Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, January 27, 2026 (part 1 of 8)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
January 27, 2026 - 7:00 PM
In Person
PARTICIPATION: Members of the public are invited to participate by attending the meeting at the Los Altos Council Chamber, located at Los Altos City Hall, 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA, during the meeting.

Public comments are accepted in person at the physical meeting location or via email to [email protected] or through the Public Comment forum on the city website: Public Comments Form.

RULES FOR CONDUCT: According to Los Altos Municipal Code, Section 2.05.010 "Interruptions and rules for conduct": Understanding that the purpose of the city council meetings is to conduct the people's business for the benefit of all the people, in the event that any meeting of the city council is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, the mayor, mayor pro tem, or any other member of the city council acting as the chair may order the removal of the person or persons responsible for the disruption and bar them from further attendance at the council meeting, or otherwise proceed pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.0 or any applicable penal statute or city ordinance.

REMOTE MEETING OBSERVATION: Members of the public may view the meeting via the link below, but will not be permitted to provide public comment via Zoom or telephone. Public comments will be accepted in person, and members of the public may submit written comments by following the instructions below. https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/99562869890?pwd=ls66Ya6RqgVzPamfXOT3MmPajokYJF.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 995 6286 9890 / Passcode: 518064 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Before the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emailed public comments sent directly to the City Council, either as a group or individually, will not be included in the agenda packet but may be disclosable as part of a public records request. Emails sent to [email protected] will be included in the appropriate agenda packet and are also disclosable as part of a public records request.

Please note: Personal information, such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information, is not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your written comments, it will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper format must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Hard copy/paper format comments presented during the meeting will be distributed to the City Council the following day. Members of the public may present a copy of their comments or attachments to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council.

The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

Page 1 of 1184 ends

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. The Mayor will announce the time speakers will be granted before comments begin. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period.

According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.

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

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes - Approve the Draft Regular Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2026

2. Affirm 2026 City Council Assignments to Regional Boards and City Commissions Affirm 2026 City Council Mayoral Appointments to Local, Regional Boards and City Committees and Commissions Pursuant to the City Council Norms and Procedures

3. Adoption of Resolution - Weed Abatement Annual Property Identification Adopt a Resolution Declaring Weeds, Brush and/or Rubbish on Certain Described Properties to be a Public Nuisance and find that this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(h) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

4. Adoption of Resolution - Playground Renovations at Grant Park and Shoup Park Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with PlayCore Wisconsin Inc. dba GameTime of Fort Payne, Alabama, to design, purchase, and install new playground equipment and safety surfacing at Grant Park in an amount not-to-exceed $444,098.99 and at Shoup Park in an amount not-to-exceed $536,845.04, with a contingency of up to 15% for each project (not-to-exceed $66,615 for Grant Park and $80,527 for Shoup Park), for a total combined project cost not-to-exceed $1,128,086.03, to complete the playground renovations at Grant Park and Shoup Park

5. Adoption of Resolution - Grant Park Project Acceptance Adopt a resolution accepting completion of the Grant Park Building Mechanical and Electrical Renovations Project (CF-01034); authorize the Park & Recreation Director to record a Notice of Completion as required by law; and find the project categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301

PUBLIC HEARING

6. Adoption of Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map at 996 Loraine Avenue

Page 2 of 1184 ends

Adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map (Application No. TM22-0005) for the creation of thirteen (13) condominium lots and one (1) common lot at 996 Loraine Avenue per the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66

7. Appeal of Development Project at 4898 El Camino Real Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal No. APPL25-0006 and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit with a State Density Bonus for an eightstory, 85-unit multifamily housing development at 4898 El Camino Real; and find the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and that none of the exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 apply

8. Adoption of Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map at 4898 El Camino Real 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)

9. Appeal of the Removal of 81 Pepper Drive from the Los Altos Historic Resource Inventory Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos denying Appeal No. APPL25-0004 and upholding the decision of the Historical Commission approving the removal of the property located at 81 Pepper Drive from the Los Altos Historic Resource Inventory; and find the project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)

DISCUSSION ITEMS

10. City Council Discussion - Vacancy
Discuss and provide direction on City Council vacancy

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS / COUNCIL Q&A
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items. The Council Q&A will be included in the packet the day of the meeting.

11. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
According to the City Council Norms and Procedures: It will be customary to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Before the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please get in touch with the City Clerk at least 72 hours before the meeting.

Page 3 of 1184 ends

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure according to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

Page 4 of 1184 ends

3 Sent from my iPhone
This is from the Carmel Pine Cone. We need and deserve citizen input on the downtown park proposal. Everyone I know is opposed and we deserve to have our input known. I will never shop there again if the present parking is taken away. We don’t need another park but we do need parking near the shops.

Cathy Kordsmeier

Page 5 of 1184 ends

Page 6 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Andrea Wald <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 7:21 AM
To: Jonathan Weinberg; Larry Lang; Pete Dailey; Sally Meadows; Neysa Fligor; Lynette Lee Eng; Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]Public Comments for Jan 27th City Council mtg - Agenda item 4 Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am writing regarding the plan to redo both Grant and Shoup playgrounds using PIP (poured-inplace) rubber surfacing. The continued expansion of petroleum-based surfaces impacts the health of people and the wildlife that lives among us and goes against policies that address environmental and sustainability goals that Los Altos and many other cities have in place. I am very much against this plan.

What's most upsetting is the lack of transparency for this action. There has not been any public notification regarding the plans nor ability for any input to be provided by community members. It is only now that city council is being asked to approve the budget that the details are available to community members. This is not acceptable.

Currently both parks have EWF as their ground cover. This is the best option for a healthy, safe environment for all. Council is already aware of all the harms of artificial turf and has directed the Environmental Commission to look more into this as to how this material impacts Los Altos, the environment and its citizens. PIP is also a petrochemical product and has many of the same harms as artificial turf. Information on this has been shared with council members in the past but I will be adding a few more reference articles below.

A comparative exposure study published in Environmental Geochemistry and Health showed that children playing on poured-rubber surfaced playgrounds had approximately ten times higher estimated cancer risk from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in dust and soil compared to children on traditional soil playgrounds. This suggests that synthetic surface materials may increase harmful exposures through skin contact, inhalation, and hand-to-mouth behaviors.

A recent Journal of Hazardous Materials study found that crumb rubber materials used in playgrounds and sports surfaces can release micro- and nanoplastics and a broad range of plastic additives (e.g., flame retardants, lubricants, antioxidants) into the air and through runoff events.

These breakdown products can be extremely harmful to both humans and wildlife.

In addition to all the environmental and health harms being linked to these plastic surfaces, there is also the issue of extreme heat. With more frequent and longer hot weather that we are experiencing and which is predicted to only get worse over time, these surfaces should be avoided. https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/toddler-receives-second-degree-burns-feet-hot-playground-castle-rockdangerous/

Page 7 of 1184 ends

2 Recent fires involving synthetic playground and turf surfaces in school yards and parks in SF and the very devastating fires in the Palisades area of LA left behind melted plastic, burned synthetic rubber, toxic debris, contaminated runoff, and hazardous smoke. These fires are becoming more frequent and more intense, creating risks for nearby residents, first responders, and wildlife and forcing taxpayers and donors to repeatedly fund replacements of the same flammable materials - not to mention the impact on city budgets.

Artificial turf and PIP playground surfaces contain flammable plastics and synthetic rubber treated with chemical flame retardants such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), and organophosphate flame retardants. These chemicals are associated with endocrine disruption, neurodevelopmental harm, and potential carcinogenic effects. All artificial turf also contains PFAS chemicals, which are linked to cancer, hormone disruption, thyroid disease, reduced fertility, impaired immune response, and developmental impacts in children. PFAS bioaccumulate in living organisms and can enter the body through inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact.

Importantly, plastic is not necessary to provide engaging, inclusive play. Nature-based playground design offers stimulating, developmentally rich experiences for children, including children with disabilities. The Toxic Use Reduction Institute at UMASS Lowell highlights best practices for

Page 8 of 1184 ends

3 nature-based play. Materials such as engineered wood fiber—distinct from loose mulch or wood chips—are ADA-compliant, widely used, and much better for the environment and our health.

Please do everything within your power to reduce environmental and human health harms. Do NOT approve any park/playground upgrades that are using unnatural products when more natural, healthier ones exist. We often forget that we humans who are creating these toxic messes are a fundamental part of the environment. Sometimes the convenient option needs to be deprioritized.

Sincerely,
Andrea Wald
Co-Founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaces

Page 9 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Laura Fay <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 7:19 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment, Agenda item #4, Playground Renovations and Grant and Shoup Park – Jan 27, 2026
Attachments: PIP Rubber on Playground Surfaces.pdf
Dear Los Altos City Council,
Please defer the approval of the budget for Shoup and Grant Park playground designs that include artificial surfaces, in favor of maintaining the natural play surfaces. The design proposed by the selected vendor calls for replacing the natural elements of the playground with pour-in-place (PIP) rubber. Please see the attached document that outlines the well documented issues with this surface type.

Please defer the approval of the budgets for playground upgrades until the public has an opportunity to review and comment on the designs. Public review ahead of a city RFP process is important for any element that is expected to be enjoyed by Altans for years to come. Neither the public or the PARC commission has been provided with any information about the new upgrades ahead of this city council meeting, where the staff is seeking approval for the design and hundreds of thousands of dollars in budget allocation.

Thank you,
Laura Fay
Los Altos resident

Page 10 of 1184 ends

Pour-In-Place Rubber - Playground Surfacing Information Summary
"Poured-in-place" (PIP) is a type of playground surfacing material, often made with shredded waste tire rubber, that is mixed and poured on-site to create a seamless, cushioned surface. It allows for designs and color combinations. However, high heat, off-gassing of chemicals and leaching of chemicals and heavy metals from the waste tire and other rubber pose a hazard to users.

What is Poured-in-Place (PIP) Playground Surfacing?
Installation: PIP surfacing involves mixing rubber granules (often made from waste tires) with a binder on-site and pouring it onto the playground area.

Layers: It typically consists of a shock-absorbing base layer and a thin colored top layer.

Aesthetics: PIP allows for various colors and patterns.

Durability: It's alleged to be durable and low maintenance but especially when weekly maintenance is skipped (ie. vacuuming the surface) the surface quickly starts to fall apart.

Concerns:

Chemicals and Heavy Metals: Waste tire crumb used in PIP is essentially a synthetic rubber plastic polymer which contains many other known toxic chemicals such as Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, benzothiazoles, ketones, 6PPD quinones and more and variably contains heavy metals such as, lead and cadmium. PFAS and other chemicals have been detected as well.

Environmental Concerns: The breakdown of the rubber material leads to the release of rubber plastic particles and their chemicals and heavy metals into the environment.

Temperature: (see link below with photos from Kemp Mill playground in Maryland) PIP surfaces can become very hot in direct sunlight.

Curing: The surface requires a curing period after installation to ensure it's safe for use.

Safety Considerations:

Fall Height: It's important to choose surfacing that meets appropriate fall height requirements, especially for taller play equipment. The unitary PIP surfacing has been shown to get less protective over time and admit heats up so that should be taken into account
Material Testing: Lead testing is not required but some municipalities have tested PIP or shredded tire surfaces and found high levels of lead, leading to playground closures. In Washington DC, Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties.

Best Practices: It's recommended to avoid mouth contact with the surfacing, wash hands after use, and limit exposure on hot days.

Page 11 of 1184 ends

References and Resources:

Heat readings at Kemp Mill urban Park Playground on Arcola Ave https://photos.app.goo.gl/N8iEA9nM9hpXdin29
Playground Surfacing - Toxics Use Reduction Institute https://www.turi.org Playgrounds Should Be Fun and Toxic-Free https://www.ecocenter.org/playgrounds-should-be-fun-and-toxicfree A recent study showed that PAH levels in dust were 4-5 times higher on PIP playgrounds compared to playgrounds with uncovered bare ground.

Playground Surfaces
The seven most common surface/filler materials for playgrounds are: pea gravel, sand, bark mulch/ wood chips, engineered wood fiber, crumb rubber, synthetic ... https://www.uml.edu/docs/Playground_surfacing_report_Dec2023_tcm18-377890.pdf Playground Surfacing - Unitary rubber surfacing, including tiles and PIP surfacing, is made with granulated particles processed from materials such as waste tires, thermoplastic ...

National Center for Health Research
https://www.center4research.org
https://www.center4research.org/?s=Playground+
Are PIP rubber playgrounds safe for Kingston?
The rubber pieces made from recycled tires contain lead and heavy metals, as well as chemicals that increase the chances of developing obesity.
https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/02/san-francisco-playground-sunset-park-playground-cost-price/

Page 12 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Peter Fay <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment, Agenda item #4, Playground Renovations and Grant and Shoup Park – Jan 27, 2026
Dear City Council members,
I am very concerned about proposed plans to replace natural surfaces at our parks with artificial materials given their associated toxicities and health risks.

Please ask the city staff to retain the natural surfaces in Shoup and Grant Parks for the health and safety of Los Altos’ children, their carers and the environment.
yours sincerely,
Peter Fay MD
720 Spencer Court
Los Altos

Page 13 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Steve Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 5:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Artificial turf detriments
Artificial turf cannot fulfill the multi-use function of natural grass, and it requires regular, expensive maintenance.

The following will damage artificial turf fields or cause human harm and need to be prohibited:

Page 14 of 1184 ends

2 Usage on hot days
Bare feet
Food and drinks (water is OK)
Golfing
Chewing gum
Sunflower seeds
Smoking
Dirty or muddy shoes
Driving stakes
Lawn furniture, beach chairs, folding chairs
Bicycles, vehicles, skateboards, and scooters
Smoking, barbecuing or open fires
Spikes or metal cleats and spiked heels
Dogs or other pets
Fireworks
Conclusion: artificial turf cannot handle the multi-purpose usage of real grass.

Maintenance activities for artificial turf (requires special equipment)  Fields need to be kept free of debris, leaves, paper, and windblown material.  Spray anti-static treatment.
 Complete inspection: weekly
o Spot if need minor repairs, infill touchups, and sweeping needs. o Remove weeds and moss.
 Infill top dressing: needed to maintain proper infill depth. As needed.  Infill spread: use leaf blower to clear infill lying outside perimeter of field.  Cleaning and Sanitizing: annually.
 Anti-static conditioning: as needed.
 Brushing: rejuvenates matted plastic fibers and levels infill. Every 2 to 3weeks.  Aerating: (Equipment requires a tow vehicle) loosen infill to avoid compaction. Up to 3 times per year.
 Sweeping: (Equipment requires a tow vehicle) remove foreign material. Every 3 to 4 weeks.  Raking. Every 4 to 6 weeks.
 Water treatment for infill. As needed.
 Spray with water on hot days or shut down the field.
 Perform GMAX tests to measure hardness and determine when unsafe and needs replacement.

Conclusion: artificial turf is not as maintenance free as claimed by the industry.

Regards,
Steve Hill

Page 15 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Susan Hinton <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 10:37 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment, Agenda item #4, Playground Renovations and Grant and Shoup Park – Jan 27, 2026
Attachments: Sonoma Regional Ragle Ranch Park report 12.24.pdf January 25, 2026
Subject: Public Comment for Los Altos City Council meeting on 1/27/2026, item #4: Adoption of Resolution - Playground Renovations at Grant Park and Shoup Park Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Honorable Councilmembers:

The City of Los Altos should forego synthetic and plastic surfacing outdoors in landscapes, on playgrounds, in dog parks, in community gathering areas and on sports fields.

For playgrounds in particular, where young children play, Los Altos is currently using the best possible playground surfacing, Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF), which is also ADA compliant.

The Toxic Use Reduction Institute’s (TURI) updated 2023 report on playground surfaces explains why Pour-in-Place (PIP) surfacing is undesirable. (See the chart at the bottom of this public comment.) Similarly, Valley Water’s fact sheet
(https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/valleywater.org.if-us-west-2/f2-live/s3fspublic/Artificial%20Turf%20Fact%20Sheet_042922%20SL.pdf) explains why plastic grass is another undesirable outdoor surface.

There are ready biodiverse and natural alternatives for landscapes, on playgrounds, in dog parks, in community gathering areas and on sports fields.

1. For playgrounds there are well known safe-surfacing alternatives to plastics, synthetic rubber or PIP (pour-in-place) surfaces. One noteworthy one is engineered wood fiber (EWF), which differs from unprocessed wood chips or gardening mulch, and it is ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant and widely used. Los Altos uses EWF today and should continue to do so.

Taking a further step away from plastic, one can provide a stimulating play experience for children through a nature-based approach. The San Mateo County Office of Education has a webpage on this topic. Stimulating play using a nature-based approach is also available for children with disabilities.

2. When it comes to dog parks, dogs are less picky than people. However, because plastic grass becomes noticeably hotter than the ambient air temperature, and because dogs do not wear shoes to

Page 16 of 1184 ends

2 protect their paws, on hot days dogs avoid hot surfaces which defeats the purpose of a dog park.

Besides grass, which in dog parks can become aesthetically less than pleasing (though dogs don’t care), crushed granite surfacing is a good alternative, being cooler than plastic while standing up to active pets. Another, easier care option, is the engineered wood fiber mentioned above, typically in a smaller size than for playgrounds as this is thought to be kinder on dog paws. In addition, shrubs, trees, arbors, and benches can be placed around a central area, providing shade and a place for people to talk, while plastic grass must be protected from falling plant matter and debris.

3. Community gathering areas, for picnicking or gatherings, might deploy a combination of the ideas presented above. Note that California law allows “non functional” lawn in parks and gathering areas, although one would prefer resilient, drought tolerant grass mixes.

4. In landscaping there are abundant drought tolerant California native or related plants, some quite beautiful and easy to grow. There are even forty (40) approved drought tolerant grasses and fescues on Valley Water’s approved plant replacement list. These and other approved plants are considered “functional” as opposed to “non functional” as they meet California’s regulatory goals by being water-wise and low-maintenance, and by providing ecological benefits. Additionally there exist garden designs, planners and explanatory graphics for multiple landscape scenarios.

Stanford University is following other campuses across the U.S. (e.g. UC Berkeley and UCLA) in piloting organically managed landscaping. In case studies while some campuses have seen costs initially increase, these have been followed by a permanent cost decrease. Plus, as an added benefit these new methodologies help save water.

5. Finally, there are living grass alternatives for sports fields, including fields built for baseball, soccer, football or lacrosse. There are successful, organic and sustainably managed grass sports fields in California: See the Sonoma County document below and take a look at McKegney Green in the Town of Tiburon . In North America, and overseas there are other examples, e.g., in Australia there is a grass field installed four (4) years ago that is beloved by residents and the Mossman Football Club (soccer).

Below is a document describing cost, installation and maintenance for a high use, sustainably managed Sonoma County soccer field:

Plastic, which pollutes from the moment petroleum is extracted, through plastic production, use, as well as during end-of-life disposal, is not needed. Los Altos should forego outdoor plastic surfacing in landscapes, on playgrounds, in dog parks, in community gathering areas and on sports fields.

Sincerely,
Susan Hinton
Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollution-prevention

Page 17 of 1184 ends

3 P.S. Chart from page 12 of the Toxic Use Reduction Institute’s (TURI) updated, 2023 report on playground surfaces.
https://www.uml.edu/docs/Playground_surfacing_report_Dec2023_tcm18-377890.pdf

Page 18 of 1184 ends

Page 19 of 1184 ends

Page 20 of 1184 ends

Natural Grass Sports Field Installation and Management
Sonoma County Parks Department Case Study / How-To Guide Presented by the Petaluma Climate Community
November 2024

SUMMARY
This document provides a technical and practical roadmap for the City of Petaluma to successfully install a sustainable, resilient, natural grass sports field at Lucchesi Park. Choosing climate-aligned natural grass would prevent a third installation of toxic, non-recyclable artificial turf that, despite industry promises, needs to be closed during winter and summer due to flooding and extreme heat hazards, respectively.

