Agenda packet — Los Altos Hills City Council, August 18, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

Godbe Research
Los Altos Hills - 2016 Resident Satisfaction Survey

SENSE OF COMMUNITY
Column N % Mean Column N % Mean
Very strong 16.6% 17.3%
Somewhat strong 36.2% 37.5%
Somewhat weak 26.0% 26.5%
Very weak 13.2% 9.5%
None at all 6.0% 6.5%
DK/NA 2.1% 2.6%
Increased 14.9% 13.4%
Stayed the same 62.2% 65.3%
Decreased 18.4% 17.0%
DK/NA 4.6% 4.3%
Extremely important 17.4% 16.1%
Very important 39.5% 40.4%
Somewhat important 30.0% 29.7%
Not too important 9.4% 9.3%
Not at all important 3.7% 4.5%
DK/NA .1% 0.0%
Town Picnic 47.3% 36.2%
4th of July 28.9% 29.0%
Pathways Run/Walk 22.3% 20.1%
Easter Egg Hunt 13.9% 10.3%
Movie Night 13.7% 14.3%
Hoedown 12.9% 7.5%
Barn Lighting 12.3% 10.2%
Vines and Wines 11.5% 11.0%
Caroling in the Hills 10.8% 10.5%
Earth Day 8.2% 7.1%
60th Gala 5.9% 5.9%
Hoppin' Hounds Easter Biscuit
Hunt 4.2% 3.0%
Leadership Conference 2.3% 2.7%
Other 11.4% 13.2%
DK/NA 15.3% 18.7%
Adults 18+ Voters

10. Thinking about the sense of community that you feel living in Los Altos Hills. Would you say that you feel a strong, weak, or no sense of community at all?

11. Has the sense of community that you feel living in Los Altos Hills increased, stayed the same or decreased in the last 5 years?

12. How important is having a sense of community in Los Altos Hills to you, is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?

13. What town events have you or anyone in your household attended?
Topline Report 2/10/2016 Page 7

Page 420 of 622 ends

Godbe Research
Los Altos Hills - 2016 Resident Satisfaction Survey

PARKS AND RECREATION
Column N % Mean Column N % Mean
Excellent 33.8% 33.4%
Good 41.8% 40.6%
Fair 5.9% 6.3%
Poor .5% .4%
Very poor .2% .2%
Not visited open space 15.5% 16.9%
DK/NA 2.3% 2.1%
Excellent 8.6% 9.2%
Good 19.9% 19.2%
Fair 2.6% 3.2%
Poor .5% .6%
Very poor 0.0% 0.0%
Not participated in a recreation
program

66.0% 65.6%
DK/NA 2.3% 2.2%
Excellent 25.3% 29.4%
Good 40.3% 37.2%
Fair 15.1% 15.9%
Poor 4.0% 3.0%
Very poor .8% 1.0%
Not used pathways 13.6% 13.3%
DK/NA .9% .3%
Pathways not maintained/Uneven 64.6% 65.1%
Lead to nowhere 13.3% 13.2%
Animal feces 10.2% 8.8%
Trash/Debris on pathways 6.2% 1.6%
Need more open space 3.6% 4.4%
Need signs 3.5% 4.2%
Trees need care/Preservation 1.5% 1.8%
Had a bad experience/Dissatisfied 1.2% 1.5%
Not well marked 0.0% 0.0%
Other mention 4.6% 5.6%
Undecided/Need more information 0.0% 0.0%
DK/NA/Unsure 10.8% 7.0%
Yes 19.1% 19.5%
No 55.1% 56.6%
DK/NA 25.7% 23.9%
Yes, need additional facility 16.5% 16.7%
No, can be done with existing
facilities 58.2% 59.1%
DK/NA 25.3% 24.2%
Strongly support 15.0% 15.6%
Somewhat support 35.3% 34.3%
Somewhat oppose 17.9% 18.3%
Strongly oppose 24.3% 22.7%
DK/NA 7.5% 9.1%
Adults 18+ Voters

17. Why did you rate Los Altos Hills’ open space, pathways, or recreation programs as fair, poor or very poor?

18. Does Los Altos Hills need more space to hold meetings, classes and recreation programs?

19. Does Los Altos Hills need an additional facility with space to hold meetings, classes and recreation programs or can this be done with existing facilities?

20. To provide Los Altos Hills residents with expanded facilities for meetings, classes and recreation programs, would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or
strongly oppose the addition of a community center?

14. If you have visited Los Altos Hills open space in the last 12 months, would you say that Los Altos Hills's open space areas are excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?

15. If you have participated in a Los Altos Hills recreation program in the last 12 months, would you say that Los Altos Hills' recreation classes and programs are excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?

16. If you have used a Los Altos Hills pathway for walking, running, cycling, or horseback riding in the last 12 months, would you say that Los Altos Hills' pathways areas are excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
Topline Report 2/10/2016 Page 8

Page 421 of 622 ends

Godbe Research
Los Altos Hills - 2016 Resident Satisfaction Survey
Column N % Mean Column N % Mean
Would not use it 33.9% 35.0%
Fitness and wellness programs 31.1% 27.7%
Lectures and continuing
education 19.4% 17.5%
Senior service 19.0% 19.6%
Public performances 18.7% 17.8%
After-school programs 18.5% 14.6%
Music or dance classes 17.9% 13.9%
Art programs and exhibits 17.4% 15.5%
Group and club meetings 15.8% 13.8%
Host a private gathering 13.3% 11.2%
Emergency operations center 10.4% 9.6%
Other 0.8% 0.9%
DK/NA 7.6% 7.6%
Adults 18+ Voters

21. If a new community center was built, what would you or members of your household be interested in using it for? Topline Report 2/10/2016 Page 9

Page 422 of 622 ends

Godbe Research
Los Altos Hills - 2016 Resident Satisfaction Survey

INFORMATION SOURCES AND TOWN COMMUNICATION
Column N % Mean Column N % Mean
Email 23.5% 22.0%
Town Crier 16.6% 17.7%
Newsletter 11.2% 10.8%
Direct mailers 6.3% 7.1%
E-news 5.9% 3.5%
Website (Los Altos Hills official
site) 5.2% 5.8%
Television 4.5% 5.5%
Postal mail 4.3% 1.5%
Word of mouth, friends or family 3.0% 3.6%
San Jose Mercury News 3.0% 3.7%
Los Altos Patch 2.9% 3.0%
Activity guide 2.8% 2.6%
Nextdoor 2.7% 3.3%
Facebook 2.5% 3.0%
Website (Other) 1.3% 1.6%
Palo Alto Daily Post 1.3% 1.6%
Library email notice .6% .7%
Radio .4% .5%
Business Times .2% .3%
Parks e-newsletter 0.0% 0.0%
Rapid Notify emergency phone
alerts 0.0% 0.0%
Twitter 0.0% 0.0%
Video archive of town meetings 0.0% 0.0%
Video streaming of town meetings 0.0% 0.0%
Other .5% .6%
DK/NA 1.2% 1.4%
Adults 18+ Voters

22. What is your most preferred source of information about Town activities, events, and issues?
Topline Report 2/10/2016 Page 10

Page 423 of 622 ends

Godbe Research
Los Altos Hills - 2016 Resident Satisfaction Survey

DEMOGRAPHICS
Column N % Mean Column N % Mean
East of 280 45.1% 46.4%
West of 280 47.8% 45.7%
DK/NA 7.0% 7.8%
North Magdalena Avenue 78.6% 77.8%
South of Magdalena Avenue 15.5% 15.6%
DK/NA 6.0% 6.7%
Public sewer 61.1% 59.0%
Private septic tank 35.8% 37.2%
DK/NA 3.1% 3.8%
Public street 61.3% 58.7%
Private street 34.8% 36.6%
DK/NA 4.0% 4.6%
Walking or hiking 85.1% 84.5%
Running 35.5% 32.7%
Cycling / mountain biking 34.2% 36.1%
Horseback riding 8.4% 6.3%
Other 5.1% 5.8%
DK/NA 5.7% 6.0%
18 to 29 9.9% 12.1%
30 to 39 8.1% 6.4%
40 to 49 16.6% 13.2%
50 to 64 34.2% 32.8%
65 or older 29.8% 33.8%
DK/NA 1.4% 1.7%
0 to 4 years (pre-school) 7.1% 4.6%
5 to 11 years (grade-school) 19.7% 13.7%
12 to 13 years (middle-school) 5.5% 5.3%
14 to 17 years (high-school) 15.3% 14.2%
None 64.0% 69.9%
DK/NA 0.3% 0.4%
Male 48.5% 49.0%
Female 51.5% 51.0%
Japanese .8% .8%
Chinese 8.9% 8.9%
Hispanic 4.1% 4.1%
Jewish 6.1% 6.1%
Armenian .7% .7%
Vietnamese 0.0% 0.0%
Italian 1.0% 1.0%
Korean .8% .8%
African American 0.0% 0.0%
Not Coded 77.6% 77.6%
Owner 85.1% 85.1%
Renter 14.9% 14.9%
Democrat 35.0% 35.0%
Republican 32.6% 32.6%
Other party 3.0% 3.0%
Decline to state/no party
preference 29.4% 29.4%
Adults 18+ Voters
D. Is your home located on a public or private street?
E. Do you or someone in your household do any of the following activities?
F. What is your age?
A. Do you live East or West of 280?
B. Do you live North or South of Magdalena Avenue?
K. Party
G. If you have children under the age of 18 living in your household, what are the ages of those children?
H. Respondent's gender
I. Ethnic Surname
J. Homeownership Status
C. Is your home connected to the public sewer or a private septic tank?
Topline Report 2/10/2016 Page 11

