVINYL CHLORIDE

PLYWOOD

BRG BEARING

UNIFIN UNFINISHED

OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN

MOISTURE RESISTANT

MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR

POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH

POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
(N) NEW

CORR CORRUGATED

OPH OPPOSITE HAND

DL DEAD LOAD

ELASTOMERIC

ELEVATION

EXPANSION JOINT

EXPANSION JOINT FILLER

EXPANSION JOINT COVER

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
EJC
EJF
EL
ELAST
EJ
EA
ECONTR
EACH

DOWNSPOUT

DIFFUSER

DRAWING

DAMPPROOFING
DS
DWG

DTL DETAIL
DN
DIFF
DMPF
DOWN
PSF
PTN
PSI
PT
PTD
PLBG
PLAM

PARTITION
PAINT

PAINT (ED)

PLUMBING

PLASTIC LAMINATE
PL
PCC
PAR
OZ
ORD
OPP

PARALLEL

PRECAST CONCRETE
PLATE

OPPOSITE
OUNCE

DEEP/DEPTH

DIAMETER

DIMENSION

DRINKING FOUNTAIN

DEMOLISH/DEMOLITION
DIM
DIA
DF
DBL
DE
DEMO
DOUBLE

COUNTER

CERAMIC TILE

CARPET (ED)

CONNECTION

CASEWORK

CW COLD WATER PIPING
CSWK
CONN
CPT
CT
CNTR
OPNG
OH
OD
OBS
OC
OA

OVERHEAD

OUTSIDE DIAMETER

OPENING

ON CENTER (S)

OBSCURE

OVERALL
NTS
NRC
NO
NOM
NIC

NOT TO SCALE

NOISE REDUCTION COEFFICIENT

NOT IN CONTRACT
NUMBER

NOMINAL

CONCRETE

COMPRESS

COORDINATE

CONSTRUCTION

CONTINUOUS/CONTINUE

CONTRACT (OR)
CONSTR
CONTR
CONT
COORD
COL
CONC
COMP
COLUMN

CLEAN OUT

CENTIMETER (S)

CLEAR (ANCE)

CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CM
CO
CTR
CMU
CENTER
CLR
CLO
CLG
CLOSET

CEILING
MTD
MATL
MR
MO
MEMB
MISC

MOUNT (ED/ING)

MATERIAL (S)

MEMBRANE

MISCELLANEOUS

MASONRY OPENING
MFR
MH
MIRR
MIN
MCONTR
MECH
MTL

MANUFACTURE (ER)
MIRROR

MINIMUM

MANHOLE

MECHANIC (AL)
METAL

CABINET

CRICKET

CONTROL JOINT

COILING GRILLE

COILING DOOR

CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE
CGRL
CJ
CKT
CIPC
CFM
CAB
CDR

BY OTHERS

BOTH WAYS

BASEMENT

BOTH SIDES

BUR BUILT UP ROOFING
BW
BYO
BS
BSMT

BRK BRICK

LKR LOCKER
MAX
MAS
MAINT
LVR
LT
LL

MAINTENANCE

MASONRY

MAXIMUM

LIVE LOAD
LOUVER
LIGHT
LB
LIB
LIN
LAB
LAV
LAM

POUND (S)
LINEAR

LIBRARY

LABORATORY

LAVATORY

LAMINATE (D)

WORK POINT

WALL HYDRANT

WELDED WIRE FABRIC

WATER RESISTANT

WATERPROOF (ING)
WH
WPT
WP (G)
WWF
WR

WIDE/WIDTH

VERIFY IN FIELD

WATER CLOSET

UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

VINYL COMPOSITION TILE

VARIABLE/VARIES

VAPOR BARRIER

VEST VESTIBULE
W
VIF
WD
WC
W/O
WOOD

WITHOUT
VAR
UNO
VCT
VERT
VB

VERTICAL

HEATING/VENTILATION/

APPROX APPROXIMATE (LY)

HW HOT WATER

BATINSUL BATT INSULATION

BUILDING

BACKER ROD

BLOCK (ING)

BITUMINOUS
BEAM
BOT
BR
BM
BOTTOM
BLDG
BLK(G)
BITUM

BETWEEN

AUTOMATIC

ASPHALT

ARCHITECT (URAL)
BD
BTWN
BOARD
AUTO
ASPH
ARCH

INSUL INSULATION
JAN
JT
J-BOX
INT
INV

JUNCTION BOX

JANITOR
JOINT
INVERT

INTERIOR
INCL
INCAND
INFO
IN
ID

INCH (ES)

INFORMATION

INCLUDE (D/ING)

INCANDESCENT

INSIDE DIAMETER

ANODIZED

ALTERNATE

ALUMINUM

ADJUSTABLE

ADJACENT

ACCESS PANEL

ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
ALUM
ALT
AP
ANOD
AFF
ADJ
ADJST

ANCHOR BOLT

ADDENDUM

ACOUSTICAL

ADHESIVE

AIR CONDITIONING

ACCESS DOOR

ACT ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE
ADH
ADDM
ACSDR
A/C
AB
ACST
HT
HTR
HVAC
HPT
HORIZ
HR
HEIGHT

AIR CONDITIONING
HEATER

HIGH POINT

HORIZONTAL
HOUR
HCP
HDW
HM
HK
HB
HC

HANDICAPPED

HOOK (S)

HARDWARE

HOLLOW METAL

HOSE BIB

HOLLOW CORE

TOS TOP OF SLAB

TOP OF WALL

TOP OF STEEL

TRANSLUCENT

TUBE STEEL

TELEVISION

UNDERWRITERS LABORATORY

TREATED WOOD BLOCKING

TOILET PARTITION
TV
TWB
UL
UC
TYP

UNDERCUT

TYPICAL
TOSTL
TOW
TRANSL
TS
TRANS
TPTN

TRANSOM

THRESHOLD

THICK (NESS)

TEMPERED

TOP OF BEAM

TELEPHONE

TOP OF RIGID INSULATION

TOP OF MASONRY

TOP OF PARAPET

TOP OF CURB/CONC

TONGUE AND GROOVE

TOP AND BOTTOM
THRU
TOB
TO

TOINSUL
TOM
TOP
TOC
TOP OF

THROUGH
T&G
T&B
THRES
THK
TEMP
TEL

SV SHEET VINYL

ELASTC ELASTOMERIC COATING
R.S. RUBBER SURFACE

FOW FACE OF WALL

AHU AIR HANDLING UNIT

NA NOT APPLICABLE

DD DECK DRAIN

ELEV ELEVATOR

ET ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER

WT WEIGHT

SF SQUARE FOOT

PAT PAVER TILE

PA PLANTING AREA
Pallet
15' - 6" Compact
Powered Conveyor
Parasitic Conveyor
EV Pallet
Powered Conveyor Pallet
Bicycle Pallet (10 Bicycles)
Bicycle Pallet (20 Bicycles)
Shuttle /
Shuffle Rail
Shuffle
Shuttle
Stacker Vertical Lift
18' - 6" Standard
19' - 6" Oversize
208/120 V 3PH 4W P1 Panel
Load Bay Control Panel EV Charger Control Panel (Fast Charge) Main Control Panel
Lift Control Panel
Power Conveyor Distribution Control Panel
EV Fast Charge Station
EV Level 2 Charge Station
Stacker Control Panel
Load Bay Junction Box
Micro Data Center
EV Charge Control Panel (Level 2)

INCLUSIONS
• Heavy equipment required for system installation within the parking area (i.e., forklift, spider crane, etc.).
• Design fabrication and installation of steel rack, maintenance platforms, and catwalks.

Where applicable, the steel rack system shall be designed and installed in coordination with, and attachment to the new or existing concrete building structure furnished by others. • Design, fabrication, and installation of automated parking equipment (i.e., pallets, conveyors, shuttles, shuffles, lifts, stackers, and turntables, etc.). • Design and installation of electrical systems from points-of-connection to system components.
• Design, fabrication and Installation of system automation control panels and associated field devices; including load bay kiosks, monitors, and field devices. • System commissioning.

EXCLUSIONS
• For existing structures, any demolition and structural reinforcement of existing building elements necessary for the installation of the automated parking systems. • Earthwork, excavation, and shoring.
• Foundations.
• Concrete and steel building structural systems
• Curtain wall, wall framing, glazing and finish systems; including load bay wall, floor, and ceiling construction.
• Doors including load bay vehicle and pedestrian access doors. • Roofing and waterproofing.
• HVAC, mechanical and plumbing.
• Smoke extraction and air exchange/ventilation systems if required. • Drainage, and sump systems if required.
• Electrical service to the equipment points-of-connection. • Fire alarm and suppression systems. Fire alarm system shall be equipped to allow an interface with automated parking controls to enable automatic emergency shut-down of the system in the event of a fire.
• Crane or lifting services.
• Emergency Power

SHUTTLE, TYP

VEHICLE LIFT, TYP

PALLET STACKER, TYP

VEHICLE PALLET, TYP

ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &

UNPUBLISHED WORK OF DASHER LAWLESS INC & THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF DASHER LAWLESS INC for

PRINTED
SCALE
SYSTEM
SHEET
STATUS

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
LARR
As indicated
8/12/2025 1:47:12 PM
Autodesk Docs://LIVIO El Camino/API25CA10004-ADL 15 LLC-LIVIO El Camino-R24.rvt QG0.00
API-25-CA-10004
Cover Sheet

LIVIO EL CAMINO
4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos CA 94022
ADL 15 LLC
Conceptual Design
API-25-CA-10004
N/A
Equipment Architecture Sheet Index
Sheet Number Sheet Name
QA1.0B1 Equipment Floor Plan - Automated Parking Level B1 QA1.0B2 Equipment Floor Plan - Automated Parking Level B2 QA1.01 Equipment Floor Plan - First Floor (Load Bay Level) QA3.01 Equipment Building Sections
Total Sheets: 4

LIVIO EL CAMINO
ADL 15 LLC
4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos CA 94022
NTS
Symbol Legend
Abbreviations Mechanical Equipment Schedule Electrical Equipment Schedule Lifts
Stackers
Shuttles
Shuffles
Parasitic Conveyors
Powered Conveyors
Pallets
NTS
Mechanical Equipment Legend
NTS
Electrical Equipment Legend
Gap Conveyors
Shuttle & Shuffle Power Connect Rail
EV Panels & Chargers
Micro Data Centers
Main Control Panels
Lift Control Panels
Stacker Control Panels
Load Bay Control Panels
Parking Summary
Long-Term Bicycle Parking Summary
Shuttle Control Panels
Shuffle Control Panels
Turntable Control Panels
Powered Conveyor Distribution Panels
Automated Parking Summary
Note: All Standard & Standard EV Automated Stalls comply with Accessibility Standards.

See Architectural Project Summary for complete Parking Summary.

Shuttle & Shuffle Rail
Field Devices
NTS
Vicinity Map
Equipment General Sheet Index
Sheet Number Sheet Name
QG0.00 Cover Sheet
Total Sheets: 1
AUTOParkit™ Basic Scope Definition
Type Model Count
Stacked Chain Lift w/ Turntable API-LFT-L6T-01 2
Lift Total: 2
Type Model Count
Stacker 13 Pallet Bundler API-STK-13P-01 1
Stacker Total: 1
Type Extended Deck Model Count
Type Model Count
Shuttle Side Load API-SHT-SL-02 4
Shuttle Total: 4
Type Model Count
Triple Parasitic Conveyor API-CVR-3-01 1
Tandem Parasitic Conveyor API-CVR-2-03 36
Single Parasitic Conveyor API-CVR-1-01 13
Parasitic Conveyor Total: 50
Type Model Count
Tandem Powered Conveyor API-CVR-2P-01 4
Single Powered Conveyor API-CVR-1P-03 1
Parasitic Conveyor Total: 5
Type Model Count
Type Model Count
Pallet API-PLT-6K-01 97
Pallet Total: 97
Bicycle Pallet (10 Bicycles) API-PLT-BHR-01 2
Bicycle Pallet Total: 2
Type Rail Length
Shuttle-Shuffle Lane (Concrete) 325' - 10"
Shuttle-Shuffle Lane (Steel) 325' - 10"
Type LARR Model / Panel Count
Type LARR Model / Panel Count
Type LARR Model / Panel Count
Type LARR Model / Panel Count
Type LARR Model / Panel Count
Shuttle Side Load 501022 API-SHT-CP-01 4
Type LARR Model / Panel Count
Type LARR Model / Panel Count
Stacked Chain Lift w/ Turntable 501027 API-TTBL-CP-01 2 Type LARR Model / Panel Count
Type Model / Panel Count
Type Model / Panel Count
Type Model Count
Type Rail Length
Shuttle-Shuffle Lane 651' - 8"
Type Count
Van Accessible Stall 1
Stall 95
Maintenance Storage 1
Total Stalls: 97
Type Pallets Bicycles
Bicycle Pallet (10 Bicycles) 2 20
Total Stalls: 2 20
Type Area
1" Welded Bar Grating 2389 SF
Catwalk Area Calculations
1 1/2" Metal Cellular Deck 1267 SF
15 3D Render

NO ISSUE DATE BY
1 Entitlement Set 08/12/2025 MW

Page 545 of 1184 ends

1. ALL STANDARD & STANDARD EV AUTOMATED STALLS COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT SUMMARY FOR

COMPLETE PARKING SUMMARY

2. ALL EQUIPMENT SIZES SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL

BE USED FOR LAYOUT PURPOSES ONLY

3. SEE QG-0.00 FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LEGEND
A 4 SEE QG-0.00 FOR SYMBOL LEGEND A BB CC DD EE FF GG HH JJ 11 22
33 44
55 66
77 W EL CAMINO REAL

JORDAN AVENUE
29 QA3.01
29 QA3.01
27 QA3.01
27 QA3.01
20' - 10 1/2"24' - 7" 20' - 4 1/2" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 17' - 7" 20' - 0" 20' - 6" 163' - 11"
82' - 0"
18' - 1" 10' - 0" 17' - 2 1/2" 17' - 2 1/2" 10' - 0" 9' - 6" LOAD BAY 1

VAN ACCESSIBLE
LOAD BAY 2

1.305

2.102

1.305

2.102

1.303

ACCESSIBLE

ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &

UNPUBLISHED WORK OF DASHER LAWLESS INC & THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF DASHER LAWLESS INC for

PRINTED
SCALE
SYSTEM
SHEET
STATUS

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
LARR
As indicated
8/12/2025 1:46:48 PM
Autodesk Docs://LIVIO El Camino/API25CA10004-ADL 15 LLC-LIVIO El Camino-R24.rvt QA1.01
API-25-CA-10004
Equipment Floor Plan - First
Floor (Load Bay Level) LIVIO EL CAMINO 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos CA 94022 ADL 15 LLC Conceptual Design
API-25-CA-10004
N/A
Keynotes

1.303 MAGNETIC SAFETY SWITCHES INTEGRATED WITH DOOR, DOOR & HARDWARE BY

OTHERS SEE ARCH DWGS

1.305 ROLL-UP DOOR BY OTHERS SEE ARCH DWGS

2.102 VEHICLE LIFT, TYP
Mechanical Equipment Notes
1/8" = 1'-0" 30 Equipment Floor Plan - First Floor
Parking Summary
Automated Parking Summary
Note: All Standard & Standard EV Automated Stalls comply with Accessibility Standards.

See Architectural Project Summary for complete Parking Summary.

TypeCount
Van Accessible Stall1
Stall 95
Maintenance Storage1
Total Stalls: 97
Long-Term Bicycle Parking Summary
TypePallets Bicycles
Bicycle Pallet (10 Bicycles) 2 20
Total Stalls: 2 20

NO ISSUE DATE BY
1 Entitlement Set 08/12/2025 MW

Page 546 of 1184 ends

1. ALL STANDARD & STANDARD EV AUTOMATED STALLS COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT SUMMARY FOR

COMPLETE PARKING SUMMARY

2. ALL EQUIPMENT SIZES SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL

BE USED FOR LAYOUT PURPOSES ONLY

3. SEE QG-0.00 FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LEGEND
A 4 SEE QG-0.00 FOR SYMBOL LEGEND
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
J
J
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
29 QA3.01
29 QA3.01
27 QA3.01
27 QA3.01
20' - 10 1/2" 24' - 7" 20' - 4 1/2" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 17' - 7" 20' - 0" 20' - 6" 163' - 11"
82' - 0"
18' - 1" 10' - 0" 17' - 2 1/2" 17' - 2 1/2" 10' - 0" 9' - 6"

ELEVATOR PIT
ABOVE

2.104

2.117 2.104

2.117

2.103

2.102

2.108

2.109

1.303

2.106

BACKUP POWER

MAINTENANCE

STORAGE

VAN ACCESSIBLE
8' - 2" VAN ACCESSIBLE

PATH TO BE CLEAR OF

ANY OBSTRUCTION

STEEL GRATED CATWALKS

STEEL SOLID CATWALKS

ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &

UNPUBLISHED WORK OF DASHER LAWLESS INC & THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF DASHER LAWLESS INC for

PRINTED
SCALE
SYSTEM
SHEET
STATUS

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
LARR
As indicated
8/12/2025 1:46:55 PM
Autodesk Docs://LIVIO El Camino/API25CA10004-ADL 15 LLC-LIVIO El Camino-R24.rvt QA1.0B1
API-25-CA-10004
Equipment Floor Plan -
Automated Parking Level B1 LIVIO EL CAMINO 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos CA 94022 ADL 15 LLC Conceptual Design
API-25-CA-10004
N/A
Keynotes

1.303 MAGNETIC SAFETY SWITCHES INTEGRATED WITH DOOR, DOOR & HARDWARE BY

OTHERS SEE ARCH DWGS

2.102 VEHICLE LIFT, TYP

2.103 PALLET STACKER, TYP

2.104 SHUTTLE, TYP

2.106 POWERED CONVEYOR BRIDGE, TYP

2.108 8'-6" X 18'-6" VEHICLE PALLET PARKING STALL, TYP

2.109 8'-6" X 15'-6" VEHICLE PALLET PARKING STALL, TYP

2.117 10'-0" WIDE SHUTTLE LANE TO BE CLEAR OF ANY OBSTRUCTION, TYP Level B1 Automated Parking Summary
Level B1 Long-Term Bicycle Parking Summary
Level B1 Parking Summary
Mechanical Equipment Notes
Type Count
Van Accessible Stall 1
Stall 43
Maintenance Storage 1
Total Stalls: 45
Type Pallets Bicycles
Bicycle Pallet (10 Bicycles) 2 20
Total Stalls: 2 20
1/8" = 1'-0" 30 Equipment Floor Plan - Level B1

NO ISSUE DATE BY
1 Entitlement Set 08/12/2025 MW

Page 547 of 1184 ends

1. ALL STANDARD & STANDARD EV AUTOMATED STALLS COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT SUMMARY FOR

COMPLETE PARKING SUMMARY

2. ALL EQUIPMENT SIZES SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL

BE USED FOR LAYOUT PURPOSES ONLY

3. SEE QG-0.00 FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LEGEND
A 4 SEE QG-0.00 FOR SYMBOL LEGEND A BB CC DD EE FF GG HH JJ 11 22
33 44
55 66
77 29
QA3.01
29 QA3.01
27 QA3.01
27 QA3.01
20' - 10 1/2"24' - 7" 20' - 4 1/2" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 17' - 7" 20' - 0" 20' - 6" 163' - 11"
82' - 0"
18' - 1" 10' - 0" 17' - 2 1/2" 17' - 2 1/2" 10' - 0" 9' - 6"

2.104

2.117 2.104

2.117

2.107

2.102

2.109

2.106

2.108 1.303
-8" SLAB DEPRESSION

ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &

UNPUBLISHED WORK OF DASHER LAWLESS INC & THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF DASHER LAWLESS INC for

PRINTED
SCALE
SYSTEM
SHEET
STATUS

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
LARR
As indicated
8/12/2025 1:47:00 PM
Autodesk Docs://LIVIO El Camino/API25CA10004-ADL 15 LLC-LIVIO El Camino-R24.rvt QA1.0B2
API-25-CA-10004
Equipment Floor Plan -
Automated Parking Level B2 LIVIO EL CAMINO 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos CA 94022 ADL 15 LLC Conceptual Design
API-25-CA-10004
N/A
Keynotes