This document draws insights from the case study of Ragle Ranch Park Field 1, the first of a nine-field soccer complex, a project of Sonoma County Regional Parks. Ragle Ranch’s installation practices align with Sebastopol’s Integrated Pest Management Policy (IPMP) ordinance (no synthetic pesticides, including rodenticides), 1 demonstrating how climate and
environmentally friendly approaches can deliver high-quality, durable sports fields that meet community needs while minimizing environmental impacts.

Achieving carbon neutrality requires natural grass fields, as they serve as vital carbon sinks, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen. In addition to improving air quality, grass fields help filter dust and particulate pollution, contributing to healthier environments. Their ability to sequester carbon and mitigate airborne pollutants makes them an essential tool in reducing the ecological footprint of urban spaces, aligning with long-term sustainability goals.

The findings summarized in this document support the recent letter submitted to the City by numerous Petaluma environmental organizations, urging a transition from artificial turf to natural grass:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ngCdG14DB39U9T7fS2hYtGkdjq19J4Sg/view?usp=sharing These initial insights are intended solely as an exploratory starting point to encourage the City to initiate a formal study. This study would conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, including detailed assessments of real-world and local installation and maintenance costs, to ensure active recreation fields remain in good condition and provide equitable citywide access across all districts.

The learnings emphasize key techniques of technical flexibility, soil health, and preventive care in order to ensure alignment with Petaluma’s climate, environmental, and sustainability goals and to comply with the City of Petaluma’s IPMP principles. 1 https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/res5108sustainseb.pdf

Page 21 of 1184 ends

● Reduce chemical Inputs: Eliminate toxic chemicals to protect human health and the environment.
● Support soil microbiology/biodiversity: Build a healthy soil environment that promotes resilience to drought, pests, and diseases.
● Prevent runoff and leaching: Use sustainable practices to reduce water contamination and protect nearby ecosystems.

Rationale: Total Cost-Benefit Analysis of Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Sports Fields Total cost-benefit analysis includes hard costs and soft costs such as climate, environmental, and health impacts. The focus is the hard cost of approximately $150,000 for the Ragle Ranch natural grass field installation, which compares to the incomplete RFP $2,500,000 cost of Lucchesi replacement (excludes recycling cost estimated by Republic Services of Sonoma County at $50,000-$70,000). The soft cost of Parks staff labor was approximately $150,000.

The true cost is still being realized as irrigation, use, fertilizer and now potentially soil biology tests are adding to the overall cost.

Natural grass has a lower total cost than artificial turf to install.

Ultimately, investing in natural grass fields not only promotes player safety and environmental health but aligns with the City of Petaluma’s climate and long-term sustainability goals, offering a greener and more responsible alternative to artificial turf.

Although artificial turf offers more playtime compared to natural grass due to reduced maintenance and rest periods, the environmental and public health costs far outweigh this convenience. The total costs of natural grass vs. artificial turf sports fields includes many factors such as budget, playtime, public health and safety, liability risks, and climate impacts of:
● Destruction of soil and grass ecosystem carbon sequestration functions ● Heat island effects
● Environmental pollution and public health hazards related to micro- and nanoplastics, toxics, and forever chemicals
● Air, water, and soil pollution per micro/nano-plastics, toxics, and forever chemicals ● Significant greenhouse gas emissions generated by production and disposal of artificial turf
Despite the industry's promise of “all-weather” artificial turf, this turf is prone to closure. This has been the case at Lucchesi Park and Casa Grande High School turfs.

During the rainy season, it succumbs to drainage issues and flooding due to the impermeability of the base layer and clogging of the infill drainage system. This compromises player safety as well as usable hours. Although natural fields require downtime to recover, particularly after heavy rains, sustainable management practices—such as rotating fields and using drought-tolerant grass varieties—can extend their usability. 2

Page 22 of 1184 ends

In summer, artificial turf becomes a heat island, reaching temperatures tens of degrees hotter than ambient temperature (often reaching surface temperatures above 160°F). This extreme heat prevents play because of heat stroke incidence rate. Additionally, on hot days, synthetic fields release toxic chemicals into the air, contributing to pollution, triggering headaches, and potentially exposing players to substances classified as possible carcinogens (Class 2B).

Natural grass offers greater utility, satisfaction, and environmental benefits than artificial turf, making it the superior choice for sports fields and public spaces. Ultimately, investing in natural grass fields not only promotes player safety and environmental health but aligns with long-term sustainability goals, offering a greener and more responsible alternative to artificial turf.

Please review the following documents submitted to the City of Petaluma, which offer a detailed analysis of why natural grass sports fields are the superior choice for climate sustainability:
● How-to Brief for Municipalities, “Natural Sports Turf and Playground Surface Solutions: Healthier, Safer, Lower Cost, Superior Performance, and Climate-Responsible:”
○ https://drive.google.com/file/d/18C-lSRHcwVR0WroVMmW75E-FGERUa Ymn/view?usp=sharing
● Petaluma community’s call for City of Petaluma to ban artificial turf, “The Health and Legal Hazards of Plastic Turf at Lucchesi Park:”
○ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ngCdG14DB39U9T7fS2hYtGkdjq19J4Sg/ view?usp=sharing
Methodology
The information below is related to Field 1, the inaugural soccer field installed in 2022 at Ragle Ranch in Sebastopol. The purpose was to renovate a grass field while mitigating the impact of gophers. Ragle Field 1 is a pilot project that is still being evaluated and is the first install of a nine-field soccer complex planned for the Park.
23 The projected total cost is $3.5 million for nine
sports fields (compared to Luchessi’s $2.5 million).

Sonoma Parks: “These are very rough estimates. We are currently getting quotes on fields 3 and 4 based on landscaping drawings that were created in-kind by WESCO. The next step is if we need landscape architect/engineering which can be as much as $50-$100k as we have seen at Schopflin Regional Park.”
Dramatically less costly than artificial turf, the Ragle Ranch project is being viewed as a potential model for turf renovation and installation.
3 Ragle Ranch officially has 5 fields, with 9 total identified 2 https://www.sonomacountyparksfoundation.org/ragle-ranch-soccer-fields.html 3

Page 23 of 1184 ends

Ragle Ranch Natural Grass Soccer Fields Plan
(Estimates for Fundraising Purposes)
The information presented in this document was provided by two sources:

1. Sonoma County Regional Parks management interviews: project management, maintenance staff, and consulting natural grass/sod expert

2. Beyond Pesticides organic land management technical resources Background
The Sonoma County Regional Parks Department partnered with the local soccer community (WESCO) to install Field 1 of a nine-field soccer complex at Ragle Ranch in Sebastopol.

Per Sebastopol’s climate goals and IPMP, the practice of gopher and weasel fumigation was dropped and replaced with their current standards of gopher wiring/caging and soil vitality management, as well as adoption of grass variety and technologies. “The soccer fields at Ragle Ranch Regional Park in Sebastopol have been in awful shape for years. The main culprit behind the mounds and holes is a well-known feature of West County [(gophers)].”
4 Weighing the full cost-benefit trade-offs between artificial turf and natural grass, the vision for Ragle Ranch was shaped through meaningful collaboration between the community and County Parks. The result is a climate-conscious, green sports hub and community gathering space where everyone can enjoy the full spectrum of health benefits – both tangible and intangible – 4 https://www.sebastopoltimes.com/p/soccer-fields-among-improvements 4

Page 24 of 1184 ends

that come from playing soccer on a living, non-toxic grass-and-soil ecosystem. This model reflects a commitment to sustainability, fostering biodiversity, supporting carbon sequestration, and promoting human well-being through a natural environment that artificial turf simply cannot replicate.

Field 1 was installed in 2022.
5 Before After
Field Specifics
Field 1, a regulation-sized soccer field, was installed by Sonoma County Regional Parks' in-house maintenance staff using the latest technologies for natural grass, irrigation, and gopher control. The native soil there is sand-clay. Similar to artificial turf installations, hardware fabric was placed beneath the field to prevent gopher damage. The project incorporated best practices (pre-stretched; 12-18” overlap; around sprinkler heads), including regular aeration, frequent mowing, soil testing, and the application of sustainable fertilizers and soil amendments (e.g., proper-depth aeration; raptor perch installations). These practices ensure a healthy, resilient playing surface that meets performance standards while supporting long-term environmental sustainability.

Process
There were two components of the installation project:

1. Installation of grass/sod

2. Maintenance to ensure successful establishment of the grass/sod 5 https://www.sebastopoltimes.com/p/soccer-fields-among-improvements 5

Page 25 of 1184 ends

Budget Overview
Total install cost for Field 1, the inaugural soccer field at Ragle Ranch, was approximately $300,000 ($150,000 for field + $150,000 for Parks staff labor), excluding irrigation infrastructure (compared with $2.5 million for the Luchessi artificial turf reinstallation project). The total cost per adjustment and maintenance costs is still being realized as irrigation, use, fertilizer and soil biology tests are accrued.

INSTALLATION DETAILS
Below are the steps along with the considerations for installation and care for the Field 1 natural grass soccer field. The software program “Maintain X” was used for the project.

1. Site Evaluation and Soil Preparation
Evaluation and documentation of existing “sandy-clay” soil conditions is the very first step.

1. Assess soil texture, chemistry, and microbial health through soil testing and a baseline analysis: sod, top soil, bottom soil. Consideration of site conditions for drainage.

2. Analyze water.

3. Establish a fertility baseline; conduct soil food web assessments to determine nutrient availability and microbial activity.

4. Create a custom plan based on the site’s specific needs; develop a fertility- and weed-control plan tailored to the field's conditions.

5. Plan field layout for intelligent sprinkler placement relative to goal locations and margins on either side to allow wear-management shifting of field lines).

Note on an organic systems approach:
● Adopt preventive measures to ensure success.
● Use organic-compatible products: Apply only approved organic products listed under the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) or as permitted by FIFRA Section 25(b).
● Feed the soil: Apply compost, organic fertilizers, microbial inoculants, and soil amendments such as kelp, fish hydrolysate, and humic acids to support soil biology.

2. Field 1 Installation Steps and Timeline
Five workers installed the Ragle Ranch field. Additionally, a natural grass expert was retained as project consultant.

Installation steps:
● Grade the field.
● Raise sprinklers.
● Install gopher-abatement hardware fabric with overlap, using pins and flattener/stretcher. ● Add topsoil.
● Lay new sod.
● Repair drainage lines and eliminate lips between the new sod and field edges. 6

Page 26 of 1184 ends

● Seed the perimeter.

Field 1 Installation timeline:
● The project began in November 2022 but was paused several times due to rain and wet conditions.
● Grading resumed in July 2023.
● Topsoil and sod installation was completed between September and October 2023. ● Perimeter seeding and final steps were completed on October 19, 2023. ● Key issues: Discovered and repaired a drainage line issue. Some adjustments were needed after storms.

3. Maintenance Staffing
The key to long-term field maintenance is proactive measures like soil testing, irrigation adjustments, and grass care. This includes:
● Sprinkler maintenance, including nozzle adjustments (e.g., I20 and I25 replacements) ● Regular soil testing and analysis
● Seasonal fertilizing, aeration, and regular thatching to improve root penetration ● Ensuring sprinkler heads provide even coverage and checking for field overuse or wet spots
● Regular soil sampling, fungus monitoring, and application of Hydretain to retain moisture ● Mower blade height adjustment and overseed to reduce weed pressure and maintain a dense turf
● Monitoring of watering schedule, with adjustments to match seasonal needs and avoid waterlogging
● Weed and pest management: Use physical (e.g., hand weeding) and biological (e.g., beneficial insects) controls. Monitor pest thresholds and intervene only when necessary.

Note on maintenance resources:
● Hire qualified personnel, contractors with expertise in organic turf management to ensure proper implementation. Provide clear guidelines and management expectations for subcontracted work.

4. Continual Monitoring and Culture of Continuous Improvement Continuous observation, adjustment, and training is key to field success per location-specific nuances.
● Test soil regularly: Perform ongoing soil tests to monitor fertility and microbial activity, ensuring optimal conditions for turf growth.
● Adjust management practices: Adapt irrigation, mowing, and fertilization practices as needed based on weather, field conditions, and test results. 7

Page 27 of 1184 ends

Budget Details
Sonoma Parks reported total budget for the installation of the Ragle Ranch field was approximately $300,000: $50K was provided by the community; $100K was provided by County Parks plus $150K Parks staff labor.

Select Cost Details
Component Approx. Quantity Cost
Gopher wire – $18,500
Pins for gopher wire – $400
Fertilizer (60-20-10 Horizon) – $761
Amended soil 450 cubic yards @ $36 each $24,000*
Sod installation 70K sq ft $65,000
Miscellaneous – $10,000
Staff labor $150,000
* Replacing an artificial turf field with natural grass requires 2 feet of soil due to plastic turf killing the existing soil ecosystem. Therefore, multiply this cost (which is for 8” deep) by 3 to calculate the cost to install 2 feet-deep soil.

Note on Integrated Bid Process: When outsourcing, ensure the management program is incorporated into the bidding process to align with organic management goals.

NEXT STEPS

1. Review Ragle Ranch’s inaugural soccer field project:
https://www.sebastopoltimes.com/p/soccer-fields-among-improvements

2. Connect with Ragle Ranch natural grass field installation team:
a. David Robinson, Park Manager, Sonoma County Parks
b. Kristine Rue, Park Maintenance Supervisor, Sonoma County Regional Parks c. Blaise Turek, Park Avenue Turf sod company

3. Connect with Beyond Pesticides
a. Rika Gopinath, Community Policy and Action Manager, Beyond Pesticides 8

Page 28 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Sherry Auerbach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:29 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Jan. 27 City Council Meeting---Agenda item to renovate Grant and Shoup park play structures and surfacing
Dear City Council members,
My family moved to Los Altos in 1964 and I am lucky enough to have returned to this charming city in 1990. I spent my childhood playing at Shoup Park, as have my children, and now grandchildren. I see from your Jan. 27 agenda that the renovation of Grant and Shoup Park play structures and surfacing will be discussed. I am asking the Council to defer the approval of the budget designs that include artificial surfaces, in favor of maintaining natural play surfaces. The public should have the opportunity to review and comment on the designs.

My concern lies with the health ramifications if Pour-In-Place rubber playground surfaces are being considered. These surfaces consist of a mixture of rubber granules often made with waste tires that contain chemicals and heavy metals ( ie Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, benzothiazoles, ketones, 6PPD quinones and more and variably contains heavy metals such as, lead and cadmium, and PFAS). High levels of lead, leading to playground closures in Montgomery Counties have been reported.

Safety concerns with weather temperature increases as these surfaces become very hot in direct sunlight.

These surfaces are alleged to be durable and low maintenance but when weekly vacuuming is skipped, the surfaces quickly start to fall apart.

As a resident of Los Altos, I am asking the Council to not consider Pour in Place rubber for the playground surfaces at Shoup and Grant Park for health and safety reasons and as an opportunity to maintain the natural beauty of these well used community spaces.

Let the public be a part of this decision.

Thank you,
Sherry Auerbach
379 Hawthorne Ave
Los Altos
References and Resources:

Page 29 of 1184 ends

2 A recent study showed that PAH levels in dust were 4-5 times higher on PIP playgrounds compared to playgrounds with uncovered bare ground. Playground Surfaces The seven most common surface/filler materials for playgrounds are: pea gravel, sand, bark mulch/ wood chips, engineered wood fiber, crumb rubber, synthetic ... https://www.uml.edu/docs/Playground_surfacing_report_Dec2023_tcm18-377890.pdf Playground Surfacing -
Unitary rubber surfacing, including tiles and PIP surfacing, is made with granulated particles processed from materials such as waste tires, thermoplastic ... National Center for Health Research https://www.center4research.org
https://www.center4research.org/?s=Playground+ Are PIP rubber playgrounds safe for Kingston? The rubber pieces made from recycled tires contain lead and heavy metals, as well as chemicals that increase the chances of developing obesity.
https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/02/san-francisco-playground-sunset-park-playgroundcost-price

Page 30 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Barbara Zieroth-Hoffman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: jan 27 council mtg agenda item #4 Grant/Shoup Parks playground renovations Hello,
Please consider pausing the allocation of funds for the future renovations of playgrounds at Grant and Shoup Parks, and others, using a plastic (PIP) surface until further investigating the environmental & health impact. The natural surfaces currently work well, have no negative effects on the children who play on them or to the environment, and are economical. I can speak to the play areas at Apricot and Shoup Park where I take my granddaughter as perfect examples where wood chips act as a safe and sensible cushion, without the yucky smell, and heat attributed to toxic plastic surfaces.

Thank you for your consideration in this important matter.

Barbara Zieroth-Hoffman (a Los Altos resident for over 30 years)

Page 31 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 2:23 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Public Comment City Council Agenda Jan 27, 2026. Item #4 Playground Renovations
Attachments: 01 27 26 Former PARC Letter.pdf
Please include the attached letter in public comments related to Item #4 on the January 27th, 2026, City Council meeting Agenda.

Please acknowledge receipt of the email and attachment.

Thank you so much,
Barbara Loebner
1644 Newcastle Dr.

Los Altos, CA

Page 32 of 1184 ends

January 26, 2026
RE: Los Altos City Council Agenda January 27, 2026
Item#4 Playground Renovations at Grant Park and Shoup Park Los Altos City Council,
As former PARC commissioners, we believe it is unfair, unwise and unacceptable that the $1,128,086.03 playground renovations at Shoup Park and Grant Park are not being discussed in a public forum prior to City Council confirming, by consent, a contract for the design, purchase and installation of playground equipment and safety surfacing.

Significant alterations to our public environments, built or natural, should not be decided by City Staff and just one “volunteer non-staff community member with knowledge and interest in the playground renovation projects.”
Los Altos has a long and strong tradition of relying on our PARC Commission with its appointed members and a clear purpose—
“The PARC advises the City Council in all matters pertaining to parks, public recreation and cultural arts. It works with all other governmental agencies and civic groups in the advancement of sound Parks and Recreational planning and programming.

The Commission also makes budget recommendations to the Council regarding the same topics”
Given that two of our current City Council members are former PARC commissioners, we know you understand the importance and seriousness of the commission’s role in Los Altos.

Any and all alterations to parks and park facilities should begin at the PARC Commission where publicly noticed meetings serve not only to fulfill the PARC Commission duties for oversight and engagement, but to allow the community, and especially neighbors of the parks, an opportunity for robust review and discussion.

When items appear for the first, and only, time on the City Council Consent Calendar, there is no opportunity for public discussion or commission input.

Los Altos benefits from public engagement, and Los Altans deserve the opportunity to have a voice in decisions related to our common spaces.

Please remove Item # 4: Adoption of Resolution - Playground Renovations at Grant Park and Shoup Park from the Consent Calendar and send the playground proposals to the PARC

Page 33 of 1184 ends

Commission with a staff report that clearly states project goals and requirements, and shows an alignment with the Parks Plan.

We have served a combined total of approximately 50 years on the PARC Commission.