Page 424 of 622 ends

Godbe Research
Los Altos Hills - 2016 Resident Satisfaction Survey
Column N % Mean Column N % Mean
Dem 1 12.4% 12.4%
Dem 2+ 12.7% 12.7%
Rep 1 8.8% 8.8%
Rep 2+ 14.1% 14.1%
Other 1 14.0% 14.0%
Other 2+ 7.2% 7.2%
Dem & Rep 7.0% 7.0%
Dem & Other 11.7% 11.7%
Rep & Other 9.3% 9.3%
Dem, Rep & Other 2.8% 2.8%
2013 to 2016 16.2% 16.2%
2009 to 2012 18.4% 18.4%
2005 to 2008 12.7% 12.7%
2001 to 2004 10.5% 10.5%
1997 to 2000 6.3% 6.3%
1993 to 1996 5.4% 5.4%
1981 to 1992 13.6% 13.6%
1980 or before 16.9% 16.9%
Not coded 0.0% 0.0%
0 7.5% 7.5%
1 8.9% 8.9%
2 1.9% 1.9%
3 4.9% 4.9%
4 3.9% 3.9%
5 4.8% 4.8%
6 4.5% 4.5%
7 4.5% 4.5%
8 6.8% 6.8%
9 6.8% 6.8%
10 6.8% 6.8%
11 8.9% 8.9%
12 13.9% 13.9%
13 16.1% 16.1%
0 18.9% 18.9%
1 9.2% 9.2%
2 3.5% 3.5%
3 5.7% 5.7%
4 4.0% 4.0%
5 4.5% 4.5%
6 4.2% 4.2%
7 3.5% 3.5%
8 5.6% 5.6%
9 5.1% 5.1%
10 8.5% 8.5%
11 9.0% 9.0%
12 7.6% 7.6%
13 10.9% 10.9%
Yes 78.6% 78.6%
No 21.4% 21.4%
Yes 75.1% 75.1%
No 24.9% 24.9%
Adults 18+ Voters
N. Voting History see detailed crosstabs
Q. Permanent Absentee Voter
R. Likely Absentee Voter
L. Household Party Type
M. Registration Date
O. Times Voted in Last Elections
P. Absentee Voter
Topline Report 2/10/2016 Page 12

Page 425 of 622 ends

RESOLUTION 41- 22

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS

FOR INSTALLING NEW EV CHARGING STATIONS, UNDERGROUND RACEWAY,

WIRING, AND ELECTRIC SUBPANEL AT TOWN HALL AND HERITAGE HOUSE WHEREAS, the Utility Engineering Manager did duly examine and consider quotes for materials and project bids submitted for the construction of EV Charging Stations, underground raceway, wiring, and electric subpanel at Town Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Utility Engineering Manager recommends the purchase of underground raceway materials and pull boxes from the lowest quote, AZCO Supply, in the amount of $8, 154. 58; and WHEREAS, the Utility Engineering Manage recommends that the underground raceway scope of the project be awarded to the lowest bidder, Phoenix Electric Co., in the amount of $69, 881; and
WHEREAS, the Utility Engineering Manager recommends that the electrical scope ofthe project be awarded to the lowest bidder, C& C Electric Inc., in the amount of $24, 000; and WHEREAS, the Utility Engineering Manager recommends that funds of $77, 964. 42 be made available for the purchase of materials and EV' s and construction contingency; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills that;
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute contracts to the abovenamed firms on behalf of the Town of Los Altos Hills for the installation of two EV' s and additional raceway for Heritage house.

2. The Public Works Director is hereby authorized to approve potential contract change orders in an amount not to exceed $ 51, 964.

3. Approve appropriation in the amount of $81, 231. 03 from the unreserved General Fund, for a total project cost of not to exceed $ 180, 000.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 21 st day of April 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
BY:

George TysoA,-MayVr
Resolution 41- 22 Page 1

Page 426 of 622 ends

ATTEST:

Resolution 41- 22 Page 2

Page 427 of 622 ends

1 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
Via teleconference according to the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, Mayor Tyson called the City Council Regular Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

Present: Mayor George Tyson, Vice Mayor Linda Swan, Councilmember Stanley Q.

Mok, Councilmember Lisa Schmidt, Councilmember Kavita Tankha

Absent: None
Staff: City Manager Peter Pirnejad, City Attorney Steve Mattas, Planning and Building Director Sofia Mangalam, Public Works Director Oscar Antillon, Administrative Services Director Sarina Revillar, Community Services Supervisor Sarah Robustelli, Management Analyst II Cody Einfalt, City Clerk Deborah Padovan
CALL TO ORDER (6:00 P.M.)
A. Roll Call
B. Pledge of Allegiance

1. AGENDA REVIEW
Mayor Tyson said there was no reportable action out of of closed session.

Vice Mayor Swan removed Items 9.C and 9.D from the agenda.

Mayor Tyson removed Item 6.B from the agenda.

There were no other changes to the agenda.

2. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointments to the Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee City Clerk Deborah Padovan presented two applications for the Open Space Committee.

Anita Baldwin introduced herself to the City Council and expressed her interest in serving on the committee.

Viggy Mokkarala introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 17, 2022 – 6:00 p.m.

Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California

Page 428 of 622 ends

2 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
in serving on the committee.

Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to appoint Anita Baldwin and Viggy Mokkarala to the Open Space Committee for four-year terms. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Tankha.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
B. Appointments to the Los Altos Hills Technology Committee City Clerk Padovan presented the applications for the Technology Committee.

Vice Mayor Swan said that she would not be voting for her spouse and will choose only six applicants.

Council discussion ensued.

Rajiv Bhateja, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

William Coughran, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

Ameesh Divatia, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

Javed Husain, Los Altos Hills, was not present, but the City Clerk read a message from him in which he expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

Annie Ju, Los Altos Hills, introduced herself to the City Council and expressed her interest in serving on the committee.

George Lee, Los Altos Hills, was not present, but a video message was shared in which he expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

Ronald Haley, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

Sam Mughal, Los Altos Hills, applied, but was not present.

Page 429 of 622 ends

3 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
Robert Sandor, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

John Swan, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

Scott Vanderlip, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

Sasha Zbrozek, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed his interest in serving on the committee.

Council discussion ensued.

The results of the vote are as follows:

Councilmember Mok selected Rajiv Bhateja, William Coughran, Ameesh Divatia, Ronald Haley, John Swan, Scott Vanderlip and Sasha Zbrozek.

Councilmember Schmidt selected Rajiv Bhateja, William Coughran, Ameesh Divatia, Javed Husain, Annie Ju, George Lee and Sasha Zbrozek.

Councilmember Tankha selected Rajiv Bhateja, William Coughran, Ameesh Divatia, Ronald Haley, John Swan, Scott Vanderlip and Sasha Zbrozek.

Vice Mayor Swan selected Rajiv Bhateja, William Coughran, Ameesh Divatia, George Lee, Scott Vanderlip and Sasha Zbrozek.

Mayor Tyson selected Rajiv Bhateja, William Coughran, Ameesh Divatia, Javed Husain, Annie Ju, George Lee and Sasha Zbrozek.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Schmidt moved to appoint Rajiv Bhateja, William Coughran, Ameesh Divata, Annie Ju, Scott Vanderlip, Sasha Zbrozek and George Lee to the Technology Committee for four-year terms.

The motion was seconded by Councilmember Tankha.

Public Comment
There were no public comments.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

Page 430 of 622 ends

4 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
ABSENT: None

3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no presentations from the floor.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Tyson pulled Item 4.I for discussion. Vice Mayor Swan recused herself from voting on Items 4.I and 4.L
Councilmember Mok did not pull Item 4.D but commented on it.

Public Comment
There were no public comments.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 4.I. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schmidt.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan (except for Item 4.I and 4.L), Mok, Schmidt, Tankha NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: Swan (Item 4.I and 4.L)
ABSENT: None
A. Approval of Special City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 19, 2022
B. Approval of Regular City Council Meeting Minutes – January 20, 2022 C. Approval of Special City Council Meeting Minutes – January 25, 2022 D. Review of Disbursements for January 1-31, 2022 $1,562,638.59 E. Motion to Re-Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Town of Los Altos Hills, Including the Planning Commission and Committees, due to the Imminent Risks to the Health and Safety of Attendees and Making Related Findings Pursuant to AB 361 (Staff: S. Mattas)
F. Resolution 15-22 Authorizing Submittal of Application for all CalRecycle Grants for Which Town of Los Altos Hills is Eligible (Staff: S. Revillar)

Page 431 of 622 ends

5 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
G. Receive Quarterly Investment Portfolio Report-Quarter Ending December 31, 2021 (Staff: S. Revillar)
H. Resolution 16-22 Accepting the 2021 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project as Complete (Staff: O. Antillon)
I. Resolution 19-22 Awarding a Contract for the East Sunset Drive Roadway Widening Project to Brannon Corporation (Staff: O. Antillon)
Mayor Tyson pulled the item and proposed that we proceed with this item and direct the staff to investigate ways to complete a pathway along that roadway at the same time.

City Manager Pirenjad clarified that the motion that had been discussed was “Approve the project as is, recognize that the Pathways Master Plan includes this as one of the areas missing a roadway path, and direct staff to coordinate with the Pathways Committee to plan for a path for this section of East Sunset Drive.” MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Tyson moved to approve Resolution 19-22 Awarding a Contract for the East Sunset Drive Roadway Widening Project to Brannon Corporation, recognizing that the Pathways Master Plan includes this as one of the areas missing a roadway path, and direct staff to coordinate with the Pathways Committee to plan for a path for this section of East Sunset Drive. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Tankha.

Public Comment
There were no public comments.

MOTION PASSED 4-0-1:

AYES: Tyson, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: Swan
ABSENT: None
J. Adoption of Ordinance 600 (Second Reading) to Amend Title 6 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Establishing Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Regulations Consistent with Senate Bill 1383 Requirements (Staff: O. Antillon) - Motion to Waive Reading and Adopt the Ordinance
K. Resolution 17-22 Authorizing Consulting Service Agreements with 4Leaf, Inc. and West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. for Contract Building Services for a period of three (3) years in an amount not to exceed $150,000 per agreement (Staff: S.

Mangalam)

Page 432 of 622 ends

6 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
L. Resolution 18-22 Accepting the Grant of an Open Space Easement at 13210 E.

Sunset Drive; Lands of Pang; File #ER21-0001 (Staff: S. Mangalam) M. Receive City Council Strategic Priorities Implementation Plan (Staff: P. Pirnejad)

5. ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Amendment to the Resolution 20-22 Establishing Standing Committees and Adopting General Special Rules Pertaining Thereto Regarding Status of the Education Committee (Staff: D. Padovan)
City Clerk Padovan presented the staff report.