1.303 MAGNETIC SAFETY SWITCHES INTEGRATED WITH DOOR, DOOR & HARDWARE BY

OTHERS SEE ARCH DWGS

2.102 VEHICLE LIFT, TYP

2.104 SHUTTLE, TYP

2.106 POWERED CONVEYOR BRIDGE, TYP

2.107 POWERED CONVEYOR FOR QUEUING, TYP

2.108 8'-6" X 18'-6" VEHICLE PALLET PARKING STALL, TYP

2.109 8'-6" X 15'-6" VEHICLE PALLET PARKING STALL, TYP

2.117 10'-0" WIDE SHUTTLE LANE TO BE CLEAR OF ANY OBSTRUCTION, TYP Level B2 Automated Parking Summary
Level B2 Parking Summary
NTS
Mechanical Equipment Notes
TypeCount
Stall 52
Total Stalls: 52
1/8" = 1'-0" 30 Equipment Floor Plan - Level B2

NO ISSUE DATE BY
1 Entitlement Set 08/12/2025 MW

Page 548 of 1184 ends

FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
12' - 3 3/4"

THIRD FLOOR
23' - 7 1/2"

FOURTH FLOOR
34' - 11 1/4"

BASEMENT
-19' - 0"
Level B2
-19' - 0"
Level B1
-11' - 3"
First Floor
0' - 0"
Lift Pit Level
-23' - 0"
Level 2
12' - 3 3/4"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4' - 0"
0' - 9 1/4"
V.E.
1' - 7"
6' - 2"
V.E.
6' - 8" CLEAR
1' - 9 3/4"
17' - 0"

ADA VAN
8' - 2"
CLEAR
0' - 3 3/4"

TO ELEV PIT BEYOND
12' - 4" CLEAR
TO B.O. ELEV PIT
3' - 9 3/4" CLEAR T.O. PALLET
0' - 8"

2.102

2.103

2.104

2.108
LOAD BAY 1 LOAD BAY 2
Level B2
-19' - 0"
Level B1
-11' - 3"
First Floor
0' - 0"
Lift Pit Level
-23' - 0"
Level 2
12' - 3 3/4"

A B C D E F G H J
CLEAR
1' - 9 3/4"
V.E.
6' - 8"
1' - 7"
V.E.
6' - 2"
0' - 9 1/4"
4' - 0"
17' - 0"
LOAD BAY 2
TO B.O. ELEV PIT
3' - 9 3/4" CLEAR T.O. PALLET

2.103

2.102 2.108 2.109

1.305

ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &

UNPUBLISHED WORK OF DASHER LAWLESS INC & THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF DASHER LAWLESS INC for

PRINTED
SCALE
SYSTEM
SHEET
STATUS

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
LARR
1/8" = 1'-0"
8/12/2025 1:47:02 PM
Autodesk Docs://LIVIO El Camino/API25CA10004-ADL 15 LLC-LIVIO El Camino-R24.rvt QA3.01
API-25-CA-10004
Equipment Building Sections LIVIO EL CAMINO 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos CA 94022 ADL 15 LLC Conceptual Design
API-25-CA-10004
N/A
Keynotes

1.305 ROLL-UP DOOR BY OTHERS SEE ARCH DWGS

2.102 VEHICLE LIFT, TYP

2.103 PALLET STACKER, TYP

2.104 SHUTTLE, TYP

2.108 8'-6" X 18'-6" VEHICLE PALLET PARKING STALL, TYP

2.109 8'-6" X 15'-6" VEHICLE PALLET PARKING STALL, TYP

VEHICLE ENVELOPE

THIS AREA TO BE FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL WORK AND OBSTRUCTIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 29 Equipment Building Section
1/8" = 1'-0" 27 Equipment Building Section

NO ISSUE DATE BY
1 Entitlement Set 08/12/2025 MW

Page 549 of 1184 ends

S1 SHORING CONCEPT PLAN August 14, 2025 BASEMENT LEVEL Page 550 of 1184 Density Bonus Report
4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos
September 25, 2025
This report discusses the 4898 El Camino Real Project (the “Project”)’s relationship to state and local density bonusregulations and presents the applicant’s basisfor its density bonus, incentives, and waivers.

The Project is an 85-unit residential condominium building that would replace the existing, vacant retail building at 4898 El Camino Real. Because the Project includes 20% very low income units as a proportion of its base density, it qualifiesforthe benefits of the State Density Bonus Law. 1 These include a 70% density
bonus (50% bonus for the first 15% of very low income units, and an additional 20% bonus for the additional 5% of very low income units “stacked” on top), 2 three concessions/incentives,3 any waivers
required from development standards,4 and an automatic parking reduction. 5 As also indicated in the
below chart, the Project site is designated Commercial Thoroughfare in the General Plan, and also zoned Commercial Thoroughfare. The Project is composed of the following units:

Type Bedrooms/Baths # of Market Rate # of Affordable Total UNIT 1A 1/1 41 6 47
UNIT 2A 2/2 22 1 22
UNIT 2B 2/1 5 2 7
UNIT SA 0/1 1 0 2
UNIT SB 0/1 6 1 7
TOTAL BUILDING 75 10 85
DENSITY BONUS – 70% BONUS REQUESTED

PROJECT DENSITY
Lot Size 18,916 square feet or .434 acres
General Plan – Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) No residential density set Zoning – Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) No residential density set Base Density 50 units, based on realistic development capacity of the site6 - see enclosed study
Affordable Housing Required (by City) 15%7
Affordable Housing Provided 20% very low income as a percentage of base density (10 units)
Density Bonus Units 35 (70% bonus)
Project Density 195.9 du/acre
Total Units Provided 85
1 Govt. Code Section 65915(b). 2 Govt. Code Section 65915(f)(2), (v)(2). 3 Govt. Code Section 65915(d)(2)(C). 4 Govt. Code Section 65915(e). 5 Govt. Code Section 65915(p). 6 Govt. Code Section 65915(o)(6)(A). 7 Los Altos Zoning Code Section 14.28.020(B)(2).

Page 551 of 1184 ends

CONCESSIONS/INCENTIVES – RIGHT RESERVED
The Project is entitled to three incentives/concessions. While the Applicant has not yet identified the need for any concessions/incentives, it reserves the right to do so in the course of Project review.

WAIVERS – SIXTEEN REQUESTED
The Project has identified the need for sixteen waivers, asfollows:

No. 1 - Front Yard
Per Los Altos Municipal Code ( LAMC) §14.50.90, the City requires a 20’-0” front setback, whereas the Project proposes 17’-2 1/4”. In addition, per LAMC §14.50.170.A, a minimum of 75 percent of the groundfloor building frontage along El Camino Real must be built at the minimum setback line. If the Project had to comply with these requirements, it would lose approximately 99 square feet on every level totaling 792 square feet (see Exhibit C).

No. 2 and 3 – Interior and Exterior Side Yard
Per Code Sections 14.50.100.A and 14.50.100.B, the City typically requires 10 feet setback for interior side yard, and 15 feet for exterior side yard, both with 50% landscaping. The Project proposes 9’-6” interior (but it is 10’ not including 6” build out) with 41.5% landscaping and 8’ exterior facing Jordan Avenue, with

50.8% landscaping. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 322 square feet on every level totaling 2,576 square feet, see Exhibit C. This waiver therefore applies to both the interior and exterior side yard setback standards.

No. 4 - Rear Yard
Per Code Section 14.50.110, the City typically requires 25 feet rear yard with 50% landscaping, whereas the Project proposes 20’-8” with 14% landscaping. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 445 square feet on every level totaling 3,560 square feet, see Exhibit C.

No. 5 - Height
Per LAMC §14.50.140.A, the maximum building height in the CT District is 55’-0”. Rooftop equipment and appurtenances may extend an additional 12’-0” above the permitted height under §14.66.240.E, for a combined maximum of 67’-0”. The project proposes a roof deck at 92’-2 1/4”, which is 37’-2 1/4” above the 55’-0” limit, and an elevator overrun at 109’-7 1/4”, which is 42’-7 1/4” above the 67’-0” maximum.

The elevator overrun projects 17’-5” above the roof deck, exceeding the 12’-0” allowance for appurtenances by 5’-5”. Compliance with the 55’-0” height limit, or the 67’-0” limit including appurtenances, would reduce the project by approximately three stories and 35 units, precluding the density permitted under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §65915). Accordingly, the project requests waivers for these additional height exceedances.. Please see the capacity study submitted with our application, which illustrates this loss.

Page 552 of 1184 ends

No. 6 - Upper Story Step Backs
Per Code Sections 14.50.170.B.1.a and b, the City typically requires 10’ stepback at front and street side for stories above 45 feet, whereas the Project proposes no stepbacks. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 2,051 square feet on every level totaling 8,204 square feet or 10 units, see Exhibit A.

No. 7 and 8 - Vertical Articulation and Façade Entrance Per Code Sections 14.50.170.B.2.a, b, and c, the City typically requiresthat when a building façade exceeds 100 feet in length along a right-of-way, it must be separated into primary façade bays no greater than 50 feet and secondary façade bays defined by a recess a minimum of 3 feet deep and 10 feet wide. Further, a minimum of one entrance must be provided per one hundred fifty linear feet along El Camino Real and per primary façade bay along the other rights-of-way. The eave/roof of a secondary façade shall be no higher than the corresponding elements of the primary façade bay. The Project instead proposes balconiessized roughly 5’x10’stacked on top of each other to provide sufficient vertical articulation in the building’s façade, as well as primary façade bays that are longer than 50’ in length in some locations. If the Project had to comply with the primary and secondary bay length requirements, it would lose approximately 316 square feet on every level totaling 2,528 square feet or 3 units. An additional two primary entrances placed along the right-of-way that isn’t El Camino would displace an additional 2 units, for a net loss of 5 units. See Exhibit D.

No. 9 - Privacy and Line of Sight (Balconies)
Per Code Section 14.50.170.B.5.a, the City typically requires that primary living spaces and balconies located along a side setback shall orient principal windows and balconies toward the front and rear of the building. The Project instead proposes balconies oriented towards the front rear and sides of the lot. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 2,099 square feet on every level totaling 16,792 square feet or 21 units, see Exhibit B.

No. 10 - Parapet Segment Length
Per Code Section 14.50.170.B.6.a.v.b, the City typically requires that the length of a parapet segment on the third floor and above may not exceed twenty-five (25) feet. The Project instead proposes a max parapet length of 39’-5”. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 488 square feet with a net loss of 0.5 units. The parapet segment length is determined by the unit layout below. Therefore, we would need to reduce the size of the secondary bedroom units to their minimum to create a parapet above which doesn't exceed the 25'-0" maximum. This change would further fragment the facade design and emphasize an irregular bay pattern. See Exhibit F.

No. 11 - Pedestrian-Scaled Entrances
Per Code Section 14.50.170.C.3.a, the City typically requires that buildings more than seventy (70) feet in length along a right-of-way must incorporate at least one forecourt frontage on the right-of-way-facing façade. The Project instead proposes a recessed main entrance at the junction of Jordan Ave and El

Page 553 of 1184 ends

Camino to be a scaled down version of a Forecourt spanning all eight floors. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 412 square feet on every level totaling 3,296 square feet or 4 units, see Exhibit E.

No. 12 - Interior Side Yard Landscaping
Per Code Section 14.50.100, at least 50% of the interior side yard must be landscaped. The Project provides 41.5%. If it had to comply with this requirement, the Project would lose approximately 736 square feet square feet or 1 unit, see Exhibit G.

No. 13 - Rear Yard Landscaping
Per Code Section 14.50.100, at least 50% of the required rear yard must be landscaped. The Project provides 14.0%. If it had to comply with this requirement, the Project would lose approximately 5,416 square feet square feet or 7 units, see Exhibit H.

No. 14 - Driveway Landscaping
Per Code Section 14.50.170.G, landscaping must be placed on each side of a driveway at grade or in raised planters. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 5,416 square feet or 7 units, see Exhibit H.

No. 15 - Transformer Fence
Per LAMC Chapter 14.72, fences within 15 feet of a driveway must be limited to 4 feet in height to maintain clear visibility. The fence at the transformers directly adjacent to the rear entry does not comply with this requirement in order to adequately screen the transformers. Rather, the fence is 6’-5”. In order to maintain safety, the Project will be utilizing a notification device (such as warning lights or audible signals) to alert pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vehicles of cars exiting the garage. If the Project had to comply with this requirement, it would lose approximately 5,578 square feet or 7 units. See Exhibit I.

No. 16 - Loading Space Location
Per Code Section 14.74.090, the Project must provide at least one on-site loading facility due to ten or more housing units. It must measure at least ten by twenty-five feet with fourteen feet vertical clearance if indoors. Loading areas must allow safe vehicle maneuvering without blocking traffic or parking, cannot be considered as parking, and may be in front yard setbacks if other setbacks are met. Vehicles cannot back-in from public streets. Loading spaces must be clearly marked and maintained, with signage directing delivery vehicles. The Project complies with the majority of the above requirements, but does not fully comply because the only feasible location for the loading facility requires backing out onto Jordan Avenue.

If the Project had to provide a different location further into the site, it would lose approximately 5,081 square feet or 7 units. See Exhibit J.

The Applicant reservesthe right to identify further waivers during the course of Project review.

Page 554 of 1184 ends

PARKING
The Applicant provides 95 parking stalls and is consistent with the parking requirement per the SDBL.

Further, the Applicant is entitled to waive all parking requirements per AB 2097.

Page 555 of 1184 ends

399.298 Livio El Camino
Los Altos, CA 94022
May 13, 2025

SITE DATA
ADDRESS: 4898 EL CAMINO REAL
LOS ALTOS, CA 94022
APN: 170-03-085
GENERAL PLAN: (CT) COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE
ZONING: (CT) COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE
SITE AREA: 18,919 SF (0.43 ACRES)

SETBACKS
FRONT 20'
SIDE 10' INTERIOR SIDE
15' EXTERIOR SIDE
REAR 25'
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 55' (5 STORIES)

BASE DENSITY STUDY
A01

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

BUILDING DATA
BUILDING AREA: 51,703 SF
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: 2,870 SF
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: 3,200 SF
BASE DENSITY = 50 UNITS

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN

FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
0 4' 8' 12'16'20' 40'

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

ROOF PLAN

Page 556 of 1184 ends

August 1, 2025 A01
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino PROJECT DATA SHEET

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 4898 EL CAMINO REAL. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 85 DWELLING UNITS WITHIN AN EIGHT-STORY BUILDING, AND ONE LEVEL OF UNDERGROUND PARKING. THE PROJECT REPLACES THE EXISTING FUTON SHOP BUILDING WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 8,396 SF. THE UNDERGROUND PARKING LEVEL IS ACCESSED BY AN AUTOMATED LIFT SYSTEM FROM THE ALLEY AND INCLUDES, 104 PARKING STALLS. THE FIRST FLOOR INCLUDES THE MAIN LOBBY, A COMMUNITY ROOM, LOCKED BIKE STORAGE, 7 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND A MAIL ROOM. THE ROOF TOP INCLUDES A 3,250 SQUARE FOOT ROOFTOP DECK WITH OUTDOOR SEATING. IN ADDITION SOLAR PANELS WILL BE INSTALLED TO OFFSET ELECTRICITY USE. THE TABLE BELOW SUMMARIZES THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT IS DEFINED AS A HIGH RISE STRUCTURE PER THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.

PROJECT DATA TABLE
ADDRESS:

APN:

GENERAL PLAN:

ZONING:

GROSS SITE AREA:

NET SITE AREA:

PROPOSED DENSITY:

LOT COVERAGE:

IMPERVIOUS AREA:

OCCUPANCY:

CONSTRUCTION:

FIRE SPRINKLERS:

FEMA FLOOD ZONE:

FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR):
4898 EL CAMINO REAL
LOS ALTOS, CA 94022
170-03-085

THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL (TC)

COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE (CT)
18,919 SF (0.43 acres)
16,919 SF (0.39 acres)
85 UNITS (219 du / net ac)

58.7%
18,919 SF
S2 / R2

TYPE IB
INCLUDED PER C.B.C. 903.2
DESIGNATED AS AN "OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD": 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE

FLOOD HAZARD
TOTAL INTERIOR (91,520 SF) /
GROSS SITE AREA (18,919 SF) = 4.84 FAR
BUILDING AREA SUMMARY (GROSS S.F.)
BASEMENT FLOOR:

FIRST FLOOR:

SECOND FLOOR:

THIRD FLOOR:

FOURTH FLOOR:

FIFTH FLOOR:

SIXTH FLOOR:

SEVENTH FLOOR:

EIGHTH FLOOR:

TOTAL INTERIOR:

GARAGE:
13,688 S.F.
11,272 S.F.
11,464 S.F.
11,464 S.F.
11,464 S.F.
11,464 S.F.
11,464 S.F.
11,464 S.F.
11,464 S.F.
91,520 S.F.
13,494 S.F.

PARKING STANDARDS
PARKING STANDARDS (PER ASSEMBLY BILL 2097)
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF AT LEAST TWO BUS ROUTES OR STOPS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE EVERY 15 MINUTES.

THEREFORE, UNDER AB 2097, THERE IS NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR AUTOMOBILE PARKING.

PARKING PROVIDED (LIFT-SYSTEM)

STANDARD SPACES

ADA SPACES
EV CHARGING SPACES (LEVEL 2)

TOTAL PROVIDED
NOTES:

PARKING IN BASEMENT IS A DOUBLE-STACKED AUTOMATED LIFT
SYSTEM. RESIDENTS EXIT THEIR VEHICLE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN THE VEHICLE IS BROUGHT TO THE BASEMENT.

ALL VEHICLES ON BASEMENT FLOOR ARE UNOCCUPIED. NO
RESIDENTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE BASEMENT. BASEMENT
ACCESS IS STRICTLY FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES.
83 SPACES
2 SPACES
10 SPACES
95 SPACES

BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS
REQUIRED SPACES (PER LAMC 14.75.040)

1.5 CLASS I SPACES PER 1 UNIT
1 CLASS II SPACES PER 20 UNITS

PROVIDED SPACES

CLASS I (BICYCLE STORAGE ROOM)

CLASS I (AUTOMATED PARKING SYSTEM)

CLASS II (OUTDOOR BICYCLE RACKS)
128 SPACES
5 SPACES
108 SPACES
20 SPACES
5 SPACES

EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED / ALLOWED
SETBACKS:

FRONT 50' 17' - 2 1/2" 20'
REAR 42' 20' - 8" 25'
EXTERIOR (RIGHT) SIDE 5' 17' - 2 1/2" TO 19' - 0" 15'
INTERIOR (LEFT) SIDE 0' 9' - 6" TO 16' - 0" 10'
HEIGHT: +/- 22' 109' - 9" (8 STORIES) 55' (OR 5 STORIES)

UNIT AREA SUMMARY

PROPOSED BMR UNITS
TYPE

UNIT SA

UNIT SB
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2B

AREA NUMBER OF UNITS

IN BUILDING

TOTAL SF OF

UNITS IN BUILDING
BEDROOMS BATHS
TOTALS
520 SF
600 SF
750 SF
1020 SF
870 SF
2 7
47 22
7 85
1040 SF
4,200 SF
35,250 SF
22,440 SF
6,090 SF
69,020 SF
0 0
1 2
2 1
1 1
2 1
LEVEL
(SHEET)
1 (A11)
2 (A12)
3 (A13)
4 (A14)
5 (A15)
STUDIO
(UNIT SB)
2-BED
(UNIT 2A)
2-BED
(UNIT 2B)
TOTALS 1
301
400

ALL BMR UNITS TO BE VERY LOW INCOME
6 (A16)
7 (A17)
8 (A18)
1 TOTAL
2 2
1 1
1 1
10 1
1 208
1-BED
(UNIT 1A)
104
204
504
604
704
804
6 300
2 PRIVATE

OPEN SPACE
0 SF
0 SF
65 SF - 70 SF
30 SF - 40 SF
50 SF
4320 SF

Page 557 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
TRASH
MAIN
ELEC. MAIL
ROOM
ENTRY
LOBBY
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
A23
A20
A21
A22

JORDAN AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
CAR LIFT 02
CAR LIFT 01

COMMUNITY
ROOM

WAITING
AREA

WAITING
AREA
101
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
102
UNIT 1A
750 SF
103
UNIT 1A
750 SF
104
UNIT 1A
750 SF
105

UNIT SA
520 SF
106

UNIT SA
520 SF
107
UNIT 1A
750 SF
108
UNIT 1A
750 SF

PATIO PATIO PATIO
PATIO

PATIO PATIO
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

LINE OF

FLOOR BELOW

PAD MOUNTED

TRANSFORMERS
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 2
OLF OL
200 2
OLF OL
15 25
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 2
OLF OL
300 2

RECYCLE
3 CYD BIN
TRASH
3 CYD BIN

TRASH (SPARE)
3 CYD BIN

RECYCLE (SPARE)
3 CYD BIN

GREEN WASTE
65 GAL CART

GREEN WASTE
(SPARE)
(2) 65 GAL CART

ROLL UP
DOOR
2' - 3" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 5 3/4"
2' - 2"
15' - 6"
12' - 6"
ELEV.