Respectfully,
Cindy Andrews
Maria Bautista
David Casas
Karen Greguras
Shannon Kilgore
Lynette Lee Eng
Barbara Loebner

Page 34 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Claire E <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 9:24 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: January 27 Council Meeting Agenda #4 Playground Renovations Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Honorable Councilmembers, I am writing to ask you not to approve the conversion of the natural wood fiber playgrounds to synthetic PIP surfaces at Shoup and Grant Parks. I am a resident of Palo Alto. However, as Senior Ecologist for Grassroots Ecology, I helped start a partnership with Los Altos to restore habitat to Redwood Grove Nature Preserve, just upstream on Adobe Creek from Shoup Park. Over the years, I worked with many young people in that preserve to learn about and protect their natural environment.

Maintaining engineered wood fiber surfaces in our children’s playgrounds shows them that we care about their futures.

These surfaces are ADA compliant, and have no toxic additives. Poured-in-Place surfaces are made from a variety of synthetic materials with the potential to off gas and spall off exposing children and allowing it to enter the local environment, eventually making its way to the creek. Those who manufacture and install these surfaces are also exposed to toxins that are unnecessary.

Please consider improving the plans for these parks by using natural wood fiber, not potentially toxic synthetic materials.

Sincerely,
Claire Elliott
Emeritus Senior Ecologist, Grassroots Ecology

Page 35 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Yuanshuo David Zhao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 5:57 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTS for 1/27 Council hearing ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Good evening Council members and City Clerk,
My name is David, and I’m a resident living near a proposed development project.

I’m writing to submit public comment for the January 27 Council hearing on items not on the agenda. I want to share a process-related concern: on Friday evening, the applicant/developer Aron contacted me directly by phone. During that call, a cash payment or incentive was offered if I would withdraw my appeal / stop further action related to the project. The caller also expressed the view that the outcome was essentially already determined and suggested withdrawing would “save us time.” I’m not here to argue motives or make legal accusations. I’m sharing this because residents deserve confidence in a fair and transparent public process. When residents are discouraged from participating, or are told that decisions are pre-determined, it undermines trust in the City’s process and the right of the public to be heard.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
David
--
Yuanshuo(David) Zhao
Senior Data Scientist
Apple Inc

Page 36 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Yanhua Mao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 5:29 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: non-agenda sepcific public comments for 01/27/26 (tonight's) city council meeting In the city planning commission meeting two weeks ago, the commission unanimously expressed concern that their hands are tied by recent changes to state law that compelled them to approve eight-story buildings with 16 waivers—decisions the commission is not proud of.

They plan to engage with the city council to update the city’s outdated objective design standards to curb similar developments in the future.

I fully support the commission’s point of view and believe this is an urgent matter that the city must address quickly to preserve the character of our community and our way of life.

I would like to learn more about how to stay informed and up to date on this matter.

Page 37 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Jane Tse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 11:29 AM
To: Public Comment
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 38 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Cathy Du <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 10:57 PM
To: Public Comment
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 39 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Rose Rambo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 2:37 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Stephanie Williams; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public comment regarding Appeal of planning approval of 4898 El Camino Real Dear Council Members,
As a long term resident of north Los Altos, I am formally requesting that the planning approval of 4898 El Camino Real be disapproved and sent back to the planning commission for further modifications.

Since the November 6th hearing, there has been new information that was not considered by the Planning Commission which should be considered.

The traƯic analysis was incomplete as it did not consider the impact on the broader neighborhood, including the intersections of Jordan/Marich, Jordan/Portola, Distel Drive/El Camino and Distel Drive/Marich. A new traƯic analysis is being conducted by Hexagon and the results of this traƯic study should be considered.

Absence of an on-side loading zone will impact Jordan traƯic and will impact public right-of way and neighboring property. With a standard curbside loading zone of 12 feet, parking for cars on both sides of Jordan at/near the intersection of El Camino and Jordan, and sidewalks, the street will only be able to handle one lane of traƯic in each direction. With traƯic at this intersection already congesting during peak hours as a 3 lane road, the narrowing of this intersection to 2 lanes plus having cars entering and exiting the proposed 4898 El Camino building, this intersection is likely to become as congested as the San Antonio/Portola intersection.

Therefore I request that the plan for 4989 El Camino be returned to the planning commission for a more complete and up-to-date proposal.

Rose Rambo

Page 40 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Jim Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 4:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: 4898 El Camino Appeal...

Dear Council Members,
As a long-term resident living on Jordan Avenue, I am formally requesting that the approval of the project for 4898 El Camino Real be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review and potential modifications. Since the November 6th Planning Commission hearing, there has been new and, in some cases, incomplete information that was not considered by the Planning Commission which should be considered.

Adjacent Development Intensification at the current Jack in the Box site has expanded the original plan to include 33 multi-family units and 18000 square feet of oƯice space with access expected to remain on Jordan Avenue. This project will add additional traƯic to the intersection of Jordan Avenue and El Camino Real, further impacting pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Absence of an on-side loading zone will impact Jordan traƯic and will impact public right-of way and neighboring property. With a standard curbside loading zone of 12 feet, parking for cars on both sides of Jordan at/near the intersection of El Camino and Jordan, and sidewalks, the street will only be able to handle one lane of traƯic in each direction. With traƯic at this intersection already congesting during peak hours as a 3-lane road, the narrowing of this intersection to 2 lanes plus having cars entering and exiting the proposed 4898 El Camino building, this intersection is likely to become as congested as the San Antonio/Portola intersection.

Therefore, I request that the plan for 4989 El Camino be returned to the Planning Commission for a more complete and up-to-date review.

Respectfully,
Jim Clark

Page 41 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: rh sna <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 7:48 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: 4898 El Camino Real project
Hello,
I am writing to oppose the development project at 4898 El Camino Real. An eight-story building at the corner of Jordan Ave. and El Camino, with 85 units, is overwhelming for our neighborhood. The traffic situation at peak times is already quite difficult: children on their way to school, by foot and by bicycle, are forced to mix with cars carrying yet more children, or driven by teenagers headed for LAHS, and other cars with commuters going to work. It is a recipe for disaster, and this new building will make things even more chaotic.

There are also privacy concerns with such a tall building looming over one- and two-story homes, blotting out the sun and sky. Quality of life in our neighborhood will deteriorate.

I urge the city of Los Altos to reject this ugly and massive sore thumb, which does not reflect the character and nature of the great and beautiful City of Los Altos.

Thank you,
Anatol Shmelev

Page 42 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Thinker109 <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 8:00 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Construction At 4898 El Camino Real
Dear Committee,
I'm writing in opposition of a proposal to build an 8-storey apartment building on 4898 El Camino Real.

The plot is extremely small, with few places to park nearby that aren't on the street or on private driveways. We don't have sidewalks here, and the sidewalk along El Camino is thin enough that people in wheelchairs cannot safely move across it. Jordan Avenue is used to get to school at Santa Rita, Egan, Bullis Charter, and Los Altos High School (which is also right by Almond Elementary). I use the same road to drive to Foothill College, and I'm sure other students who live in my direction do as well. There is a lot of traffic present already, which has created pretty dangerous conditions for students and children (especially at night since we have no street lamps) and I'm seriously worried that if we have 85 new apartments, presumably with more than one resident per apartment, we may have something like a hundred new cars looking for parking on this small block. It would be extremely unsafe!! I'm considering having children soon, and I would not be okay living near such a large building on such a small plot! Please either lessen the number of apartments/floors or at least provide some sort of parking nearby (several levels to accomodate ~100 cars), thank you.

Anna Shmelev,
897 Jordan Avenue

Page 43 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Andrew Farmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 8:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: support 4898 El Camino Real appeal Council Members:

I wish to provide my support for the 4898 El Camino Real appeal. I am a resident of Los Altos, living on Marich Way. I recently learned about the plan to build an 8-story, 85-apartment tower block in Los Altos less than 0.5 miles from my home. I was shocked that a building of this height can be approved with such little oversight - I understand that a lawsuit has been filed alleging that the city did not study the impacts of the development and an appeal hearing will be heard by the council on Tuesday 27th.

We previously advocated for restraint on the development at 330 Distel Circle, which is right behind our property. This development is 5 stories high itself. We fought hard with other residents to have the city reconsider the scope of this development. We were fortunate to have windows removed/reduced in size and efforts made to block the view with additional trees - beyond that originally proposed by the developer. Nonetheless, this is a huge building, already very obvious from our yard. The thought of a building 3 stories taller than this is just monstrous. It sets a dangerous precedent for future developments.

I wish to strongly argue for a reduction in height, and Upper-story Setbacks for this development at 4898 El Camino Real. Moreover, Privacy Line of Sight should be considered, for example by the use of smaller windows, and no patios facing residential areas, plus the addition of screening trees & parks (similar to what was agreed at 330 Distel Circle). There should also be space for Loading zones and parking. Parking, in particular, is another serious concern. 330 Distel Circle is already going to generate issues in the area as it was under-supplied with parking. If 4898 El Camino Real is similarly under supplied and this becomes the norm, where are all the excess cars going to go? Moreover with the amount of traffic created, how can our streets be safe? Jordan Avenue is a school bike route - Marich Way also. These streets are going to be jammed with cars and commuters - it is neither practical nor safe.

Please reconsider this development.

Thank you for your consideration
Andrew Farmer
Resident Los Altos

Page 44 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Julia Shmelev <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 9:53 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: 4898 El Camino Real Los Altos project
Hello,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed development at 4898 El Camino Real.

An eight-story building with 85 units at the corner of Jordan Avenue and El Camino Real is completely out of place in this neighborhood. This area consists primarily of one- and two-story homes, families, and children. Placing a building of this size here feels careless and irresponsible and fundamentally incompatible with the existing residential character.

Traffic at this intersection is already a serious and ongoing problem. During school hours it is chaotic and unsafe. Children walk and bike to school, teenagers drive themselves to Los Altos High School, and commuters rush through the area at the same time. The streets are already overloaded. Adding dozens of new households, cars, delivery vehicles, and rideshare traffic will significantly worsen an already dangerous situation. This is a safety issue, not an abstract planning concern.

There is also a very real and unresolved parking issue. During the community meeting, the proposed parking system for this building was explained, and it was clear how impractical and cumbersome it is.

The garage design is unusually complex and inconvenient. It is unrealistic to believe that residents will consistently use it. In reality, many people will avoid the garage altogether and choose to park on surrounding streets instead.

This will result in dozens of additional cars competing for already limited street parking. Neighborhood streets will become overcrowded, congested, and difficult to navigate. Emergency access, visibility, and basic livability will suffer. The idea that this project will not significantly impact street parking simply does not align with how people actually behave.

There are also major privacy and livability concerns. An eight-story building towering over nearby oneand two-story homes will block sunlight, erase open sky, and remove any sense of privacy for residents who have lived here for years. Quality of life in this neighborhood will deteriorate. This kind of development permanently damages the character of a neighborhood and lowers the quality of life for the people who are already here.

Los Altos has always been known for thoughtful growth and respect for its residential neighborhoods.

This project does not reflect those values. It feels oversized, intrusive, and disconnected from the reality of this community.

I urge the City of Los Altos to reject this proposal and reconsider development that is appropriate in scale and mindful of safety, traffic, parking impact, privacy, and the people who live here.

Sincerely,
Julia Shmelev
Get Outlook for Android

Page 45 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Damian H <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 10:06 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: support 4898 El Camino Real APPEAL To Whom It May Concern, as a Los Altos resident already impacted by the development at 330 Distel Circle, I am writing to advocate for objective developer waivers regarding building height and upper-story setbacks. Additionally, I request the implementation of privacy line-of-sight measures, such as smaller windows, the removal of patios facing residential areas, and the addition of screening trees and parks. I also ask for further consideration regarding the placement and regulation of loading zones.

Best regards,
Damian.-

Page 46 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Sara Kiani <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 10:55 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: support 4898 El Camino Real Appeal To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to appeal and object developer waivers in building height, upper-story setbacks, privacy line of sight and loading zones. This project is not anything close to what is standard and legacy in city of Los Altos and needs to be re-evaluated.

To add a couple of points:
1) Loading Space Location Waiver– Invalid and Unsafe.
 The Loading Space Location requirement applies only to the ground floor.  The alleged “unit loss” arises solely because the project chooses to retain non-essential features such as two luxury car-lift systems for two-story underground automatic parking and a large community room.
2) 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. Strict adherence to the height limitation would require removal of approximately three stories and 35 units.

Thanks for considering,
Sara Kiani

Page 47 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Amit Sabne <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 12:12 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: About the development at 4898 El Camino
Hi
I'm a resident property-owner in Los Altos, and cannot make it to the city council meeting in person for the development at 4898 El Camino Real.

I have the following concerns about the development that I hope the city addresses:
* The approach roads to this development are very narrow. Jordan avenue is used by me and my kids for school pick-ups and drop-offs, and such, it's extremely accident prone. The new construction will only worsen the matters unless addressed specifically.
* Height of the construction : it came to my notice that the approved height is 109 feet - this is extremely high for the neighborhood - both for privacy and safety due to the additional traffic it'd bring to the neighborhood.

Thanks,
Amit

Page 48 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Weiyan Farmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 1:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: support 4898 El Camino Real appeal Dear Council Members,
I was totally shocked to know there are plans to build an 8 story /110 ft high building on El Camino/Jordan - the highest in Los Altos! This monstrous building will crate a massive impact to our neighborhood. The increasing traffic congestion will only get worse. This will also harm the children's safety during the school commute in the area (4 schools Almond, Egan, Charter, LAHS).

I totally agree with my husband's comments (please see below).

Best,
Kate
Council Members:

Please reconsider this development.

Thank you for your consideration
Andrew Farmer

Page 49 of 1184 ends

2 Resident Los Altos

Page 50 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Alan Loh <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 7:36 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Sean Gallegos; Stephanie Williams; Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Public Comment item7 4898 El Camino Real project 01/27/26 Dear Council Members,
The developer at 4898 El Camino would have us believe that opponents of this project are simply acting in their self interest to protect their property values. I live on East Portola Ave and because of distance to the site I see no reason for any change to my property values. From the opponents of this project I've never heard this discussed.

What I do see, from where I live, is the amount of traffic, twice every school day. Egan traffic, before Bullis, was obviously older school kids biking, scootering, and walking. Bullis added much younger children with cars waiting and blocking the road, apparently because Bullis was approved with no parking requirement. To excuse this as an unintended consequence we would have to claim a considerable amount of naivete.

That naivete seems to extend to approvals for Whole Foods and The Altan condos whose auto navigation path to downtown or Interstate 280 also goes through Jordan Ave/East Portola.

Now it seems that we are going to be extend this same naivete, no longer incrementally, but in a grand scale with an 85 unit apartment at 4898 El Camino. When we do have the inevitable tragedy of distracted school kids and cars we will employ our respectful and blameless police department to inform parents of the unintended consequence. To me the only sense is if our councilmembers volunteer this duty.

The Planning Commission Staff Report makes everything so clear, that all the laws are followed and by legal example we cannot escape this, but also comes to the false conclusion in addressing the Housing Accountability Act that a specific, adverse health or safety impact does not exist. It does exist!
Thank you,
Alan Loh

Page 51 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Nan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 10:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Urging Approval of Appeal of Approved Plan and Opposition to Vesting Tentative Map — 4898 El Camino Real
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Nancy, and I have been a Los Altos resident since 2023. I am submitting this public comment to (1) support the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the development project at 4898 El Camino Real (referred to below as “the Project”), and (2) oppose the approval of the Vesting Tentative Map to create 85 condominium lots at 4898 El Camino Real, both of which are on the agenda for the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting.

After reviewing the approved plans, I found that the Project violates federal ADA regulations regarding accessible parking spaces.

Per ADA parking regulations (Accessible Parking Spaces | ADA.gov): when state or local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations provide parking lots or garages, accessible parking spaces that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must be provided.

The Project provides 96 parking spaces through two automated loading bays. Under ADA regulations, at least four accessible parking spaces are required, and at least one must be van-accessible. Given the unique nature of the automated parking system, to satisfy ADA requirements, at a minimum both loading bays must be accessible, and at least one must be van-accessible.

According to the developer’s plans on page QA1.01, Loading Bay 1 is intended to be van-accessible and Loading Bay 2 is intended to be accessible. However, the drawings clearly show that neither loading bay is ADA-compliant.

For Loading Bay 1, the van-accessible area intrudes into the loading bay wall and extends into the adjacent hallway. Based on the drawing, the van-accessible area appears to be at least 2 feet (if not more) short of ADA requirements (see highlighted orange area). Please note that the upper portion of the bay cannot be used as an accessible area because the bay exit is located at the lower left corner.

For Loading Bay 2, the accessible area overlaps with the parking bay wall (see highlighted yellow area), resulting in the accessible area being at least 4 inches short of ADA requirements. Please note that the lower portion of the bay cannot be used as an accessible area because the exit of the bay is located at the upper left corner of the room.

It is also arguable that both loading bays must be van-accessible, as drivers will randomly select a loading bay when entering the parking system, and the system will likely randomly assign an available bay when retrieving a vehicle. Under this scenario, the parking system could be short by a total of 4 feet in meeting federal ADA compliance requirements.

Given the overall tightness of the Project and the unique nature of the automated parking system—where loading bays cannot be easily relocated due to mechanical connections to the garage below—it appears physically impossible for the current plan to comply with ADA regulations.

Page 52 of 1184 ends

2 As this issue was overlooked by both City staff and the Design Commission, I urge the City to approve the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the development project at 4898 El Camino Real and require the developer to undertake a redesign of the parking system and overall floor plan to achieve full compliance with federal ADA regulations, which supersede any state or local regulations or laws.

Furthermore, due to the likelihood that significant redesign would be required for the Project to comply with federal ADA regulations, it is premature to approve the Vesting Tentative Map. I respectfully urge the City Council to disapprove this request.

Sincerely,
Nancy

Page 53 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Shona Armstrong <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 4:02 PM
To: Melissa Thurman; Jolie Houston; Neysa Fligor; Sally Meadows; Pete Dailey; Larry Lang; Jonathan Weinberg
Cc: Stephanie Williams; Sean Gallegos; Planning Services; Mariko Kamiya Subject: Additional Comment re BOTH Items 7 and 8 (4898 El Camino Real Los Altos) Jan 27, 2026 City Council Hearing
Attachments: LTR re City Discretion to Deny or Modify Project 2026-01-26.pdf; LTR re traffic Elite Transportation Group (corrected inches to feet) 2025-12-21.pdf; LTR re Traffic Report update 4898 ECR New Multi-Family Residential Project_ETG Comments_2026-01-25.pdf See attached.
--
Shona Armstrong, Esq.

Armstrong Law
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3
Oakland, CA 94612
(w) (510) 420-8455
(c) (510) 508-5017

Page 54 of 1184 ends

ARMSTRONG LAW
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 420-8455 ∙ [email protected]
By Email and Regular Mail
January 26, 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]
City Clerk
Los Altos
[email protected]
Re: AGENDA ITEM 7 City Council Meeting 2026-01-27
APPL25-0006 Appeal from Resolution Approving for 4898 El Camino Real of:

D25-0004 Design Review and Density Bonus Waiver Application CUP25-0001 Conditional Use Permit
AND
TM25-0001 Tentative Map Application (approval recommended by Commission)
CEQA Notice of Exemption (recommended by Commission November 6 and approved by City Council November 18, 2025)
AND
AGENDA ITEM 8 City Council Meeting 2026-01-27
Objection to approval of Tentative Map at 4898 El Camino Real Dear Ms. Houston and City Council Members:

Page 55 of 1184 ends

I represent Anatol Shmelev in his opposition to the proposed Project at 4898 El Camino Real.

This letter follows up on the staff report prepared in advance of your consideration of Agenda Items 7 and 8 at your meeting to be held January 27, 2026, at 7:00 pm.