Mayor Tyson provided additional information.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
John Swan, Los Altos Hills, said he doesn’t think an Education Committee is necessary right now, but believes we should designate one person to be our champion for how monies are spent.

Mayor Tyson would be willing to contact LASD to see if there is an opening to serve on their bond oversight committee.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Tyson moved to amend the standing committee to remove the Education Committee. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schmidt.

Public Comment, continued
Michelle Yu, Los Altos Hills, had missed the discussion of Consent Calendar and asked what had been decided. Mayor Tyson said the item was approved and returned to staff. City Manager Pirnejad offered to speak with Ms. Yu offline.

MOTION PASSED 3-2:

AYES: Tyson, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: Swan, Mok
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

Page 433 of 622 ends

7 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
B. Resolution 21-22 Approving the Scope of Work and Authorizing Staff to Issue an RFP for Proposition 68 Grant Funding Project to Retrofit the Purissima Park Concession Building and Obtain Bids (Staff: S. Robustelli) Community Services Supervisor Sarah Robustelli presented the staff report.

Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Schmidt moved to adopt Resolution 21-22 Approving the Scope of Work and Authorizing Staff to Issue an RFP for Proposition 68 Grant Funding Project to Retrofit the Purissima Park Concession Building and Obtain Bids. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
C. Resolution 22-22 Approving the Review Criteria for the Automatic License Plate Reader Pilot Program (Staff: C. Einfalt)

Management Analyst II Cody Einfalt presented the staff report.

Captain Rich Urena provided information on the sheriff’s office side of the cameras.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
Rajiv Bhateja, Los Altos Hills, said he was glad to see they are already helping to keep the Town safe. Trying to extrapolate the effectiveness of these systems in a 30 period is not likely to be very reliable, so he supports reviewing the effectiveness over a longer period.

Allan Epstein, Los Altos Hills, complimented the staff and committee for putting in the ALPR system. He asked what methodology the sheriff’s office is going to employ to verify that all the systems are working. Captain Urena responded to Mr.

Epstein’s questions.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to adopt Resolution 22-22 Approving the Review Criteria for the Automatic License Plate Reader Pilot Program. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

Page 434 of 622 ends

8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
The Council went into Recess at 8:02 p.m.

The Council Reconvened to Open Session at 8:09 p.m.

6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Receive 2021-22 Mid-Year Financial Report and Adopt Resolution 23-22 Approving the Mid-Year Budget Appropriations (Staff: S. Revillar) Administrative Services Director Sarina Revillar presented the staff report.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
Allan Epstein, Los Altos Hills, said revenue is definitely coming in higher than what was expected and expenses way under budgeted. The anticipated amount of fund balance at the end of the year will be substantially greater. He suggested since the Phase II program for Town Hall is not moving ahead, the money be unappropriated so that it is available for other expenditures.

Further Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to adopt Resolution 23-22 Approving the Mid-Year Budget Appropriations. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
B. Resolution Approving the Employee Enhancements to Attract and Retain Town Staff (Staff: S. Revillar) – Removed from the agenda and not considered.

C. Resolution 24-22 Approving the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Policy (Staff:

S. Revillar)

Page 435 of 622 ends

9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
Administrative Services Director Sarina Revillar presented the staff report.

City Attorney Steve Mattas said that councilmembers are elected and appointed by pursuant to state laws. The Town cannot impose a requirement beyond what state law allows for an individual to be a councilmember. However, the Council can impose upon itself that requirement. He wanted Council to be aware that should they adopt the resolution presented tonight, those requirements would apply to them and to any new councilmember should a seat become vacant.

Public Comment
There were no public comments.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to adopt Resolution 24-22 Approving the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Policy. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schmidt.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
Items 6.D and 6.E were combined:

D. Discussion and Possible Action to Form a Council Ad Hoc Committee to Review and Make Recommendations on the Town’s Solid Waste Franchise Agreement with Greenwaste Recovery Inc. (Staff: C. Einfalt); and,
E. Discussion and Possible Action to establish two City Council Ad Hoc Committees; 1) a City Council Town Hall Committee to Evaluate Staffing Needs, Facilities and Parks and Recreation Program Space over the next 10 years and 2) Establish a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Explore a Legacy Giving Program (Staff: P. Pirnejad) Council discussion ensued. Management Analyst II Cody Einfalt presented the memo on the Greenwaste Ad Hoc Committee.

Public Comment (Item 6.D)
Allan Epstein, Los Altos Hills, asked if contracts ran on a calendar year or fiscal year. Mr. Einfalt responded that the franchise agreement runs on a fiscal year, but the decision needs to be on calendar year.

City Manager Pirnejad presented the ad hoc committees on evaluating staff needs/facilities and on a legacy giving program.

Page 436 of 622 ends

10 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment (Item 6.E)
There were no public comments.

There was Council consensus that the ad hoc committee members would be as follows:

City Council Ad Hoc Town Hall Committee (Staffing Needs, Facilities and Parks and Recreation Program Space): Mayor Tyson and Councilmember Schmidt City Council Ad Hoc Greenwaste Committee: Mayor Tyson and Vice Mayor Swan City Council Ad Hoc Legacy Giving Program Committee: Councilmember Mok and Councilmember Tankha
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Tyson moved that a Council Ad Hoc Town Hall Committee consisting of Mayor Tyson and Councilmember Schmidt be formed; a Council Ad Hoc Greenwaste Committee consisting of Mayor Tyson and Vice Mayor Swan be formed; and a Council Ad Hoc Legacy Giving Program Committee consisting of Councilmember Mok and Councilmember Tankha be formed. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Swan.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND

COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Request from the Open Space Committee Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for Funding for a Wildlife Corridor Consultation with Live Oak Associates in an amount not to exceed $15,000 (Open Space Committee Chair Kit Gordon)
Open Space Committee Chair Kit Gordon presented the report.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment

Page 437 of 622 ends

11 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
Peter Brown, Los Altos Hills, spoke in support of the proposal.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for Funding for a Wildlife Corridor Consultation with Live Oak Associates in an amount not to exceed $15,000.

The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Swan.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
B. Report and Resolution 23-22 Approving the Proposed ARPA Fund Usage (Councilmember Schmidt)
Councilmember Schmidt presented the report.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
Allan Epstein, Los Altos Hills, had questions about procedures for submitting to the treasury. As far as where the money is spent, it should be distributed equitably throughout the Town. It should work to the benefit of all the residents in the town.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to approve Resolution 23-22 Approving the Proposed ARPA Fund Usage. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Swan.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
C. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Mayor Tyson) Mayor Tyson presented the report. PG&E contacted the Town and informed us that they have been in touch with their estimator and they expect to have their work done by the end of February. The report was received. No action was taken.

D. Report by the Fire Taskforce Subcommittee (Councilmember Schmidt)

Page 438 of 622 ends

12 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
Councilmember Schmidt said she has morphed this ad ho committee to be more about safety. She reported on her activities related to safety issues in town. There was Council consensus to update the name of the subcommittee to the Safety Subcommittee. City Attorney Mattas recommended agendizing the topic for the next meeting.

E. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Subcommittee and Outside Agencies Activities
Councilmember Schmidt said she met with Mayor Tyson and staff to come up with short, small town surveys that will be distributed for feedback.

8. STAFF REPORTS
A. City Manager
City Manager Pirenjad promoted the City Manager’s weekly newsletter; it currently has 171 subscribers, and he wants to increase it to over 200. The next talk and walk series with the City Manager is scheduled for February 25th. He encouraged residents to register to receive community surveys. The Council adopted goals and staff is working on implementing those goals. Covid testing will take place on February 22nd at Town Hall. Clean up day is March 26th. All of this information can be found in the City Manager’s weekly newsletter.

Management Analyst II Einfalt reported on the CalOES grant mitigation program. The Town submitted a notice of intent to apply. It was due Tuesday, February 15th and the has state already responded, approved the eligibility for the project, and invited staff for a sub-application to submit for the project (fire mitigation efforts). It does require a 25% Town match and staff will be bringing it forward to the Council there is more information.

B. City Attorney - No report.

C. City Clerk
City Clerk Padovan announced that after a two-year hiatus we are planning to have an in-person volunteer dinner. It will be an outdoor venue and will be hosted at Hidden Villa. The date is a little different this year - it will be on a Wednesday. The date is Wednesday, September 7th and a “save the date” will go out to all committee members in the very near future. For now, please save the date of Wednesday, September 7, 2022.

D. Planning Director
Planning and Building Director Mangalam reported that they had a pop-up event last week and that the Housing Element survey went out last week.

Page 439 of 622 ends

13 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
E. Administrative Services Director
Director Revillar said that we are about to embark on budget preparation. Our IT services contract with Redwood City expires June 30, 2022, and they are unable to extend the contract. We will have an IT contractor to bridge the gap while we assess IT staffing level and technology needs.

F. Public Works Director
Director Antillon reported that we now have three electric vehicles in Town. Staff also completed the Byrne Preserve path and have received positive feedback. We did some updates to the Matadero Creek path and we are working with the Regional Water Quality Board on the Matadero Creek erosion project.

9. COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS
A. Discussion and Possible Action to Regulate Gas Powered Leaf Blowers in Los Altos Hills by Establishing Hours of Operation, Noise Limit, and set a Deadline to Eliminate Gas Powered Leaf Blowers Altogether (Councilmember Tankha) Councilmember Tankha presented the item. She suggested sending this to the Environmental Initiatives Committee for a “deeper dive.” Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schmidt.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
Public Comment
Anand Ranganathan, Los Altos Hills, said the Environmental Initiatives Committee will be discussing this next month.

DIRECTION: There was consensus to bring this item to the Environmental Initiatives Committee for further review.

Page 440 of 622 ends

14 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2022
B. Discussion on Criminal Activity and Recent Burglaries in Town (Councilmember Tankha)
Councilmember Tankha presented the item and asked if we are doing everything we need to be doing to keep our residents safe and said we should explore what else we can do.

Council discussion ensued.