ELEV.

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23

BIKE LOCKS

CAPACITY
9 BIKES PER 8FT BIKE RACK MODULE
REQUIRED SPACES (PER LAMC 14.75.040)

1.5 CLASS I SPACES PER 1 UNIT
1 CLASS II SPACES PER 20 UNITS

PROVIDED SPACES

CLASS I (BICYCLE STORAGE ROOM)

CLASS I (AUTOMATED PARKING SYSTEM)

CLASS II (OUTDOOR BICYCLE RACKS)
128 SPACES
5 SPACES
108 SPACES
20 SPACES
5 SPACES

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

6. A TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDNACE WITH NFPA 72 (2022 EDITION) AND OTHER APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. THIS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WILL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEM.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 68
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
August 1, 2025 A11
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIRST FLOOR PLAN

Page 558 of 1184 ends

UP
DN
UP
DN
A26
A26
A27 A27
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
A23
A20
A21
A22
TRASH
201
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
202
UNIT 1A
750 SF
203
UNIT 1A
750 SF
204
UNIT 1A
750 SF
205
UNIT 1A
750 SF
208

UNIT SB
600 SF
209
UNIT 1A
750 SF
210
UNIT 1A
750 SF

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
200
UNIT 2B
870 SF
206
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
207
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4

BMR (VERY LOW)

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
August 1, 2025 A12
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SECOND FLOOR PLAN

Page 559 of 1184 ends

DN
DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
301
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
302
UNIT 1A
750 SF
303
UNIT 1A
750 SF
304
UNIT 1A
750 SF
305
UNIT 1A
750 SF
308

UNIT SB
600 SF
309
UNIT 1A
750 SF
310
UNIT 1A
750 SF

DECK DECK DECK

BMR (VERY LOW)
DECK
A20
A21
A22
A23

BMR (VERY LOW)

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
August 1, 2025 A13
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino THIRD FLOOR PLAN

Page 560 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
401
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
402
UNIT 1A
750 SF
403
UNIT 1A
750 SF
404
UNIT 1A
750 SF
405
UNIT 1A
750 SF
408

UNIT SB
600 SF
409
UNIT 1A
750 SF
410
UNIT 1A
750 SF
400
UNIT 2B
870 SF
406
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
407
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
August 1, 2025 A14
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FOURTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 561 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
501
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
502
UNIT 1A
750 SF
503
UNIT 1A
750 SF
504
UNIT 1A
750 SF
505
UNIT 1A
750 SF
508

UNIT SB
600 SF
509
UNIT 1A
750 SF
510
UNIT 1A
750 SF
500
UNIT 2B
870 SF
506
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
507
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
August 1, 2025 A15
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIFTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 562 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
601
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
602
UNIT 1A
750 SF
603
UNIT 1A
750 SF
604
UNIT 1A
750 SF
605
UNIT 1A
750 SF
608

UNIT SB
600 SF
609
UNIT 1A
750 SF
610
UNIT 1A
750 SF
600
UNIT 2B
870 SF
606
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
607
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
August 1, 2025 A16
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SIXTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 563 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
701
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
702
UNIT 1A
750 SF
703
UNIT 1A
750 SF
704
UNIT 1A
750 SF
705
UNIT 1A
750 SF
708

UNIT SB
600 SF
709
UNIT 1A
750 SF
710
UNIT 1A
750 SF
700
UNIT 2B
870 SF
706
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
707
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
August 1, 2025 A17
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SEVENTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 564 of 1184 ends

UP
DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
801
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
802
UNIT 1A
750 SF
803
UNIT 1A
750 SF
804
UNIT 1A
750 SF
805
UNIT 1A
750 SF
808

UNIT SB
600 SF
809
UNIT 1A
750 SF
810
UNIT 1A
750 SF
800
UNIT 2B
870 SF
806
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
807
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
OLF OL 200 4
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

BMR (VERY LOW)
A20
A21
A22
A23

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
August 1, 2025 A18
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino EIGHTH FLOOR PLAN

Page 565 of 1184 ends

UP DN
DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
501
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
502
UNIT 1A
750 SF
503
UNIT 1A
750 SF
504
UNIT 1A
750 SF
505
UNIT 1A
750 SF
508

UNIT SB
600 SF
509
UNIT 1A
750 SF
510
UNIT 1A
750 SF
500
UNIT 2B
870 SF
506
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
507
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"
A20
A23
A22
A21

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
July 14, 2025 A15
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
10'-0"
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
EXHIBIT A: UPPER STORY STEP BACK
Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.50.170.B.1.a & 14.50.170.B.1.b
Upper story step back applies to floors
5 through 8.

The step back results in a loss of 2,051
square feet per floor, with a total loss of
8,204 square feet in the building.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 8,204 square feet in the
building spread out over four floors would
result in a net loss of 10 units to the
project.

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 2,051 SQUARE FEET

PER FLOOR
EXHIBIT APage 566 of 1184
UP DN
DN
UP
A26
A26
A27 A27
A23
A20
A21
A22
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
501
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
502
UNIT 1A
750 SF
503
UNIT 1A
750 SF
504
UNIT 1A
750 SF
505
UNIT 1A
750 SF
508

UNIT SB
600 SF
509
UNIT 1A
750 SF
510
UNIT 1A
750 SF
500
UNIT 2B
870 SF
506
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
507
UNIT 2A
1020 SF
81' - 8 1/2"
165' - 6 1/2"
A20
A23
A22
A21

DECK DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK

DECK DECK
DECK
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 5
OLF OL
200 3
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 4
OLF OL
200 5

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

1. EMERGENCY RADIO COVERAGE SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 510.

2. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CFC SECTION 907.

3. KEY BOXES WITH HARDWARE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND CFC SECTION 506.

4. STANDPIPE SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER CFC SECTION 905.3 AND SHALL BE THE MANUAL WET TYPE.

BUILDING EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN

OCCUPANCY EXITING LOAD
OLF = OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR PER TABLE 1004.5
OL = OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THIS SPACE
MD = MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION OF BUILDING ARE PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 1/3 = 1/3 OF THE MAXIMUM DIAGONAL DIMENSION PER CBC SECTION 1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2 DE = DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS PROVIDED
#
OLF OL
200 47
MD 1/3
1/3 DE
55' 82'
165' 55'
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
July 14, 2025 A15
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino
SECOND

FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B: PRIVACY, LINE OF SIGHT & WINDOW ORIENTATION Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.50.170.B.5.a
Deck and Balcony Orientation applies to
all floors (1 through 8).

The rearrangement of rear and front
facing decks results in a loss of 2,099
square feet per floor, with a total loss of
16,792 square feet in the building.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 16,792 square feet in the
building spread out over eight floors
would result in a net loss of 21 units to
the project.

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 2,099 SQUARE FEET

PER FLOOR

BLUE AREA INDICATES

DECKS WHICH ARE REAR

AND FRONT FACING

NUMBER OF UNITS REDUCED
TO 8 PER FLOOR (PREVIOUSLY
11 UNITS PER FLOOR)

Page 567 of 1184 ends

UP
DN
UP
DN
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
July 22, 2025 EXHIBIT C.1
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SECOND FLOOR PLAN

EXHIBIT C
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH EXHIBIT C: FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD & REAR YARD SETBACKS Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.50.090, 14.50.100 & 14.50.110
Upper story step back applies to all
floors (1 through 8).

The step back results in a loss of 866
square feet per floor, with a total loss of
6,928 square feet in the building.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 6,928 square feet in the
building spread out over eight floors
would result in a net loss of 8.5 units to
the project.

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 866 SQUARE FEET

PER FLOOR
225 sf
99 sf
40 sf
445 sf
31 sf 12 sf 14 sf

Page 568 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
July 22, 2025 EXHIBIT C
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIRST FLOOR PLAN
DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

EXHIBIT C
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH EXHIBIT D: VERTICAL ARTICULATION
Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.50.170.B.2.a, b & c
Vertical articulation applies to all floors
(1 through 8) facing Jordan Ave and
El Camino Real.

The vertical articulation as described in

14.50.170.B.2 would require significant
redesign. This would result in, but is not
limited to, the relocation of building
amenities and necessities such as Bike
Storage, Electrical Room and Trash
Chutes, elimination of balconies on units
facing Right-Of-Way-Streets, eliminating
a unit on the ground floor to
accommodate a primary entrance and
removing a unit to accommodate the
relocated bike, trash and electrical
rooms.

The estimated redesign would result in a
loss of 316 square feet per floor, with a
total loss of 2,528 square feet in the
building not including the 2 units
displaced on the ground floor.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 2,528 square feet in the
building plus the unit lost on the first floor
would result in a net loss of 5 units to
the project.
28'-1" 50'-0" 43'-9" 30'-10" 27'-11"

ELIMINATE CURRENT VERTICAL

ARTICULATION TO CREATE
"PRIMARY FACADE BAY"
134 sf
3'-0"
10'-0"
11'-4"
3'-0"
15'-1"
24 sf
3'-0"
158 sf

BLUE REPRESENTS

ALTERNATE BUILDING

FACADE THAT ADHEARS
TO 14.50.170.B.2

ENTERANCE ALONG

PRIMARY FACADE BAY

ENTERANCE ALONG

PRIMARY FACADE BAY

ENTERANCE ALONG

PRIMARY FACADE BAY

FLATTEN CURRENT VERTICAL

WALL ARTICULATION TO CREATE
"PRIMARY FACADE BAY"

ELIMINATE BALCONY TO
CREATE "SECONDARY
FACADE BAY"

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 316 SQUARE FEET

PER FLOOR

ELIMINATE BALCONY TO
CREATE "SECONDARY
FACADE BAY"

ELECTRICAL ROOM AND

TRASH ROOM RELOCATED TO

MAKE ROOM FOR PRIMARY

FACADE ENTRANCE REQUIRED
BY 14.50.170.B.2

RELOCATED

BIKE STORAGE,

DISPLACES A

UNIT ON THE

GROUND FLOOR D

Page 569 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
July 22, 2025 EXHIBIT C
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIRST FLOOR PLAN
DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

EXHIBIT C
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH EXHIBIT E: PEDESTRIAN-SCALED ENTERANCES
Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.50.170.C.3.a
Pedestrian-Scaled Entrances applies to
all floors (1 through 8).

The estimated redesign would result in a
loss of 412 square feet per floor, with a
total loss of 3,296 square feet.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 3,296 square feet in the
building plus the unit lost on the first floor
would result in a net loss of 4 units to
the project.

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 412 SQUARE FEET
PER FLOOR 8'-10"
13'-4" Max Allowable Building Height = 55'
Building Height < 2 * Forecourt Width
55' < 2 * Forecourt Width

27.5' < Forecourt Width
15' = Min Forecourt Depth
69'-1"
137'-4"
15'-0"
27'-6"
412 sf
E

Page 570 of 1184 ends

UP
DN
UP
DN
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
TRASH
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
July 22, 2025 EXHIBIT C.1
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino SECOND FLOOR PLAN
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH

EXHIBIT F

ROOF PLAN
DN
DN
EXHIBIT F: PARAPET SEGMENT LENGTH
Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.50.170.B.6.a.v.b
The parapet segment length is
determined by the unit layout below.

Therefore, we would need to reduce the
size of the secondary bedroom units to
their minimum to create a parapet above
which doesn't exceed the 25'-0"
maximum. This change would further
fragment the facade design and
emphasize an irregular bay pattern.

The Parapet Segment length applies to
all floors (1 through 8).

The estimated redesign would result in a
loss of 61 square feet per floor, with a
total loss of 488 square feet.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 488 square feet in the
building plus the unit lost on the first floor
would result in a net loss of 0.5 units to
the project.
27'-1"
27'-4" 27'-4"
39'-5"
12'-2" 15'-0" 10'-1"
16 sf
10'-1" 1'-0"
12'-2" 15'-2"
16 sf
10'-1" 25'-0" 14'-5"
1'-0" 1'-0" 10'-1"
1'-0"
13 sf
15'-2" 12'-2"
16 sf

HATCHED AREA INDICATES
A LOSS OF 61 SQUARE

FEET PER FLOOR

Page 571 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
July 22, 2025 EXHIBIT C
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIRST FLOOR PLAN

EXHIBIT C
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
1,920 sf
EXHIBIT G: INTERIOR SIDE YARD LANDSCAPING
Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.50.100
Interior side landscaping would affect all
floors (1 through 8).

The estimated redesign would result in a
loss of 92 square feet per floor, with a
total loss of 736 square feet.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 736 square feet in the
building would result in a net loss of 1
unit to the project.

HATCHED AREA INDICATES
A LOSS OF 92 SQUARE

FEET PER FLOOR
960 sf
total sideyard (1,920 sf total side yard) / 2 = 960 sf required landscaping 5'-0" 5'-0" 92 sf
walkway walkway
required
landscaping G

Page 572 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
July 22, 2025 EXHIBIT C
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIRST FLOOR PLAN

EXHIBIT C
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH
2,500 sf
EXHIBIT H: REAR YARD LANDSCAPING & DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPING Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.50.100 & 14.50.170.G
Rear yard landscaping would affect all
floors (1 through 8).

The estimated redesign would result in a
loss of 677 square feet per floor, with a
total loss of 5,416 square feet.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 5,416 square feet in the
building would result in a net loss of 7
units to the project.

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 677 SQUARE FEET

PER FLOOR
1,250 sf
total rearyard (2,500 sf total rear yard) / 2 = 1,250 sf required landscaping required
landscaping
22'-0"

DRIVEWAY
677 sf
H

Page 573 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
July 22, 2025 EXHIBIT C
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIRST FLOOR PLAN
DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

RELOCATED

TRANSFORMERS
539 sf
562 sf

PAD MOUNTED

TRANSFORMERS

EXHIBIT C
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH EXHIBIT I: TRANSFORMER FENCE ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAY Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.72.020
The relocated transformers affects the
building layout and therefore applies to
all floors (1 through 8).

The estimated redesign would result in a
loss of 1,105 square feet (562sf +543sf)
on the first floor, 1,101 square feet
(562sf +539sf) on the second floor, and
562 square feet on every floor following.

This results in a total loss of 5,578
square feet.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 5,578 square feet in the
building would result in a net loss of 7
units to the project. I

RELOCATED
MAIN ELEC.

DISPLACES

PARKING LIFT

ENTRANCE
RELOCATED PARKLIFT ENTRANCES

DISPLACES BIKE

STORAGE

HATCHED AREA
INDICATES A LOSS OF 562

SQUARE FEET PER FLOOR

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 539 SQUARE FEET ON

THE SECOND FLOOR
(TRANSFORMER CLEARANCES)
RELOCATED TRASH + CHUTES
DISPLACES ALL UNITS (8)

STACKED IN THIS AREA

RELOCATED BIKE STORAGE
DISPLACES 1 UNIT
543 sf

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 543 SQUARE FEET

ON THE FIRST FLOOR

Page 574 of 1184 ends

DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
July 22, 2025 EXHIBIT C
Los Altos, CA 94022
399.298Livio El Camino FIRST FLOOR PLAN
DN
UP
UP

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10' - 0"
15' - 0"
2 0
'-
0 "
2 5
'-
0 "

SETBACK

SETBACK
FRONT

SETBACK
REAR

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

EXHIBIT C
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 16'
NORTH EXHIBIT J: LOADING FACILITY E
RELOCATED PARKLIFT ENTRANCES

DISPLACES TRASH

AND MAIN ELEC ROOM

RESIZED BIKE STORAGE
DISPLACES (1) UNIT
Los Altos Municipal Code Reference

14.74.090
The allocated loading zone with turn
around space affects the overall building
layout and therefore applies to all
floors (1 through 8).

The estimated redesign would result in a
loss of 1,602 square feet (562sf + 543sf
+ 497sf) and 562 square feet on every
floor following. This results in a total
loss of 5,081 square feet.

The proposed project has an average
unit square footage of 812 square feet.

A reduction of 5,081 square feet in the
building would result in a net loss of 7
units to the project. 25'-0" 10'-0"
543 sf

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 543 SQUARE FEET

ON THE FIRST FLOOR
RELOCATED TRASH + CHUTES
DISPLACES ALL UNITS (8)

STACKED IN THIS AREA
562 sf
RELOCATED MAIN ELEC.

DISPLACES 1 UNIT
497 sf

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 562 SQUARE FEET

ON THE FIRST FLOOR

HATCHED AREA INDICATES A
LOSS OF 497 SQUARE FEET

PER FLOOR

EXHIBIT C
J

Page 575 of 1184 ends

City of Los Altos
October 3, 2025
4898 El Camino Real Residential Project
Transportation Impact Analysis
Prepared by:

Abrams Associates
1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 576 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Table of Contents

1.) Executive Summary 1

2.) Project Description 1

3.) Environmental Setting 1

3.1 Project Study Intersections 4

3.2 Traffic Analysis Scenarios 4

3.3 Existing Roadway Network 4

3.4 Intersection Analysis Methodology 5

3.5 Existing Conditions Traffic Operations Analysis (Scenario 1) 6

3.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 6

3.7 Transit Service 10

4.) Regulatory Context 11

4.1 State 11

4.2 Local 11

4.3 Significance Criteria 11

5.) Impacts and Mitigation Measures 13

5.1 Project Trip Generation 13

5.2 Trip Generation Comparison to the Prior Land Uses 13

5.3 Project Trip Distribution 14

5.4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Operations Analysis (Scenario 2) 14

5.5 Cumulative Traffic Operations Analysis (Scenario 3) 17

5.6 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Operations Analysis (Scenario 4) 19

5.7 Caltrans Cumulative Traffic Operations Analysis 19

5.8 Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion Analysis 22

5.9 Site Plan Review 24

5.10 Parking 24

5.11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts 25

5.12 Transit Impacts 26

5.13 Vehicle Miles Traveled 26

5.14 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 28

Page 577 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 1 ends

4898 El Camino Real Residential Project
City of Los Altos

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This traffic operations report describes the existing and future conditions for transportation with and without the proposed project. The proposed project involves construction of condominiums to be located on the east side of Jordan Avenue just south of El Camino Real. The project is expected to include approximately 85 condominium units. This study presents information on the regional and local roadway networks that serve the project site, the pedestrian and transit conditions in the area, and provides an analysis of the effects on transportation facilities associated with the project. This study has been conducted in accordance with the requirements and methodologies set forth by the City of Los Altos, Caltrans, and the applicable provisions of CEQA. Based on the project’s design and a detailed analysis conducted according to the City’s local transportation analysis requirements there would be no significant impacts to traffic operations according to established traffic engineering standards and no offsite transportation mitigations would be required. Based on the City’s adopted vehicle miles traveled policy and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(c) the project would not have a significant impact on VMT. The project satisfies the transit proximity screening criteria and also the mapbased screening criteria and is exempt from further VMT analysis. 2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As noted above, the project is expected to include approximately 85 condominium units along with an underground automated parking facility with space for 95 vehicles. The existing commercial buildings on the site are currently vacant. All vehicle access to the site would be via a driveway onto Jordan Avenue. Figure 1 shows the location of the project and the surrounding roadway network. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan for the project. 3) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section of the report describes the roadways, traffic conditions and other existing transportation characteristics in the vicinity of the project. The primary basis of the analysis is the peak hour level of service for the key intersections. Throughout this report, these peak hours will be identified as the AM and PM peak hours.