1. Traffic Expert identifies problems that should be considered with respect to both Agenda Item 7 and Agenda Item 8.

My client wants to be sure that the Traffic Report prepared by Lin Zhang of Elite Transportation Group dated December 21, 2025, and the follow-up responsive letter from Lin Zhang of Elite Transportation Group dated January 25, 2026, are each considered with respect to BOTH agenda item 7 and item 8.

I am attaching both items here for your convenience. Both items identify serious safety and traffic congestion problems that will be created or exacerbated by the proposed project and Lin Zhang has identified significant gaps in the existing traffic study. In particular, the traffic study should contain a queuing analysis at the Jordan Avenue approval to El Camino Real. Lin Zhang also expresses serious concern about amplified safety risks caused by a 6.5 foot transformer fence. The developer’s response states the fence has been moved, but the plans the City proposes to approve do not show the fence moved.

2. The staff report erroneously states that the City lacks discretion to deny or restrict the Project because of Government Code section 65589.5.

Contrary to the staff report’s assertion, the City of Los Altos does have discretion to deny or restrict the scope of the proposed Project, because the site is not a part of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA") Site Inventory list in the Housing Element, and the Project is NOT consistent with the current zoning ordinance and General Plan Land Use designation.

Government Code section 65589.5(d) does not permit a local agency to disapprove a project except when:
(5) The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter.
(A) This paragraph cannot be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element,… (Emphases added.)

Page 56 of 1184 ends

When Los Altos adopted its Housing Element in January 2023, 4898 El Camino Real in Los Altos was considered as an already-approved or entitled in-the-pipeline 28-unit housing project. The Project is listed and considered in the Housing Element at pages B-5, B-9, and B-18 as a project that is already entitled and bound to be built with 28 units. The site is not listed on the RHNA Site Inventory list. The project as proposed at that time subsequently fell apart.

The document links below show the property at 4898 El Camino Real is not listed by Assessor Parcel Number in the Housing Element’s list of RHNA Site Inventory. The proposed project is also inconsistent with the current zoning and the General Plan Land Use Map showing the property is designated for commercial use.

The Housing Element for Los Altos can be found
here: https://www.losaltosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/535/Housing-Element-PDF?bidId= General Plan Land Use Map can be found
here: https://www.losaltosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/526/Land-Use-Map-PDF?bidId= https://www.losaltosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/289/HCD-Housing-Element-Site-InventoryMemo-PDF The site at 4898 El Camino Real is not listed in the RHNA site inventory list (see Housing Element page 15, Table III-1 at page 16, Table B-9 at page B-36, which incorporates 4898 El Camino Real as an "Entitled/Proposed Project" and tallies all the "Site Inventory" on a separate line). The site is also not depicted on the map showing RHNA Site Inventory at Figure B-1 at section B 3.2, Housing Element page B-37, and it is not listed in Table B-10 or B11. Note also that the surplus listed in the Housing Element Table B-9 at page B-36 shows Los Altos expects a surplus of units exceeding the number of units proposed by the Project (85), so the Project is not necessary for the City to reach its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals.

As such, the City can make the finding listed at page 5 of the Staff Report for this item:

The project is inconsistent with both the General Plan and zoning regulations in effect at the time the application was deemed complete, and the site was not identified for housing in the Housing Element.

And the City does in fact have discretion to deny or modify this Project.

3. City should deny at least some Density Bonus waivers, because the denial of the requested waivers would not "physically preclude" the development as designed.

The waivers the developer has requested are not necessary and denial of the requested waivers would not "physically preclude" the development. The developer bears the burden of presenting the City with adequate support for its claim that the waiver is absolutely necessary.

Gov. Code §65915(a)(2). The cases cited in the staff report suggest that the City has limited

Page 57 of 1184 ends

discretion to deny waivers, but the cited cases still found that the developer had made an adequate initial showing that imposition of normal City development standards would make it impossible for the developer to provide onsite affordable housing. See, Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, 74 Cal. App. 5th 755, 774 (2022). In our case, the developer has provided insufficient (no) evidence that denial of the requested waivers would physically preclude development. The same number of units could be developed in conformance with many currently-waived design and development standards if the developer simply developed more numerous but smaller units. The developer’s failure to adequately support the waiver application leaves the City free to deny requested waivers.

The City is not required to waive or otherwise reduce development standards when the project would cause a “specific, adverse impact,” cause an environmental problem, harm historical property, or would be contrary to law. Gov. Code §65915(d) and (e). Waiver of requirements like the upper level setbacks and other waived standards have a significant impact on the neighboring property owners. My client has presented reliable expert traffic studies and opinions showing unusual circumstances apply to this case, because the development as designed will create traffic and parking problems and safety hazards on a street that already has significant traffic issues. The developer’s response to traffic concerns seems to assert erroneously that some of the effects have been or can be mitigate, but the response appears to offer solutions that are off-the-cuff, unreasonable, and contradicted by the proposed plans. The City Council should not turn a blind eye to the issues my client has raised by rushing this project to approval without a full consideration of traffic impacts and assurances that the developer’s traffic consultant is reliable.

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

Regards,
________________
Shona Armstrong
Encl: Traffic Study from Elite Transportation Group December 21, 2025 Encl: Reply re Response re Traffic Study January 25, 2026 cc:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Page 58 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 59 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 60 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability January 25, 2026
SUBJECT: 4898 El Camino Real – New Multi-Family Residential Project: Traffic Issues To Whom It May Concern:

I, Lin Zhang, Ph.D., PE, TE, PTOE, 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, traffic impact studies, corridor studies, traffic simulation and modeling, and traffic signal systems. I am a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) and Traffic Engineer (TE) in the State of California. I reviewed the applicant’s response to the appeal letter for the 4898 El Camino Real Residential Project prepared by Patterson & O’Neill, PC and Abrams Associates which is dated January 15, 2026.

Based on my review, I have two major concerns regarding the project study and the applicant’s response. ● Traffic Analysis Did Not Include Queuing Analysis at the Jordan Ave Approach to El Camino Real: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Abrams Associates evaluated intersection level of service (LOS) and
reported an overall LOS B for the
intersection at Jordan Avenue/El Camino
Real (ECR) intersection. However, the
analysis did not report approach-level
delays, particularly for the Jordan Avenue
approach, which is expected to carry the
majority project-generated trips.

Furthermore, no queuing analysis was
conducted for this approach, despite it being
directly affected by the proposed
development. Field observations indicate that
long queues already occur at the Jordan
Avenue approach under existing conditions,
even without the proposed residential project,
as shown in the attached photo. The omission
of approach-level delay and queuing analyses
represents a significant deficiency in the
TIA.
● 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 Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 1 of 3

Page 61 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability 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.

I previously rained this comment, and the applicant responded by stating that “The enclosure has now been relocated so that it no longer will obstruct motorist’s view of pedestrians exiting the driveway” (see screenshot of the response below). However, the provided latest site plan (see attached) does not appear to reflect this relocation.

Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 2 of 3

Page 62 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 673-9656 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elite Transportation Group (ETG)
Lin Zhang, PhD, PE, TE, PTOE
Vice President
Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 3 of 3

Page 63 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:42 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment As a resident of Jordan Avenue for the past 30 years, I am very discouraged by the councils approval of this new development at 4898 El Camino. It will forever change the neighborhood.

Jordan Avenue is already heavily traveled during rush hour as drivers use it as a cut through to avoid El Camino and San Antonio Rd. Traffic will most certainly be affected. I have witnessed many near car vs bike (children riding to school) collisions on the corner of Jordan Ave and Portola Ct where the city finally placed 4 way stop signs. Currently, it alarms me to see the amount of drivers who drive right through these stop signs. This will be impacted. How did we get to this point? Please reconsider by requiring this project to be scaled back.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Building
Email Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 64 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Guiting Ye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:20 PM
To: Stephanie Williams
Cc: Melissa Thurman
Subject: Re: 4898 El Camino Real Appeal - Materials
Attachments: 4898 ECR New Multi-Family Residential Project_ETG Comments_2026-01-25_v3.pdf Hi Stephanie,
I am writing regarding the traffic engineer’s letter responding to the Applicant’s traffic engineer’s response (page 26 of this link) to our traffic engineer’s original letter dated December 21.

Because we only received the Applicant’s traffic engineer’s response after the City published the agenda, we were unable to submit this document earlier. We respectfully request that this letter be included as part of our appeal documents.

If it is not possible to include it in the official appeal materials at this stage, we would appreciate it if it could be accepted and included as a public comment.

Please let us know if any additional steps are required on our end.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best Regards,
Guiting
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 3:37 PM Stephanie Williams <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you.

Stephanie Williams, AICP
Development Services Director
1 North San Antonio Rd | Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 947-2633 | E: [email protected]

Page 65 of 1184 ends

2 From: Guiting Ye <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Stephanie Williams <[email protected]>
Cc: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 4898 El Camino Real Appeal - Materials

Hi Stephanie,
The attachments are now included below.

Thanks,
Guiting

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 2:22 PM Stephanie Williams <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello GuitingPlease provide the referenced attachments as they were not included in the email. Thank you.

Stephanie Williams, AICP
Development Services Director
1 North San Antonio Rd | Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 947-2633 | E: [email protected]

From: Guiting Ye <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2026 1:13 PM
To: Stephanie Williams <[email protected]>
Cc: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Subject: 4898 El Camino Real Appeal - Materials

Hi Stephanie,

Page 66 of 1184 ends

3 I am writing to submit materials for inclusion in the agenda packet for the 4898 El Camino Real Appeal hearing scheduled for January 27, 2026. Please include the following documents in the public record and agenda packet as part of the appeal materials:

1. Elite Transportation Group (ETG) letter dated December 21, 2025, regarding traffic safety concerns for the project

2. Summary on traffic counts for the intersection of Jordan Avenue and El Camino Real (December 10–11, 2025)

3. Worksheets for the traffic study

4. Raw traffic count data from December 10 and December 11, 2025 (Excel file) These materials are being submitted because I believe 4898 El Camino Real, as approved, presents significant unresolved public safety risks related to traffic operations, roadway design, and conflicts with pedestrians, bicyclists, and students.

In particular, the materials document and highlight the following safety issues:
 Dangerous congestion and queueing on Jordan Avenue during the morning peak:

Observed backups of 17–22 vehicles are common, often requiring multiple signal cycles to clear. These conditions create a high-stress environment that increases the likelihood of aggressive driving, risky maneuvers, and collisions—particularly in a corridor heavily used by school commuters.
 Unsafe roadway conditions due to insufficient street width and parked cars:

Jordan Avenue cannot safely accommodate two turn lanes toward El Camino Real, one lane from El Camino Real, and parked cars on both sides of the street. This routinely forces pedestrians and bicyclists into the roadway to maneuver around stationary vehicles, creating clear conflict points and safety hazards.
 Frequent disruption from routine activities that immediately create safety risks:

Even brief events—such as a double-parked car, a delivery truck stopping, or a large vehicle turning—have been observed to cause immediate traffic backups. This demonstrates how fragile and unsafe the current conditions are for all road users.  High-risk conflicts at the project driveway for vulnerable users:

As detailed in the ETG letter, the design of the project driveway creates a direct conflict between right-turning vehicles exiting the site and pedestrians, bicyclists, and scooter users. This risk is exacerbated by a solid transformer fence that blocks visibility, reducing drivers’ ability to see approaching sidewalk users—many of whom are middle school students traveling to nearby schools.
 Compounding safety risks during the morning peak:

Overlapping peak-hour activities—including school commutes, trash collection, and traffic from recently approved nearby development—combine to create a particularly hazardous environment with constrained roadway space and heightened conflict potential.  Existing failing intersection conditions that will be made worse:

The Jordan Avenue / North San Antonio Road intersection already operates at Level of Service (LOS) F. Adding additional project-generated traffic without meaningful mitigation will further degrade conditions, increase driver frustration, and elevate safety risks for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike.

Page 67 of 1184 ends

4 Given these unresolved safety concerns, I respectfully request that these materials be included in the agenda packet and considered fully as part of the appeal.

Please confirm receipt of these documents and their inclusion in the public record. I am happy to provide any additional information if needed.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Guiting

Page 68 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability January 25, 2026
SUBJECT: 4898 El Camino Real – New Multi-Family Residential Project: Traffic Issues To Whom It May Concern:

Page 69 of 1184 ends

The applicant’s response further stating that “warning lights or signage will mitigate any potential traf ic safety issues” (page 6, provided by Patterson & O’Neill, PC) is incorrect.

Warning devices such as flashing lights or signage are supplemental measures and cannot compensate for inadequate sight distance or poor design. Established traffic engineering principles and design standards prioritize unobstructed visibility as a fundamental safety requirement; reliance on warning devices does not eliminate the underlying safety risk.

Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 2 of 3

Page 70 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 673-9656 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elite Transportation Group (ETG)
Lin Zhang, PhD, PE, TE, PTOE
Vice President
Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 3 of 3

Page 71 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Steve Folkman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:18 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Linda Folkman
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT-AGENDA ITEM 7, MEETING JAN. 27, 2026 Dear City Council Members,
We are writing to object to the city council’s approval of a towering 8-story residential building on Jordan and El Camino. We have a number of objections, but most pressing are the following: It will dangerously increase congestion and hazardous conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, and it will set a precedent for additional 8-story development along El Camino. Is it really the desire of the city council to turn El Camino into a canyon of 8-story or taller buildings?
Safety
Our neighborhood streets already present hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. This is especially true for the Marich and Jordan corridors. Years ago I (Linda) stood on the corner of Portola and Jordan with a city traffic engineer during school commute hours so he could witness first hand the many close calls between students riding bicycles to school and drivers. This resulted in the assignment of a crossing guard at the intersection, a welcome addition.

The city wants to paint the neighborhood as pedestrian and bicycle friendly, encouraging students to walk or ride bicycles to school. Yet the city seems to be ignoring safety concerns by placing approval of every development over neighborhood safety. The city can and must do a better job of balance.

It is important to note that Jordan and Marich are cut through streets used by drivers to avoid the intersection of San Antonio and El Camino, as well as El Camino itself. Between commute traffic, developments at 5150 El Camino and on Distel Circle, Jordan and Marich have become substantially less safe for pedestrian and bike traffic. The city placed no commercial parking signs along Distel and Distel Circle so now the construction workers for those projects driving commercial vehicles park all day long in the neighborhoods. The placement of no parking signs just creates a problem elsewhere. The addition of this project further exacerbates the use of Jordan and Marich as cut through alternatives to El Camino.

Precedent Setting
By allowing this building to proceed as designed, the council is setting a precedent for additional 8-story or larger buildings. The city does not seem to have properly considered the issues that these developments have brought. El Camino is already a parking lot as there is traffic control at every Los Altos intersection between San Antonio and Mountain View. When traffic does flow along El Camino, the timing of the traffic lights crossing El Camino currently causes long backups on San Antonio, Jordan and Distel. We have reached the point where the infrastructure does not sustain the developments. Our neighborhood streets are not safe enough for bicyclists and pedestrians. Where do you see this ending? It is disheartening that the council does not appear to be thinking of the long term impacts of continuous development, but rather, simply approves each project on a standalone basis.

We respectfully request that the city council revisit its approval of this project.

Steve and Linda Folkman

Page 72 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Hansen Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:51 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: 4898 El Camino Real Appeal - January 27, 2026
Dear Los Altos City Council,
As a resident of 754 Panchita Way, I am writing to formally support the appeal and object to the proposed height and density increase for 4898 El Camino Real.

My family moved to this neighborhood in 2020 and invested significantly in a major remodel over the past couple of years. We never anticipated that land previously held for public and government use (330 Distel Circle) would be converted into high-density residential projects without a rigorous upgrade to the surrounding neighborhood's infrastructure and safety protocols. The City’s decision to allow for-profit developers to further exploit this density shift at 4898 El Camino compromises the residential character and safety that the Los Altos General Plan intends to protect.

I urge the Council to deny this project based on the following holistic and unmitigated impacts:
 Dangerous "Choke Point" at Jordan Avenue Jordan Avenue is a primary entry point for my family and our neighbors, as well as a City-designated "Suggested Route to School" for Los Altos High and Egan Junior High. Increasing density to 8 stories at this corner will create a dangerous bottleneck. Adding 85 units here will gridlock this essential artery, compromising emergency access and the safety of students and residents who rely on it daily.  Demonstrated Failure of Construction Management (330 Distel Circle) The City has presently failed to enforce the Construction Management Plan for the 5-story project at 330 Distel Circle (Resolution 2022-72, Condition 24). Despite requirements to keep parking onsite, workers are routinely parking on Distel Drive and Marich Way, occupying residential spaces and leaving debris in the right-of-way. If the City cannot enforce basic containment rules for a 5-story non-profit building, it is negligent to approve an 8-story for-profit tower that will require even more intensive staging and cause greater neighborhood spillover.  Failure to Address Cumulative Impact (4856 El Camino & 330 Distel) The City’s reliance on a Class 32 CEQA exemption is legally flawed because it "segments" the development impact. You cannot view 4898 El Camino in isolation. The City must account for the cumulative strain of:
oThe 90 units currently being built directly behind it at 330 Distel Circle. oThe proposal for the adjacent property at 4856 El Camino Real. The combined impact of these three projects within a single block radius constitutes a "significant cumulative impact" on traffic, parking, and utilities that requires a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), not a categorical exemption.
 Mechanical Parking Risks The proposed 95-space automated/mechanical garage is a highrisk solution for this location. Any mechanical failure or peak-hour queuing will cause immediate gridlock on El Camino or forced overflow parking into our residential streets, which are already burdened by the parking reduction at 330 Distel (Resolution 2024-55).

I ask the Council to protect our neighborhood's safety and character by granting the appeal filed by the residents and denying the height increase.

Page 73 of 1184 ends

2 Sincerely,
Hansen

Page 74 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 8:53 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment I fully oppose the construction 4898 El Camino Real.

The waivers are absolutely unnecessary, which will cause significant traffic and safety for the Neighbourhood.

In addition, we would want to reevaluate the proposed
development on Jack in the box.

There’s a significant number of children that dried their bikes as well as citizens, which will cost safety concerns.

At a minimum height needs to be reduced, as well as the upper story must have setbacks, so it doesn’t look like a sheer wall, which is what has happened to the new development on El Camino in Rengstorff.

Please contact me with questions
Samir
Owner of 388 Marich way. Los Altos

Page 75 of 1184 ends

2 Attachments Field not completed.

Name Samir Panchal
Email [email protected]
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Page 76 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Shona Armstrong <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:52 PM
To: Public Comment; Melissa Thurman
Cc: Mariko Kamiya
Subject: Fwd: CORRECTED/UPDATED Additional Comment re BOTH Items 7 and 8 (4898 El Camino Real Los Altos) Jan 27, 2026 City Council Hearing Attachments: LTR re City Discretion to Deny or Modify Project (Revised 11pm) 2026-01-26.pdf; LTR re traffic Elite Transportation Group (corrected inches to feet) 2025-12-21.pdf; LTR re Traffic Report update 4898 ECR New Multi-Family Residential Project_ETG Comments_ REVISED 11pm 2026-01-25.pdf
The traffic consultant has updated his response to the developer's response to comments, so I am attaching my comment letter once again in its entirety as revised to attach the updated version of the traffic letter dated January 25, 2026.

Thank you,
-Shona Armstrong
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shona Armstrong <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 4:02 PM
Subject: Additional Comment re BOTH Items 7 and 8 (4898 El Camino Real Los Altos) Jan 27, 2026 City Council Hearing
To: <[email protected]>, Houston, Jolie <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Mariko Kamiya <[email protected]>
See attached.
--
Shona Armstrong, Esq.