DIRECTION: The City Manager will work directly with the Council subcommittee, which is reviewing the upcoming sheriff’s contract, to explore additional options to help keep our town as safe as possible. Additionally, the sheriff’s office will be invited to a future City Council meeting to provide an update on the current service levels in town.

C. Discussion and Possible Action to Support the Initiative to Overturn SB 9 (CA Cities for Local Control) (Councilmember Swan) – Removed from the agenda and not considered.

D. Discussion and Possible Action to Review the Sewer Rates being Charged to Los Altos Hills Residents by the City Palo Alto (Councilmember Swan) – Removed from the agenda and not considered.

10. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Deborah L. Padovan
Deborah Padovan
City Clerk
The minutes of the February, 2022, regular City Council meeting were approved as presented at the March 17, 2022, regular City Council meeting.

Page 441 of 622 ends

Category Theme Description Specifics
Town Hall Space
Digital transitions will allow more use of existing
space
Various changes are impacting the amount of space
needed to service the community. The City could
invest much less money to get a good outcome if
these options are properly supported.

Work‐from‐home, digital archiving, digital plan check and front counter services, hybrid meetings, less need for desk space, moreneed for monitors.

Town Hall Space
Add workstations to create flexibility and space for
needed positions
There are existing staff positions (mostly temporary or contracted) that cannot be accomodated in the
existing space. Some staff positions are on hold until
additional workstations can be created
Unfilled positions, Temporary project support (consultants), IT consultant, Intern/seasonal help
Town Hall Space
Bring teams together for better efficiency and
collaboration Planning Tech; City Manager/Cody; Finance/HR/IT and supervisor Town Hall Space Provide direction so that staff can otimize space Pending direction from Council puts a hold on efforts
to optimize what we have.

Town Hall expansion/working space; community space; major projects; programming
Town Hall Space
Digitize storage where possible and move physical
storage off‐site
Taking up limited space with archival materials or
large‐format materials.

Paper submittals in planning, engineers working with/storing plan sets in office, digital archiving system needed
Town Hall Space
Town Hall should primarily serve running the Town
government
There is not adequate space or buffering from
neighbors to expand the function and use of this site
beyond the running of the Town government.

Appropriate uses: office space for Town employees,
Council/committee/commission meetings, front desk
Town Hall Space Add maintenance staff to serve any new facility space Increases in Town facility space, reductions in
contracting resources, or buying power due to
increased costs, will require additional public works
maintenance staff (who will then need additional
working space)
Reliance on contractors has reduced the number of public staff (and working space) needed; costs are increasing (specifically street sweeping due to prevailing wages)
Town Hall Space Improve working amenities and spaces
Employees deserve and expect quality working spaces
and supporting amenities.

Informal gathering space; improved kitchen; maternity or lactaction space
Indoor Community Space Provide new indoor community space at a new site A new facility on a new site should not take away from
existing facilities.

Design any space for multi‐generational use. Large groups do nothave a space to easily gather in LAH. Flexible spaces with amenities/hookups needed.

Indoor Community Space
Online meetings and private homes are important
meeting spaces
75% of respondents have attended a zoom or other online meeting while between 38‐45% have attended an in‐person meeting

Page 1 of 8 ends

Page 442 of 622 ends

Los Altos Hills Community Facilities Needs Assessment Theme Matrix Top level groupings, based on the
project goals to identify needs for
indoor, outdoor, working space, and
help answer the question of moving
forward with Town Hall expansion
Short statement of what should happen: clearly state
position in as few words as possible
Category Theme
Town Hall Space
Digital transitions will allow more use of existing
space
Town Hall Space
Add workstations to create flexibility and space for
needed positions
Town Hall Space
Bring teams together for better efficiency and
collaboration
Town Hall Space Provide direction so that staff can otimize spaceTown Hall Space Digitize storage where possible and move physical
storage off‐site
Town Hall Space
Town Hall should primarily serve running the Towngovernment Town Hall Space Add maintenance staff to serve any new facility spaceTown Hall Space Improve working amenities and spacesIndoor Community Space Provide new indoor community space at a new site Indoor Community Space
Online meetings and private homes are important
meeting spaces
Low/Med/High frequency, thresholdsdescribed in "Definitions" sheet of thisworkbook Frequency of Mentions
Community
Interviews
Individual
Input Form
Town Staff
Townhall
Meetings
Committees&
Commissions
Flashvote
Survey
Community
Comparisons
Past
Community
Efforts
Medium
 ‐  ‐‐ ‐
Medium
‐‐  ‐  ‐‐ ‐
Medium
‐‐  ‐‐‐‐ ‐
Medium
‐‐  ‐‐‐‐ 
Medium
‐‐  ‐  ‐‐ ‐
Low
 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐
Low
‐‐  ‐‐‐‐ ‐
Low
‐  ‐‐‐ 
High
 ‐  ‐‐ ‐
High
 ‐  ‐‐  ‐‐
Checkmarks for specific methods this theme emerged from

Page 2 of 8 ends

Page 443 of 622 ends

Category Theme Description Specifics
Indoor Community Space Heritage house should be better utilized This building is (currently) not serving any purpose
well. Improvements should be made to allow use of
this building
Needs: modernization; exterior should stay as‐is. History of Los Altos Hills needs to both be properly stored and displayed Indoor Community Space Heritage house is not the space we need This building does not have a direct connection to LAH
history, is not easily adaptable for public use
Indoor Community Space Use facilities in surrounding communities There are many high‐quality facilities in the
neighboring communities that can be used by LAH
residents.

Facilities mentioned multiple times: Los Altos Community Center, Foothill College, Country Club. 42% of survey respondents usefacilities in nearby communities for indoor gatherings Indoor Community Space
Utilize or Expand Foothill College or Los Altos School
District facilities
Sharing facilities that exist is a more cost‐effective and practical tactic
Foothill College presents a good example for a public‐private partnership and an opportunity for LAH to utilize. School facilities are already a focus of families in the community
Indoor Community Space Explore alternative funding
Additional community space should not be built with
City funds needed for other purposes.

Legacy giving should be a key source of funding for future indoor community space.

Indoor Community Space
Use extra space/time in existing Town Hall for
community gatherings
Shared facilities have worked well in the past, with the right scheduling existing Town Hall could be
maximized for community gatherings.
20% of Survey respondents thought some additional space, but not a stand‐alone building is needed
Indoor Community Space The Town should have high quality public spaces The multiple uses of some spaces make for a poor
experience for all users.

Sharing working space with community uses (Parks and
Recreation building) is disruptive during the work day; Using spaces designed for meetings to hold fitness programs
Indoor Community Space No additional indoor community space is needed 47% of Indoor Survey respondents indicated they probably wouldn't use a new indoor facility. 38% indicated "I don't think LAH needs additional community space"
Outdoor Community Space Complete the pathways system
Pathways system offers most of what we need for
outdoor space and is an important part of the
community amenities
Existing pathway plan is fully funded and will be implemented over time. Pathways were used by 86% of survey respondents

Page 3 of 8 ends

Page 444 of 622 ends

Los Altos Hills Community Facilities Needs Assessment Theme Matrix Top level groupings, based on the
project goals to identify needs for
indoor, outdoor, working space, and
help answer the question of moving
forward with Town Hall expansion
Short statement of what should happen: clearly state
position in as few words as possible
Category Theme
Indoor Community Space Heritage house should be better utilized Indoor Community Space Heritage house is not the space we need Indoor Community Space Use facilities in surrounding communities Indoor Community Space
Utilize or Expand Foothill College or Los Altos SchoolDistrict facilities Indoor Community Space Explore alternative fundingIndoor Community Space Use extra space/time in existing Town Hall for
community gatherings
Indoor Community Space The Town should have high quality public spaces Indoor Community Space No additional indoor community space is needed Outdoor Community Space Complete the pathways system
Low/Med/High frequency, thresholdsdescribed in "Definitions" sheet of thisworkbook Frequency of Mentions
Community
Interviews
Individual
Input Form
Town Staff
Townhall
Meetings
Committees&
Commissions
Flashvote
Survey
Community
Comparisons
Past
Community
Efforts
Checkmarks for specific methods this theme emerged from High
 ‐  ‐‐ ‐
Medium
 ‐  ‐‐‐ ‐
Medium
 ‐‐  ‐  ‐‐
Medium
 ‐‐  ‐‐‐ ‐
Medium
 ‐‐  ‐‐ ‐
Medium
 ‐‐‐  ‐ 
Medium
 ‐  ‐‐‐‐ ‐
Medium
 ‐‐  ‐‐
High
 ‐ 

Page 4 of 8 ends

Page 445 of 622 ends

Category Theme Description Specifics
Outdoor Community Space
Create a place for regular day‐to‐day community
gathering
Several parts of the community, particularly mothers
of young children and older adults, are relatively
isolated in their large lot neighborhoods and would
benefit from a place to gather outdoors
The shape and walkability of the town make many specific locations difficult. Places with social seating (facing each other/movable rather than benches), swings and play features, regular programming. Shade, seating and open areas for playwere the highest response for needed park amenities Outdoor Community Space Existing outdoor facilities have limited uses Outdoor space is mostly specialized for particular uses and audiences, how can the Town accommodate new
uses?
Baseball, equestrian uses do not reflect the full range of interests in the community.

Outdoor Community Space Retain all baseball fields at Purisima Park Baseball fields are a unique facility that LAH offers to the larger community. Particularly the full size 90'basepath field Should not be an either‐or conversation with other
features/facilities
Outdoor Community Space Purisima presents opportunities and challenges Purisima park may have the space to serve the
community but displacement of existing facilities/uses
and the cost to develop are perceived as large
barriers. Proximity to the highway is not ideal for gathering space Outdoor Community Space Youth need safe space to gather in LAH Like other age groups, youth in LAH must go to nearby
cities and towns for programs, activities, or gathering places. Youth are less likely to be able to travel to other facilities Outdoor Community Space No additional outdoor space is needed 22‐25% of Outdoor Survey respondents indicated no new spaces are needed.

Outdoor Community Space Use outdoor facilities in nearby communities There are many outdoor facilities available for use by
Town residents
Parks, open spaces, trails, and schools NOT in Los Altos Hills weresecond only to homes/yards in use over the past 12 months.