Page 578 of 1184 ends

N
FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
4898 El Camino Real Residential Project
City of Los Altos
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 579 of 1184 ends

FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
4898 El Camino Real Residential Project
City of Los Altos
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 580 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 4 ends

3.1 Project Study Intersections
Based on the City’s Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) requirements and a review of the potential for project traffic impacts a list of project study intersections was prepared in coordination with City staff.1 It should be noted that the City’s LTA requirements only require analysis of intersections with arterials and collectors, but the project entrance on Jordan Avenue was also analyzed. Figure 1 shows the location of the project study intersections. There are five (5) study intersections included in the analysis.

Project Study Intersections

1. W El Camino Real at N San Antonio Road

2. W El Camino Real at Jordan Avenue

3. W El Camino Real at Rengstorf Avenue

4. N San Antonio Road at Jordan Avenue

5. Jordan Avenue at the Proposed Project Entrance

3.2 Traffic Analysis Scenarios
The study intersections were evaluated for the following four scenarios:
 Scenario 1: Existing Conditions – Level of Service (LOS) based on existing peak hour volumes and existing intersection configurations.
 Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project – Existing traffic volumes plus trips from the proposed project.
 Scenario 3: Cumulative Conditions – This scenario includes year 2040 cumulative volumes using future buildout forecasts for the area based on data from Plan Bay Area 2050.
 Scenario 4: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – This scenario includes year 2040 cumulative volumes plus the trips from the proposed project.

3.3 Existing Roadway Network
As discussed previously, the project location and the surrounding roadway network are illustrated in Figure 1. It should be mentioned that El Camino Real is part of the county’s congestion management plan network. The following is a more detailed description of the arterials that could be affected by the project:
1 City of Los Altos Local Transportation Analysis Requirements, Development Services Department, City of Los Altos, Los Altos, CA, 2003.

Page 581 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 5 ends

 El Camino Real – El Camino Real (SR 82) is a six-lane state arterial that extends from Santa County northerly through San Mateo County. El Camino Real is oriented in an east-west direction in the project vicinity. Near the project site, El Camino Real has a raised, landscaped median with left-turn pockets provided at intersections. The posted speed limit on El Camino Real is 35 mph in the vicinity of the project site.  Rengstorff Avenue – Rengstorff Avenue is a four-lane arterial that extends between US 101 and El Camino Real. Rengstorff Avenue is oriented in a north-south direction in the project vicinity. There are bike lanes and sidewalks present on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit on Rengstorff Avenue is 35 mph.  Jordan Avenue – Jordan Avenue is a two-lane local road that extends south from W El Camino Real to eventually turn west and terminate at N San Antonio Road. There sidewalks present on some sections of the street. The posted speed limit on Jordan Avenue is 25 mph.
 N San Antonio Road – N San Antoinio is a four-lane arterial that extends south from Terminal Blvd next to the San Francisco Bay to terminate on the south at the Foothill Expressway. N San Antonio Road is oriented in a north-south direction in the project vicinity. There are bike lanes and sidewalks present on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit on N San Antonio Road is 35 mph.

3.4 Intersection Analysis Methodology
Existing operational conditions at the five (5) study intersections have been evaluated according to the requirements set forth by the City of Los Altos using the methodology set forth in the City’s Local Transportation Analysis Requirements (2023). Analysis of traffic operations was conducted using the 6th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Level of Service (LOS) methodology with Synchro software.2 Level of service is an expression, in the form of a scale, of the relationship between the capacity of an intersection (or roadway segment) to accommodate the volume of traffic moving through it at any given time. The level of service scale describes traffic flow with six ratings ranging from A to F, with “A” indicating relatively free flow of traffic and “F” indicating stop-and-go traffic characterized by traffic jams. As the amount of traffic moving through a given intersection or roadway segment increases, the traffic flow conditions that motorists experience deteriorate as the capacity of the intersection is reached.

Under such conditions relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary engine stall) can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays that lead to traffic congestion. This near-capacity situation is labeled level of service (LOS) E. Beyond LOS E, the intersection or roadway segment capacity has been exceeded, and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it.
2 Highway Capacity Manual – Sixth Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2016.

Page 582 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 6 ends

For signalized intersections, The HCM methodology determines the capacity of each lane group approaching the intersection. The LOS is then based on average control delay (in seconds per vehicle) for the various movements within the intersection. A combined weighted average control delay and LOS are presented for the intersection. A summary of the HCM results and copies of the detailed HCM LOS calculations are included in the appendix to this report.

Table 1 summarizes the relationship between LOS, average control delay, and the volume to capacity ratio at signalized intersections. For unsignalized (all-way stop controlled and two-way stop controlled) intersections, the average control delay and LOS operating conditions are calculated by approach (e.g., northbound) and movement (e.g., northbound left-turn) for those movements that are subject to delay. In general, the operating conditions for unsignalized intersections are presented for the worst approach. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between LOS and average control delay at unsignalized intersections.

3.5 Existing Conditions Traffic Operations Analysis (Scenario 1) The existing intersection geometry at each of the project study intersections can be seen in Figure 3 and the existing traffic volumes at each are presented in Figure 4. Traffic counts at the study intersections were conducted in April of 2024 when local schools were in session.

Table 3 summarizes the associated LOS computation results for the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. Please note that the corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the Traffic Analysis Appendix. As shown in Table 3, all of the study intersections currently have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of Jordan Avenue at N San Antonio Road (LOS F).

3.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle paths, lanes and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following four classes:

Class I – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.

Class II – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.

Class III – Provides a route designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.

Class IV – Provides an adjacent bike lane or bikeway that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic.

In the project vicinity, there sidewalks in most areas and bicycle lanes on N San Antonio Road and Rengstorff Road. Crosswalks with pedestrian signals and push buttons are in place at all of the signalized study intersections.

Page 583 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 7 ends

TABLE 1

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Description of Operations
Average Delay
(sec/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio
A
Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully
used and no vehicle waits longer than one red
indication.
< 10 < 0.60
B Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase
is fully used. Drivers begin to feel restricted. > 10 to 20 > 0.61 to 0.70 C
Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may
become fully used. Most drivers feel somewhat
restricted.
> 20 to 35 > 0.71 to 0.80
D
Tolerable Delays: Drivers may wait through no
more than one red indication. Queues may
develop but dissipate rapidly without excessive
delays.
> 35 to 55 > 0.81 to 0.90
E
Significant Delays: Volumes approaching
capacity. Vehicles may wait through several
signal cycles and long vehicle queues from
upstream.
> 55 to 80 > 0.91 to 1.00
F
Excessive Delays: Represents conditions at
capacity, with extremely long delays. Queues
may block upstream intersections.
> 80 > 1.00
SOURCES: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2011. Technical Procedures Update, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, January 16, 2013.

TABLE 2

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Description of Operations
Average Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A No delay for stop-controlled approaches. 0 to 10
B Operations with minor delays. > 10 to 15
C Operations with moderate delays. > 15 to 25
D Operations with some delays. > 25 to 35
E Operations with high delays and long queues. > 35 to 50 F Operation with extreme congestion, with very high delays and long queues unacceptable to most drivers. > 50
SOURCE: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2011.

Page 584 of 1184 ends

W EL CAMINO REAL
1 W EL CAMINO REAL
2 PROJEC T ACCESS
5 W EL CAMINO REAL
3 JORDAN AVE
4 N
FIGURE 3 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
4898 El Camino Real Residential Project
City of Los Altos
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 585 of 1184 ends

W EL CAMINO REAL
96 (106)
635 (522)
231 (339)
199 (387)
324 (786)
114 (179)
1 W EL CAMINO REAL
6 (3)
827 (729)
44 (46)
555 (1099)
117 (56)
15 (15)
2 W EL CAMINO REAL
195 (186)
890 (717)
48 (61)
700 (1103)
132 (158)
3 JORDAN AVE
13 (21)
50 (43)
4 PROJEC T ACCESS
5 N
FIGURE 4 EXISTING AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
4898 El Camino Real Residential Project
City of Los Altos
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 586 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 10 ends

TABLE 3

EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING
Delay LOS
1 W EL CAMINO REAL & N SAN ANTONIO RD Signalized AM 22.4 C PM 30.3 C
2 W EL CAMINO REAL & JORDAN AVE Signalized AM 12.0 B
PM 10.5 B
3 W EL CAMINO REAL & RENGSTORFF AVE Signalized AM 12.1 B PM 11.2 B
4 N SAN ANTONIO RD & JORDAN AVE Side Street
Stop
AM 57.1 F
PM 55.7 F
5 PROJECT ACCESS & JORDAN AVE Side Street
Stop

AM N/A N/A

PM N/A N/A
SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2025
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. For stop-controlled intersections the results for the worst side street approach are presented.

3.7 Transit Service
The major public transit operator providing service within or adjacent to the study area is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority which is described below.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) – Local route 22 is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Local route 22 provides service along El Camino Real between the Palo Alto Transit Center to the Eastridge Transit Center in San Jose, with 15- to 20-minute headways weekdays and weekends. In the project vicinity, bus stops are located on both sides of El Camino Real between Jordan Avenue and Ortega Avenue. The nearest bus stop is located adjacent to the project site on El Camino Real.

Page 587 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 11 ends

4) REGULATORY CONTEXT
Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below.

4.1 State
Caltrans - The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over State highways. Therefore, Caltrans controls all construction, modification, and maintenance of State highways, such as SR 82. Any improvements to this roadway would require Caltrans’ approval.

The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies provides consistent guidance for Caltrans staff who review local development and land use change proposals. The Guide also informs local agencies about the information needed for Caltrans to analyze the traffic impacts to state highway facilities which include freeway segments, on- or off-ramps, and signalized intersections.

California Public Utilities Commission - In California the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is designated as the agency that regulates highway/railroad crossings, pursuant to the Public Utilities Code. CPUC staff ensure that highway-rail and pathway-rail crossings are safely designed, constructed, and maintained. The Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch (RCEB) engineers evaluate requests to construct new rail crossings or modify existing crossings. They also evaluate rail crossing configurations after train-related incidents occur at rail crossings, and review complaints regarding rail crossings safety or conditions.

4.2 Local
Los Altos General Plan - The Transportation and Circulation Element included in the Los Altos General Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 65302(b) of the California Government Code.

The Transportation and Circulation Element addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth.

These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City.

4.3 Significance Criteria
The goal of the City of Los Altos is to maintain Level of Service (LOS) D during the peak hours.

Signalized Intersections - Project-related operational impacts on the City’s intersections are considered significant if project-related traffic causes the Level of Service (LOS) rating to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, except on El Camino Real where LOS E is permissible. If a City intersection is operating unacceptably before the addition of project trips, it

Page 588 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 12 ends

would be considered an operational impact if the intersection experiences an increase in the critical-movement delay of four (4) or more seconds, and the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) is increased by one percent (0.01) or more when project traffic is added.

Unsignalized Intersections – For the purposes of this analysis project-related operational effects on unsignalized intersections are considered to result in substantial adverse effects if project generated traffic causes the LOS at an unsignalized intersection to degrade to worse than LOS D and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices peak hour signal warrant is met.

In addition, according to CEQA guidelines a project would have a significant impact if it would:
 Conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
 Would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?
 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).  Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.

Page 589 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 13 ends

5) IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Project Trip Generation
The vehicle trip generation for the project is shown in Table 4. The trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates for a mid-rise multifamily project in a general urban/suburban environment (ITE Land Use Code 221) taken from the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. For purposes of determining the reasonable worst-case impacts of traffic on the surrounding street network from a proposed project, the trips generated by the proposed development are estimated for the peak commute hours which represent the peak of “adjacent street traffic”. This is the time period when the project traffic would generally contribute to the greatest amount of congestion. Based on the ITE data the project would be forecast to generate an increase in traffic of about 31 new vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 37 new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. The trip generation surveys that the ITE rates are based on include all trips from employees and customers, as well as all trucks and deliveries (i.e. all traffic to and from the site are included in the surveys the rates are based on).

No trip generation credit was given for any of the prior uses on the site because the site was vacant at the time the traffic counts were conducted for this analysis.

TABLE 4

TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Land Use ITE
Code Size ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multi Family Housing
(Mid-Rise) Trip Rates -
Trips per ksf
221 5.44 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44
Proposed Condominiums
Trip Generation
85 units 462 8 23 31 23 14 37
SOURCE: ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Washington D.C., September 2021.

5.2 Trip Generation Comparison to the Prior Land Uses
This section presents a comparison of the trip generation from the prior land uses to the proposed project. The prior building included a 3,480 sq. ft. furniture store, 2,606 sq. ft. of retail space, and 2,310 sq. ft. of office space. The vehicle trip generation comparison to the prior land uses is shown in Table 5. The trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates taken from the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Based on the ITE data (giving credit for the prior land uses) the project would be forecast to generate a net increase in traffic of about 19 new vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 10 new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.

Page 590 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 14 ends

TABLE 5

TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Land Use ITE
Code Size ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multi Family Housing
(Mid-Rise) Trip Rates -
Trips per ksf
221 5.44 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44
Proposed Project
Trip Generation
85 units 462 8 23 31 23 14 37

Discount Home Furnishings
Trip Rates - Trips per ksf 869 20.00 0.36 0.21 0.57 0.83 0.17 0.44 Furniture Store
Trip Generation
3,480
sq. ft. 70 1 1 2 3 2 5
Strip Retail Plaza
Trip Rates - Trips per ksf 822 54.45 1.42 0.94 2.36 3.30 3.29 6.59 Retail
Trip Generation
2,606
sq. ft. 142 4 2 6 9 8 17
Small Office Building
Trip Rates - Trips per ksf 712 14.39 1.37 0.30 1.67 0.73 1.43 2.16 Office Space
Trip Generation
2,310
sq. ft. 33 3 1 4 2 3 5
Subtotals for the Previous
Lane Uses
8,396
sq. ft. 245 8 4 12 14 13 27

Net Increase in Trip
Generation When Compared
to the Prior Land Uses
218 0 19 19 9 1 10
SOURCE: ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Washington D.C., September 2021.

5.3 Project Trip Distribution
The trip distribution assumptions have been based on the project’s proximity to freeway interchanges, the existing directional split at nearby intersections, and the overall land use patterns in the area. Figure 5 shows the project traffic added at each of the study intersections.

5.4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Operations Analysis (Scenario 2) This scenario evaluates the existing conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. The traffic volumes for each of the study intersections for the Existing Plus Project scenario are shown in Figure 6. The capacity calculations for the Existing Plus Project scenario are shown in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, all of the existing project study intersections are forecast to continue to have acceptable operations during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the intersection of Jordan Avenue with N San Antonio Road. This

Page 591 of 1184 ends

Catalina Ct
a Wy in al Cat
University Ave
e uz Av r aC r eV
Belden Dr
PortolaCt
l C a kr
vA e
Pan hit c
Wa
y
LosNinos Wy
Del Monte
Ave
Dis et lDr
aF ri
a O sk
vA e
Stanford Ave
oC lege l
vA e
E
Portola Ave
a C sit Wa
y
Paso Robles
Ave
Marich Wy
Alvarado Ave
De pl hi Cir
Loucks Ave
r O et ag vA e
Latham
St
W
Portola Ave
Marich Wy
Latham
St
r O ega t
vA e
Showers Dr
R ne gs ot rffAve
J
ord
a
n
A
v
e
Jo dr an Ave

O RD I NO NT A NAS N
W
EL
CAMINO
REAL

WEL CAMINO
REAL
Walmart
Safeway
24 Hour
Fitness
Target &
CVS
DMV
Egan
Junior High
School
y

PROJECT

LOCATION
2 4
5 3
1 N

W EL CAMINO REAL

N SAN ANTONIO RD
5 (3)5 (3)
1 (5)
2 (5)
1 W EL CAMINO REAL

JORDAN AVE
3 (8)
8 (5)
10 (6)3 (10)
2 W EL CAMINO REAL

RENGSTORFF AVE
2 (6)
2 (1)6 (4)
1 (2)
3 N SAN ANTONIO RD

JORDAN AVE
2 (1)
2 (5)
4 JORDAN AVE

PROJECT ACCESS
18 (11)5 (3)
6 (18)
2 (5)
5 N
FIGURE 5 PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRIPS
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS4898 El Camino Real Residential ProjectCity of Los Altos Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 592 of 1184 ends

O RD I NO NT A NAS N
W
EL
CAMINO
REAL

WEL CAMINO
REAL
Walmart
Safeway
24 Hour
Fitness
Target &
CVS
DMV
Egan
Junior High
School
y

PROJECT

LOCATION
2 4
5 3
1 N

W EL CAMINO REAL

N SAN ANTONIO RD
101 (109)640 (525)231 (339)
145 (268)
36 (63)
597 (543)
152 (159)199 (387) 326 (791) 114 (179)
490 (580)
123 (110)
1 W EL CAMINO REAL

JORDAN AVE
6 (3)827 (729)47 (54)
1 (5)
110 (66)
3 (0)
67 (59) 555 (1099) 120 (66) 15 (15)
4 (4)
7 (2)
2 W EL CAMINO REAL

RENGSTORFF AVE
195 (186)892 (723)48 (61)
249 (235)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0) 706 (1107)
0 (0)
134 (159)
0 (0)
193 (147)
3 N SAN ANTONIO RD

JORDAN AVE
13 (21)55 (46)
10 (22)
61 (64)
858 (840)
935 (1013)
4 JORDAN AVE

PROJECT ACCESS
18 (11)5 (3)
6 (18)
2 (5)
162 (114)
165 (106)
5 N
FIGURE 6 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS4898 El Camino Real Residential ProjectCity of Los Altos Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 593 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 17 ends

TABLE 6

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING EXISTING PLUS

PROJECT
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 W EL CAMINO REAL & N SAN ANTONIO RD Signalized AM 22.4 C 22.6 C PM 30.3 C 30.5 C
2 W EL CAMINO REAL & JORDAN AVE Signalized AM 12.0 B 12.5 B PM 10.5 B 11.0 B
3 W EL CAMINO REAL & RENGSTORFF AVE Signalized AM 12.1 B 12.2 B PM 11.2 B 11.2 B
4 N SAN ANTONIO RD & JORDAN AVE Side Street
Stop
AM > 50.0 F > 50.0 F
PM > 50.0 F > 50.0 F
5 PROJECT ACCESS & JORDAN AVE Side Street
Stop
AM N/A N/A 9.7 A
PM N/A N/A 9.2 A
SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2025
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. For stop-controlled intersections the results for the worst side street approach are presented.
intersection is forecast to continue operating at LOS F and would exceed the LOS standards regardless of whether or not the proposed project is implemented. In addition, this intersection is not forecast to meet Caltrans’ warrants for installation of a traffic signal.

5.5 Cumulative Traffic Operations Analysis (Scenario 3) As per the City’s LTA requirements, for the year 2040 cumulative conditions analysis the intersection traffic volumes were based on the existing turning movements plus incremental growth in background traffic (1.5% per year to 2040) based on data from Plan Bay Area 2050.3 The cumulative scenarios also include traffic from the planned project located directly across Jordan Avenue from the project site. This approved project is located at 4896 El Camino Real and was assumed to include 33 residential units plus 16,140 sq. ft. of office space.