Armstrong Law
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3
Oakland, CA 94612
(w) (510) 420-8455
(c) (510) 508-5017
--
Shona Armstrong, Esq.

Page 77 of 1184 ends

2 Armstrong Law
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3
Oakland, CA 94612
(w) (510) 420-8455
(c) (510) 508-5017

Page 78 of 1184 ends

ARMSTRONG LAW
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 420-8455 ∙ [email protected]
By Email and Regular Mail
January 26, 2026 (Revised)
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]
City Clerk
Los Altos
[email protected]
[email protected].

Re: AGENDA ITEM 7 City Council Meeting 2026-01-27
APPL25-0006 Appeal from Resolution Approving for 4898 El Camino Real of:

Page 79 of 1184 ends

I represent Anatol Shmelev in his opposition to the proposed Project at 4898 El Camino Real.

This letter follows up on the staff report prepared in advance of your consideration of Agenda Items 7 and 8 at your meeting to be held January 27, 2026, at 7:00 pm.

1. Traffic Expert identifies problems that should be considered with respect to both Agenda Item 7 and Agenda Item 8.

2. The staff report erroneously states that the City lacks discretion to deny or restrict the Project because of Government Code section 65589.5.

Page 80 of 1184 ends

As such, the City can make the finding listed at page 5 of the Staff Report for this item:

And the City does in fact have discretion to deny or modify this Project.

3. City should deny at least some Density Bonus waivers, because the denial of the requested waivers would not "physically preclude" the development as designed.

Gov. Code §65915(a)(2). The cases cited in the staff report suggest that the City has limited

Page 81 of 1184 ends

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

Regards,
________________
Shona Armstrong
Encl: Traffic Study from Elite Transportation Group December 21, 2025 Encl: Reply re Response re Traffic Study (REVISED to include response re warning light on page 2) January 25, 2026
cc:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Page 82 of 1184 ends

Page 83 of 1184 ends

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 84 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability January 25, 2026
SUBJECT: 4898 El Camino Real – New Multi-Family Residential Project: Traffic Issues To Whom It May Concern:

Page 85 of 1184 ends

The applicant’s response further stating that “warning lights or signage will mitigate any potential traf ic safety issues” (page 6, provided by Patterson & O’Neill, PC) is incorrect.

Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 2 of 3

Page 86 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 673-9656 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elite Transportation Group (ETG)
Lin Zhang, PhD, PE, TE, PTOE
Vice President
Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 3 of 3

Page 87 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Han Ren <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 9:53 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Larry Lang
Subject: Public Comment re: Support Appeal of Development Project at 4898 El Camino Real Dear Council Members,
I am writing to support the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the development project at 4898 El Camino Real. The project raises serious traffic safety and circulation concerns that have not been adequately addressed.

The applicant’s attorney letter understates the fence issue by assuming the transformer fence is only 18 inches above the allowed height. That is not accurate. The traffic report also assumes the transformer was relocated, when the map clearly shows it was not.

In addition, the traffic report does not analyze the morning peak on Marich and East Portola, which is when school traffic is heaviest. Even if school traffic was not initially required by staff, Jordan Avenue is a school route serving three schools—Egan, Bullis Charter School, and the High School. Safety impacts on school routes should not be treated as optional, and these gaps remain unaddressed.

I also spoke directly with Hexagon, a reputable traffic engineering firm. They were led to believe they would be hired, yet the developer ultimately returned to Abrams Associates, whose revised report still contains many of the same issues. This raises concerns about whether traffic analysis accuracy was truly prioritized.

I respectfully urge Council to approve this appeal so a reputable independent firm can properly evaluate traffic impacts. Please empower the Complete Streets Commission to deliver a fact-based solution Los Altos can trust.

Thanks,
Han

Page 88 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Anne Paulson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:49 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 7, 4898 El Camino
Honorable Councilmembers,
The city of Los Altos needs more housing, and especially more rental housing. The project at 4898 El Camino Real will supply some of this desperately needed rental housing. Last November, the Planning Commission approved the proposed project at 4898 El Camino Real, asserting there was no basis to reject it. There still isn't any reason to reject the project, and I'm confident Council will deny this appeal and allow the project to go forward.

When the building is under construction, I urge Council to work on a transportation management program for the Jordan Avenue neighborhood, to deal with parking, congestion, and safety issues as we prepare to welcome the new neighbors at this project site, the one across the street at the Jack in the Box location, and other future projects.
--
-- Anne Paulson

Page 89 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Comcast <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:24 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Proposed twin towers on Jordan & El Camino
First, the size seems excessive for the location. 8 stories will tower over our neighborhood, traffic jams will spill over onto other roads and there are no parks, playgrounds or any kind of open space within reasonable walking distance for kids. Why all the waviers for this one developer? Is there a plan to mitigate traffic impact on our neighborhood? For example, much longer and more frequent traffic lights at Distel and Jordan, extended left turn lanes, better timing on Rengsdorf, some solution to the traffic cluster around Whole Foods? Second, while I understand the need to build additional housing, I don’t understand the plan to shove it all into a tiny stretch of El Camino, seemingly leaving other Los Altos areas pristine and untouched. Is there any plan for similar high rises downtown? Or low income housing near Foothills? If not, why not? Third, Is there a plan for establishing retail and service providers around all these huge new apartments? Is there a grocery store? A dry cleaner? a hardware store? Coffee shops? Restaurants? This is an opportunity to establish a thriving, walkable ‘village’ area along that stretch of El Camino - similar to Menlo Park. Is this even being discussed? Also, why would Los Altos dramatically increase the number of apartments, residents and kids without a plan to dramatically increase parks and open space? Do we expect the new residents to play on the streets, or stay inside glued to their computers? Is there a plan to reopen the Los Altos High School field(a) to the public, get rid of the fences, provide parking to give our new (and existing) neighbors an escape from El Camino? Thanks in advance for considering these issues.

Chad Hoke
972-400-8487
Sent from my iPad

Page 90 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Alice Liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 1:31 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Aron Development
You cannot be serious! An 8 story building is not what Los Altos should be about. Heavy traffic on a narrow residential street, overcrowding in a residential area, and destroying the quiet ambience of the neighborhood will be the result if this project is allowed to build that many units in an high rise eyesore! The voters need to have a voice in this mess.

Alice

Page 91 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Phan Truong <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:49 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: Comment for Public Hearing 7: Appeal of Development Project at 4898 El Camino Real
Dear Councilors
These project had approve for 5 stories in the past with density bonus for low income housing At that time they are going to build 28 units and 95 parking spaces Affordable Housing: 6 units (approximately 40% of base density), which included:
2 Very Low-Income units.
2 Low-Income units.
2 Moderate-Income units.

Now with their new plan An eight-story building containing 85 total units, with 10 specifically designated for very low-income residents.
and only 95 parking.

Only 4 more units for low-income increase but they have 53 more units to sale as market price comparing their plan now to the previous plan.

Just wonder who benefit the most?
For Parking: Just wonder where the people are going to park while El Camino Real do not allow any car to park any more As we know more high building will come up in the future on El Camino Real with really limit parking space.

Do you ever think safety of the neighborhood streets? Jordan is not a wide street.

Just look at the lay out they proposed 5 stories before for 4898 El Camino Real

Page 92 of 1184 ends

2 and now 8 stories propose for 4898 El Camino Real now

Page 93 of 1184 ends

3 How it changes the look of our town and the neighborhood? Thank you for your consideration not to approve something so drastic change and weight on who is gain the most on the project.

Phan

Page 94 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Kathy Hanson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 4:16 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: NO on 4898 El Camino Real
The neighborhood has already said yes to new developments on Distel Circle and 5150 El Camino Real and our streets simply can't handle another big development. School children walking and riding bikes to at least 3 schools will be exposed to more traffic than our streets can safely handle not to mention seniors and mothers with children out for bike rides and walks. It's getting too dangerous. What happened to the small town with reasonable zoning laws I have invested years in? Please don't do this here.

Kathy Hanson
446 Casita Ct
Los Altos

Page 95 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Han Ren <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 10:32 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Stephanie Williams; Jonathan Weinberg; Sean Gallegos Subject: Public Comment re: Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real Dear Council Members,
I'm a Los Altos resident living on Marich Way. I am writing to formally object to approval of the Tentative Map for 4898 El Camino Real. The Tentative Map establishes the project’s building footprint, driveway configuration, loading operations, and transformer location, and therefore directly governs traffic safety, access, and neighborhood impacts.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation relied on incomplete and outdated information, and on site configurations that create unresolved safety hazards. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City require a revised Tentative Map with alternative site layouts and return the project to the Planning Commission for re-review.

New Information Not Available at the November 6 Planning Commission Hearing Since the November 6 hearing, material changes and new information have emerged that were not considered by the Planning Commission:

1. Adjacent Development Intensification
Across the street, the former Jack-in-the-Box site (4896 El Camino Real) in combination with the immediate single family is now proposed for 33 multi-family units and 18,236 square feet of office space, exceeding the scope of prior approvals. Access is expected to remain on Jordan Avenue, compounding circulation and safety impacts that were not evaluated holistically.

2. Outdated Traffic Analysis
The traffic study relied upon by the Planning Commission was prepared by Abrams Associates.

The applicant has since engaged Hexagon, a new traffic engineering firm, to revise the analysis— confirming that the prior study is no longer current. The Commission was not informed that the traffic analysis would be replaced when it made its recommendation.

Because the Tentative Map governs access and circulation, it should not be approved based on superseded technical data.

Reasons the Tentative Map Should Not Be Approved

1. Incomplete Traffic Analysis and Failure to Study Adjacent Impacts The Abrams Associates report failed to analyze key nearby intersections, including Jordan Avenue at Marich Way, Jordan Avenue at East Portola Avenue, and East Portola Avenue at San Antonio Road.

These intersections experience significant morning peak activity and are heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists traveling to nearby schools, including Egan and Bullis Charter.

Page 96 of 1184 ends

2 The report’s conclusion of minimal delay does not account for:
 traffic diversion through residential streets,
 cumulative impacts from the newly proposed development across the street,  or school-hour pedestrian and bicycle movements.

As a result, the Planning Commission lacked adequate information to make an informed recommendation on the Tentative Map. I'm attaching a picture taken on Dec 9, 8:31 AM in Jordan Ave, where 24 cars were waiting in line, backed up all the way to Marich Way.

2. Absence of an On-Site Loading Zone and Resulting Neighborhood Impacts The proposed Tentative Map does not provide an on-site loading area. While City engineering has suggested designating a portion of Jordan Avenue for loading, this mitigation shifts impacts onto the public right-of-way and affects neighboring properties.

A standard curbside loading zone requires approximately 12 feet of width. On Jordan Avenue, which is approximately 36 feet curb-to-curb, this would effectively reduce the roadway to one travel lane in each direction and eliminate on-street parking on both sides. This in turn:
 forces additional red curb frontage in front of neighboring developments,  limits loading and parking options for the adjacent Jack-in-the-Box redevelopment,  and invites future requests for additional loading zones.

These interrelated impacts demonstrate the need for a holistic site and street design, not piecemeal mitigation.

3. Unsafe Mixing of Loading, Travel Lanes, Cyclists, and Driveways Under the proposed configuration, a single 12-foot travel lane on Jordan Avenue would be shared by vehicles and cyclists while simultaneously serving two opposing driveways from separate developments, including the existing approved driveway for 4896 El Camino Real (the Jack-in-the-Box site). During the morning peak—when school-age cyclists and pedestrians are present—this configuration creates foreseeable collision risks, particularly when vehicles exiting both driveways attempt to merge into the same direction of travel. These risks are further exacerbated when trash or delivery trucks occupy the curbside loading area, reducing available maneuvering space and visibility.

The Tentative Map does not demonstrate how these conflicts can be safely managed.

4. Transformer Fence Waiver Creates Driveway Sight-Distance Hazard The Tentative Map relies on a waiver allowing a 6-foot-5-inch transformer fence adjacent to the driveway, despite LAMC §14.72.020, which limits fence height to 4 feet within 15 feet of a driveway to preserve visibility.

As proposed, the transformer enclosure obstructs sight lines for drivers exiting the site. A driver must encroach into the sidewalk area to obtain visibility of approaching traffic, placing pedestrians and cyclists at risk. This is an objective safety concern tied directly to the Tentative Map layout.

Requested Action

Page 97 of 1184 ends

3 For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City decline to approve the Tentative Map as proposed and instead require:
 A revised Tentative Map that evaluates alternative site layouts, including relocating driveway access to El Camino Real. Attached is the existing driveway showing that 4898 El Camino Real already has direct access to El Camino Real. This is not an infeasible request;  On-site solutions for loading and utilities that do not shift hazards into the public right-of-way;  Updated and comprehensive traffic analysis reflecting current conditions and adjacent development; and
 Re-review by the Planning Commission based on complete and accurate information.

Jordan Avenue was not designed to absorb the combined impacts of multiple high-intensity developments, complex loading operations, and school-hour pedestrian and bicycle activity without substantial redesign. Approval of the Tentative Map at this stage would be premature.

Thank you for your consideration.

Han

Page 98 of 1184 ends

Page 99 of 1184 ends

Page 100 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Rose Rambo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 2:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Stephanie Williams; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real
Dear Council Members
I’m a long term Los Altos resident living on Jordan Avenue. I am writing to formally object to the approval of the tentative map for 4898 El Camino Real. The tentative map shared publicly outlines the project’s building driveway configuration, loading operations and footprint, all of which will govern traƯic safety, access and neighborhood impacts.

I respectfully request that the City require a revised Tentative Map with alternative site layouts, specifically moving the driveway entrance from Jordan Avenue to El Camino to address safety hazards created by having the driveway entrance on Jordan Avenue.

Upon hearing about the proposed building and reading the submitted traƯic study, we subsequently conducted a traƯic study of our own because the submitted study did not seem to capture the full impact of current traƯic loads, let alone the impact that a building with approximately 90 parking spots will have on Jordan Avenue. This immediate neighborhood is impacted by the close location of three schools, Egan Middle School, Bullis Charter Elementary School, and Los Altos High School and literally hundreds of cars pass through this neighborhood every morning and afternoon dropping oƯ and picking up their children. The results of our traƯic study are below and, while it was conducted during two morning rush hours, it is typical of the level of traƯic in this area during every school day.

Our findings indicate that:
 During peak drop oƯ and pick up times, there is heavy traƯic currently at the Jordan/El Camino intersection. Backups of 20 cars turning onto El Camino from Jordan occur daily and it takes up to 3 light changes for the cars to turn.
 Jordan becomes a 3 lane street during that time with 1 lane heading from El Camino onto Jordan heading toward Portola, a left hand turn lane from Jordan onto El Camino, and a right hand turn lane from Jordan onto El Camino. The current road is barely wide enough to handle these three lanes of traƯic and the traƯic parked on both sides of Jordan Avenue. If a car turns left prior to reaching the Jordan/ El Camino intersection, all traƯic is halted.
 If vehicles double parked any where on Jordan between Marich and El Camino for loading, garbage pickup, etc. traƯic either became backed up or scooted into oncoming traƯic, further causing problems.  Pedestrians and cyclists were required to walk on the sides of Jordan to get to and from school, adding to the safety concerns, especially given the limited visibility at several of the Jordan. Marich intersections.  There are several intersections in the immediate area that are already experiencing heavy traƯic. These are Jordan/El Camino. Distel Drive/El Camino, Jordan/Marich, Distel Drive/Marich, Portola/Jordan and San Antonio/Portola. The submitted traƯic study only measured traƯic on Jordan/El Camino, RengstorƯ/El Camino and San Antonio/Portola. These were not included in the submitted traƯic study and, if the garage entrance for 4898 El Camino flows onto Jordan, all these intersections will be additionally negatively impacted.

Page 101 of 1184 ends

2 I am therefore requesting that this tentative vesting map be sent back to the planning committee to develop a tentative map that takes a more complete and holistic approach, that takes into account that this neighborhood area is not currently designed to handle additional traƯic while El Camino is, and that also includes the impact that the proposed development at the current Jack in the Box location as well as the expected traƯic from 4898 El Camino Real.

Respectfully
Rose Rambo
Summary on traƯic counts for the intersection of Jordan and El Camino.

Jim and I counted traƯic both going into the intersection from Jordan and coming out of the intersection of El Camino Real onto Jordan Avenue. We did the counts on Dec. 10, a Wednesday, and Dec. 11, 2025, a Thursday. We counted in 10-minute increments. Unfortunately, we started the increments at diƯerent times (One day at 8:10, 8:10, etc. and one day at 8:05, 8:15 etc.) but this should not aƯect the conclusions or observations.

Note that:

Wednesday was a late start day for Egan. School did not start until 9:15pm Thursday was wheels or walk to school for Egan.

Both days were quite cold and overcast
As shown in the included summary, the peak period was from 8:10 to 8:40 on Wednesday and 8:05 to 8:45 on Thursday. The Thursday traƯic load was spread out over a longer period (until 9am), probably due to the late start at Egan.

Some other observations:
 The intersection of Marich and Jordan seems to have as much if not more traƯic than the ECR/Portola intersection. Cars coming oƯ ECR onto Portola may go straight at the Marich or they may turn left.

Additionally, there appears to be a lot of traƯic that bypasses the light at ECR onto Jordan by turning oƯ ECR onto Distel, then onto Marich then turning left onto Portola. There are also more bikes and pedestrians at this intersection.
 Because of the lack of sidewalks or marked crosswalks in the area on Jordan around the Jack-in-the-Box, there were at least 5 incidences where bikes or pedestrians had to move around stationary cars. Jordan is not wide enough to handle 3 lanes of traƯic (2 turning onto ECR and 1 turning from ECR onto Jordan) plus the parked cars on both sides of Jordan by the intersection. (There were at least 4 cars parked on each side of Jordan)
 The traƯic would be higher at the intersection if people could not use the parking lots behind the proposed building as a cut-through from Jordan to ECR.
 At one time there were 22 cars backed up on Jordan waiting for the turn signal onto ECR. It took 2 turns of the light for cars to get through. 17-20 cars backed up was the norm in the 8:20-8:40 timeframe.  At one point, a car double parked on Jordan near the apartment building past the Jack-In-The Box to pick up a passenger and traƯic immediately backed up. There was also a large truck on Jordan heading toward ECR that stopped temporarily to make a left turn and traƯic again backed up. That entire area is sensitive to any activity that does not just go straight.
10-Dec to Portola from ECR to ECR from Portola
Cars bikes/scooters pedestrians Cars bikes/scooters pedestrians Cars 7:50-
8:00am 11 0 0 26 4 3 37
8:00-8:10 11 9 1 23 1 3 34
8:10-8:20 72 3 2 28 2 3 100

Page 102 of 1184 ends

3 8:20-8:30 54 3 0 60 1 3 114
8:30-8:40 17 2 2 32 2 1 49
8:40-8:50 14 3 5 19 2 2 33
8:50-9:00 17 2 1 28 0 1 45
9:00-9:10 10 0 1 9 0 2 19
11-Dec to Portola from ECR to ECR from Portola
Cars bikes/scooters pedestrians Cars bikes/scooters pedestrians Cars 7:35-
7:45am 13 2 0 20 0 0 33
7:45-7:55 16 7 4 15 1 1 31
7:55-8:05 12 5 5 20 1 2 32
8:05-8:15 45 8 13 20 1 4 65
8:15-8:25 90 0 0 45 1 1 135
8:25-8:35 26 0 2 40 1 5 66
8:35-8:45 17 0 0 40 3 1 57
Let us know if you have any questions.