Outdoor Community Space Specific improvement suggestions for existing spaces A number of individual ideas have been suggested in
this process. This theme collects them for future
consideration
Performance space (perhaps with headphones to keep noise levels low), improvements to dog park, pickleball court, place/activities for teens, coffee shop/cart, community garden, shade structures
Outdoor Community Space Create an outdoor meeting space To supplement indoor conference rooms, an outdoor
meeting space could be created on the Town Hall
grounds Space for around 15 people, with benches and shade

Page 5 of 8 ends

Page 446 of 622 ends

Los Altos Hills Community Facilities Needs Assessment Theme Matrix Top level groupings, based on the
project goals to identify needs for
indoor, outdoor, working space, and
help answer the question of moving
forward with Town Hall expansion
Short statement of what should happen: clearly state
position in as few words as possible
Category Theme
Outdoor Community Space
Create a place for regular day‐to‐day community
gathering
Outdoor Community Space Existing outdoor facilities have limited uses Outdoor Community Space Retain all baseball fields at Purisima Park Outdoor Community Space Purisima presents opportunities and challenges Outdoor Community Space Youth need safe space to gather in LAH Outdoor Community Space No additional outdoor space is needed Outdoor Community Space Use outdoor facilities in nearby communities Outdoor Community Space Specific improvement suggestions for existing spacesOutdoor Community Space Create an outdoor meeting space Low/Med/High frequency, thresholdsdescribed in "Definitions" sheet of thisworkbook Frequency of Mentions
Community
Interviews
Individual
Input Form
Town Staff
Townhall
Meetings
Committees&
Commissions
Flashvote
Survey
Community
Comparisons
Past
Community
Efforts
Checkmarks for specific methods this theme emerged from High
 ‐‐  ‐ 
Medium
 ‐‐  ‐  ‐ 
Medium
 ‐  ‐‐ ‐
Medium
 ‐‐  ‐‐ 
Medium
 ‐  ‐‐
Medium
 ‐‐‐  ‐‐
Medium
 ‐‐  ‐  ‐‐
Low
 ‐  ‐  ‐ 
Low
 ‐‐  ‐‐

Page 6 of 8 ends

Page 447 of 622 ends

Category Theme Description Specifics
Recreation Events and Activities Continue offering organized activities Town park and recreation classes as well as groups or
clubs organized by others are popular
Indoor Facility Survey question about activities you or your family would like to attend: the highest responses (around 45% each) were club or group meetings, park and recreation classes and training/educational meetings.

Recreation Events and Activities
Continue broad focused community events at about
the same level
Events with a focus on the entire community such as
the Town Picnic and 4th of July Parade.
74% of Recreation Programming survey participants indicated atleast one event they have attended; 54% indicated attending the Town Picnic specifically. 45% of survey respondents think the Town is offering about the right amount of events.

Recreation Events and Activities Town recreation classes are limited Indoor space and outdoor facilities limits the range
and reach of programs
49% of Recreation Programming survey respondents have not attended any category of recreation programming offered by the Town. 9% say there may be too many Town recreation programs,while 28% say about the right amount and 20% suggest more classes be offered.

Recreation Events and Activities
Increase notification and communication about
recreation events and programs Feeling unaware of what is offered or available. Individual comments in Recreation Programming survey

Page 7 of 8 ends

Page 448 of 622 ends

Page 8 of 8 ends

Page 449 of 622 ends

Los Altos Hills Community Facilities Needs Assessment Freqency Definitions Frequency of Mentions Description of Ranking Details
Low
Limited evidence that this perspective is shared
by very many people
No more than two references to this perspective
across activities
Medium
Shared perspective across multiple people or
groups
Raised in a minimum of three different methods,
raised in multiple interviews, or in the second
highest group of survey responses
High
Reflected in many forms of input or received
strong support in survey
Raised in many or most of the methods of input or
in the highest response grouping in a survey
question

Page 450 of 622 ends

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 18, 2022
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT

PAYMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF

FOR ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES RECEIVED
DURING FY 21-22 TOTALING $32,197
FROM: Cody Einfalt, Management Analyst II
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council should:

Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit payment to the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff for additional law enforcement services received during FY 21-22 totaling $32,197.

BACKGROUND:

On July 1, 2014, the Town of Los Altos Hills entered into an agreement with the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff for law enforcement services (Attachment 2). The term of the agreement was set for ten (10) years and will expire on July 1, 2024. The contract with the Sheriff is scalable, in the sense that supplemental law enforcement resources can be made available to the Town upon request, or through a determination made in real time by the Office of the Sheriff in response to an in-progress emergency.

On April 15, 2021, in response to an uptick of crime in Town, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Flock Safety for up to 40 Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras in Town (Attachment 3). The cameras began to be installed in November of 2021.

The system was up and operation in November 2021. Following the installation of the 38th camera the Town began a 60-day trial pilot period running from February 1st – March 26th, 2022. This pilot period was used to determine the system’s effectiveness to determine if the Town would keep the system.

The first-year cost of the services provided by Flock total $110,000. This amount only includes the installation and ongoing maintenance expenses for the cameras. The actual use of the cameras is conducted by the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff who uses the system as a tool in their law enforcement services in Town. These service hours are billed through the Sheriff’s contact.

DISCUSSION:

Every year as the Town begins planning for the upcoming budget cycle, the Office of the Sheriff calculates the anticipated hours needed and the corresponding expense for the upcoming year. The Sheriff then communicates this expense to Town staff to include in the budget. Based on the AGENDA ITEM #5.B
C.E.

P.P.

Page 451 of 622 ends

Staff Report to City Council Page 2
Additional Law Enforcement Invoice
August 18, 2022
information provided at the time, the Council approved a budget of $1,944,781 for law enforcement services with the Sheriff’s Office for FY 2021-22 (Attachment 4).

Once the fiscal year is complete, the Office of the Sheriff then conducts a reconciliation of the law enforcement services actually dispensed to the Town. This entails counting the hours and expenses in five different categories that were used. The categories include:
- General Law Enforcement Services
o This includes patrol staff hours, as well as the hours spent by deputies from neighboring jurisdictions in the event that back-up is called. - Supplemental Traffic Services
o This includes the hours spent deputies surveying traffic in Town. - Investigative Services
o This includes the hours spent on detective work as well as research conducted through the Town’s ALPR system
- Supplemental Reserves Services
o This includes the hours of extra help that is planned ahead of time, for example attendance at a Town event.
- Operating Costs of West Valley Substation
o This includes rent, supplies, utilities, etc.

In most years, the Town does not end up using all of the anticipated law enforcement hours allocated for each fiscal year. When this happens, the Town is issued a check from the Office of the Sheriff for the amount that is left over. Over the last 10 years the refund has been on average $24,941. In 2016 there was a $33 increase that was subsequently absorbed and was not invoiced to the Town.

However, the reconciliation of the services provided in FY 2021-22 shows that the Town used more than what was anticipated. This resulted in the Town receiving an invoice for $32,197 (Attachment 5). Considering the normal refund, the additional invoice we experienced this year that is functionally a $57,138 increase over an average year.

For context, Table 1 below shows the past 11 years of reconciliation for the Town. The last time the Town overextended their allotted budget was in FY2015-16.

REFUND
(BILL) LAH
FY2022 (32,197)
FY2021 7,747
FY2020 29,795
FY2019 5,668
FY2018 4,026

Page 452 of 622 ends

Staff Report to City Council Page 3
Additional Law Enforcement Invoice
August 18, 2022
FY2017 9,451
FY 2016 (33)
FY 2015 56,223
FY 2014 44,984
FY 2013 5,254
FY 2012 86,296
Table 1
According to Captain Urena of the Office of the Sheriff, there are many circumstances why additional law enforcement services were needed in the Town during FY 2022-21, however most can be explained by two reasons: an increase of crime in Los Altos Hills, and the use of the ALPR system to research those crimes.

Increase of Crime in Town
As seen in Table 2, in the first few months of 2022, the Town of Los Altos Hills has experienced an uptick in residential burglaries as compared to previous years. Below is an excerpt taken from the July 2022 Monthly Sheriff’s Report showing a comparison of residential burglaries by month for the two previous years (Attachment 6).

Table 2
This uptick is due to the fact that criminal behavior is changing, and these criminals are focusing on affluent communities throughout the State of California. They are determined burglars and have found new ways to break into houses without property owners being aware. It is unclear yet if the ALPR system is resulting in reduced burglaries in the Town or if it is just an increase in investigatory leads.

Coming from this increase in crime, the Office of the Sheriff has been responding to more incidents, thus utilizing more hours. Residential alarm systems are being triggered more often and a minimum of two officers are needed to respond to alarm incident. This as a result increases law enforcement hours provided to the Town to coincide with increased crime rate. It is the Sheriff’s continuing goal to provide residents with the level of service the Town needs in these events.

Using the ALPR System
In response to the uptick in crime, the City Council approved of adding ALPR cameras in Town.

The system is used by the Office of the Sheriff as a tool to protect and investigate residents from these criminal acts. However, this system comes with an additive cost.

The ALPR system is used in two ways by the Sheriff. First, the system provides real-time notifications when a car of interest enters the Town. Cars of interest include stolen vehicles, missing persons, or anything else identified on DMV “hot-lists”. When a deputy receives these

Page 453 of 622 ends

Staff Report to City Council Page 4
Additional Law Enforcement Invoice
August 18, 2022
notifications, they first investigate the vehicles to confirm the information that has been provided by Flock. With 40 cameras in the Town, notifications are continuously being sent to deputies in the field, resulting in hours spent and billed to the Town.

Second, the system can be used after a crime has occurred for investigative services. For example, this includes researching pictures taken by the cameras near and around a home that was recently burglarized to find leads in the investigation. This task also accumulates hours spent by the Office of the Sheriff and billed to the Town.

The added cost of these two reasons have resulted in the Town receiving more law enforcement services than was initially anticipated for FY 2021-22. The outstanding invoice from the Office of the Sheriff is $32,197.

