Los Altos Council denies appeal, upholds planning commission approval for 85‑unit El Camino project

A divided public filled the council chambers as the Los Altos City Council on Jan. 13 denied an appeal and upheld the planning commission’s approval of an 85‑unit multifamily project at 4898 El Camino Real.

The project, proposed as an eight‑story building that includes 10 restricted affordable units, an automated parking garage with 95 vehicle spaces and extensive bicycle storage, had been approved by the planning commission and was defended by city staff and the applicant’s legal and technical team.

Appellants and dozens of neighbors told the council the project would overwhelm Jordan Avenue with queuing that the appellants’ traffic reviewer said Abrams Associates did not adequately analyze. They also raised concerns about a transformer enclosure that they said depended on a waiver of local standards, ADA access at automated parking loading bays, and the cumulative effect of multiple high‑density projects along El Camino and nearby streets.

“We’re here to ask for responsible development, not just any development,” an appellant told the council, arguing the project was an “ugly tumor” that would worsen traffic and pedestrian safety near several schools.

The applicant’s attorney, Brian O’Neal, countered that the project is protected under California’s density bonus law and the Housing Accountability Act, which limit a jurisdiction’s ability to deny housing projects that comply with objective standards. He said the waivers requested under the density bonus are permissible and that the appellants had not shown the high threshold for denial under state law.

“Those speculative accusations are not tethered to any specific objective health and safety standard,” O’Neal said, urging council to defer to the planning commission and the staff analysis.

Traffic consultant Stephen Abrams, of Abrams Associates, defended the study prepared for the applicant, saying the methodology followed the city’s required guidance, used Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates adjusted for walkability, and included queuing forecasts in the technical appendix that staff had reviewed.

Council members repeatedly framed their deliberations around the legal standard: whether the appellants had met the burden to show the project violated state law or that the planning commission’s findings were unsupportable. Several council members noted that since SB743 changed CEQA traffic analysis to vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) rather than level of service, arguments framed around peak‑period queuing are not always dispositive.

Mayor Meadows said that while she sympathized with neighborhood traffic concerns—“I have been on Jordan at 7:30 a.m.”—the council could not find the appellants met the burden required to overturn the planning commission. “We are obligated under state law and through a contract with the state to accommodate” housing targets, she said.

After deliberation, the council adopted a resolution denying Appeal APB APL25‑00006 and upholding the planning commission’s design review and conditional use permit with state density bonus. The roll call vote was: Daly — Yes; Weinberg — Yes; Lang — Yes; Meadows — Yes.

What’s next

The applicant also received approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide the site into 85 condominium lots; staff and the applicant said that building‑permit level details such as final ADA compliance will be checked during the permit review. Opponents said they may consider legal options, and several asked staff to take follow‑up actions on neighborhood traffic mitigation and sidewalk gaps.

Action taken

Council voted to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission approval for the project at 4898 El Camino Real. The project remains subject to subsequent building‑permit reviews and any conditions adopted with the approval.