Rose Rambo
778 Jordan Ave

Page 103 of 1184 ends

From: Jim Clark
To: Public Comment
Subject: Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino...

Date: Saturday, January 24, 2026 3:58:41 PM
Dear Council Members,
As a long-term Los Altos resident living on Jordan Avenue. I am asking the Council to reject the proposed tentative map for 4898 El Camino Real and send it back to the Planning Commission for further review and potential modifications. The tentative map shared publicly outlines the project’s building driveway configuration, loading operations and footprint, all of which will govern traffic safety, access, and neighborhood impacts. The current map places the driveway and loading zones on Jordan Avenue. This will add additional traffic and congestion to an intersection that is already been given a traffic level of service (LOS) designation of “F”. An “F” designation means that demand exceeds capacity, resulting in stop-and-go traffic, long queues, and significant delays. Adding the additional vehicular traffic from the site’s parking garage will simply make matters worse and will decrease pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Jordan Avenue has been designated a “safe route to school” by the City. Early morning and late after pedestrian and bicycle traffic is largely made up of children commuting to one of the three schools in the area: Egan Junior High School, Bullis Charter School and Los Altos High School. Due to the narrow width of Jordan Avenue at this location, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists must mix and share the road in this area. The addition of a loading zone will further narrow the road in this area, increasing the risk for accidents.

In addition to the 4898 El Camino project, a future project has been proposed for 4896 El Camino (Jack-in-the-Box) which is on the opposite side of Jordan Avenue. While still in the planning phases, the Jack-In-The-Box project has recently been modified to increase its occupancy numbers. It too has a driveway planned for Jordan Avenue. While evaluating these projects independently may show minimal to moderate traffic impact to the intersection. When evaluated together the increase in traffic from both projects will greatly reduce pedestrian and bicycle safety in this area. The City should require both projects to locate their ingress/egress driveways be located on El Camino instead of Jordan Avenue. El Camino is much wider and can handle the increase in traffic where Jordan Avenue cannot.

I am therefore requesting that the currently proposed Tentative Vesting Map be rejected and sent back to the Planning Commission with instructions to work with the developer

Page 104 of 1184 ends

to create a Tentative Map that takes a more complete and holistic approach considering safety issues with locating driveways on Jordan Avenue, that takes into account that this neighborhood area is not currently designed to handle additional traffic while El Camino is, and that also includes the impact that the proposed development at the current Jack in the Box location as well as the expected traffic from 4898 El Camino Real.

Respectfully
Jim Clark

Page 105 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Andrew Farmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 9:06 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: object Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real Council Members:

I wish to object to the Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real, which currently places the exit on Jordan Avenue. Jordan is a bike route to/from: Egan, Bullis Charter, and Los Altos High School. Having the entry/exit of an 8-story, 85-apartment tower block on to this tiny residential street/bike route in Los Altos is going to cause a dangerous situation for pedestrians and cyclists on Jordan Avenue. Moreover, its positioning will create congestion.

Please consider placing the entry/exit on El Camino Real - a major road - away from the bikes. El Camino is much more suited to handle the level of traffic. The Jordan exit will be right at the junction to El Camino Real, so it will create congestion and confusion. Vehicles wishing to enter the property will need to make an immediate left turn on Jordan, crossing oncoming traffic as well as interfering with traffic wishing to leave the property and turn left down Jordan avenue. Moreover, the short distance between the exit on Jordan and El Camino will likely lead to traffic jams created by vehicles leaving the property and attempting to turn left at the light on El Camino (currently the wait time at that light is quite long). These vehicles will become backed up along Jordan and into the property.

None of this would be the case if the entry/exit is on El Camino - cars will be able to enter and leave with ease and slip directly into traffic. El Camino is a major thoroughfare - built to handle traffic. Unlike with the exit on Jordan, the entering and leaving traffic would not interfere with each other.

In addition to placing the main vehicle entrance and exit on El Camino, I suggest making space for a pedestrian / cyclist exit on Jordan, which will now be quiet and safe for such traffic.

Thanks you for your consideration
Andrew Farmer
Los Altos Resident

Page 106 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Damian H <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 10:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: object Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real To Whom It May Concern, as a Los Altos resident already impacted by the development at 330 Distel Circle due to the overflow parking onto Marich Way. It is clear that a similar situation will occur in Jordan Av resulting in safety risks to students.

I am writing to advocate for the safety of school routes by requesting that the driveway exit be moved from Jordan Avenue to El Camino Real. This change is essential to protecting pedestrians and cyclists, particularly during peak commute periods for students traveling to and from Egan, Bullis Charter, and Los Altos High School.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Damian.-

Page 107 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Sara Kiani <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 10:36 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment re: object tentative vesting map of 4898 El Camino Real To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Los Altos on East Portola Ave/Jordan Ave and in the vicinity of the new proposed plan to build an 8 story multi housing building on the intersection of El Camnio and Jordan Ave.

Request to pause the development and redo the design due to the safety concerns for having this dense housing on Jordan ave. This is a route to school (Eagan/Bullis Charter/ Los Altos High) with many pedestrians and bikers with w/high traffic already in the peak hours.

In addition:
1) Density bonus law allowed for additional units, not square footage. Requested Waivers Fail the Required “Physical Preclusion” Test.
a. Base density calculation showed 50 units, averagely ~800 SF per unit, total interior area:
41,552 SF,
b. The requested plan had 85 units, averagely ~1077 SF per unit, 91,520 SF in total. 2) Incomplete and flawed Traffic Report (See Appeal Letter, “3. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Is Fatally Flawed and Incomplete”
a. Jordan and San Antonio is already failing with >55s delay; adding additional traffic is a significant cumulative impact
b. The plan didn’t account for “All-At-Once” Morning Peak Conflicts and Compounding Operational Complexity, when multiple peak-hour elements occur at the same time, such as trash trucks, school pick up cars and bikes, development added traffic, for instance, Friday morning.

Thanks,
Sara Kiani

Page 108 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Ilara27 <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 11:02 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed housing developments in my neighborhood.

We have already observed a significant impact on our community, and we are concerned that we are gradually losing the unique character of Los Altos. My family moved to this area specifically because it offered a safe, quiet environment for our children.

The plan to add multiple housing developments within a one-mile radius will drastically increase the number of residents and vehicles in the area. This will lead to severe traffic congestion, making even simple tasks like local shopping difficult and time-consuming.

The current situation is already challenging, and I urge you not to let these changes move forward. I respectfully request that you consider alternative locations for additional housing that do not negatively impact the safety and quality of life in this established neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the community.

Best regards,
Ilara
431 Marich Way
Los Altos CA

Page 109 of 1184 ends

From: Weiyan Farmer
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: object Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real Date: Sunday, January 25, 2026 1:31:34 PM
Dear Council Members,
I was totally shocked to know there are plans to build an 8 story /110 ft high building on El Camino/Jordan - the highest in Los Altos! This monstrous building will crate a massive impact to our neighborhood. The increasing traffic congestion will only get worse. This will also harm the children's safety during the school commute in the area (4 schools Almond, Egan, Charter, LAHS).

I totally agree with my husband's comments (please see below).

Best,
Kate
Dear Council Members:

I wish to object to the Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real, which currently places the exit on Jordan Avenue. Jordan is a bike route to/from:Egan, Bullis Charter, and Los Altos High School. Having the entry/exit of an 8-story, 85- apartment tower block on to this tiny residential street/bike route in Los Altos is going to cause a dangerous situation for pedestrians and cyclists on Jordan Avenue.

Moreover, its positioning will create congestion.

Page 110 of 1184 ends

In addition to placing the main vehicle entrance and exit on El Camino, I suggest making space for a pedestrian / cyclist exit on Jordan, which will now be quiet and safe for such traffic.

Thanks you for your consideration
Andrew Farmer
Los Altos Resident

Page 111 of 1184 ends

From: Hana Skoda
To: Public Comment
Cc: Sean Gallegos; Stephanie Williams; Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Object to 4898 El Camino Tentative Map
Date: Sunday, January 25, 2026 3:38:07 PM
Public Comment
[email protected]
Dear council members,
I am objecting to the approval of the Tentative Map for 4898 El Camino Real. My concerns are traffic safety; neighborhood impact of high density and traffic safety hazards associated with it, and a character of Los Altos City.

In the Planning Commission Staff report:

November 6, 2025
Multi-Family Residential Development at 4898 El Camino Real Page 11 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.

Infrequently?
The traffic is crazy every day with the kids attending the school. How many of them need to die for you to take notice?

Page 112 of 1184 ends

Page 113 of 1184 ends

Turning into my driveway
I am a resident of Los Altos, living on East Portola Ave.

We live close to a Bullis school (no parking was designated for the school) and next to it Egan Junior High (some parking, but not enough.) We are parked in, every morning and afternoon when school is in session.. East Portola is full of cars, kids walking, biking around the parked cars waiting for pickup.

It’s dangerous and crazy. More and more trucks are cutting through to avoid the intersection of El. Camino and San Antonio. The Whole Foods Market access added to the traffic. (Google Maps and Waze already direct you through Jordan Ave.) There are no sidewalks for the kids and a huge amount of traffic.

A new and independent traffic study considering peak traffic in the surrounding streets is needed.

I am all in for affordable housing for people who truly need it. The young generation has it tough with the real estate market, but destroying the character of the Los Altos city is not the answer.

Page 114 of 1184 ends

How about finding better solutions and listening to the residents??? We live here! BTW
We lived through the development of Chester circle. Ahhh, the affordable units... and yes, we saw people arriving at affordable units in Porsches with champagne bottles followed by moving trucks.

Hana Skoda
50 E Portola Ave
Los Altos, CA

Page 115 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Amanesh Goyal <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 8:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Hitashi Dhawan
Subject: Re: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am a resident of 311 Marich Way, Los Altos, CA 94022.

I am writing to express my strenuous opposition to the proposed development at 4898 El Camino Real.

As a resident who utilizes this area daily, I am deeply concerned by the scale of the project, the excessive number of waivers requested, and the severe safety risks it poses to our community’s children.

My primary objections are centered on the following critical issues:

Hazardous School Routes: My children, along with many others, bike and walk to school using Jordan Avenue. Concentrating the entire building’s traffic flow onto a single driveway on Jordan Avenue creates a high-conflict zone between vehicles and students. This is a direct threat to the "Safe Routes to School" initiative that the city claims to prioritize.

Abuse of Waivers: The request for more than 16 waivers is an unprecedented departure from city standards. These regulations exist to ensure that development is sustainable and safe; bypassing them to this degree suggests a project that is fundamentally incompatible with the site and the surrounding neighborhood.

Compounded Traffic Congestion: Jordan Avenue is already a pressured thoroughfare. Adding the density of this proposed development without adequate ingress/egress planning will lead to gridlock and increased "cut-through" traffic on residential streets, further endangering pedestrians.

Safety Overlooked for Density: While I understand the need for housing, it should never come at the expense of public safety. Approving this project in its current form signals that the council is willing to prioritize developer interests over the physical safety of Los Altos students.

I urge the City Council to reject the current proposal and require the developer to redesign the project with a focus on El Camino Real access, significant reduction in waivers, and a comprehensive traffic safety plan that protects our neighborhood children.

I look forward to your response and hope to see the council stand up for the safety of our residents.

Thank you,
Amanesh Goyal & Hitashi Dhawan
311 Marich Way, Los Altos

Page 116 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Priya Pattada <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 8:37 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map I object
Sent from my iPhone

Page 117 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Han Ren <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 12:57 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Stephanie Williams; Jonathan Weinberg; Sean Gallegos Subject: Re: Public Comment re: Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real Attachments: No-Audio-2025-12-01 at 15.58.00.mov
Hi City Councils and Planning Staff,
I’m submitting this update to add to my earlier public comment, based on new information that came up after the Staff Report was posted. Please include this update in the public record along with my original comment.

Correction Regarding Traffic Consultant
Upon reading the new information in the adjacent appeal meeting item agenda, I found out that the applicant re-engaged Abrams Associates, the same firm that prepared the original traffic study, to revise the traffic analysis. My earlier reference to Hexagon was incorrect.

Accordingly, my prior comment regarding an “Outdated Traffic Analysis” should be updated as follows:

Incomplete Traffic Analysis
The traffic study relied upon by the Planning Commission was prepared by Abrams Associates. The applicant has since re-engaged Abrams Associates to revise and supplement the analysis, confirming that the prior study was incomplete. The Planning Commission was not informed, at the time it made its recommendation, that the traffic analysis would later be revised.

Additional Observation — Incomplete Traffic Analysis and Failure to Study Adjacent Impacts As mentioned before, Marich Way and East Portola were not included in the traffic analysis. This overlooks the fact that Jordan Avenue is a school route. Even in the updated traffic report, the busy morning period was not studied, even though traffic regularly backs up at that time. When Jordan becomes congested or hard to use, drivers cut through nearby streets like Marich and Portola, creating a broader traffic impact. Anyone who visits the Jordan–Marich intersection on a typical school day between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. can see this happening.

Additional Observation — Driveway Function and Backup Conditions Regarding the issue of "unsafe mixing of loading activity, travel lanes, cyclists, and driveways", I’m attaching another video showing the driveway issues. I was driving near the driveway next to the proposed development on December 1 at 3:58 PM, and traffic was backed up along most of Jordan Avenue between El Camino Real and Marich. With the proposed driveway, cars would be forced to merge into already stopped traffic, increasing collision risks, and the backup would also prevent residents from even exiting their own building. This isn’t limited to afternoons—the same thing happens in the

Page 118 of 1184 ends

2 morning, as shown in the previously shared photo where traffic backed up all the way to Marich. This makes it clear that the proposed entry and exit plan does not help anyone.

Recommendation — Reconsider Jordan-Only Access
Consistently with the major public transportation nearby, as well as Los Altos Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2022) highlighting the goal to “Create a Walkable and Bikeable City”, Jordan Avenue should not be the only way in and out of this project. Jordan is already used as a Class III bike route, including school routes and regular “bike to school” days. Adding another driveway on El Camino Real, as this site had in the past (photo shown in the previous comment), would help spread out traffic and reduce pressure on Jordan. El Camino Real already has traffic lights that allow cars to enter and exit more safely that works in this site's residents favor. By having Jordan driveway as bike entry and exit, this gives residents more than one way in and out and would make the area safer and work better for everyone.

Request for Additional Review
Given the new information above, I respectfully request that the City Council refer this tentative map back for re-review by the Planning Commission and the Complete Streets Commission. The Complete Streets Commission’s prior review dates to 2019 (link) and was based on a materially different site configuration. An updated review would allow the City’s advisory bodies to exercise appropriate due diligence based on all this new information.

Thank you for considering this update as part of the public record.

Han
On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:32 PM Han Ren <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Council Members,
I'm a Los Altos resident living on Marich Way. I am writing to formally object to approval of the Tentative Map for 4898 El Camino Real. The Tentative Map establishes the project’s building footprint, driveway configuration, loading operations, and transformer location, and therefore directly governs traffic safety, access, and neighborhood impacts.

Page 119 of 1184 ends

3 office space, exceeding the scope of prior approvals. Access is expected to remain on Jordan Avenue, compounding circulation and safety impacts that were not evaluated holistically.

2. Outdated Traffic Analysis
The traffic study relied upon by the Planning Commission was prepared by Abrams Associates.

Because the Tentative Map governs access and circulation, it should not be approved based on superseded technical data.

Reasons the Tentative Map Should Not Be Approved

These intersections experience significant morning peak activity and are heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists traveling to nearby schools, including Egan and Bullis Charter.

The report’s conclusion of minimal delay does not account for:
 traffic diversion through residential streets,
 cumulative impacts from the newly proposed development across the street,  or school-hour pedestrian and bicycle movements.

These interrelated impacts demonstrate the need for a holistic site and street design, not piecemeal mitigation.

Page 120 of 1184 ends

4 developments, including the existing approved driveway for 4896 El Camino Real (the Jack-in-the-Box site). During the morning peak—when school-age cyclists and pedestrians are present—this configuration creates foreseeable collision risks, particularly when vehicles exiting both driveways attempt to merge into the same direction of travel. These risks are further exacerbated when trash or delivery trucks occupy the curbside loading area, reducing available maneuvering space and visibility.

The Tentative Map does not demonstrate how these conflicts can be safely managed.

Requested Action
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City decline to approve the Tentative Map as proposed and instead require:
 A revised Tentative Map that evaluates alternative site layouts, including relocating driveway access to El Camino Real. Attached is the existing driveway showing that 4898 El Camino Real already has direct access to El Camino Real. This is not an infeasible request;  On-site solutions for loading and utilities that do not shift hazards into the public right-of-way;  Updated and comprehensive traffic analysis reflecting current conditions and adjacent development; and
 Re-review by the Planning Commission based on complete and accurate information.

Thank you for your consideration.

Han

Page 121 of 1184 ends

Page 122 of 1184 ends

Page 123 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Fiona Hu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:07 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: Object Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to submit a public comment to object to the Tentative Vesting Map for the project at 4898 El Camino Real, specifically regarding the proposed driveway and exit onto Jordan Avenue.

Jordan Avenue is a heavily used local school route for students and families traveling to and from Egan Junior High, Bullis Charter School, and Los Altos High School, particularly during peak school commute hours. Allowing a new project driveway onto Jordan would significantly increase vehicle conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists, raising serious safety concerns for children and families who rely on this route daily.

I strongly urge the City to require the project’s primary driveway and exit to be located on El Camino Real instead of Jordan Avenue. Redirecting project traffic to El Camino Real would help preserve Jordan as a safer neighborhood street and protect an essential school access corridor.

The Tentative Vesting Map determines the project layout, including driveway placement, and this is a critical opportunity to prioritize school route safety. I respectfully ask the Council to consider the impact on pedestrian and cyclist safety and to revise or reject the Tentative Vesting Map unless the driveway access is moved off Jordan Avenue.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and for your continued commitment to the safety of our community’s children.

Sincerely,
Fiona Hu - a Los Altos resident

Page 124 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Siva Ganapathiappan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:28 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Object to 4898 El Camino Real tentative Map Hello,
I am living at E Portola Ave. I strongly object to the proposed development at this site for multistory building. Making more than a 5 story complex or for any large scale development is not good for the environment around the neighborhood. If you want a high density housing project we would suggest smaller apartments so that more affordable housing can be built. Please consider reducing the floor level.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sivapackia Ganapathiappan
(650)823-0191

Page 125 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Kalai Gana <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 12:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Object to 4898 El Camino Real tentative Map Hello,
I am living at E Portola Ave. I strongly object to the proposed development at this site for multistory building. Even in my own neighborhood with single family homes, we don't get enough sunlight and we suffer well in the winter time. In the morning our southeast neighbor tree blocks sunlight and in the afternoon/evening my opposite and northside home trees block sunlight. Our heating bill is abnormally high as we have to use the heater to barely maintain 65 deg F. Unfortunately we don't have any rights to ask the neighbors to reduce the tree height. I cannot imagine a >5 story complex that could block sunlight from the entire surrounding area. Please limit the floor level to <5.

Thanks for your consideration.

Kalaiselvi Ganapathiappan
(650)823-9466

Page 126 of 1184 ends

From: Promod Narang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 4:05 PM
To: Public Comment - PC <[email protected]> Subject: Formal Objection to Tentative map for Proposed Development at 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos
To: Los Altos City Council Re: Formal Objection to Tentative map for Proposed Development at 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos
To the Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed eight-story, 109-foot residential development located at 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos.