This is in addition to the supplemental over-time deputy the Council authorized in FY2022-21 and budgeted for in FY 2022-23. Referring to the invoice provided by the Office of the Sheriff, the hours dedicated to the traffic control officer are typically used as a buffer to absorb overages experienced in patrol and investigation. However, this past year the Sheriff needed to dip into that traffic control budget starting in September 2021. This decision was made because the Sheriff anticipated an increase in hours needed for the ALPR project while also seeing an increase of crime occurring in Town. Therefore, an increase in expenditures can be seen and continue to the end of the year. Therefore, if this trend continues, the Council should be prepared to see an increase in hours through the current fiscal year and a potential larger correction when the Sheriff reconciles the FY 22-23 bill in August of 2023.

As a reminder, the City Council directed staff on March 17, 2022 that the Town should review the effectiveness of the ALPR system in reducing crime after one complete year (Attachment 7).

Unless the Council directs otherwise, staff is maintaining the system as originally installed without adding any new cameras during the one-year period and will measure its performance in March 2023. Town staff will bring back a full review at the City Council meeting upon completion of the one year anniversary of the system.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed plan for supplemental law enforcement services is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to the proposal not being defined as a “project” under CEQA.
2022 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:

This was not one of our Council Strategic Priorities and instead falls in the category of day-to-day operations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Town budgeted $1,944,781 in FY2021-22 for law enforcement services, however it received $1,978,301 worth of services in that year. Attachment 5 is an invoice from the Office of the Sheriff for a due amount of $32,197.

Page 454 of 622 ends

Staff Report to City Council Page 5
Additional Law Enforcement Invoice
August 18, 2022
This amount is over the City Manager’s signing authority and requires City Council approval to pay the invoice.

Funds are available within the unreserved general fund to cover the services received from the Sheriff in FY 2021-22.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. 2014 Sheriff’s Contract

3. Resolution 20-21 – Approving of the Town’s ALPR System

4. Resolution 43-21 – Approving of the FY 2021-22 Operating budget

5. Additional Invoice for Law Enforcement Services during FY 2021-22

6. July 2022 Monthly Sheriff’s Report

7. March 17, 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes

Page 455 of 622 ends

Resolution __ -22 Page 1
RESOLUTION __ -22

RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT

PAYMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF THE

SHERIFF FOR ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
RECEIVED DURING FY 21-22 TOTALING $32,197
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2014 the Town of Los Altos Hills entered into an agreement with the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff for law enforcement services; and WHEREAS, in the first few months of 2022, the Town of Los Altos Hills has experienced an uptick in residential burglaries as compared to previous years; and WHEREAS, in response to an uptick of crime in Town, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Flock Safety for up to 40 Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras in Town; and
WHEREAS, at the end of each fiscal year, the Office of the Sheriff conducts a reconciliation of the law enforcement services dispensed to the Town ; and WHEREAS, in most years, the Town does not end up using all of the anticipated law enforcement hours allocated for each fiscal year and is issued a check from the Office of the Sheriff for the amount that is left over. However, the reconciliation of the services provided in FY 2021-22 shows that the Town used more than what was anticipated. This resulted in the Town receiving an invoice for $32,197; and
WHEREAS, the increase in law enforcement service in the Town during FY 2022-21 can be explained by the increase of crime in Los Altos Hills and the use of the ALPR system to research those crimes.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby authorizing the City Manager to submit payment to the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff for additional law enforcement services received during FY 21-22 totaling $32,197 from the FY 21-22 unreserved general fund.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on 18st of August 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By:

George Tyson, Mayor
Attachment 1

Page 456 of 622 ends

Resolution __ -22 Page 2
ATTEST:
_____
Deborah L. Padovan, City Clerk

Page 457 of 622 ends

LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereinafter referred to as " County," and the Town of Los Altos Hills, hereinafter referred to as Town."
WHEREAS, County has the legal authority to render law enforcement services and criminal justice administrative services to incorporated cities in the County of Santa Clara and is equipped and willing to do so to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided; and WHEREAS, Town is primarily responsible for providing law enforcement services within Town limits and is desirous of contracting with the County for the rendition of such services; and
WHEREAS, County and Town desire to enter into an agreement providing for said services, specifying the nature and extent thereof and establishing compensation to be paid therefore;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follow:

I. LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
A. Law Enforcement Services

1. Within the corporate limits of Town, County shall provide police protection through its Sheriff's Office as may be required by Town and as within the capability of the Sheriff to provide. Services to be performed under this section ( A)( 1) include patrol of established beats, responses to emergency calls, investigative services, and other law enforcement services. The cost of such services shall be set forth in Exhibit A attached.

2. The rendition of such services, the standards of performance, the discipline of officers, and other matters incident to the performance of such services shall remain in the discretion of the Sheriff.

3. In the event of a disagreement as to the performance or amount of the services to be provided pursuant to this section ( A)( 1), the Sheriff or his/her designee shall meet with the representative( s) of Town to review the manner ofperformance of such services.

B. Supplemental Services

1. Within the corporate limits of Town, County shall, through its Sheriffs Office, provide supplemental services as requested by the Town. The cost of such services shall be at the rate set forth in Exhibit A. Services to be 7 Z --4D3 DMUCCATH 0RXQ10L JUN 2 4 20%1.

Attachment 2

Page 458 of 622 ends

performed under this section ( 13)( 1) shall be provided exclusively within the Town limits of Town except in an emergency. These services may include, if requested by Town, traffic law enforcement beyond the basic services, crime prevention patrols, and other law enforcement services that are acceptable of being scheduled and within the capability of the Sheriff to provide.

2. The plan of patrol, the hours of coverage and other similar details shall be determined, insofar as it is possible to do so, by the mutual consent of the Sheriff and the City Manager of Town.

3. The level of requested supplemental services shall be determined by mutual written agreement between the County and the Town prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The agreed upon level of supplemental service shall remain constant in the fiscal year, except upon sixty ( 60) days written notice by either party. Town may, at any time during the term of this contract, request supplemental services from the Sheriff for a specific period within any fiscal year. Said Agreement for Supplemental Services shall be an addendum to this agreement and shall provide for the type, cost, level and time of such services.

4. Regional assets shall provide services to Town on the same basis as these regional asset services are provided to other law enforcement agencies as provided in mutual aid protocol.

C. Supplemental Reserve Services
These services are provided by reserve sheriff' s deputies. Their primary responsibility is the transportation of arrestees from the arrest location to the appropriate jail facility, and additional services as requested by Town and approved by the Sheriff' s Office.

D. Plan for Service

1. Prior to March 1" of each contract year, Town shall provide to the Sheriff a written statement of the level of law enforcement service to be provided during the coming contract year. IfTown fails to request a specific level of service of the coming fiscal year not less than thirty ( 30) days prior to the start of the fiscal year, County may provide the same level of service as was provided during the previous fiscal year, but for a period of time not to exceed thirty (30) days.

Page 459 of 622 ends

2. Prior to March 15th of each contract year, Town and Sheriff shall develop a plan which specifies the level and amount of services to be provided in the ensuing fiscal year.

E. Assignment and Transfer Policy
Sheriffs deputies assigned to provide Law Enforcement Services and Supplemental Services as herein described shall be assigned to Town for a period of not less than three years except when a person is reassigned because of promotion or layoff, because a transfer is requested by the individual, or by the Town and concurred with by the Sheriff.

Special Assignment personnel ( e. g. SRO) shall be assigned to Town for a period of not less than five years except when a person is reassigned because of promotion or layoff, because a transfer is requested by the individual, or by the Town and concurred with by the Sheriff.

F. Designation of Chief of Police
If Town shall so desire, and County and the Sheriff shall so agree, nothing in the agreement prevents or limits Town from designating the Sheriff or his designee as its Chief of Police in order to satisfy the provisions of Part I, Division 3, Title 4 ofthe California Government Code ( sections 36501, et seq.). However, this shall not affect the authority ofthe Sheriff to control and direct employees of this Office in carrying out duties and obligations pursuant to this contract and shall not increase any liability to the County arising from this agreement.

G. Disaster Contingency Plan
In the event of a major disaster that necessitates the activation of an Emergency Operations Center in Town, a Sheriffs representative shall immediately be dispatched and report to the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager).

2. Initial response by a Deputy Sheriffmay be the nearest patrol unit or able bodied officer available.

3. A pre -designated Sheriffs Emergency Operations Center liaison officer shall be notified as soon as possible to respond to the Emergency Operations Center and coordinate law enforcement responsibilities.

4. The pre -designated Emergency Operations Center liaison officers maintained on the active call list shall be available to the Director of Emergency Services.

Page 460 of 622 ends

5. Responsibility for personnel instruction and any specialized training in the Emergency Operations Center shall be provided by Town.

6. In the event a major disaster occurs, the Sheriff' s Office shall provide support as required to comply with the Town' s emergency operations cost recovery efforts.

H. Booking and Processing Services
County shall provide booking and processing services to those arrested persons within the Corporate limits ofTown, and who are brought to the County jail for booking or detention.

I. Communication Services
The County shall, through its Communication Department, provide for emergency communication services in support ofthe Sheriff' s Office and Town' s operations. Services will include 24 hour per day 9- 1- 1 telephone answering and radio dispatching of Sheriffs personnel. Services will be provided in accordance with the existing departmental operational procedures.

II. COMPENSATION
A. Compensation for Law Enforcement Services Provided by Sheriff

1. The Town shall compensate the County utilizing the Fiscal Year 2014/ 2015 base rate established for general law enforcement and county communications ( hereinafter " law enforcement"). The parties agree that the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the base rate times the percentage increase in total compensation ( exclusive of PERS) provided to all patrol deputies of the Sheriff' s Office as set forth in a calculation formula agreed and attached hereto as " Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference, or the annual average for the 12 month period of December to December of the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers Consumer Price Index (CPI/W) for the San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose region hereinafter " CPI/ W") plus 2%, whichever is less. For years in which compensation is increased in a multi- year contract, the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the average compensation increase for each year of the contract, not to exceed CPI/ W plus 2% for each individual year. The increase over the life of the agreement will not exceed the actual cumulative average of CPI/W plus 2% for the life of the agreement. In addition, the Town agrees to

Page 461 of 622 ends

compensate the County for any PERS cost increases charged to the County. These contractual costs may be adjusted only one ( 1) time per year to be effective at the start of each fiscal year on July 1.