Future side street turning movements at the intersection of El Camino Real and Rengstorf Avenue were derived from the traffic impact analysis conducted for the 5150 El Camino Real Project, which was under construction during the traffic counts.4 Figure 7 presents the cumulative build-out traffic volumes for the project study intersections. Table 7 summarizes the LOS results for the Cumulative conditions at each of the project study intersections. As shown on this table, the project study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours with the exception of Intersection #4, which is forecast to continue operating at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. 3 Plan Bay Area 2050 Forecasting and Modeling Report, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA, October, 2021.
4 5150 El Camino Real Residential Development Traffic Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, San Jose, CA, May 24, 2019

Page 594 of 1184 ends

O RD I NO NT A NAS N
W
EL
CAMINO
REAL

WEL CAMINO
REAL
Walmart
Safeway
24 Hour
Fitness
Target &
CVS
DMV
Egan
Junior High
School
y

PROJECT

LOCATION
2 4
5 3
1 N

W EL CAMINO REAL

N SAN ANTONIO RD
224 (171)798 (659)289 (424)
199 (494)
45 (79)
746 (679)
190 (199)346 (516) 410 (986) 143 (224)
613 (725)
168 (294)
1 W EL CAMINO REAL

JORDAN AVE
8 (4)1034 (911)64 (63)
1 (6)
133 (85)
4 (0)
78 (78) 694 (1374) 156 (76) 19 (19)
5 (5)
9 (3)
2 W EL CAMINO REAL

RENGSTORFF AVE
244 (233)1119 (900)60 (89)
311 (294)
21 (1)
9 (8)
39 (4) 879 (1385) 45 (34) 166 (200)
20 (11)
243 (183)
3 N SAN ANTONIO RD

JORDAN AVE
16 (26)66 (60)
13 (28)
79 (78)
1073 (1050)
1169 (1266)
4 JORDAN AVE

PROJECT ACCESS
11 (20)4 (6)
19 (11)
5 (4)
203 (143)
206 (133)
5 N
FIGURE 7 CUMULATIVE (2040) AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS4898 El Camino Real Residential ProjectCity of Los Altos Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 595 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 19 ends

TABLE 7
CUMULATIVE 2040 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE

PLUS PROJECT
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 W EL CAMINO REAL & N SAN ANTONIO RD Signalized AM 33.8 C 34.1 C PM 55.0 E 55.5 E
2 W EL CAMINO REAL & JORDAN AVE Signalized AM 14.0 B 14.6 B PM 12.8 B 13.4 B
3 W EL CAMINO REAL & RENGSTORFF AVE Signalized AM 21.6 C 21.8 C PM 17.6 B 17.7 B
4 N SAN ANTONIO RD & JORDAN AVE Side Street
Stop
AM > 50.0 F > 50.0 F
PM > 50.0 F > 50.0 F
5 PROJECT ACCESS & JORDAN AVE Side Street
Stop
AM N/A N/A 10.3 B
PM N/A N/A 9.7 A
SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2025
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. For stopcontrolled intersections the results for the worst side street approach are presented.

5.6 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Operations Analysis (Scenario 4) Figure 8 presents the cumulative build-out traffic volumes including the traffic from the proposed project. Table 7 summarizes the LOS results for the Cumulative Plus Project (Year 2040) traffic conditions at each of the project study intersections. As shown on this table, all of the project study intersections are forecast to continue to have acceptable operations during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the intersection of Jordan Avenue with N San Antonio Road which is forecast to continue operating at LOS F. This intersection is forecast to exceed the LOS standards regardless of whether or not the proposed project is implemented. In addition, this intersection is not forecast to meet Caltrans’ warrants for installation of a traffic signal.

5.7 Caltrans Cumulative Traffic Operations Analysis
Typically for forecast conditions Caltrans requires a minimum 20-year horizon for a traffic operations analysis. For example, California’s Transportation Plan Guidelines specify that transportation plans should cover at a minimum the next 20 years.5 Since the project study intersections include intersections on State Highway 82 (W El Camino Real) which is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, a traffic operations analysis for 2045 conditions was also conducted.

Figure 9 presents the cumulative 2045 traffic volumes for the project study intersections. Table 8 summarizes the LOS results for the cumulative 2045 conditions at each of the project study intersections. As shown on this table, the project study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours with the exception 5 California Transportation Plan Guidelines, California Transportation Commission, Sacramento, CA, June 29, 2023.

Page 596 of 1184 ends

O RD I NO NT A NAS N
W
EL
CAMINO
REAL

WEL CAMINO
REAL
Walmart
Safeway
24 Hour
Fitness
Target &
CVS
DMV
Egan
Junior High
School
y

PROJECT

LOCATION
2 4
5 3
1 N

W EL CAMINO REAL

N SAN ANTONIO RD
229 (174)803 (662)289 (424)
200 (499)
45 (79)
746 (679)
190 (199)346 (516) 412 (991) 143 (224)
613 (725)
168 (294)
1 W EL CAMINO REAL

JORDAN AVE
8 (4)1034 (911)67 (71)
1 (6)
141 (90)
4 (0)
88 (84) 694 (1374) 159 (86) 19 (19)
5 (5)
9 (3)
2 W EL CAMINO REAL

RENGSTORFF AVE
244 (233)1121 (906)60 (89)
311 (294)
21 (1)
9 (8)
39 (4) 885 (1389) 45 (34) 168 (201)
20 (11)
244 (185)
3 N SAN ANTONIO RD

JORDAN AVE
16 (26)68 (61)
13 (28)
81 (83)
1073 (1050)
1169 (1266)
4 JORDAN AVE

PROJECT ACCESS
29 (31)9 (9)
25 (29)
7 (9)
203 (143)
206 (133)
5 N
FIGURE 8 CUMULATIVE (2040) PLUS PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS4898 El Camino Real Residential ProjectCity of Los Altos Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 597 of 1184 ends

O RD I NO NT A NAS N
W
EL
CAMINO
REAL

WEL CAMINO
REAL
Walmart
Safeway
24 Hour
Fitness
Target &
CVS
DMV
Egan
Junior High
School
y

PROJECT

LOCATION
2 4
5 3
1 N

W EL CAMINO REAL

N SAN ANTONIO RD
236 (182)859 (710)311 (457)
213 (524)
48 (85)
804 (731)
205 (214) 442 (1063) 367 (554) 154 (241)
660 (781)
180 (309)
1 W EL CAMINO REAL

JORDAN AVE
8 (4)1114 (982)69 (67)
1 (7)
143 (92)
4 (0)
84 (84) 748 (1480) 168 (82) 20 (20)
5 (5)
9 (3)
2 W EL CAMINO REAL

RENGSTORFF AVE
263 (251)1205 (970)65 (96)
335 (317)
23 (1)
9 (8)
42 (4) 947 (1492) 48 (36) 179 (215)
22 (12)
261 (197)
3 N SAN ANTONIO RD

JORDAN AVE
18 (28)71 (65)
13 (30)
85 (84)
1156 (1131)
1259 (1364)
4 JORDAN AVE

PROJECT ACCESS
12 (22)4 (7)
20 (12)
5 (4)
218 (154)
222 (143)
5 N
FIGURE 9 CUMULATIVE (2045) AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS4898 El Camino Real Residential ProjectCity of Los Altos Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 598 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 22 ends

of Intersection #4, which is forecast to continue operating at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Figure 10 presents the cumulative build-out traffic volumes including the traffic from the proposed project. Table 8 summarizes the LOS results for the Cumulative Plus Project (Year 2045) traffic conditions at each of the project study intersections. As shown on this table, all of the project study intersections are forecast to continue to have acceptable operations during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the intersection of Jordan Avenue with N San Antonio Road which is forecast to continue operating at LOS F. This intersection is forecast to exceed the LOS standards regardless of whether or not the project is implemented.

This intersection is also not forecast to meet Caltrans’ warrants for installation of a traffic signal.

TABLE 8
CUMULATIVE 2045 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE

PLUS PROJECT
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 W EL CAMINO REAL & N SAN ANTONIO RD Signalized AM 38.6 D 38.9 D PM 65.8 E 66.4 E
2 W EL CAMINO REAL & JORDAN AVE Signalized AM 14.7 B 15.3 B PM 13.6 B 14.2 B
3 W EL CAMINO REAL & RENGSTORFF AVE Signalized AM 24.3 C 24.4 C PM 18.9 B 19.0 B
4 N SAN ANTONIO RD & JORDAN AVE Side Street
Stop
AM > 50.0 F > 50.0 F
PM > 50.0 F > 50.0 F
5 PROJECT ACCESS & JORDAN AVE Side Street
Stop
AM N/A N/A 10.5 B
PM N/A N/A 9.9 A

SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2025
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. For stopcontrolled intersections the results for the worst side street approach are presented.

5.8 Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion Analysis
Nearby local neighborhood roadways that could potentially be impacted by the proposed project include Jordan Avenue and E. Portola Avenue. As shown in Figure 5 the proposed project would increase the volumes on Jordan Avenue to the south of the project site by about 4 trips added during the morning peak commute hour and about 6 trips added during the PM peak hour. This equates to an addition of about one car every 10 minutes. E. Portola Avenue is forecast to have an increase of about 3 cars per hour during the peak commute hours. This equates to about one additional car every 20 minutes. Typically, a project would need to increase traffic on a neighborhood street by at least 10 cars per hour to potentially warrant additional analysis or evaluation of potential new traffic control elements. In the case of this project the increase in traffic on any local neighborhood streets would be well under 10 trips per hour. The project would have limited traffic increases to neighborhood streets in the area and additional traffic control elements to limit cut through trips are not being proposed.

Page 599 of 1184 ends

O RD I NO NT A NAS N
W
EL
CAMINO
REAL

WEL CAMINO
REAL
Walmart
Safeway
24 Hour
Fitness
Target &
CVS
DMV
Egan
Junior High
School
y

PROJECT

LOCATION
2 4
5 3
1 N

W EL CAMINO REAL

N SAN ANTONIO RD
241 (185)864 (713)311 (457)
214 (529)
48 (85)
804 (731)
205 (214) 444 (1068) 367 (554) 154 (241)
660 (781)
180 (309)
1 W EL CAMINO REAL

JORDAN AVE
8 (4)1114 (982)72 (75)
1 (7)
151 (97)
4 (0)
94 (90) 748 (1480) 171 (92) 20 (20)
5 (5)
9 (3)
2 W EL CAMINO REAL

RENGSTORFF AVE
263 (251)1207 (976)65 (96)
335 (317)
23 (1)
9 (8)
42 (4) 953 (1496) 48 (36) 181 (216)
22 (12)
262 (199)
3 N SAN ANTONIO RD

JORDAN AVE
18 (28)73 (66)
13 (30)
87 (89)
1156 (1131)
1259 (1364)
4 JORDAN AVE

PROJECT ACCESS
30 (33)9 (10)
26 (30)
7 (9)
218 (154)
222 (143)
5 N
FIGURE 10 CUMULATIVE (2045) PLUS PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS4898 El Camino Real Residential ProjectCity of Los Altos Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 600 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 24 ends

5.9 Site Plan Review
Site Access –The project would provide a paved walkway between the existing sidewalk on Jordan Avenue and the building entrance for pedestrian access. Bicycles would access the secure bicycle parking via the project driveway. Traffic operations at the project entrance on Jordan Avenue were analyzed for the AM and PM peak hours. This intersection is proposed to be controlled with a stop sign on the side street approach (the project driveway) and there would continue to be no stop signs for through traffic on Jordan Avenue. As shown in Table 8, under the worst-case Year 2045 conditions the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. The project driveway intersection is also forecast to have minimal delays on all approaches and the operations analysis indicated the 85th percentile queues would be no more than one vehicle on the stop-controlled driveway approach, which is proposed to be 20 feet wide. The design of the project driveway on Jordan Avenue would be adequate for a low-volume, two-way driveway. The project traffic would only be forecast to result in brief delays for exiting vehicles and outbound vehicle queues would not be forecast to be more than one or two vehicles.

Jordan Avenue is a straight roadway adjacent to the project and no significant sight distance problems were identified, based on Caltrans standards. The project design will need to ensure that the City’s sight distance standards are met at the project driveway. In the areas that are normally identified by the City for sight distance on either side of a proposed driveway the project landscaping would need to be designed and maintained so that the ground cover (and any signage) is no higher than 2 feet. In addition, any trees proposed to be planted adjacent to the driveway would need to be limbed up to ensure that the tree canopies are higher than six feet from the ground on both sides of the project driveway. If the project design has the potential to restrict sight distance for pedestrians then it is recommended that additional flashing lights and audible alert systems be installed. These could include motion-activated visual alerts, audible warnings, and LED text displays that could indicate a car is coming.

Truck Access - No truck loading zones are currently proposed on-site. It is our understanding that the project applicant will be requesting a waiver for truck access.

Internal Circulation - No internal site circulation or access issues have been identified that would cause a traffic safety problem or any unusual traffic congestion or delay. In general, the project was not found to cause (or substantially increase) any safety hazards due to any design features or incompatible uses.

Safety - Although the project would increase vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the project vicinity it is not expected to significantly impact or change the design of any existing facilities or create any new safety problems in the area. Based on the significance criteria the project’s impacts on transportation safety would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

5.10 Parking
This section discusses the estimated vehicle and bicycle parking demand for the project, and whether or not the proposed supply of each meet City standards.

Page 601 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 25 ends

Vehicle Parking - Based on the City of Los Altos municipal code (Section 14.74.130) the project requires 100 off-street parking spaces. The proposed project is currently proposing to meet its demand by providing 95 on-site parking spaces using an automated parking system, which would leave the project 5 spaces short of the City’s requirements. The project does not include any school or day care uses and therefore no student drop-off or pick up is proposed.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Demand Data - As shown in Table 9, for the proposed project (ITE Land Use Code 218) the peak parking demand for multi-family housing in a General Urban/Suburban environment with no nearby rail transit and no two-bedroom units has been found to be 0.68 parked vehicles per unit.6 Therefore, based on surveys of similar residential projects the average peak parking demand is forecast to be for 58 vehicles. This demand includes all vehicles, such as guests and deliveries.

Table 9
Off-Street Parking Calculations Based on ITE Data
Data Source Land Use Size Parking
Ratio
Peak
Demand
ITE Multi-Family Housing Parking
Demand Rates Per Unit
(General Urban/Suburban)
Mid-Rise
Multifamily
Housing
85 units 0.68 58
Bicycle Parking - This section discusses the project bicycle parking supply. Based on the City of Los Altos municipal code (Section 14.75.040) the project requires 148 bicycle parking spaces, including 128 long-term secure (Class I) bicycle parking spaces plus 20 short term (Class II) bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is currently proposing to meet the City requirements by providing 133 bicycle parking spaces. This will include 108 Class I parking spaces in a secure bicycle parking room, 20 Class I bicycle parking spaces to be provided using the automated parking system, and 5 Class II parking spaces to be provided with outdoor bicycle racks.

5.11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts
The City does not have level of service standards for pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

Nevertheless, use of existing facilities by the users of the project would not be expected to overcrowd those facilities or decrease their performance or safety. The proposed project would not significantly impact or change the design of any existing or planned pedestrian facilities and should not create any new safety problems for pedestrians or bicyclists in the area. The project 6 Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C., 2019.

Page 602 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 26 ends

could add some bicyclists in the area but the volumes added would not be expected to add a significant number of bicyclists to any substandard bicycle facilities. In relation to the existing conditions, the proposed project would not cause substantial changes to the pedestrian or bicycle traffic in the area and would not significantly impact or require changes to the design of any existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

5.12 Transit Impacts
The project would not result in degradation of the level of service (or a significant increase in delay) on any roadway segments currently being utilized by bus transit in the area and, as such, no significant impacts to bus transit are expected. The proposed project would not interfere with any existing VTA bus routes and would not remove or relocate any existing bus stops. The proposed project could potentially help support existing transit services with additional transit ridership and would not conflict with any transit plans or goals of BART or the VTA. As a result, the project would not be expected to result in any significant impacts to bus transit service in the area.

5.13 Vehicle Miles Traveled
One performance measure that can be used to quantify the transportation impacts of a project is vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This section presents the extent of the VMT-related transportation impacts caused by the Project. VMT is typically estimated using an area-wide travel demand model from a regional transportation agency (in this case the VTA) that calculates VMT based on the number of vehicles multiplied by the typical distance traveled by each vehicle originating from or driving to a certain area. Los Altos has adopted VMT thresholds as part of the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy (dated 2023) and additional guidance on VMT was taken from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which released their proposed Guidelines in a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, dated December 2018.

The City of Los Alto VMT Policy specifies eight different screening criteria where if any are met then a project can potentially be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact.7 This presumption of a less-than-significant VMT impact assumes all the various details/factors associated with the screening criteria can be met. Based on a review of the proposed project it would meet the Map Based Screening Criteria and would also meet the Transit Proximity Screening Criteria.

Transit Proximity Screening – The proposed project is located directly adjacent to a high-quality transit corridor and the project is located in a transit priority area, as verified with the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool (Version 2.1). According to the City’s VMT Policy, projects located within one-half mile of a stop on a high-quality transit corridor are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA, as long as none of the following 7 City of Los Altos Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy, Los Altos Development Services Department, Los Altos, CA, 2023.

Page 603 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 27 ends

factors are exhibited by the project:
a. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
b. Provides more parking than required by the City Code; or c. Replaces affordable housing with a fewer number of affordable units.

The proposed project has an FAR that exceeds 0.75 and it would not provide more parking than required by City’s municipal code. The project would not replace any affordable housing and would provide a parking supply that is under the City’s requirement for 100 parking spaces (95 spaces). Therefore, the project would qualify for Los Altos’ VMT transit proximity screening criteria.

Map Based Screening - The project site is located in traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 199, which the VTA model indicates has a VMT per resident of 9.5 miles. Los Altos’ VMT requirements specify that for the project to be exempt it should have an existing VMT less than 85% of the existing citywide average for resident. The City’s average VMT per resident is currently estimated to be

12.2 miles, and 85% of that equates to 10.4 miles. As shown below in Table 7, the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool indicates the proposed project would generate an average VMT per resident of 9.5 miles which is less than 85% of the existing Citywide average (10.4 miles).

TABLE 8

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT RESIDENTIAL VMT ANALYSIS RESULTS
Scenario Project Average
VMT Per Resident
VMT Impact
Threshold 1 Impact?
2024 Plus Project 9.5 miles 11.86 miles No
NOTE: 1 The existing plus project VMT impact threshold for residential projects is 85% of the Bay Area regional average VMT per resident (13.95 miles) which equates to 11.86 miles.

The proposed project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is required for application of the screening criteria. Based on the City’s adopted vehicle miles traveled policy and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(c) the project would not have a significant impact on VMT. The project satisfies both the transit proximity screening criteria and the map-based screening criteria and is therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT in the City.

Page 604 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 28 ends

5.14 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Based on the project’s design and a detailed analysis conducted according to the required guidelines there would be no significant transportation impacts according to established traffic engineering standards and no off-site traffic or transportation mitigations would be required.

Impact #1 Impacts related to conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or potential decreases to the performance or safety of such facilities.

The project would not result in degradation of the level of service (or a significant increase in delay) on any intersections or roadway segments currently being utilized by bus transit in the area and would not increase ridership beyond existing capacity. As such, no significant impacts to bus transit will occur. In addition, the proposed project would not significantly impact or change the design of any existing pedestrian facilities and would not create any new safety problems for pedestrians in the area. The project will add some bicyclists in the area but the volumes added would not be expected to significantly impact any existing bicycle facilities. In relation to the existing conditions, the proposed project would not cause substantial changes to the pedestrian or bicycle traffic in the area and would not significantly impact or require changes to the design of any existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The intersection of Jordan Avenue with N San Antonio Road is forecast to continue operating at LOS F and is forecast to exceed the LOS standards regardless of whether or not the proposed project is implemented. In addition, this intersection is not forecast to meet Caltrans’ warrants for installation of a traffic signal. Therefore, impacts related to project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs related to alternative transportation would be considered less-than-significant, subject to City approval.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Impact #3 Impacts relating to demolition and construction activities The increase in traffic as a result of demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project has been quantified assuming a worst-case single phase construction period of 12 months.

Heavy Equipment
Approximately five pieces of heavy equipment are estimated to be transported on and off the site each month throughout the demolition and construction of the proposed project. Heavy equipment transport to and from the site could cause traffic impacts in the vicinity of the project site during construction. However, each

Page 605 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 29 ends

load would be required to obtain all necessary permits, which would include conditions. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project applicant would be required to submit a Traffic Control Plan.

The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and the freeway, as determined by the City Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveways to the project site and construction activities may require installation of temporary (or ultimate) traffic signals as determined by the City Engineer; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress; any debris and mud on nearby streets caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. In addition, the transport of heavy equipment being hauled to and from the site each month would be short-term and temporary.

Employees
The weekday work is expected to begin around 7:00 AM and end around 4:00 PM.