While I recognize the state’s housing mandates, the sheer scale and density of this project—enabled by an unprecedented number of waivers—pose significant risks to the safety, privacy, and character of our community.

My objections are based on the following critical concerns:

1. Massive Scale on an Inadequate Site:

The proposal seeks to erect the tallest building in Los Altos history (109 feet) on a minimal .43-acre lot. Placing a high-density structure of this magnitude at a busy, already congested intersection is a recipe for gridlock. With the waivers requested, the site is physically too small to support the intensity of use being proposed without spilling over into the public right-of-way on an already busy intersection servicing school traffic.

2. Traffic Safety and School Routes:

This project sits directly on a designated school route. Increasing the volume of ingress and egress traffic at this specific location creates a direct safety hazard for students walking and biking to school. The environmental impact reports must prioritize the physical safety of our children over the density goals of the developer.

3. Erosion of Neighborhood Privacy
The proposed height of eight stories provides a direct line of sight into the backyards and windows of existing single-family homes and lower-density neighborhoods. There has been inadequate consideration of privacy mitigation. This "looming" effect significantly diminishes the quiet enjoyment of property for long-term residents.

Page 127 of 1184 ends

4. Abuse of Zoning Waivers for Economic Gain
The request for 16 separate waivers is particularly egregious. These waivers appear designed not to ensure "design integrity," but to maximize the square footage of each of the 85 units for pure economic gain.

The project should be required to fit within the allowable square footage for a .43-acre lot (41,552 sq. ft.).

Instead of granting waivers to expand the building's envelope, the city should require the developer to reduce the square footage of each of the 85 individual units to fit within existing zoning parameters.

If the City is willing to bypass nearly every established zoning regulation for a single project, it begs the question: Why do these regulations exist at all? Zoning is a contract with the community to ensure orderly, safe, and aesthetic growth. Granting 16 waivers renders our local codes meaningless.

Conclusion:

I urge the City to deny the current proposal and require a significant redesign that respects the height limits, reduces the total square footage to fit the lot size, and prioritizes the safety of our school-age pedestrians.

Sincerely,
Promod Narang
241 Portola CT
Los Altos
CA 94022

Page 128 of 1184 ends

Armstrong Law
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3
Oakland, CA 94612
(w) (510) 420-8455
(c) (510) 508-5017

Page 129 of 1184 ends

Page 130 of 1184 ends

I represent Anatol Shmelev in his opposition to the proposed Project at 4898 El Camino Real.

This letter follows up on the staff report prepared in advance of your consideration of Agenda Items 7 and 8 at your meeting to be held January 27, 2026, at 7:00 pm.

1. Traffic Expert identifies problems that should be considered with respect to both Agenda Item 7 and Agenda Item 8.

2. The staff report erroneously states that the City lacks discretion to deny or restrict the Project because of Government Code section 65589.5.

Page 131 of 1184 ends

As such, the City can make the finding listed at page 5 of the Staff Report for this item:

And the City does in fact have discretion to deny or modify this Project.

3. City should deny at least some Density Bonus waivers, because the denial of the requested waivers would not "physically preclude" the development as designed.

Gov. Code §65915(a)(2). The cases cited in the staff report suggest that the City has limited

Page 132 of 1184 ends

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

Page 133 of 1184 ends

Page 134 of 1184 ends

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 135 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability January 25, 2026
SUBJECT: 4898 El Camino Real – New Multi-Family Residential Project: Traffic Issues To Whom It May Concern:

Page 136 of 1184 ends

Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 2 of 3

Page 137 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 673-9656 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elite Transportation Group (ETG)
Lin Zhang, PhD, PE, TE, PTOE
Vice President
Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 3 of 3

Page 138 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Cathy Walz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 7:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map
Los Altos City Council:

I live on Marich Way in north Los Altos, and my neighborhood is being impacted by a lot of new development on El Camino and also Distel Circle. I am happy that the low income housing is being built on Distel Circle. However, the massive housing development at 5150 El Camino looms over my neighborhood. In addition, construction worker parking and traffic has taken over Distel Drive and Circle, and much of Marich Way. There will also be a huge increase in traffic and parking in my neighborhood from residents of these buildings once occupied.

Now an 8 story building - yikes - is proposed for 4898 El Camino at Jordan Ave, with another development across the street at the Jack in the Box site. Both will have traffic entering and exiting on Jordan Ave. This 8 story building has 16 waivers - an excessive height, no upper story step-backs, no privacy for homes from overlooks, impacts on setbacks, loading on Jordan Ave blocked driveway visibility, and more.

Jordan Ave is a main route for Egan students biking and walking to school, as are Distel, Marich and Casita Way for students walking and biking to Almond Elementary, Egan and Los Altos High School. I am concerned about the safety of children and their parents, and residents of the neighborhood with the compounded traffic and safety risks.

Please do not approve such large developments impacting Jordan Ave and Marich Way a small residential street. Our neighborhood should not be a high density traffic corridor. We are already doing our part for the housing crisis with the 2 big developments already under construction. Growth needs to be responsible and consider school children and neighborhood safety and peace.

Cathy Walz
481 Marich Way, Los Altos

Page 139 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Yuanshuo David Zhao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 7:53 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment re: object Tentative Vesting Map of 4898 El Camino Real Dear City of Los Altos,
I strongly object to the Tentative Vesting Map for 4898 El Camino Real as long as it includes any driveway/exit on Jordan Avenue.

Jordan is a key school route with heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic (Egan, Bullis Charter, Los Altos High). A project driveway on Jordan is unsafe and unacceptable. The map must be revised to move all project access to El Camino Real and eliminate Jordan driveway/exit access.

Please include this comment in the public record.

Yuanshuo(David) Zhao
Senior Data Scientist
Apple Inc

Page 140 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Yanhua Mao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:20 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Opposition to Vesting Tentative Map — 4898 El Camino Real Attachments: 4898 ECR New Multi-Family Residential Project_ETG Comments_2026-01-26_v3.pdf To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Yanhua, and I have been a Los Altos resident since 2018. I am submitting this public comment to oppose the approval of the Vesting Tentative Map to create 85 condominium lots at 4898 El Camino Real (hereafter referred to as “the Project”), which is on the agenda for the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting.

The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is based on the project plan originally presented on November 9, which included 16 waivers. I am writing specifically to oppose Waiver 15, concerning Transformer Fence Height, as detailed below:

Waver 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, which the developer claims would displace approximately 5,578 square feet (seven units). See the attached screenshot for reference.

This waiver is problematic for the following reasons:

First, the developer falsely claims that relocating the transformer and its enclosure would displace approximately 5,578 square feet or seven units. As shown in the attached diagram, an alternative design exists by relocating the transformer and electrical room to the lower-left corner of the site. This relocation would likely involve only a nominal cost—on the order of low tens of thousands of dollars—to construct an underground utility line to the new location. Such a cost is negligible for a project of this scale.

Page 141 of 1184 ends

2 Second, in the response to the appeal of the approved project, the developer claims that the transformer has already been relocated, as shown in the screenshot below.

However,
 The latest plan does not show the claimed relocation.  If the enclosure has in fact been relocated, then Waiver 15 would no longer be required, which directly contradicts the developer’s earlier claim that relocation would displace units.  If an alternative design does exist, the proposed Vesting Tentative Map must be revised to accurately reflect the relocation and remove the waiver.

Last but not least, the applicant’s assertion that “warning lights or signage will mitigate any potential traffic safety issues” (page 6, prepared by Patterson & O’Neill, PC) is incorrect. Elite Transportation Group has provided a written explanation stating that “warning devices such as flashing lights or signage are supplemental measures and cannot compensate for inadequate sight distance or poor design. Established traffic engineering principles and design standards prioritize unobstructed visibility as a fundamental safety requirement; reliance on warning devices does not eliminate the underlying safety risk.” I have attached Elite Transportation Group’s written response for your reference.

To conclude, because Waiver 15 was supported by false statements and internally inconsistent responses from the developer, I respectfully urge the City Council to disapprove this request.

Sincerely,
-Yanhua
P.S. I was informed that Armstrong Law submitted a similar traffic response letter to the City earlier today.

Please note that the version I am submitting reflects an updated analysis prepared by Elite Transportation Group, which specifically identifies and corrects the inaccurate assessment provided by Patterson & O’Neill, PC.

Page 142 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability January 25, 2026
SUBJECT: 4898 El Camino Real – New Multi-Family Residential Project: Traffic Issues To Whom It May Concern:

Page 143 of 1184 ends

The applicant’s response further stating that “warning lights or signage will mitigate any potential traf ic safety issues” (page 6, provided by Patterson & O’Neill, PC) is incorrect.

Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 2 of 3

Page 144 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 673-9656 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elite Transportation Group (ETG)
Lin Zhang, PhD, PE, TE, PTOE
Vice President
Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 3 of 3

Page 145 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:25 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed development at 4898 El Camino Real.

While I understand the need for housing, the scale of this project and the 16 requested waivers represent a significant overreach that compromises the safety and character of our neighborhood.

Specifically, I am concerned about the following issues:
• Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: funneling all entry and exit traffic for 85 units (plus the neighboring Jack-inthe-Box site) onto Jordan Avenue is dangerous. This is a residential street where many children in our neighborhood walk and bike to school(Bullis, Egan, and LAH). The resulting congestion poses a direct safety risk to our most vulnerable residents.
• Excessive Height & Lack of Step-backs: At 109 feet, this building is over 40 feet above the standard limits.

The "sheer wall" design without upper-story step-backs will block light and air, creating a massive visual intrusion on the existing homes.
• Privacy and Environmental Concerns: The high-floor balconies will directly overlook private backyards.

Furthermore, the request to reduce rear yard landscaping from the required 50% down to only 14% is unacceptable and environmentally irresponsible.

I urge the Council to reject the current tentative map and require the developer to bring the project into better alignment with city standards and neighborhood safety. Growth must be responsible, and school-zone safety must come first.

Thank you for your time and for considering the well-being of the Los Altos community.

Sincerely,
Sujun Hua & Zhiyuan Tang
312 Marich Way, CA 94022

Page 146 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Bassam Khan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:30 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 4898 El Camino Real and to raise serious concerns about its impact on the Jordan Avenue neighborhood.

I have lived in Los Altos for 26 years. I raised my family here, and both of my children went through our public schools. I care deeply about this city and am keenly interested in keeping our neighborhoods safe, livable, and great places to raise families.

This project proposes an 8-story, 85-unit building with 16 waivers, with all traffic entering and exiting via Jordan Avenue, a small residential street. At the same time, the Jack-in-the-Box site across the street is being repurposed into a development with 33 residential units and over 18,000 square feet of office space, also routing all traffic onto Jordan. Two large developments funneling traffic onto a single neighborhood street is not reasonable or safe.

Jordan Avenue is not designed to function as a high-density traffic corridor. It is a residential street used daily by families, children biking and walking to school, and residents simply trying to access their homes. Compounded traffic, delivery trucks, and construction activity will significantly increase congestion and create unacceptable safety risks—particularly during school commute hours.

Beyond traffic, the requested 16 waivers are deeply concerning:
 The building exceeds height limits, reaching approximately 109 feet, more than 40 feet above allowed limits.
 There are no upper-story step-backs, creating a solid wall of mass that blocks light and air.  High-floor windows and balconies directly overlook neighboring homes, severely impacting privacy.
 Loading zones on Jordan Avenue introduce truck traffic during peak commute and school hours.  Blocked driveway visibility caused by oversized transformer fencing raises safety concerns.  Rear yard landscaping is reduced to just 14%, far below the required 50%.

These are not minor adjustments—they materially impact neighborhood safety, livability, and character.

Growth can be positive, but it must be responsible. This proposal places the burden of that growth almost entirely on one residential street and the families who live there. School and neighborhood safety must come first.

I urge the City Council to reconsider approval of this project as currently proposed, require meaningful design and traffic mitigation changes, and protect the safety and quality of life of existing residents.

Page 147 of 1184 ends

2 Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Bassam Khan

Page 148 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Guiting Ye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: NO for Vesting Tentative Map at 4898 El Camino Real Hi There,
I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the adequacy, transparency, and internal consistency of the traffic study submitted for this project.

1. Lack of Clarity on Peak-Hour Analysis
The traffic report refers generally to “AM peak” and “PM peak” conditions and cites broad commuting periods such as 4:00–6:00 PM. However, it does not clearly disclose the specific one-hour peak interval used for its core calculations (for example, 4:15–5:15 PM versus 5:00–6:00 PM).

Without this information, it is difficult for the public to verify whether the selected hour truly represents worst-case conditions—particularly given known congestion points and school-related traffic patterns.

Transparency on this issue is essential for meaningful public review.

2. Contradictory Trip-Generation Baselines
The traffic analysis first states that no trip-generation credit was given because the site is currently vacant. Yet the following section presents a much smaller “net increase” figure that relies on traffic from prior uses.

These represent two different baselines, presented back-to-back in a way that minimizes perceived impacts. If the site is vacant—as the report itself asserts—the appropriate comparison is the full increase over current conditions, not a hypothetical comparison to past uses that no longer exist. This selective framing creates confusion and undermines confidence in the analysis.

Conclusion
Taken together, these issues raise significant concerns about the transparency, accuracy, and reliability of the traffic study. I respectfully request that the City require clarification and correction of these deficiencies before relying on the report for decision-making.

Thank you for your time.

Best Regards,
Guiting

Page 149 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Inder Narang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:59 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Formal Opposition to the Tentative Map:4898 El Camino Real Formal Objection to Tentative Map: 4898 El Camino Real
To: City of Los Altos Planning Commission / City Council From: Inderjot Narang
Date: January 26, 2026
Subject: Formal Opposition to the Tentative Map for 4898 El Camino Real To the Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally submit my objections regarding the proposed tentative map and site design for the project located at 4898 El Camino Real. While we recognize the need for housing, the current site configuration presents significant safety risks and logistical failures that must be addressed before approval.

Primary Objections

1. Public Safety & School Route Conflicts:

The proposed plan directs primary vehicle flow onto Jordan Avenue. As Jordan is a designated school route, this increase in traffic during morning and afternoon peak hours poses a direct physical hazard to children walking and bicycling to school. Mixing high-density residential egress with a primary pedestrian corridor for minors is a fundamental design flaw.

2. Mechanical Parking Inefficiency:

The project relies on car-lift parking systems. These systems typically require 2–3 minutes per vehicle to cycle. During peak morning hours, the latency of these lifts will inevitably result in vehicle stacking that overflows the driveway and creates backups onto Jordan Avenue, further obstructing the neighborhood’s traffic flow.

3. Cumulative Impact of Adjacent Development:

The proposed high-density housing and office development at the adjacent Jack in the Box site has not been adequately factored into the traffic impact study for this map. The synergy of these two projects will create a level of congestion and pedestrian risk that the current Jordan Avenue infrastructure cannot support.

4. Contradictory Transit Goals:

The project justifies its high density based on its proximity to a major transit hub. However, the inclusion of extensive, complex parking infrastructure contradicts this "transit-oriented" philosophy. To truly encourage public transit use and reduce the impact on local streets, the parking density should be reevaluated and reduced.

Proposed Mitigations and Suggestions:

To resolve these issues while still allowing the project to move forward, we propose the following modifications:
- Relocate Ingress/Egress: Move the primary car entry and exit points to El Camino Real. This aligns the project's traffic flow with a high-capacity arterial road rather than a residential school route. - Traffic Control: Close off the intersection leading onto Jordan Avenue from El Camino Real to prevent "cut-through" traffic and protect the integrity of the school route.You can also close off access to Jordan

Page 150 of 1184 ends

2 Ave from Marich to El Camino Real making that section of the road available to residents who live within that section/area.

Conclusion:

The current tentative map prioritizes developer convenience over the safety of Los Altos students and the functionality of our neighborhood streets. We urge the Commission to require a redesign that redirects traffic away from Jordan Avenue.

Sincerely,
Inderjot Narang
241 Portola Ct.,
Los Altos, CA 94022

Page 151 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Ann Dunn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 8:44 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map
Hello,
I reside at 270 Portola Court and Jordan is my cross street. I can live with having a 5 story building down the block, but an 8 story building is too high. Please reconsider your decision to allow the taller structure.

Regards,
Ann Dunn

Page 152 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: James Tringali <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 9:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Object to 4898 El Camino Ave Tentative map - 27 Jan 2026 As long time residents, living on Jordan avenue, we strongly object to adoption of the "Vesting Tentative Map at 4898 El Camino Real". Here are some of our key concerns.

1. Adding traffic from 85 residences on Jordan will negatively impact safety for residents currently living in the area. Jordan is a two lane road of variable width. It would be better for the residents of 4898 to have ingress/egress from El Camino instead,

2. There are many high density housing projects in development within 0.25 miles of this property. We can see no justification for the claim that 8 stories are needed at 4898 El Camino to help Los Altos align with the new California "affordable" housing quota.

We expect our elected officials to vigorously advocate quality of life for Los Altos residents. --
James & Theresa Tringali

Page 153 of 1184 ends

Armstrong Law
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3
Oakland, CA 94612
(w) (510) 420-8455
(c) (510) 508-5017
--
Shona Armstrong, Esq.

Page 154 of 1184 ends

2 Armstrong Law
1634 Telegraph Ave., #3
Oakland, CA 94612
(w) (510) 420-8455
(c) (510) 508-5017

Page 155 of 1184 ends

Re: AGENDA ITEM 7 City Council Meeting 2026-01-27
APPL25-0006 Appeal from Resolution Approving for 4898 El Camino Real of:

Page 156 of 1184 ends

I represent Anatol Shmelev in his opposition to the proposed Project at 4898 El Camino Real.

This letter follows up on the staff report prepared in advance of your consideration of Agenda Items 7 and 8 at your meeting to be held January 27, 2026, at 7:00 pm.

1. Traffic Expert identifies problems that should be considered with respect to both Agenda Item 7 and Agenda Item 8.

2. The staff report erroneously states that the City lacks discretion to deny or restrict the Project because of Government Code section 65589.5.

Page 157 of 1184 ends

As such, the City can make the finding listed at page 5 of the Staff Report for this item:

And the City does in fact have discretion to deny or modify this Project.

3. City should deny at least some Density Bonus waivers, because the denial of the requested waivers would not "physically preclude" the development as designed.

Gov. Code §65915(a)(2). The cases cited in the staff report suggest that the City has limited

Page 158 of 1184 ends

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

Page 159 of 1184 ends

Page 160 of 1184 ends

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 161 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability January 25, 2026
SUBJECT: 4898 El Camino Real – New Multi-Family Residential Project: Traffic Issues To Whom It May Concern:

Page 162 of 1184 ends

The applicant’s response further stating that “warning lights or signage will mitigate any potential traf ic safety issues” (page 6, provided by Patterson & O’Neill, PC) is incorrect.

Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 2 of 3

Page 163 of 1184 ends

Elite Transportation Group (ETG) | Integrity ∞ Quality ∞ Reliability If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 673-9656 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Elite Transportation Group (ETG)
Lin Zhang, PhD, PE, TE, PTOE
Vice President
Modeling ∙ Planning ∙ Engineering ∙ ITS Page 3 of 3

Page 164 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: jim z <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:27 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment (Jan 27) – 4898 El Camino Real: oppose approval as proposed Mayor and City Council,
Please accept this email as public comment for the January 27, 2026 City Council hearing regarding 4898 El Camino Real (the proposed 8-story, 85-unit project with 16 waivers and 95 parking spaces, with the only driveway entry/exit on Jordan Avenue).