2. If, during the course of a fiscal year, it appears that the Sheriff will exceed the planned level of service, Town or Sheriff shall as soon as possible notify the other party and propose amendments or modifications to the plan of services for the balance of the fiscal year. Town or Sheriff shall review any such proposed modifications but is not obligated to approve them. If Town does not approve them, the Sheriff is not obligated to provide such services over and above the level of services provided in the plan. Town is not obligated to pay for services in an amount greater than the total that has been approved in the plan. The County agrees that it will not unilaterally reduce the level of law enforcement services without prior consultation with the Town.

3. In those years during which a contract is to be negotiated between the County of Santa Clara and the Deputy Sheriffs Association, and has not been settled for the purpose of computing increases in this agreement, the county shall utilize the average CPI/ W plus 2% for computation of said increases plus any additional PERS contribution increases. County will subsequently notify Town of any increases in rates resulting from the new contract terms, within thirty (30) days of the date of such contract resolution. For years in which compensation is increased in a multi- year contract, the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the average compensation increase for each year of the contract, not to exceed CPVW plus 2% for each individual year. The increase over the life of the agreement will not exceed the actual cumulative average of CPI/W plus 2% for the ten year agreement.

4. County shall specify to Town, not less than ninety ( 90) days prior to the start of Town's fiscal year, the new projected budget annual contract amount.
a. Town shall compensate County at the primary rate, for the Activity" and " Patrol" time expended in the Town. Additionally, County shall charge Town for meal periods, "beat preparation" time and " securing from beat" time at the rate often percent ( 10%) of the above referenced hours.
b. " Activity" and " Patrol" times are identified through the County Patrol Activity Network Analysis ( COPANA) and Patrol Activity

Page 462 of 622 ends

Report (PAR). A listing of items and their designations as Activity" or "Patrol" are to be set forth in the attachment to the yearly plan for service. The COPANA and PAR software
applications may be updated or exchanged for newer software applications during the life of the agreement.

B. Supplemental/ Reserve Service
Compensation for all services within Sections A., B. and C. to be rendered pursuant to this agreement shall be based upon one of the following five 5) rates per hour of service:
a. Primary Rate. This rate is calculated to reflect the average full cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle.
b. Supplemental Day Rate. This rate is calculated according to the cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is not payable to the deputy who operates the vehicle.

C. Supplemental Night Rate. This rate is calculated according to the cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is payable to the deputy who operates the vehicle.
d. Supplemental Reserve Rate. This rate is calculated according to the cost oftwo Reserve Deputy Sheriffs with patrol vehicle. e. Investigative Service Rate. This rate is calculated to reflect the average full cost per hour of an investigator' s time.

2. Town shall compensate County monthly for each hour of Supplemental Service at the rates described above and specified in Exhibit A.

C. Base Rent and Operating Costs of Westside Substation

1. Town and County shall share the costs of renting and operating the West Valley Division Substation as follows:
a. The Town' s share of the base rent and operating cost will be based upon the lease agreement between the County and Dollinger Properties, LLC. The monthly base rent will increase 2. 5% each year commencing November 8, 2015 and Town shall be
responsible for its share of this base rent increase. Town shall be responsible for any increase in operating expenses and real estate

Page 463 of 622 ends

taxes allocated to the building to the extent that such expenses exceed costs incurred in the FY2014/2015 Base Year. Yearly increases in controllable operating costs ( other than insurance, taxes and utilities) shall be capped at 5%. These operating costs maybe adjusted only one ( 1) time per year to be effective at the start of each fiscal year on July 1.

The Town's share of the operating cost and base rent will be a prorated amount based upon the actual billable hours as indicated in the COPANA reports. For budgeting purposes estimates are provided in the plan of execution of law enforcement services contract provided each year.
b. Town shall pay to County monthly that portion of the substation operating costs attributable to Town. Any change to the location of the substation, or the cost of the facility over and above the contract language as set forth in II.C. I. a., shall be mutually agreed to by the parties to this agreement.

C. For the purposes of this provision of the Agreement ( 1) " Operating Costs" are defined as the cost ofrent, janitorial services, minor repairs, and utilities and all other costs the County is required to pay under the lease agreement for the substation.
d. Pro rata share to Town for substation costs will not be changed during the term of this agreement due to the loss of any contracting city unless mutually agreed to by the remaining parties to the agreement.

D. Compensation for Criminal Justice Administrative Services The criminal justice administrative fee is based upon an approved County of Santa Clara Ordinance No. NS - 300.470.

E. Method of payment for all Services
Compensation for all services shall be paid by Town to County in the following manner:

1. The Town shall pay to County an amount equal to one -twelfth ofthe annual projected budget amount as calculated in Exhibit B. First payment is due on the tenth day following the last day of each month of the contract year.

Page 464 of 622 ends

2. Adjustment to the law enforcement annual projected budget -amount shall be performed every year of the contract as follows:
a. The difference between the actual cost of police services for the previous year, as shown by the COPANA report and the amount actually paid by Town to County for those services shall be added to, or subtracted from, the amount paid for the prior year. b. Other police services not included in COPANA Reports shall be reconciled every year for those specific services.

3. Payments, or any portion thereof, not made by Town to County within thirty (30) days ofthe due date shall accrue interest at the rate of ten percent( 10%) per annum until paid. Interest so accrued shall be payable to county on the last day ofthe month in which it accrued.

4. By September 30 following the end of each ofthe contract reconciliation years, County shall provide to Town the COPANA report for the entire contract years. If the amount actually paid by Town to County exceeds the cost of law enforcement services and operating costs of the West Valley Station as set forth in the COPANA report, County shall pay to Town the amount of such excess by October 1 following the end ofthe contract year.

Within twenty-one ( 2 1) days ofreceipt of such final COPANA report, Town shall pay to County the full amount, if any, by which the costs of police services, as set forth in all COPANA reports for the contract year, exceeds the amount actually paid by Town for such services. For purposes of calculating the final amount due to County from Town, Town' s credit for the amount actually paid by Town shall not include any interest paid by Town due to late monthly payments.

III. REPORTS
A. Monthly Reports
County shall provide to Town on a monthly basis report( s) on the incidence of crime within Town. Said report( s) shall differentiate between " law enforcement services" and supplemental services," and shall be in a format as agreed upon between County and Town.

1. County shall provide such month end reports to Town within thirty (30) days ofthe last day of that month.

Page 465 of 622 ends

2. By September 30 following the end of the contract year, County shall provide to Town the COPANA report for the entire contract year.

3. Special additional reports requested by Town may be provided at cost.

IV. HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE
A. The County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Town, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, liability, claim, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, performance ofthe duties and obligations ofthe County and its employees set forth in this agreement.

B. The Town shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, liability, claim, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, performance of the duties and obligations ofthe Town and its employees set forth in this agreement.

C. This mutual indemnification agreement is adopted pursuant to Government code section 895. 4 and in lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the parties pursuant to Government code section 895. 6.

V. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY
County and Town shall each maintain its own liability insurance coverage, through self-insurance or otherwise, against any claim of civil liability arising out of the performance of this agreement.

VI. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This agreement shall become effective on 7/ 1/ 14, and may be terminated without cause by County or Town upon the giving of one -hundred and eighty ( 180) days written notice of such termination to the other party. In the absence of such notice oftermination, this agreement shall be effective for a term of one hundred and twenty ( 120) months until 7/ 1/ 24, subject to any modifications which are made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. If Town elects to terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the ten- year term, the Town shall nonetheless pay the full amount ofits pro - rata share remaining on County tenant improvements, moving costs and remaining lease commitments for the West Valley Division substation.

At the expiration of this ten ( 10) year contract, this contract can be renewed for an additional five (5) year period upon written notice ofrenewal by Town and the County to the other parties at least one hundred eighty ( 180) days prior to the expiration of this contract.

Page 466 of 622 ends

The 2004 Law Enforcement Contract between the parties and any extension thereof is terminated upon the effective date of this Agreement.

This agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one document.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Date: JUN 2 4 2014
Signed and certified that a copy ofthis
Document has been delivered by electronic
Or other means to the President, Board of
Supervisors.

By:.

VVnsserman; President " "..........

Board of Supervisors
Atte : Dated: JUN 2 4 2014
RegadaClerk
Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:

Ch 1 Stevens, Deputy County Counsel ( Date)

Page 467 of 622 ends

Date: June 19, 2014
AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:

Steven Mattas, City J
Dated: June 19, 2014

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
r
By:

Carl Cahill, City Manager

Page 468 of 622 ends

EXHIBIT A

PROPOSED COSTS
FISCAL YEAR 2014- 2015

LOS ALTOS

RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA

GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Proposed Hours - Activity
Proposed Hours - Patrol
Total Hours
Proj Costs FY 2014- 2015 @ $ 164. 90
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT - DAYS:

Proposed Hours
Proj Costs FY 2014- 2015 @ $ 162. 43
Cupertino @ $ 162. 45
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT - NIGHTS:

Proposed Hours
UNINCORP.
38, 248. 0 5, 421. 0 20, 060. 0 14, 696. 0
6, 307, 095 $ 893, 923 $ 3, 307, 894 $ 2, 423, 370
7, 200. 0 43. 0 4, 195. 4 0. 0
6, 984 $ 681, 451 $ 0
1, 169, 640

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
Proj Costs FY 2014- 2015 @ $ 166. 04 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Cupertino @ $ 166. 06 $ 0
INVESTIGATIVE HOURS:

Proposed Hours 7, 200. 0 600. 0 2, 400. 0 0. 0
Proj Costs FY 2014- 2015 @ $ 159. 02 $ 1, 144, 944 $ 95, 412 $ 381, 648 $ 0

Page 469 of 622 ends

EXHIBIT A

PROPOSED COSTS
FISCAL YEAR 2014- 2015

RATES CUPERTINO
RESERVES ACTIVITY HOURS:

Proposed Hours 1, 650. 0
Proj Costs FY 2014- 2015 @ $ 48. 70
OPERATING COSTS OF WEST VALLEY SUBSTATION:

Proj Hours FY 2014- 2015
89, 863
Percentage
Proj Costs July 2014 - Oct 2014
Proj Costs Nov 2014 - Jun 2015
Total Proj Costs of Substation
SUBTOTAL COSTS:

Proj Costs FY 2014- 2015

PROJECTED SPECIAL SERVICES
LOS ALTOS UNINCORP.