The construction worker arrival peak would occur between 6:30 AM and 7:30 AM, and the departure peak would occur between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These peak hours are slightly before the citywide commute peaks. It should be noted that the number of trips generated during construction would not only be temporary, but would also be less than the proposed project at buildout. Based on past construction of similar projects, construction workers could require parking for about 50 vehicles during the peak construction period. Additionally, deliveries, visits, and other activities may generate peak non-worker parking demand of 10 to 15 trucks and automobiles per day. Therefore, up to 65 vehicle parking spaces may be required during the peak construction period for the construction employees. Furthermore, the Traffic Control Plan requires construction employee parking be provided on the project site whenever possible to eliminate conflicts with nearby residential areas. Because the construction of the project can be staggered so that construction worker parking demand is met by using on-site parking, the impacts of construction-related employee traffic and parking are considered less-than-significant.

Construction Material Import/Export
The project would also require removal of existing debris as well as the importation of construction material, including raw materials for the building pads, the buildings, and landscaping. During the maximum peak construction period, the project could generate approximately 15 truck trips per day. Furthermore, under the provisions of the Traffic Control Plan, if importation and exportation of material becomes a

Page 606 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 30 ends

traffic nuisance, then the City Engineer may limit the hours the activities can take place.

Traffic Control Plan
The Traffic Control Plan would indicate how parking for construction workers would be provided during construction and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construction. This analysis assumed construction of the entire project in one phase to identify the potential worst-case traffic effects. If the project is built in phases over time, the effects of each phase will be the same or less. Each phase will be subject to a Traffic Control Plan and oversight by the City Engineer. The last phase may require added worker parking measures, depending on the circumstances, as there will not be any remaining vacant land for parking.

Therefore, the demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project or its individual phases would not lead to noticeable congestion in the vicinity of the site or the perception of decreased traffic safety resulting in a lessthan-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Impact #4 Impacts related to site access and circulation.

The proposed project would have three access driveways for employees, customers, and deliveries. The proposed stop-controlled exit for the project driveway would be forecast to have acceptable operations. Based on a review of the proposed site plan it was determined that the site circulation should function well and would not cause any safety or operational problems. The project site design has been required to conform to City design standards and is not expected to create any significant impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists or traffic operations.

Therefore, impacts related to access and circulation to the proposed project would be considered less-than-significant, subject to City approval.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Impact #5 Impacts regarding emergency vehicle access on and surrounding the proposed project site.

Sufficient emergency access is determined by factors such as number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations. The land use plan for the proposed project would include one access driveway. All lane widths within the project would meet the minimum width that can accommodate an emergency vehicle. In addition, the addition of traffic from project traffic would not result in any significant changes to emergency vehicle response times in the area. Therefore,

Page 607 of 1184 ends

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 31 ends

subject to approval from the City and the fire department, the development of the proposed project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts regarding emergency vehicle access.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Page 608 of 1184 ends

From: Elizabeth Corner
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 5:14 PM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>; Public Comment - PC <[email protected]>
Subject: 4898 Jordan Avenue
Dear Civic Clerk,
Does the city need to notify me about the plans to allow a 100 ft tall building just around the corner from my single family residence?!? I haven't found a building on our side of El Camimo from 85 to Page Mill anywhere close to that height! I have safety concerns on such a densely populated building on .43 acres. In Los Altos Hills It needs to be 1.5 acers for a single residence. The apartment complex across the street on El Camino is on a much larger piece of land. I was at the planning meeting for this building about 10 years ago and would have come to 4898's meeting if I had been informed. I walk my dogs and did not see any explanation near that site. Nothing was posted on the fence. I was not notified by email. The new regulations need more care from the people we elecct to plan our city's housing.

I believe the traffic study to be flawed. Jordan Avenue is a small street. It is an alternate route to El Camino for 3 different School drop off and pickups, not solely the one shown in the old study map. If it is built with a correct sidewalk and has ANY loading or parking, there will be no room for a right turn allowed on red. Will there be a bike lane? Can a large fire truck get around? Does the city own equipment big enough to put out a fire in a building that large?
There is no question that a 100 foot tall building will affect our entire neighborhood. I received a letter from the Mayor telling me we need to change with the times. I agree, and also believe the quality of our planning has to change. This project, originally conceived as 5 stories, was jammed through without any input from the neighborhood. This will set a precedent for other buildings. The neighborhood of N. Los Altos is already irrevocably changed, and the added traffic density will make it completely impossible to access El Camino via Jordan Avenue, contrary to the flawed traffic "study", for much of the day.

Marich Way is ALL single family residential housing. This was not accounted for when 4898 Jordan was approved. The way it appears, the developer took great pains to NOT notify or seek permission from the neighborhood to give input. Many of us did not understand the changes that were made to the original plan.

Elizabeth Corner
231 Marich Way
Los Altos, California 94022
650-714-3519

Page 609 of 1184 ends

ARMSTRONG LAW
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 420-8455 ∙ [email protected]
By Email and Regular Mail
December 31, 2025
Jolie Houston
City Attorney
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Neysa Fligor
Vice Mayor
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Sally Meadows
City Council Member
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Pete Dailey
Mayor
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Larry Lang
City Council Member
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Jonathan D. Weinberg
City Council Member
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Re: Challenge to Approval for 4898 El Camino Real of:

TM25-0001 Tentative Map Application
D25-0004 Design Review and Density Bonus Waiver Application CUP25-0001 Conditional Use Permit
CEQA Notice of Exemption approved November 18, 2025
Dear Ms. Houston and City Council Members:

I represent Mr. Anatol Shmelev, a Los Altos resident who owns and resides at 897 Jordan Avenue. My client’s property is directly adjacent to 4898 El Camino Real, the property that is the subject of the above-referenced applications and approvals. He will be directly negatively impacted by the City’s headlong approval of ADL 15 LLC, Aron Developers, Inc., Navneet Aron and Subhendu Datta’s proposed development of 85 residential units at 4898 El Camino Real (“the Project”). Mr. Shmelev’s goal is to reach a consensus with the owner (Datta) and the City regarding additional modifications to the proposed project that will alleviate the Project’s impacts on the neighbors and the community.

1. Participation in City Planning Commission Decision
On November 6, 2025, Anatol Shmelev and other concerned residents appeared at the City Planning Commission meeting to oppose the approvals requested by the owner of 4898 El Camino

Page 610 of 1184 ends

Real. Members of the public argued, among other things, that the City was ignoring significant parking and traffic impacts, that there was no rational basis for the density bonus and waivers, that the City improperly applied CEQA Class 32 infill waiver to the Project, that the City was creating/ignoring ADA violations, that the project would have specific adverse impacts on public health and safety, and that that the City was granting approvals without requiring the developer to make contributions to the community that would offset the impacts of a development that significantly departs from the heretofore 5-story maximum building height.

Despite the public’s protests and the evidence submitted by the objecting neighbors, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving CUP25-0001 and D25-0001 and the associated Density Bonus and Waivers. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM25-0001 and find the project categorically exempt from CEQA.

2. Timely Appeal from November 6, 2025, City Planning Commission resolutions and recommendations.

On November 17, 2025, Mr. Shmelev and his neighbors (several residents within 300 feet of the project site) timely appealed from the Planning Commissions November 6 actions. See Los Altos Municipal Code section 14.01.100(B) (allowing appeal within 14 days of an action). They delivered the appeal in person and paid the required fee. Their appeal is currently scheduled to be heard at the City Council Meeting on January 27, 2026.

3. Failure to Properly Notify Neighbors of November 18, 2025, City Council Meeting Agenda Item #12 Violates Mr. Shmelev’s Rights to Due Process and Exposes the Administrative Appeal Process as a Sham.

Pursuant to Municipal Code section 14.01.100, Notices of Appeal Hearings “shall conform to the same public hearing notice requirements of the project being appealed. The appellant shall be responsible for all noticing materials required in the original application.” The residents, including Mr. Shmelev, submitted their appeal to the City Clerk within the time permitted for an appeal from the Planning Commission actions. Yet the neighbors were not provided with the required notice of the City Council’s substantive consideration of the matters they had appealed, and the neighbors’ concerns were not presented to the City Council when it made its subsequent decision on the Planning Commission’s recommendations.

At the City Council hearing held on November 18, 2025, the City Council staff report recommended approval of the Design Review and the Conditional Use Permit, which were already at that point subject to the pending appeal submitted by Mr. Shmelev and his neighbors. On November 18, 2025, the City staff provided a draft resolution approving the CUP, which the City Council adopted. On November 18, 2025, the City Council effectively considered and denied the neighbors’ pending appeal from the November 6 Planning Commission resolutions. But the City did not provide the notice that must be sent to all neighbors within 300 feet whenever the City Council contemplates taking such an action.

Page 611 of 1184 ends

The Design Review application D25-0004 and Conditional Use Permit application CUP25- 0001 were approved by the Planning Commission resolution on November 6, appealed by the neighbors on November 17, and then decided in favor of the applicant by the City Council on November 18 without proper and adequate notice to the appellants. The City erred by denying the neighbors the requisite notice. The City also erred by considering the applications and issuing approvals without affording appellants any opportunity to exhaust their administrative remedies.

The neighbors’ 16-page substantive appeal from the Planning Commission resolutions should have been included in the materials considered at the subsequent City Council meeting. It does not appear that the City Council was even aware of the neighbors’ timely appeal when it provided its final decision on Design Review application D25-0004 and Conditional Use Permit application CUP25-0001 – a decision that is not administratively appealable but is now somehow supposed to be subject to re(?)consideration at the City Council meeting on January 27, 2026. The procedure the City is following makes clear that its administrative “appeal” process is a sham. The City has denied the neighbors due process.

4. The City’s application of CEQA exemption to this Project is not supported by substantial evidence and is vulnerable to a writ.

As the neighbors’ appeal already reminds the City, a waiver under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 is only available if the Project is consistent with the zoning without waivers and would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The Project at issue here cannot meet that standard. The City’s decision to apply a CEQA infill exemption is subject, at best, to a substantial evidence requirement, but more likely will be subject to review de novo. See, Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Com., 106 Cal. App. 5th 833, 845-46 (2024) (citing Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080, 21084(a); 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§15300 et seq., 15332). The City’s analysis and evidence will not survive this scrutiny. The Project on its face violates existing zoning requirements, and the investigations commissioned by Mr. Shmelev and his neighbors have produced a traffic study showing that the Project will result in significant traffic and safety impacts. We are sending the results of the traffic study along with this letter.

The status of the NOE remains unclear as of this date.

5. Mr. Shmelev and his neighbors plan to pursue action in court and seek fees pursuant to Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

The City’s failure and refusal to provide public notice and a public hearing and failure to conduct public environmental reviews in connection with Applications D25-0004 and CUP25-0001 violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), and the applicable provisions of the Los Altos Municipal Code. The City’s failure to provide due process for the neighbors of the project renders the approval vulnerable not only to an administrative mandamus writ brought pursuant to Civil Procedure section 1095, but also to a writ brought pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 1085, which is subject to a three-year statute of limitation pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 338.

Page 612 of 1184 ends

My clients authorized me to proceed with drafting a petition for writ of administrative mandamus on their behalf and I have filed such a petition in an abundance of caution despite the fact that, on December 23, 2025, the City acknowledged by email to my client that the City has not yet properly approved the Project, and that there will be a future properly noticed hearing regarding approval of the associated Tentative Map.

We plan to challenge the constitutionally and procedurally flawed approvals on public policy grounds, as well as in defense of our client’s private interest in receiving due process as the owner of the property that will be most immediately and detrimentally impacted by the improperly approved Project. As such, we will be seeking reimbursement of attorney fees pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 1021.5.

My client has very real concerns about the impact the planned Project on his property, but he is even more concerned that the City appears willing to make such significant decisions without providing any process or notice to the citizens affected by the decision. If your department is unable or unwilling to hear their concerns, Mr. Shmelev and his neighbors will have no other option but to proceed with the planned petition as outlined above.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns by email at shona@armstronglaw.com or by telephone at 510-508-5017.

Sincerely,
________________
Shona Armstrong
Encl: Traffic Study from Elite Transportation Group December 21, 2025 cc:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],

Page 613 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability Modeling • Planning • Engineering • ITS Page 1 of 2
December 21, 2025
SUBJECT: 4898 El Camino Real – New Multi-Family Residential Project: Traffic Safey Issues To Whom It May Concern:

I, Lin Zhang, Ph.D., PE, TE, PTOE, have reviewed both the site plan and the traffic impact analysis report for the 4898 El Camino Real Residential Project. I have over 20 years of experience in Transportation Engineering and Planning, with progressively responsible roles across both public agencies and private consulting. My areas of expertise include traffic engineering, traffic safety, corridor studies, traffic simulation and modeling, traffic signal systems, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). I am a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) and Traffic Engineer (TE) in the State of California. Based on my review, there are major safety concerns that have not been addressed, as listed below. • Driveway Right-Turn Conflict with Bicyclists, Scooters, and Pedestrians: Our primary concern is safety at the development driveway, particularly for vehicles exiting the driveway and turning right. This movement creates a direct conflict with pedestrians, scooters, and bicyclists using the sidewalk/walkway on the development side. This risk is amplified by the approximately 6½ -foot-high solid transformer fence, which visually obscures approaching sidewalk users and reduces the driver’s ability to detect a pedestrian, scooter, or bicyclist in time.

As a result, a vehicle turning right out of the driveway could strike a pedestrian, scooter, or bicyclist traveling along the project-side sidewalk. Most bike, sooter, and pedestrian users on this segment appear to be Grade 5–8 students traveling to and from two nearby schools. Based on a recent field observation, about 60 bicyclists/scooters/pedestrians used this segment in the morning peak hour during which many students travel from El Camino Real toward Portola Avenue, and they are very likely to use the sidewalk on the development side because it is more direct and typically requires fewer street crossings.
• “All-At-Once” Morning Peak Conflicts and Compounding Operational Complexity: My second concern is the increased safety risk when multiple peak-hour elements occur at the same time:
o Trash collection during the Friday morning peak: When the loading zone is occupied during trash pickup (noting that collection occurs around 8:00–8:30 AM, which overlaps with the morning peak and student commute), it can create added conflicts and unexpected maneuvers. This introduces additional safety risks for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists when everyone is rushing and roadway space is constrained. o Cumulative growth from already-approved development across the street: The site across the street (currently Jack-in-the-Box) received approval in 2024 for a redevelopment adding 33 units. With this proposed project (approximately 85 units), the

Page 614 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability Modeling • Planning • Engineering • ITS Page 2 of 2
corridor will experience a combined addition of 118 units (33 + 85). The combined effect will further elevate peak-hour operational strain and safety risk at Jordan Avenue/driveway crossing locations.
• Jordan Avenue / North San Antonio Road Intersection Operational and Safety Concerns:

The Traffic Analysis Report acknowledges that the Jordan Avenue / North San Antonio Road intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) F under existing conditions. Despite this baseline deficiency, the traffic analysis concludes that traffic generated by the proposed 85- unit development does not require mitigation. I strongly disagree with this conclusion. Any additional traffic introduced at an intersection already operating at LOS F will further degrade operations, increase delay and queueing, and exacerbate driver frustration and aggressive maneuvers. These conditions directly elevate safety risks—particularly for pedestrians, scooters, and bicyclists—at an intersection that already experiences congestion during peak periods. Given the existing LOS F conditions, the project’s traffic should not be dismissed as inconsequential. At a minimum, the City should require a focused safety and operational analysis and identify appropriate mitigation measures to address the added risk introduced by the project, especially during peak hours when vehicle, bicycle, scooter, and pedestrian volumes overlap.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 673-9656 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elite Transportation Group, Inc. (ETG)
Lin Zhang, PhD, PE, TE, PTOE
Vice President

Page 615 of 1184 ends

1 ARMSTRONG LAW
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 420-8455 ∙ [email protected]
By Email
January 16, 2026
Jolie Houston
City Attorney
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Neysa Fligor
Vice Mayor
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Sally Meadows
City Council Member
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Pete Dailey
Mayor
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Larry Lang
City Council Member
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Jonathan D. Weinberg
City Council Member
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
[email protected]
Re: Challenge to Approval for 4898 El Camino Real of:

TM25-0001 Tentative Map Application
D25-0004 Design Review and Density Bonus Waiver Application CUP25-0001 Conditional Use Permit
CEQA Notices of Exemption approved Nov 18, 2025, and Nov 20, 2025 Dear Ms. Houston and City Council Members:

As you know, I represent Mr. Anatol Shmelev, a Los Altos resident who owns and resides at 897 Jordan Avenue. My client’s property is nearby the property that is the subject of the abovereferenced applications and approvals: 4898 El Camino Real (the “Property”). Mr. Shmelev will be directly negatively impacted by the City’s headlong approval of ADL 15 LLC, Aron Developers, Inc., Navneet Aron and Subhendu Datta’s proposed development of 85 residential units at 4898 El Camino Real (“the Project”).

1. The Writ Petition Shmelev filed December 23, 2025, was premature.

On December 23, 2025, in the midst of apparently pressing deadlines and significant confusion about the status of the various applications and approvals listed above, Mr. Shmelev filed a writ petition to challenge the purported Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) for the Project that the City of Los Altos (“the City”) filed on November 18, 2025, with the Office of Planning and Research. It now

Page 616 of 1184 ends

2 appears the writ petition was premature, because that NOE and others filed by the City were and remain invalid.

2. Notices of Exemption filed November 18, 2025, and November 20, 2025, are for approvals that are not final and are therefore not valid.

The deadline for filing a writ to challenge the NOE is 35 days from date of final project approval and filing of a valid NOE with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly Office of Planning and Research) State Clearinghouse. See Pub. Res. Code § 21152; CEQA Guidelines §15112. The statute of limitations is triggered by the filing and posting of an NOE “in compliance with [CEQA Guideline] section 15062” (emphasis added). The language of CEQA Guideline sections 15062(a) and (b) provide that: “The notice shall be filed, if at all, after approval of the project;” and “The notice shall not be filed with the county clerk or OPR until the project has been approved.” “This mandatory language plainly means that a notice of exemption filed before final project approval does not comply with Guidelines section 15062 … [and] … does not begin the running of the 35-day limitations period set forth in [Public Resources Code] section 21167(d).” Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia, 209 Cal. App. 4th 408, 423 (2012), as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 4, 2012).

The land use approvals whereby the Los Altos City Council purportedly “approved” the Project on November 18, 2025, are still not actually or finally approved because: (a) the Design Review and the CUP were on appeal as of November 17 and remain subject to a pending appeal; and (b) the Tentative Map approval was improper for lack of notice. Although Mr. Shmelev lives well within the zone in which residents are entitled to mailed notice of any tentative map hearing for the Project, neither my client nor any other neighbors received such notice. They only learned of the Tentative Map approval hearing when someone stumbled upon the item while looking at the online agenda.

The City acknowledges the Tentative Map for the Project is not yet properly approved. See email from Stephanie Williams to Shmelev dated December 23, 2025, informing Mr. Shmelev that there will be a future “re-do” on the service of notice and processing of the Tentative Map at a meeting scheduled for sometime in 2026. The City will also have to acknowledge that the other “approvals” it purported to act on at the City Council meeting on November 18, 2025, were invalid and are not final given that the City Council purported to approve those applications without first considering pending appeals. Those appeals are still pending.

An approval subject to appeal is not a final approval that can support a valid NOE. The “doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies” requires an administrative appeals decision to constitute a final approval because, otherwise, CEQA’s statutory provision allowing this remedy (Pub. Res. Code § 21151(c)) would be rendered impermissibly ineffective, as would the provision requiring a CEQA administrative record to include all “documentation of the final public agency decision (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.7(e)(9)).” Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Benito, 104 Cal. App. 5th 22, 42, review denied Oct 30, 2024. The appeal from the November 6 Planning Commission decisions is not scheduled to be considered until January 27, 2026, and even the initial valid consideration of the Tentative Map has not yet been scheduled.

Page 617 of 1184 ends

3 As such, neither the NOE the City purported to file on November 18, 2025, nor the NOE the City purported to file on November 20, 2025, exempting this Project from environmental review are valid.