I’m a nearby resident and I strongly oppose approving this project as proposed. The scale and number of requested waivers are out of character for a small residential street like Jordan, and the site access plan concentrates all impacts— daily trips, ride-hailing, deliveries, service vehicles, and emergencies—onto a single neighborhood street that already functions as a local circulation and school-area route.

At a minimum, I ask Council to:

1. **Deny approval as proposed**, and require a redesigned project that materially reduces height/massing and neighborhood impacts; or

2. **Continue the item** until the City and community can evaluate the *cumulative* impacts of both major developments using Jordan (including the Jack-in-the-Box site across the street being repurposed with 33 residential units plus 18,236 sq ft of office, also routing traffic in/out on Jordan).

Thank you for taking neighborhood safety and quality of life seriously.

Sincerely,
Jim Zeng
Los Altos

Page 165 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Mian Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item 7 – January 27, 2026 Attachments: Public_Comment_new.pdf
Dear Sally Meadows, Larry Lang, Pete Dailey, Jonathan Weinberg, and Melissa Thurman, Please see my attached public comment opposing 4898 El Camino Real’s Tentative Map.

Thanks,
Mian

Page 166 of 1184 ends

Page 167 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Peng Teng Ng <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 4:37 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I am a resident of Delphi Circle and am very concerned about the proposed eight-story, 80-unit apartment at the intersection of Jordan Avenue and El Camino Real, as well as the separate eight-story mixed-use project directly across Jordan Avenue.

Jordan Avenue is a narrow residential street that serves our neighborhood and is heavily used by parents and students accessing the three nearby schools. I use this street regularly to reach El Camino Real. As many of my neighbors have noted in their letters to the City Council, traffic congestion during school commute hours is already significant, and adding two high-density developments, both with their only driveways on Jordan Avenue, will worsen congestion and create safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

In recent months, construction vehicles have already narrowed the section of Jordan Avenue near El Camino Real. One can anticipate similar or worse conditions once residents of these two projects begin entering and exiting via Jordan Avenue.

In addition, the limited on-site parking allowed by the Density Bonus may push overflow parking onto Jordan Avenue and surrounding residential streets, negatively affecting safety, privacy, and quality of life.

I respectfully urge the City Council to modify the proposed project at 4898 El Camino Real to address neighborhood concerns while still meeting Los Altos’ affordable housing obligations.

Sincerely yours,
Peng Teng Ng

Page 168 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Zhou Li <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 4:56 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

I am writing to formally voice my opposition to the proposed development at 4898 El Camino Real.

While I support responsible growth in Los Altos, the current proposal involves 16 waivers that significantly compromise the safety, privacy, and character of the surrounding residential community.

Specifically, I am concerned about:
• Traffic and Safety Risks: Funneling all entry and exit traffic for a 95-space garage onto Jordan Avenue—especially when combined with the development across the street—creates a dangerous high-density corridor. This poses a direct risk to children biking to school and residents navigating their own driveways.
• Excessive Height and Scale: The request for a 109-foot roof deck (over 40 feet above limits) and the lack of upper-story step-backs will create an overbearing "sheer wall" that blocks light and air for adjacent homes.
• Privacy and Sightlines: High-floor balconies facing directly into private yards, combined with blocked driveway visibility due to oversized fencing, prioritize developer yields over the basic safety and privacy of existing neighbors.
• Insufficient Landscaping: Reducing the required 50% landscaping to a mere 14% is unacceptable and contradicts the "Green City" values of Los Altos.

I urge the City Council to vote NO on this tentative map and require the developer to return with a plan that respects city limits, prioritizes pedestrian safety on Jordan Avenue, and reduces the number of requested waivers.

Thank you for your time and for considering the safety of our neighborhood.

Best,
Zhou

Page 169 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Sonny Kwok <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 5:00 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map
Dear Sir or Madam,
As a resident of Los Altos for almost 15 years, I support the appeal against this development. With 85 units and at 8 stories high, which is the highest in Los Altos, this will create a massive impact to our neighborhood. It will cause significant traffic congestion and risk to children's safety during the school commute in the area.

I have seen multiple accidents and near-accidents during school commutes at Distel and El Camino Real. With this development, these streets will be jammed with cars and commuters - it is neither practical nor safe. We need our children to feel safe traveling to and from school, and we need our council members and developers to protect our children’s safety.

The safety of children in our town, particularly as they walk and bike to and from school, should be of greater importance to our community than providing these numerous building exemptions.

Regards,
Sonny Kwok

Page 170 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Vickie Chou <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 7:21 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Object to 4898 El Camino Real Tentative Map Hello
I live in one of the cul de sacs on Marich Way. I can say that even without the added congestion from the new developments that will inevitably happen, there has already been an increase in traffic on Marich Way particularly in the AMs when kids are going to school. Some AMs I have had to wait quite awhile to get out of the cul de sac as car after car travel down Marich Way. I personally have seen 2 near misses of cars almost hitting children who were trying to bike to school. In both cases the children fell off their bikes trying to avoid cars. We have Almond Elementary, Los Altos High, Egan Middle School and Bullis Charter School all within a mile of the proposed new development.

To have buildings that do not provide enough parking spaces for the number of residents that they will hold poses another issue of cars congesting already narrow streets as our neighborhood turns into a parking lot. Having so many residents crammed on top of each other will cause such congestion WITHIN the neighborhood that this will increase the danger to our kids as they try to get to school with late, impatient drivers trying to hurry their way through the traffic.

Another issue is having an entrance and exit for an 85 unit complex positioned off of narrow Jordan Avenue. This will cause big issues with getting out of the neighborhood from Jordan to El Camino. The domino effect will be cars once again congesting Marich Way to get to Distel Drive to get onto El Camino or congesting San Antonio as they attempt to take side streets to avoid the traffic on Jordan and Marich Way and Distel Avenue.

The invasion of privacy of such high buildings towering over residential homes is also not ideal. Home owners tend to have fences and trees/bushes to create privacy. None of these will have any impact to protect against privacy with buildings that are so high juxtaposed right next to us.

I am strongly opposed to the size and position of the complex because of the reasons above. It will most certainly negatively affect the neighborhood and the safety of our residents.

Vickie

Page 171 of 1184 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: History Los Altos <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 7:34 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: CIty Council Meeting 01 27 26: Item#9. Appeal of the Removal of 81 Pepper Drive from the Los Altos HRI
Attachments: 01 27 26 81 Halberstadt Pepper Drive.pdf; 01 27 26 M Sandoval LetterReport.pdf Please confirm receipt by return email.

Dear City Council,
The following summary and two attached reports support our appeal of the October 27, 2025 decision by the Los Altos Historical Commission to remove 81 Pepper Drive from the Los Altos Historic Resource Inventory (HRI).

The reports from Evans & DeShazo and Page &Turnbull used as the basis for the Historical Commission decision do not, in fact, provide a preponderance of evidence that supports the termination of historic designation for 81 Pepper Drive.

In response to errors and incomplete information in the Evans & DeShazo and Page &Turnbull reports, the appellants sought a review and further research by April Halberstadt, a historic preservation professional and former Santa Clara County Historic Heritage Commissioner, and Mark Sandoval, a historic architect and former Los Altos Historical Commissioner.

New and clarifying information provided by Halberstadt and Sandoval supports 81 Pepper Drive remaining on the Los Altos HRI. 81 Pepper Drive’s historical significance is based upon its association with people and events that have significantly contributed to patterns of local and regional history, and upon its architecture that embodies the distinctive characteristics of design type Colonial Revival Cape Cod cottage.

The Historical Commission had determined the following findings, informed by Evans & DeShazo and Page & Turnbull reports. These findings respond to the Los Altos HRI criteria; only one criterion must be met in order to affirm historical significance.

Criteria 1- Event: “Although the 1929 house is associated with the general trend of growth in Los Altos during the 1920s, the property is not specifically important to this trend and thus does not convey significance for its association with that particular growth period.”

Page 172 of 1184 ends

2 Criteria 2- Person/People: “No documentary evidence was found to confirm [Harry VanEpp’s] involvement in the construction of the 1929 home.” Criteria 3- Architecture/Design: “While the 1929 house exhibits elements of Colonial Revival style and particularly exhibits the one-story or Cape Cod cottage subtype (due to its form and massing), a subtype built throughout the Colonial Revival decades and that became especially common in the 1940s, the house is a modest representation of the style as shown by its use of wood cladding in lieu of masonry and lack of elaborate front entry, the house thus does not fully exemplify the distinctive characteristics of the Colonial Revival style required to be individually significant”
However, the Halberstadt report provides detailed information about the Van Epps who built and first owned 81 Pepper Drive and their contributions to early Los Altos (Criteria 2). She further determines that the house is associated with a recognized pattern of events with early developments that made a significant contribution to Los Altos history (Criteria 1).

The Sandoval report concludes that 81 Pepper Drive embodies the distinct characteristics of the Colonial Cape Cod Revival, or Cap Cod cottage, style which meets the criteria for architectural significance (Criteria 3). Further, the house may be a Sears & Roebuck Kit House, highlighting a craftsmanship and history unique to the era.

The Halberstadt and Sandoval conclusions respond to, but are not limited to, the following:
 No local history is included in the Evans & DeShazo report.

Page & Turnbull points to this shortcoming of the Evans & DeShazo report yet they, too, do not provide any local history. The Page & Turnbull report is only a Peer Review Review, not a complete Historic Resource Evaluation, but rather a critique of the Evans & DeShazo HRE. Page & Turnbull did not conduct further research.  The Page & Turnbull report states: “The history of the property’s more localized neighborhood is not discussed. Providing the history of the property’s ‘place’ from the broad (county, city, or town) to specific environs (neighborhood or development area) is industry standard as it thereby establishes an historic context for the property.

The formalized establishment of Los Altos as a town is also not clarified.”  The Page & Turnbull report emphasizes the importance of a property’s local history. That essential information was not provided to the Historical Commission. This material omission denied the Historical Commission vital

Page 173 of 1184 ends

3 information in reaching their findings. The missing local history has now been researched and is included in the Halberstadt report.  The Page & Turnbull report asserts the architecture of 81 Pepper was a lesser example of Colonial Revival as it was not of masonry construction and lacked an elaborate front entrance. In fact, 81 Pepper is almost identical to the “excellent examples” of one and one-half story Colonial Revival Cape Cod homes on exhibit in the Page & Turnbull report. Page & Turnbull misidentified 81 Pepper Drive as a Colonial Revival, failing to recognize it as a Cape Cod Revival or Cape Cod Cottage style house. As Mark Sandoval states, “The comparison of 81 Pepper to the other [Los Altos] examples cited is like apples and oranges, …. both are fruits but they come from different trees.”
California Code of Regulations 15064.5(a) states that a resource included in a local historic register shall be presumed to be of historic significance unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically significant.

Los Altos Municipal Code 12.44.090 states the only legitimate reason for terminating the designation of a historic resource is when clear evidence is presented that shows the resource no longer meets the criteria of Section 12.44.040 due to loss of integrity and/or historic significance.

The attached Halberstadt and Sandoval reports provide evidence that 81 Pepper Drive retains historic significance. We, therefore, request that City Council conducts a de novo examination of the above facts and attached reports and makes the determination that 81 Pepper Drive remain on the Los Altos HRI.

Thank you for your consideration,
Maria Bautista, Thomas Chapman and Jon Baer

Page 174 of 1184 ends

1 April Halberstadt, M.A.

Historical Consulting
240 South 13th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Maria Bautista
Thomas Chapman
Jonathan Baer
Los Altos, CA 94022

Thanks for asking me to comment on the Van Epps House reports. I have reviewed the three consultant reports associated with the proposed action – my recommendation is the house should remain on the Historic Inventory.

I found the three documents puzzling. None of the reports is a complete report on the history and importance of the Van Epps Family Home. One consultant has primary documentation with information about the completion date and builder of the property, but then the consultant comments that the date and builder are unknown! That is very strange.

You asked about my Los Altos history connections. The last consulting work I performed in Los Altos was the Historic Report and Mills Act application for the Guy Shoup House on University Avenue. The was a couple of years before COVID. The first research I did in Los Altos was in the early 1970s when consultant Patty Dixon Leach and I were helping the late Marian Grimm develop the Gilbert Smith House.

We did not get very far; it was difficult to find records. Since then I have acquired a database of over 200 significant early houses in Los Altos.

My other connection to Los Altos starts in my own neighborhood, Naglee Park.

Notable Los Altos resident Paul Shoup and his architect Charles McKenzie lived here first. They used Naglee Park as a model for their own “streetcar suburb”, copied from the Main Line developments near Philadelphia.

In addition to my books and historical research, I served as the Director of the Saratoga Museum from 1999-2007. In 2007 I joined the Board of the San Jose Fire Museum where I now serve. I served for eight years on the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission with two terms as Chairman. I also served two years on a special County Heritage Task Force working under the Department of the Interior. The goal of the Task Force was to create a County-wide tourist destination featuring our fifty-plus heritage museums.

Page 175 of 1184 ends

2 The Van Epps Family Home project was my first experience with the impact of deed restrictions.

Historians tend to get excited about some very weird stuff – thanks again for the opportunity.

Historically Yours,
April Halberstadt, M. A.

Encl: Report and references

Page 176 of 1184 ends

3 SUMMARY/RECCOMENDATION:

The Van Epps Family Home, located at 81 Pepper Drive in Los Altos, CA, should remain on the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) as a historic resource. It is significant because of its architectural style, its structural integrity and its location within the Adams subdivision. The design of this home, originally located in the semi-rural landscape of California, was very unusual for its time and place. The earlier Van Epps home, still also located at 81 Pepper Drive, must also be included. The two structures on their site help tell the story of the transition of Los Altos from a rural community of small farms and orchards to a town with automobiles.

The house was built and occupied by its first owners, a journeyman carpenter/builder and his wife. Because any house is an artifact of its place and time, the appearance of this house in the Los Altos landscape in 1929 says something important about Los Altos. The Van Epps family made significant contributions to the development of their local community during their lifetimes. Harry was a builder and carpenter; Grace was an active member of the civic organizations and clubs: Union Church and the Woman’s Club, and a tutor for school children in her home when the local schools were just developing.

Two critical pieces of information are missing from the research reports related to this house. The heritage consultants failed to develop a history of the first owner/builder of the home. Understanding the heritage of the Van Epps family would reveal their reason for choosing to build a Colonial Revival style home. The second item of information is revealed on the original deed to the property. The Van Epps house was built despite several deed restrictions that remained until 2023. 1 Today we identify the appearance of certain language in legal documents, words which designate a property as “Caucasian only”, as evidence of what is now called structural racism within a community.

The deed restrictions also specified the cost of the house; it had to cost more than $5,000. This was a substantial cost for its time and may have been a factor in the slow growth of the area.

EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) has a short list of conditions that must be met to list a resource on California’s Register. The Van Epps Family Home meets these requirements.
1 A copy of the original deed containing the Discriminatory Restrictive Covenant will be included for the record.

Page 177 of 1184 ends

4 The Los Altos Historical Commission made several findings regarding the property that are very puzzling, given the consultant evidence provided. The Van Epps family represents a pioneer Los Altos family of professional builders who built their own home, yet they are dismissed as not important to local history. We are presented with aerial photographs and a news story about the family completing the house and moving into their home from a local paper, strong documentary evidence. This documentary evidence is apparently either overlooked or dismissed. This timing relative to the Great Depression is important and is historically significant.

In addition, the Historical Commission appears to have misunderstood the requirements of the distinctive characteristics of a design type, as noted in the list of historic conditions. All three consultants identified the home without hesitation as a Colonial Revival style home, but failed to recognize it as a 1 ½-story Cape Cod subtype The builder of record is known; the structure is a tribute to the family’s American Colonial heritage and values.2 Although it was known that the Van Epps family were the original owners, the consultants failed to credit this hard-working family and their accomplishments.

Therefore, the VanEpps Family Home must continue to be listed on the Los Altos HRI because it meets the following requirements of the California Register of Historic resources.

1. Resource must be fifty years old.

2. It retains its original integrity; this Colonial Revival Cape Cod style home retains its original design, materials, workmanship and setting from the time the first builders owned and occupied their structure in 1929. The exterior of the Van Epps house has been carefully maintained over nearly a century. The second structure on the site also maintains its integrity and supports the narrative of early Los Altos development.

3. The Van Epps house is a very rare example of a Colonial Revival structure; this is one of only two examples extant in Los Altos. Although a second example of the style is listed on the Los Altos HRI (892 Carmel), it appears because it is associated with a notable resident and not because it was originally identified for its architectural style.

4. The Van Epps house qualifies as historic under Section C. of the CRHR criteria:

Historic significance associated with a pattern of events which contributed to the initial residential development of Los Altos. The two structures on their site tell the story of the residential transition in Los Altos; the move from farming to urban development.

5. The house is associated with a family important to local history. Since the consultant failed to research the history of the original builder/owner of the property, and also 2 Harry P. Van Epps’ grandparents are from Glenville, New York, a small community near Schenectady. Local residents are members of the First Dutch Reformed Church, a sect which first appears in New York in the 17th century. The litte town of Glenville is centered on a church of this denomination.

Page 178 of 1184 ends

5 failed to look at the family’s membership in newly developing community organizations such as the church and woman’s club, this critical association was overlooked and should be remedied. Despite various deed restrictions, such as the requirement to build a house that costs $5,000, the Van Epps family appears to have used sweat-equity and creative financial planning to realize their dream of a home in the Los Altos community. 3Their hard work and ingenuity deserve recognition. 81 Pepper Drive, Los Altos: Three Reports
The City of Los Altos has been presented with three historical reports for the house located at 81 Pepper Drive. The following comments are focused on exploring and resolving the conflicts in the information presented in the three reports, and to help explain the apparent discrepancies. None of these reports would be found complete or adequate by many other communities. The three reports are noted by the names of the researchers; as 1. Circa, 2. Evans & De Shazo and 3. Page & Turnbull.

Report One (Circa, DPR 523A, 2011) – commissioned by the City of Los Altos, this is an incomplete report. The original Los Altos HRI identified this structure to be included in the inventory based solely on its architecture. No research was done on the early owners or builders. This deficiency was flagged by the consultant at the time. The consultant identified the style of the home as Colonial Revival, unusual for the time and place.

The Los Altos HRI of significant architecture should have been accompanied by an Overview, or a Context Statement providing a history of development within the community.

Los Altos has a Context Statement, originally written in 2011 and updated in 2012.

Unfortunately it does not provide a satisfactory overview of the patterns of development in the Los Altos area. For example, it does not mention the advent of deed restrictions in the area, a real estate practice which became prevalent in the World War I era.

Report Two (Evans & De Shazo HRE, 2025) – was presented by the current owner who wants the home removed from the HRI for the purpose of subsequent demolition. This is an incomplete report with an obvious bias. The report contains factual inconsistencies, spelling typos and does not include a reasonable Bibliography, despite the consultant’s assertion. 4 The most startling assertion is the statement that the Van Epps family could not be identified as building or occupying the house, despite presenting evidence to the contrary. A copy of the deed to the property was not included by the consultant. This deed, recorded in December of 1928, shows Harry and Grace Van Epps as the owners of the property. The consultant did include other documentary evidence; a newspaper clipping, a news photo and 3 The 1930 census notes the house is valued at $7,000.
4 Consultant notes Bibliography meets professional guidelines. At present, the only Industry Standard is that the format follows the guidelines of the Chicago Style – also widely referred to as A Manual for Writers by Kate L Turabian, Ninth Edition, when formatting a bibliography.

Page 179 of 1184 ends

Los Altos City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Los Altos City Council
January 27, 2026