3. Other statutes of limitation for land use approval challenges have not yet been triggered.

Separate from the CEQA statute of limitation, the deadline for my client to challenge in court the Design Review and CUP will not pass until 90 days from the day (January 27) the City Council considers his administrative appeal from the Planning Commission approval - i.e. April 27, 2026.

4. Conclusion
There is no final approval of the Project. As such, no valid NOE can have been filed with the Office of Land Use and Planning Innovation (formerly Office of Planning and Research) State Clearinghouse. No statute of limitations has yet been triggered. My clients look forward to receiving all the process due to the citizens of Los Altos pursuant to the pending administrative appeal and pursuant to a properly noticed reconsideration of the Tentative Map approval.

My letter dated December 31, 2025, introduced the above-described procedural problems to the City, and this letter, supported by a more in depth consideration of the bewilderingly haphazard procedures and incomplete status of the City’s purported “approvals” confirms that my client will plan to file a new writ petition upon the actual valid approval of the Project and upon the filing of a valid NOE with the State Clearinghouse.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns by email at shona@armstronglaw.com or by telephone at 510-508-5017.

Sincerely,
________________
Shona Armstrong
cc:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],

Page 618 of 1184 ends

From: Jane Tse
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 11:29:03 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: re: support 4898 El Camino Real appeal
To my fellow councilman and Planning committee,
We all have concerns about this 4898 El Camino project, not only traffic, safety, and destroying the quiet neighborhood we always had in Los Altos. I cannot attend the hearing on 1/27 and I would like to state some of my thoughts.

Having more rental property will just make our area look cheap and over urbanized. There is already an over-supply of rental property within a few blocks, namely the huge complex just off Rengstorff on El Camino, the development behind Carl's Junior, etc. State government wanted to promote public transportation but do you think people living in Los Altos will not own any car? Do we want to turn Los Altos into San Francisco with stacking parking, multi-storey apartments block after block? If this location turned back to the original plan of 5 storeys for purchase, with 25% for low income buyers, I think that is more beneficial to helping the State to bring down housing prices. Ultimately, we want people to own houses, not leasing. I don't see why this overcrowded plan got approved in the first place. Sorry for my ignorance. Did the original 5 storeys 25 units plan not satisfy the State requirement? One more observation, the developer said he only got $1M funding which sounded unreasonably little for a commercial project.

I'm sure your committee is aware that our fire truck cannot reach 8 floors.

Thank you for your time.

Jane Tse
Los Altos residence

Page 619 of 1184 ends

From: Cathy Du
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 10:56:34 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns on 4898 El Camino Real 8-story building Hi governor,
Happy new year!
This is Cathy. My family lives in Portola ct and I have two little ones. Every day we walk twice to send the kids to local elementary school, and drive out through Jordan to do errands.

We are very upset about this approval of a developer who gamed all the possibilities of laws and had no mercy on neighborhood safety. He talked to everyone from above without any concerns of what he will bring to Los Altos. It's heartbreak to explain to my kids what is going on in my community.

With the current several ongoing high building planning, this 4898 building will bring so many families and too much traffic on a one-way lane without considering a loading zone, amazon delivery trucks, visitor parking etc. Jack-in-the box will have another apartment and both of them will create a traffic jam several hours per day.

We, with so many concerned neighborhoods, request a better design/consider/plan for this land. We, los altos, deserve a better developer who is willing to work with the neighborhoods.

Please use your resources, use your power in the right way. Please do the right thing for this corner community in Los Altos.

Thanks,
Cathy

Page 620 of 1184 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: January 27, 2026
Prepared By: Sean Gallegos
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map at 4898 El Camino Real

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government
Housing

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map (Application No. TM25-0001) for the creation of eighty-five (85) condominium lots and one common lot at 4898 El Camino Real per the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because (1) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; (2) occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) is located on a site that does not have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (4) would not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) is adequately served by all required utilities and services. Additionally, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The City Council previously considered the Vesting Tentative Map application for 4898 El Camino Real at a public hearing on November 18, 2025, at which time the Council unanimously approved the application. The application has been rescheduled for consideration by Council at a public hearing that has been noticed in accordance with all applicable local and state requirements.

BACKGROUND
Property Description
The approximately 0.43-acre vacant project site is located on the southeast corner of Jordan

Page 621 of 1184 ends

Avenue and El Camino Real. Surrounding land uses include a fast-food restaurant and residential uses across Jordan Avenue to the west, office and residential uses across El Camino Real to the north, office uses to the west, and the parking lot serving 4906 El Camino Real to the south.

Project Overview
The project includes a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes for eighty-five (85) residential condominium units and a common lot (see Attachment 2). The proposed map is in relation to a development project to construct an eight-story, 85-unit multifamily residential building and associated parking and site improvements.

Planning Commission Review
On November 6, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Map applications. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Design Review application and recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Map application to the City Council. The Planning Commission Report is included as Attachment 3.

ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The project is consistent with the General Plan’s Thoroughfare Commercial (TC) Land Use Designation, which supports retail, service, office, and higher-density residential uses along El Camino Real. The designation is intended to promote walkability, support local businesses, and provide opportunities for housing near services and transit. By providing a high-density residential development with ground-floor residential support uses, including affordable units through the State Density Bonus program, the project aligns with these objectives and contributes to a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented corridor. The project will contribute towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation and is aligned with the City’s recently adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element by adding eighty-five (85) units to the City’s housing stock, including ten (10) very low-income units.

The project complies with the following General Plan polices:
• LU Policy 1.1:

Maintain flexibility of standards and procedures to
accommodate changing trends in retail, housing, and office uses.
• LU Policy 2.3:

Continue to conduct design review of residential and nonresidential development applications to ensure compatibility with surrounding property and neighborhoods.
• LU Policy 3.1
Encourage residential development above the ground floor that includes affordable housing units.

Page 622 of 1184 ends

• LU Policy 4.2
Encourage mixed-use projects with retail, housing, and/or lodging in addition to retail and office uses.
• LU Policy 4.4
Encourage the development of affordable housing.
• Housing Policy

1.1:

The City will encourage a diverse range of both market-rate and affordable housing sizes and residential densities to accommodate the varied housing needs of families, couples, and individuals.
• Housing Policy

1.2:

The City will encourage mixed-use development in designated zoning districts.
• Housing Policy 2.1
The City will facilitate the development of new affordable housing units.

Subdivision Consistency
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes will divide the site into eightyfive (85) residential condominium units and a common lot. The subdivision conforms to the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, as substantiated in the Draft Resolution for approval of the Vesting Tentative Map (see Attachment 1).

Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5), establishes the state’s overarching policy that a local government may not deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects (projects resulting in more than two (2) housing units or resulting parcels) which includes subdivision of land that are consistent with objective local development standards. Before doing any of those things, local governments must make specified written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence that a specific, adverse health or safety impact exists. Legislative intent language indicates that the conditions that would give rise to such a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety would occur infrequently.

The proposed project is protected under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) as it creates additional housing stock within the City of Los Altos and meets all applicable objective design standards.

DISCUSSION
See Analysis Section.

Page 623 of 1184 ends

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
A public meeting notice was mailed to property owners within (300) feet of the project site and published in the newspaper. The applicant also posted the site with a public notice sign in conformance with the Planning Division posting requirements.

At the time this report was prepared, the Planning Division received one written comment, which is included as Attachment 4.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

2. Attachment 2 - Vesting Tentative Map

3. Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Staff Report

4. Attachment 4 - Public Comment

Page 624 of 1184 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (APPLICATION NO. TM25-0001) FOR THE CREATION OF 85 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOTS AND ONE COMMON LOT AT 4898 EL CAMINO REAL
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application for a Vesting Tentative Map (Application No. TM25-0001) to subdivide an 18,916 square-foot (0.43-acre) parcel into 85 residential condominium lots and one (1) common lot at 4898 El Camino Real; and WHEREAS, approving the Vesting Tentative Map would be categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it is a subdivision of property to support a project that is in conformance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance except as modified by State Density Bonus Law, occurs within the urban services area on the project site of no more than five acres and will be served by all utilities and public services, does not have value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply; and
WHEREAS, the Project was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the project, and at the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously considered and unanimously approved the Vesting Tentative Map on November 18, 2025, and the matter has been rescheduled for consideration at a public hearing that has been noticed in accordance with applicable legal requirements; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law and considered public testimony and evidence and recommendations presented by staff in connection with the Project; and
WHEREAS, the finding and conclusions made by the City Council in the Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented as well as the entirety of the administrative record for the proposed Project, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The findings are not based on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Page 625 of 1184 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby approves the Vesting Tentative Map for the creation of 85 residential condominium lots and one (1) common lot, subject to the findings (Exhibit A) and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B) attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

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 January 27, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC, CITY CLERK

Page 626 of 1184 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 3

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
With regard to the Vesting Tentative Map (Application No. TM25-0001), the City Council finds the following in accordance with Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California:

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

This Finding cannot be made. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Los Altos General Plan, including the Thoroughfare Commercial land use designation, which supports high-density residential and mixed-use development along major corridors such as El Camino Real. The project advances City objectives for sustainable infill development, pedestrian orientation, and integration of housing and residential support uses within established urban areas.

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

This Finding cannot be made. The design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan and the Commercial Thoroughfare zoning district, as modified by the State Density Bonus Law. The project provides a high-density residential building with residential support uses on the ground floor, consistent with permitted uses in the Commercial Thoroughfare district and allows for the creation of eighty-five (85) residential condominium lots and one (1) common lot.

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

This Finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable because it is consistent with the Thoroughfare Commercial land use designation and Commercial Thoroughfare zoning district (as modified by the State Density Bonus Law), and adequately accommodates vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation while meeting life-safety and service requirements.

4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

This Finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density because the Thoroughfare Commercial land use designation supports higher-density residential development along major corridors such as El Camino Real. The project complies with the Commercial Thoroughfare zoning district standards, except as modified by the State Density Bonus Law, and is located within an urbanized corridor surrounded by comparable commercial and multi-family residential uses, with adequate access to infrastructure, utilities, and services.

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

Page 627 of 1184 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 4
This Finding cannot be made. The subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure wildlife or habitat. The project qualifies for a categorical exemption under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as an infill development project. The site is surrounded by urban development, contains no sensitive biological resources, and would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project will be served by existing infrastructure, utilities, and public services.

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

This Finding cannot be made. The subdivision will not cause serious public health problems because the site is in an urbanized area served by existing infrastructure, including sewer, water, and electricity. Police and fire protection will continue to be provided by the Los Altos Police Department and Santa Clara County Fire Department.

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

This Finding cannot be made. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with access easements because the existing access easement along the rear of the site will be maintained and incorporated into the project design, ensuring continued access and compliance with applicable requirements.

8. That the project is not exempt from environmental review.

This Finding cannot be made. The project would be categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because the 0.43-acre site is an infill parcel that is substantially surrounded by urban development and contains no significant natural habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Commercial Thoroughfare zoning district, as modified by the State Density Bonus Law, and will not result in any significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The site can be served by existing utilities and public services, and none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

Page 628 of 1184 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 5

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

PLANNING DIVISION

1. Approved Plans: The project shall be developed in substantial compliance with the approved project plans, except as modified by these conditions as specified below.

2. Expiration: This Permit is valid for a period of two years and will expire on January 27, 2028, unless prior to the date of expiration, a building permit is issued, or an extension is granted pursuant to the procedures and timeline for extensions.

3. Revisions to the Approved Project: Minor revisions to the approved plans which are found to be in substantial compliance with the overall approvals may be approved by the Development Services Director.

4. Notice of Right to Protest: The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) began on the date of approval of this project. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

5. Indemnity and Hold Harmless: The applicant/owner agrees to indemnify, defend, protect, and hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City’s defense of its actions in any proceedings brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging any of the City’s action with respect to the applicant’s project. The City may withhold final maps and/or permits, including temporary or final occupancy permits, for failure to pay all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions.

6. Affordable Housing Agreements: All applicable affordable housing agreements for the project shall be executed and recorded on a form provided by the City to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and City Attorney prior to the recordation of the final map.

ENGINEERING DIVISION

7. Payment of Impact and Development Fees: The applicant shall pay all applicable fees, including but not limited to sanitary sewer connection and impact fees, parkland dedication in

Page 629 of 1184 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 6
lieu fees, traffic impact fees, public art impact fee, and map check fee as required by the City of Los Altos Municipal Code prior to issuance of a building permit.

8. Encroachment Permit: An encroachment permit and/or an excavation permit shall be obtained prior to any work done within the public right-of-way and it shall be in accordance with plans to be approved by the City Engineer. Any work within El Camino Real will require the applicant to obtain an encroachment permit with Caltrans prior to commencement of work.

9. Americans with Disabilities Act: All improvements shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The latest edition of Caltrans ADA requirements shall apply to all improvements in the public right-of-way. Compliance with all ADA requirements shall be shown on all building permit plans.

10. Public Access Easement: The applicant shall dedicate public access easements for the purpose of providing pedestrian access prior to the recordation of the final map.

11. Public Utility Dedication: Prior to final map recordation the applicant shall dedicate public utility easements as required by the utility companies to serve the site.

12. Subdivision Agreement: The applicant shall sign and return Subdivision Improvement Agreement to the City for records and recordation prior to the recordation of the final map.

13. Final Map Recordation: The applicant shall record the final map. Building Permits shall not be issued until the final map is recorded. Plats and legal descriptions of the final map shall be submitted for review by the City Land Surveyor. Applicant shall provide a sufficient fee retainer to cover the cost of the map review by the City.

14. Condominium Map: The applicant shall record the condominium map as required by the City Engineer prior to final occupancy.

15. SWMP Certification: The applicant shall have a final inspection and certification done and submitted by the Engineer who designed the SWMP to ensure that the treatments were installed per design. The applicant shall submit a maintenance agreement to City for review and approval of the stormwater treatment methods installed in accordance with the SWMP.

Once approved, City shall record the agreement.

16. Storm Water Management Plan: The Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) in compliance with the City of Los Altos Municipal Regional Stormwater (MRP)NPDES Permit. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by a City approved third party consultant at the Applicant’s expense. The recommendations from the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be shown on the building permit plans.

17. Storm Water Filtration Systems: The applicant shall insure the design of all storm water filtration systems and devices are without standing water to avoid mosquito/insect infestation.

Page 630 of 1184 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 7

18. Sewer Lateral: Any proposed sewer lateral connection shall be approved by the City Engineer. Only one sewer lateral per lot shall be installed. All existing unused sewer laterals shall be abandoned according to the City Standards, cut and cap 12” away from the main.

19. Public Improvements: Install or reconstruct standard public improvements required for the project along the project frontages of El Camino Real and Jordan Ave. These improvements include, new sidewalk, curb and gutter including extending the sidewalk along the frontage on Jordan Ave to the corner of El Camino Real and Jordan Ave. Additionally the applicant shall grind and overlay half of Jordan Ave as directed by the City Engineer. a. Provide a 5-foot wide sidewalk along Jordan Ave; the 6-inch curb shall not be included in the sidewalk width.
b. The existing street centerline on Jordan Ave shall be repainted and extended to a total length of 150 feet.
c. Provide checker non-slip lids for the electric vault and all other utility lids located within the right-of-way.

20. New ADA Ramps and Crosswalks: The applicant shall provide new ADA ramps and crosswalk striping per the City standards at the corner of El Camino Real and Jordan Ave crossing over Jordan Ave. Additionally, ADA ramps shall be installed in either side of the proposed driveway on Jordan Ave and an ADA ramp shall be installed at the corner or El Camino Real and Jordan Ave crossing El Camino Real.
a. New ADA Ramps shall follow the latest Caltrans Standard Detail A88A. b. Truncated domes on ADA ramps shall be cast iron and baked-on-oil finish. c. The crosswalk on Jordan shall be repainted.

Page 631 of 1184 ends

±±

Page 632 of 1184 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date November 6, 2025
Subject 4898 El Camino Real – New Multi-Family Residential Project Prepared by: Sean Gallegos, Senior Planner
Initiated by: Subhendu Datta on behalf of ADL 15 LLC, Applicant Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit

2. Draft Resolution – Vesting Tentative Map

3. Project Plans

4. Density Bonus Report

5. Transportation Analysis
Recommendation

1. Adopt a Resolution approving Design Review (Application No. D25-0004) and Conditional Use Permit (Application No. CUP25-0001) for the construction of an eight (8) story, multiplefamily development with eighty-five (85) residential units utilizing State Density Bonus with waivers at 4898 El Camino Real, per the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - Attachment 1.

2. Recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map (Application No. TM25-0001) to create eighty-five (85) condominium lots and one (1) common lot at 4898 El Camino Real, per the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - Attachment 2.

Page 633 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 2 Background
Property Description
The approximeatly 0.43-acre vacant project site is located on the southeast corner of Jordan Avenue and El Camino Real. Surrounding land uses include a fast-food restaurant and residential uses across Jordan Avenue to the west, office and residential uses across El Camino Real to the north, office uses to the west, and the parking lot serving 4906 El Camino Real to the south.

Project Overview
The project proposes to construct an eight (8) story, multi-family development utilizing State Density Bonus law. The development includes 85 dwelling units, consisting of nine studios, 47 one-bedroom units, and 29 two-bedroom units (Attachment 3 – Project Plans).

The site design provides pedestrian-oriented access and circulation while maintaining an active frontage along El Camino Real and Jordan Avenue. Pedestrian entries to the residential lobby are located along El Camino Real, with additional access from Jordan Avenue and the rear of the building. Streetscape improvements include new sidewalks, street trees, landscaped planters, and accessible curb ramps, enhancing the transition between the public right-of-way and building entrances. Vehicular access is provided from Jordan Avenue to the underground automated parking garage.

The ground floor includes the residential lobby and support areas, the primary building entry, and an entrance for a fully underground automated parking garage providing ninety-five (95) vehicle spaces, of which twelve (12) are EV-ready and six (6) are equipped with active EV charging stations. Bicycle parking is provided with long-term storage for ninety-eight (98) bicycles in a secure room, twenty (20) Class I bicycle spaces within the automated parking system, and five (5) Class II outdoor bicycle spaces located near the building entry.

Mechanical equipment will be located on the rooftop and screened from view by the parapet and cornice elements integrated into the building’s design. Trash and utility areas are located within the building envelope, with an internal trash room provided on the lower floor adjacent to the garage.

The proposed building has a contemporary architectural design that incorporates smooth plaster in light and dark tones, fiber cement panels, and stone veneer accents to provide visual interest and reduce the perception of mass. At the ground level, aluminum storefront glazing framed by plaster columns and stone bases creates a transparent and active frontage along El Camino Real. Recessed and projecting balconies, vertical bays, and metal canopies further articulate the façades, reinforce a pedestrian scale, and highlight building entries.

Page 634 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 3 The upper residential levels
are finished with a
combination of smooth
stucco, composite fiber
panels in wood and neutral
tones, and cultured stone
veneer, complemented by
black-framed aluminum
windows and metal railings.

The roofline is defined by a
parapet with cornice
detailing that frames the
building and screens rooftop
elements. Behind the
parapet, a landscaped rooftop
deck provides resident
amenity space while adding
architectural interest and
softening the overall building
mass as viewed from the
street.

The project site is currently vacant and contains no protected trees. New ground-level landscaping will feature a mix of ornamental shrubs, grasses, and flowering plants along the El Camino Real and Jordan Avenue frontages, with planters at the building base. A total of seven (7) new street trees will be planted at the ground level, consisting of three (3) Chinese Pistache trees along El Camino Real and four (4) Maidenhair (Ginkgo biloba) trees along Jordan Avenue, contributing to shade and visual interest along the streetscape.

The rooftop deck will provide approximately 2,720 square feet of landscaped resident amenity space, including six (6) Golden Spirit Smoke trees in planters, drought-tolerant shrubs, and flowering species. Seating areas, open gathering spaces, and integrated shade elements will create a functional and comfortable outdoor environment. Plantings are arranged to frame outward views, provide privacy between seating areas, and soften the building’s upper profile when viewed from surrounding streets.

Previous Site Approvals
On October 1, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-42 approving a Design Review Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Map for a five-story multifamily residential development consisting of twenty-eight (28) units under the State Density Bonus Law. The approved unit mix included four (4) one-bedroom units, eleven (11) two-bedroom units, and thirteen (13) three-bedroom units. Of these, four (4) units were designated as affordable. The project approval expired on October 1, 2022.

Figure 1: View from El Camino Real

Page 635 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 4 Analysis
General Plan Consistency
The project is consistent with the General Plan’s Thoroughfare Commercial Land Use Designation, which supports retail, service, office, and higher-density residential uses along El Camino Real, except as modified by State Density Bonus Law. The designation is intended to promote walkability, support local businesses, and provide opportunities for housing near services and transit. By providing a high-density residential development with ground-floor residential support uses, including affordable units utilizing State Density Bonus law, the project aligns with these objectives and contributes to a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented corridor. The project will contribute towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation and is aligned with the City’s recently adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element by adding eighty-five (85) units to the City’s housing stock, including ten (10) very low-income units.

The project complies with the following General Plan polices:
• LU Policy 1.1: Maintain flexibility of standards and procedures to accommodate changing trends in retail, housing, and office uses.
• LU Policy 2.3: Continue to conduct design review of residential and nonresidential development applications to ensure compatibility with surrounding property and neighborhoods.
• LU Policy 3.1 Encourage residential development above the ground floor that includes affordable housing units.
• LU Policy 4.2 Encourage mixed-use projects with retail, housing, and/or lodging in addition to retail and office uses.
• LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of affordable housing. • Housing Policy 1.1: The City will encourage a diverse range of both market-rate and affordable housing sizes and residential densities to accommodate the varied housing needs of families, couples, and individuals. • Housing Policy 1.2: The City will encourage mixed-use development in designated zoning districts.
• Housing Policy 2.1 The City will facilitate the development of new affordable housing units.

Zoning Consistency
The project complies with the Zoning Standards of the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) Zoning District, except as modified by State Density Bonus law. An analysis of the project’s compliance with CT Standards is provided in the table below:

Page 636 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 5 CT Zoning District Zoning Standards
Requirement Proposal Project Compliance
Front setback Minimum 20 ft 17 ft 2.5 in Waiver requested under State Density Bonus
Front setback
landscaping
Minimum 50% of
setback area landscaped
795 square feet
(50%)
Complies
Interior side
setback
Minimum 10 ft 9 ft 6 in Waiver requested under
State Density Bonus
Interior side
setback
landscaping
Minimum 50% of
setback area landscaped

41.5% Waiver requested under
State Density Bonus
Exterior side
setback
Minimum 15 ft 8 ft Waiver requested under
State Density Bonus
Exterior side
setback
landscaping
Minimum 50% of
setback area landscaped

50.8% Complies
Rear setback Minimum 25 ft 20 ft 8 in Waiver requested under State Density Bonus
Rear setback
landscaping
Minimum 50% of
setback area landscaped
14% Waiver requested under
State Density Bonus
Building height 55 ft (5 stories) 109 ft 9 in (8
stories)
Waiver requested under
State Density Bonus
Private Open
Space
An average of 50 square
feet
An average of 50.8
square feet
Project Complies
Common Open
Space
Minimum of 2,400
square feet
3,280 square feet Project Complies
Off-Street
Vehicle Parking
0 Spaces. AB 2097
eliminates minimum
parking requirements for
projects within one-half
mile of a major transit
stop; the site is located
95 automated
parking spaces
Project Complies

Page 637 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 6 CT Zoning District Zoning Standards
within this distance and
therefore qualifies for
the exemption.

Bicycle Parking 5 short -term (Class-II)
bicycle parking spaces.
128 long-term (Class-I)
bicycle parking spaces.
5 short-term (ClassII) bicycle parking
spaces
128 long-term
(Class-I) bicycle
parking spaces
Project Complies
The project must also comply with the City’s Objective Design Control Standards, as outlined in Los Altos Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 14.50.170 for the CT Zoning District and Section

14.66.280 for all multiple-family and mixed-use projects. Except for the requested waivers under Density Bonus, the project is consistent with the applicable Objective Design Control Standards.

The requested waivers to the objective design control standards are described in the “Density Bonus Request” section of this report.

Density Bonus Request
Under California’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.), the Thoroughfare Commercial (TC) General Plan designation and the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) Zoning District do not establish a fixed maximum dwelling unit density. In such cases, the City calculates base density using a hypothetical development consistent with all applicable standards and average unit sizes. Based on this methodology, the site supports a base density of 116 dwelling units per acre, or 50 units.

The applicant proposes to restrict ten (10) units as very low-income, which represents twenty (20) percent of the base 50 units. Under Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) and Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, Table B, projects providing at least fifteen (15) percent of the base units as very low-income are entitled to a fifty (50) percent density bonus. Applying the 50 percent bonus to the 50-unit base allows an additional 25 units, for a subtotal of 75 units. In addition, because the project provides more than five (5) percent very low-income units, it also qualifies for an additional 20 percent bonus under Government Code Section 65915(v). This additional bonus increases the total by ten (10) units, resulting in a maximum of eighty-five (85) units on site.

Accordingly, the project is entitled to 85 total units, including ten (10) very low-income units, as documented in the Density Bonus Report submitted by the applicant (Attachment 4). The report also identifies the requested waivers, which are necessary to accommodate the project at the proposed density while including the required affordable units.

Page 638 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 7 Waivers
Under the Density Bonus Law, eligible projects may request unlimited waivers of development standards. Waivers modify zoning or site development requirements that would otherwise physically preclude construction of the project, including the affordable and density bonus units.

The applicant requests sixteen such waivers, described below.

1. Front Setback: LAMC §14.50.090 requires a minimum front setback of 20 feet. The project proposes 17 feet 2-1/4 inches. Compliance would reduce the building footprint by about 99 square feet per floor (792 square feet total over eight floors), which would constrain residential layouts and reduce unit yield, directly conflicting with the affordable housing requirement.

2. Interior Side Setback: LAMC §14.50.100(A) requires a minimum 10-foot interior side setback.

The project proposes a 9-foot 6-inch setback. Compliance would reduce the buildable width by approximately 82 square feet per floor (660 square feet total across eight levels), constraining residential layout and preventing the project from achieving the proposed density and affordable housing objectives.

3. Exterior Side Setback: LAMC §14.50.100(B) requires a minimum 15-foot exterior side setback. The project proposes an 8-foot setback. Compliance would remove approximately 1,155 square feet per floor (9,235 square feet total), substantially shrinking the building envelope and eliminating multiple units, thereby undermining project feasibility.

4. Rear Setback: LAMC §14.50.110 requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. The project proposes a 20-foot, 8-inch setback. Compliance would displace about 360 square feet per floor (2,880 square feet total), compressing unit depth and circulation and resulting in inefficient layouts and fewer units.

5. Building Height: LAMC §14.50.140(A) limits building height in the CT District to 55 feet, with an additional 12 feet permitted for rooftop equipment and appurtenances under §14.66.240(E), for a combined maximum height of 67 feet. The project proposes a roof deck at 92 feet, 2¼ inches and an elevator overrun at 109 feet, 7¼ inches, exceeding the 67-foot limit by 42 feet, 7¼ inches. A waiver is therefore requested to allow the roof deck to exceed the base height limit by 37 feet, 2¼ inches and the elevator overrun to exceed the combined maximum height by 42 feet, 7¼ inches. Strict adherence to the height limitation would require removal of approximately three stories and 35 units, thereby preventing the project from achieving the density permitted under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §65915).

6. Upper-Story Step Backs: LAMC §14.50.170(B)(1)(a–b) requires a minimum 10-foot step back along the front and street-facing façades for stories above 45 feet. The project proposes no upper-story step backs. Compliance would reduce the building area by approximately 2,051 square feet per floor (8,204 square feet total over four floors), resulting in the loss of roughly ten residential units and making it infeasible to achieve the density allowed under State Density Bonus Law.

Page 639 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 8

7. Vertical Façade Articulation: LAMC §14.50.170(B)(2)(a)–(b) requires that building façades exceeding 100 feet in length along a right-of-way be divided into primary façade bays no greater than 50 feet in width and secondary façade bays defined by recesses at least three feet deep and 10 feet wide. The project proposes primary bays that exceed 50 feet in some locations and utilizes vertically stacked balconies approximately five feet by 10 feet to provide visual articulation. Full compliance would eliminate about 316 square feet per floor, totaling approximately 2,528 square feet or three residential units, thereby reducing the building’s efficiency and precluding the intended density.

8. Façade Entrances: LAMC §14.50.170(B)(2)(c) requires at least one pedestrian entrance per 150 linear feet along El Camino Real and per primary façade bay along other street frontages.

The project proposes fewer entrances than required to maintain functional interior layouts and avoid the loss of ground-floor residential and commercial space. Full compliance would displace approximately two units, which adversely affects project feasibility and site design objectives.

9. Privacy and Line of Sight: LAMC §14.50.170(B)(5)(a) requires that when primary living spaces and balconies are along a side setback, principal windows and balconies be oriented toward the front or rear of the building. The project orients some primary living space windows and balconies toward the front, rear, and sides to preserve functional layouts and private open space. Enforcing this standard would reduce the building area by approximately 2,099 square feet per level (16,792 square feet total over eight levels) and eliminate about 21 units, substantially constraining unit design and preventing achievement of the intended density under State Density Bonus Law.

10. Parapet Length/Screening: LAMC §14.50.170(B)(6)(a)(v)(b) limits parapet segments above the third floor to twenty-five feet. The project proposes a maximum parapet length of thirtynine feet, five inches. Meeting the standard would reduce approximately 488 square feet of floor area and about one half of a unit, and would require irregular parapet breaks that disrupt façade rhythm and design cohesion. A waiver is requested to preserve architectural consistency, maintain efficient unit layouts, and achieve the permitted density under State Density Bonus Law.

11. Pedestrian-Scaled Entrance: LAMC §14.50.170(C)(3)(a) requires buildings over seventy feet in length along a right-of-way to include at least one forecourt frontage. The project instead provides a recessed main entrance at the corner of Jordan Avenue and El Camino Real.

Compliance would remove about 412 square feet per level (3,296 square feet total), eliminating roughly four units and reducing overall housing capacity.

12. Interior Side Yard Landscaping: LAMC §14.50.100 requires at least 50 percent of the interior side yard to be landscaped. The project provides 41.5 percent. Full compliance would remove approximately 736 square feet, reducing usable site area and eliminating one unit, which would constrain density and overall project feasibility.

13. Rear Yard Landscaping: LAMC §14.50.100 requires at least 50 percent of the required rear yard to be landscaped. The project provides 14 percent. Compliance would displace

Page 640 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 9 approximately 5,416 square feet, resulting in the loss of about seven units and directly reducing housing capacity.

14. Driveway Landscaping: LAMC §14.50.170(G) requires landscaping on each side of a driveway at grade or in raised planters. Compliance would eliminate approximately 5,416 square feet of developable area, equivalent to seven units, reducing project density.

15. Transformer Fence Height: LAMC §14.72 limits fences within 15 feet of a driveway to a maximum height of 4 feet to preserve visibility. The project proposes a 6-foot-5-inch fence to screen transformers adjacent to the driveway. Compliance would require reducing the fence height, exposing equipment to public view, or redesigning the layout, displacing approximately 5,578 square feet (seven units). To maintain driveway safety, the project will include warning lights and/or signage consistent with the recommendations of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Abrams Associates (2025).

16. Loading Space Location: LAMC §14.74.090 requires at least one on-site loading space of specific dimensions that allows safe vehicle maneuvering without blocking traffic or parking.

Due to site constraints, the project’s loading facility requires vehicles to back onto Jordan Avenue. Relocating the space elsewhere on-site would displace about 5,081 square feet (seven units), undermining the project’s housing capacity and design efficiency.

Conditional Use Permit
The project requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Los Altos Municipal Code Section

14.74.070, which governs the use of automated parking systems as an alternative to conventional off-street parking. The applicant proposes a mechanical parking system providing ninety-five (95) parking spaces in a fully enclosed underground garage. In compliance with code requirements, the system is located within a permanent structure, is supported by a Parking Management Plan, incorporates backup power for emergency operation, and has been reviewed for overall compliance with City requirements. Based on this review, staff finds the project consistent with the requirements of LAMC §14.74.070 and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit as outlined in the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1).

Subdivision
The project includes a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes. The subdivision will divide the site into eighty-five (85) individual residential condominium units and a common lot.

The subdivision conforms to the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and provisions of the Subdivision Map Act as substantiated in the Draft Resolution recommending approval of the Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment 2).

Transportation Analysis
The City retains the existing level of service policy in the General Plan and continues to require development projects to conduct non-CEQA transportation analyses to evaluate and manage a project’s adverse effects on local roadways by imposing conditions related to operational improvements during the project review and permitting phases. Under the adopted City policy, a

Page 641 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 10 Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) is required for projects adding 50 or more net new daily trips. A transportation analysis was prepared by Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, Inc. and evaluated the project in accordance with the City’s LTA requirements. Based on the project’s design and a detailed analysis conducted according to the City’s LTA requirements, there would be no significant impacts to traffic operations according to established traffic engineering standards and no off-site transportation improvements would be required (Attachment 5).

Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego
Bankers Hill 150, the developer (Greystar), applied to construct a 20-story mixed-use project, at a building height of 223 feet, that would include 204 dwelling units, office space, a large courtyard, and underground parking. The proposed project qualified as a Density Bonus project because it set aside 18 dwelling units as affordable for very low-income residents. Accordingly, the City of San Diego granted Greystar a density bonus to exceed the zone’s maximum density of 147 units, as well as incentives to exceed the City’s 65-foot building height limit, eliminate requirements for a 15-foot setback and on-site truck loading and reduce private storage areas.

Two community groups, Bankers Hill 150 and Bankers Hill/Park West Community Association, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s approval of the project application, alleging that the project is inconsistent with the City’s development standards for that neighborhood. The trial court denied the Association’s writ petition because it fatally failed to address the application of the Density Bonus Law.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the writ petition. The court emphasized that, under the Density Bonus Law, absent very limited exceptions, the project is entitled to the waiver of any development standards that would have precluded the project’s construction as designed, including those with which the Association alleged the project is inconsistent.

Furthermore, the waiver or reduction in development standards is in addition to the incentives and concessions mandated by the Density Bonus Law.

The Association argued that the project could be redesigned to yield a shorter and less bulky building by eliminating a courtyard. Reaffirming the holding in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, the court rejected the Association’s argument. According to the court, the City could not demand that Greystar redesign its building to better meet City development standards even if a design existed that would allow fewer deviations from the City’s requirements.

Page 642 of 1184 ends

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 11 safety impact exists. Legislative intent language indicates that the conditions that would give rise to such a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety would occur infrequently.

The proposed project is protected under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) as it creates additional housing stock within the City of Los Altos. Additionally, the proposed project meets all applicable objective design standards, except as modified by Density Bonus law.

Environmental Review
The 0.43-acre project site is an infill location along El Camino Real surrounded by urban development and contains no natural habitat for endangered species. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and CT District standards, as modified by State Density Bonus law, and will not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

The site can be served by all required utilities and public services, and none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

Based on the City’s adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) policy and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, transportation effects under CEQA are evaluated using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A screening memo prepared by Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, Inc. confirms that the project is screened out under the City’s VMT Policy based on the map screening and Transit Proximity Screening criteria; therefore, transportation impacts are presumed less than significant.

Therefore, the project qualifies for an exemption under Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Public Notification
A public meeting notice was mailed to property owners within (300) feet of the project site and published in the newspaper. The applicant also posted the site with a public notice sign in conformance with the Planning Division posting requirements.

At the time of preparation of this report, the Planning Division has not received comments on the proposed project.

Next Steps
The Planning Commissions decision on the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications are final. The Planning Commission’s consideration and recommendation on the Vesting Tentative Map application will be forwarded to Council for consideration at a future meeting and will be noticed separately.

Page 643 of 1184 ends

!
"

$%&'
()'
*+&'',-.,'/01&,-213 45'
676879:9;
6:<==
>5
>?,2
@11)'
*A?,2211)'/B&B2&-0+3

C)AD&',)
E,,&1B
*BF,,&1B/B&B2&-0+3G
H'&D&'
E),'?).0
*IF),'?).0/B&B2&-0+3G
C)&'
J&)0B
*B0&)0B/B&B2&-0+3
K)&.
@'2,
5)1?).BL
MN1
&
OB
PB
.)B,Q)'
,+,'0
'
5&.,2D
E&R-
M
&1
F.,,'0

S.1&R
TUVWXY
YT
Z[[\T]Z^
T_
Y`W
aWbYZYc]W
dZ[
_T\
efgf
h^
iZjcbT
kWZ^-
lD)
l)'&,+)
5&A
)B&?,BD)B
D)
A.I)2mB
?,Q,'0
SA.,'L
Q.,+)F&R
2'S,0.&,'L
&Q,'0
A).&,'BL
&'Q
.&'BS.1).
2&,'L
&'Q
D).)S.)
Q,.)2R
0+).'B
.&SS,2
B&S)RL
&22)BBL
&'Q
'),0D?.DQ
,1A&2BlD)
>&'','0
@11,BB,'mB
.)211)'Q&,'
.),)Q
'
cbXTj[^WYW
Zbn
ToYnZYWn
cb_T\jZYcTbL
&'Q
'
B,)
2'S,0.&,'B
D&

2.)&)
'.)B+)Q
B&S)R
D&p&.QB-
q.
D)B)
.)&B'BL
M
.)BA)2SR
.)r)B
D&
D)
@,R
\Wsoc\W
Z
\W]ctWn
aWbYZYc]W
dZ[
ucY`
Z^YW\bZYc]W
tcYW
^ZvToYt
&'Q
.).'
D)
A.I)2

D)
>&'','0
@11,BB,'
S.
.)w.)+,)Fxyz
{|}~~|
x~

y

y
x~
yy

|||
~~|
y|
C,'2)
D)
+)1?).
;
D)&.,'0L
1&).,&
2D&'0)B
&'Q
')F
,'S.1&,'
D&+)
)1).0)Q
D&
F).)
'
2'B,Q).)Q
?R
D)
>&'','0
@11,BB,'<
6-
nVZXWbY
W]W^T[jWbY
bYWbtc_cXZYcTb
P2.BB
D)
B.))L
D)
S.1).

H&2w,'wD)w
B,)
8;

@&1,'
()&
,'
21?,'&,'
F,D
D)
,11)Q,&)
B,'0)
S&1,R
,B
'F
A.AB)Q
S.

jo^Yc_Zjc^v
obcYt
Zbn
f
tsoZ\W
_WWY
T_
T__cXW
t[ZXWL
)2))Q,'0
D)
B2A)
S
A.,.
&AA.+&B-
P22)BB
,B
)A)2)Q

.)1&,'
'
H.Q&'
P+)')L
21A'Q,'0
2,.2&,'
&'Q
B&S)R
,1A&2B
D&
F).)
'
)+&&)Q
D,B,2&R9-
oYnZYWn
a\Z__cX
bZ^vtct
lD)
.&SS,2
BQR
.),)Q
A'
?R
D)
>&'','0
@11,BB,'
F&B
A.)A&.)Q
?R
U\Zjt
ttTXcZYWtlD)
&AA,2&'
D&B
B,'2)
)'0&0)Q
¡W¢Z£TbL
&
')F
.&SS,2
)'0,')).,'0
S,.1L

.)+,B)
D)
&'&RB,B
¤2'S,.1,'0
D&
D)
A.,.

BQR
,B
'
'0).
2..)'-
lD)
@11,BB,'
F&B
'
,'S.1)Q
D&
D)
.&SS,2
&'&RB,B
FQ
?)
.)A&2)Q
FD)'
,
1&Q)
,B
.)211)'Q&,'-
)2&B)
D)
l)'&,+)
5&A
0+).'B
&22)BB
&'Q
2,.2&,'L
,
BDQ
'
?)
&AA.+)Q
?&B)Q
'
BA).B)Q)Q
)2D',2&
Q&&-
¥y~|
y
¦y|
y
§¨
©~ª«
x~
¬y
¨¨~
y«

Page 644 of 1184 ends

Los Altos City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Los Altos City Council
January 27, 2026