HILLS SARATOGA CITIES

22. 0 340. 0 0. 0
80, 355 $ 1, 071 $ 16, 558 $ 0
45, 448 5, 464 24, 255 14, 696

50. 5748% 6. 0804%
@ $ 418, 614 yr $ 70, 571 $ 8, 484
@ $ 418, 614 yr $ 141, 142 $ 16, 969
418, 614 $ 211, 713 $ 25, 453 $ 112, 989 $ 68, 459

26. 9911% 16. 3538%
37, 663 $ 22, 820
75, 326 $ 45, 639
8, 913, 747 $ 1, 022, 843 $ 4, 500, 540 $ 2, 491, 829
Projected Hours FY 2014- 2015 1, 815. 5 0 0 0
Cupertino Traffic Sergeant 189, 351 0 0 0
Saratoga School Resource Officer 0 0 100, 000 0

SCHOOLS RESOURCE OFFICER
Proj Costs FY 2014- 2015 @ $ 136. 23 395, 721 0 0 0
1 SRO @ 85% and 1 SRO @ 75%)

TOTAL SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS
Projected Costs FY 2014- 2015 $ 9, 498, 819 $ 1, 022, 843 $ 4, 600, 540 $ 2, 491, 829 CAPPED COSTS 2014- 2015
Proj Costs Capped @ 4. 6% ( CPI+ 2%) Increase $ 9, 840, 602 $ 1, 060, 170 $ 4, 753, 605 $ 0 AMOUNTS BELOW CAP OF 4. 6% ($ 341, 783) ($ 37, 327) ($ 153, 065) $ 0

Page 470 of 622 ends

Law Enforcement Contract
Exhibit B
Compensation for Services
To calculate the annual projected budget increase to this contract, the following shall apply:

ANNUAL COST OF LIVING INCREASE IN TOTAL COMPENSATION:

Total compensation refers to the amount Santa Clara County Sheriff Department provides for total compensation ( salary and benefits) at top step for a 40 -hour patrol deputy.

2. At the subsequent July 1, the new total compensation amount ( exclusive of PERS) will be divided by the total compensation effective on the prior July 1 ( exclusive of PERS), to derive a percentage change in total compensation.

The annual projected budget increase in contract costs shall be computed as follows:

Fiscal Year 2014/ 2015:

Base Year 2014/ 2015 costs = costs as shown in Exhibit A to this Agreement.

Fiscal Years 2015/ 2016 through 2024/ 2025:

Preceding Base Year Costs
X
Lesser of Percentage change in total compensation or Consumer Price Index- Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers ( CPI/ W) plus 2% ( For years in which compensation is increased in a multi-year contract, the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the average compensation increase for each year of the contract, not to exceed CPI/ W plus 2% for each individual year.)
Plus
Percentage Change ( Increase/ Decrease) in Actual County PERS Costs

Page 471 of 622 ends

RESOLUTION 20- 21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH FLOCK SAFETY FOR UP TO FORTY (40) AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) CAMERAS NOT TO EXCEED $ 120, 000 ANNUALLY AND APPROPRIATE $ 120, 000 FROM THE UNRESERVED GENERAL FUND IN FISCAL YEAR 2020- 2021 FOR ALPR EXPENSES WHEREAS, Automatic License Plate Reader ( ALPR) cameras are used by police departments across the United States to instantly capture license information and compare it against lists of license plates associated with stolen vehicles, people that have committed a crime, and for other investigative purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills (" Town") desires to install ALPRs in certain public locations in the community for law enforcement purposes; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 18, 2021, the Los Altos Hills City Council adopted an ALPR policy governing the usage, privacy protections, and other implementation parameters for ALPRs in the Town consistent with California Civil Code section 1798. 90. 5; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed Town staff to explore options for purchasing ALPR cameras and related service technologies in order to deploy and utilize ALPRs in Los Altos Hills; and
WHEREAS, Town staff contacted several companies in the marketplace that offer ALPR technology to review pricing options for cameras and related ALPR software and services, and solicited quotes from three ( 3) vendors for the installation, use, and ongoing maintenance of the cameras; and
WHEREAS, of these three vendors, staff recommends selecting Flock Safety (" Flock") as the Town' s ALPR vendor based on its competitive pricing, trial period benefit, and subscription style service which allows the Town flexibility in renewing or terminating service; and WHEREAS, Flock and the Town have negotiated a service agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, for ALPR camera system and software services, for up to forty ( 40) ALPR cameras for an initial term of twelve ( 12) months ( including a 60 -day pilot program period with free cancellation) and an initial amount of One Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($ 110, 000), to implement the Town' s ALPR program; and
WHEREAS, the service agreement would also have an automatic renewal term of twenty-four 24) months with annual subscription cost of $100, 00 and annual price increases capped at ten percent ( 10%), but with 30 -day termination option; and WHEREAS, staff requests an appropriation from the unreserved general fund in fiscal year 2020- 2021 for the expenditures relating to implementing the ALPR program and cover necessary costs in addition to the stated Flock contract price.

Resolution 20- 21 Page 1
Attachment 3

Page 472 of 622 ends

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby approves an agreement with Flock for ALPR hardware and software services for an initial term of twelve ( 12) months with automatic 24 -month renewals, and an initial amount of One Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($ 110, 000) and annual subscription cost of $ 100, 000 with annual price increases capped at 10%, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the Town in substantially the same form as Exhibit A, and is authorized to make any revisions, amendments or modifications deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution that does not substantially increase the Town' s obligations, subject to final approval as to form by the City Attorney.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves an appropriation of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($ 120, 000) from the unreserved general fund in fiscal year 2020- 2021 for the expenditures relating to implementing the ALPR program.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of April 2021 by the following vote:

AYES: Tankha, Tyson, Mok, Schmidt, Swan
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:

Deborah Padovan, City Cleric
BY: A" 6 1'`'' ~
Resolution 20- 21
Kavita Tankha, Mayor

Page 2 ends

Page 473 of 622 ends

RESOLUTION 43- 21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR
2020- 21 APPROPRIATION LIMIT AND
THE FISCAL YEAR 2021- 22 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills has received and completed its review of the proposed 2021- 22 Operating and Capital Budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills now desires to adopt the Appropriations Limit and budget for fiscal year 2021- 22.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby resolve as follows:

I. The Gann Appropriations Limit as shown in Attachment IA is hereby approved; and
II. The Operating and Capital Budget as shown in the attached budget document is hereby approved; and
A. The amount of the 2021- 22 fiscal year budget for each account area of the budget may be drawn upon in the form of warrants issued for payment of demands and certified in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 37208 and 37209.

B. The budget is adopted and shall be controlled at the Fund level by department for the operating budget and by the project level for capital improvement projects.

C. The City Manager is hereby authorized to move budgeted dollars between departments ( for the operating budget) and between projects ( for the capital improvement budget) during the fiscal year if those transfers are from the same funding source and the overall cumulative appropriation is not increased.

D. The Administrative Services Director is hereby authorized to carry forward unspent appropriations to the 2021- 22 fiscal year if such funds are necessary to complete budgeted projects.

E. The Administrative Services Director is hereby authorized to make corrections to the budget as reflected in the attached budget document that are errors or inconsistencies without increasing overall appropriations - within the same funding source.

F. The City Manager is hereby authorized to solicit bids on the open market for projects budgeted herein.

G. The Administrative Services Director shall periodically report to the City Council the amount and classification of revenues received and expenditures made.

H. A copy of the adopted budget, signed by the Mayor and attended to by the City Cleric, shall be kept on file with the City Cleric of the Town of Los Altos Hills, as the official budget of the Town of Los Altos Hills for the 2021- 22 fiscal year; Resolution 43- 21 Page 1
Attachment 4

Page 474 of 622 ends

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of June 2021 by the following vote:

AYES: Tankha, Tyson, Mok, Schmidt, Swan
NOES: None
G_ : -W:_ _1 " s -
ABSENT: ABSENT: None
BY:

ATTEST:
2 Kavita Tankha, Mayor

Page 475 of 622 ends

Attachment 1A
FISCAL YEAR 2021- 22
Calculation of Appropriations Limits
The Town is required by the State Constitution, Article XIIIB ( Proposition 4,) to annually calculate the maximum amount of appropriations subject to limitation. The calculation is intended to limit the annual growth in tax revenues used to fund governmental expenditures in California. Article XIIIB was changed with the passage of Proposition 111 on the June 1990 ballot. These changes permit greater flexibility with regard to annually calculating increases in the appropriations limit ( Gann Limit) by allowing additional growth factors to be used. The factors permitting the maximum allowable increase in the appropriations limit are chosen for the calculation each fiscal year.

As can be seen below, the City is substantially under its appropriations limit. The difference between the appropriations limit and the appropriations subject to limitation has grown overtime as the limit has been substantially increased by the annual adjustment factors. This, combines with the comparatively slower pace of growth in proceeds of taxes over the same time period, has contributed to the amount under the appropriations limit.

Fiscal Year 2020- 21 Limit
2021 Change in Town of Los Altos Hills Population
2021- 22 Change in California Per Capita Personal Income Fiscal Year 2021- 22 Limit
Fiscal Year 2021- 22 Budget Amount Subject to Limitation Amount Under Appropriation Limit
7, 783, 639

0. 9973

1. 0573
8, 207, 143
6, 951, 327
1, 255, 861
Resolution 43- 21 Page 3

Page 476 of 622 ends

Attachment 1B
Attachment 1B is the Adopted Budget, on file in the City Clerk' s office, and available upon request.

Resolution 43- 21 Page 4

Page 477 of 622 ends

Attachment 5

Page 478 of 622 ends

Page 479 of 622 ends

Page 480 of 622 ends

Town of Los Altos Hills
July 2022
Statistical Data and
Public Safety Report
Office of the Sheriff
County of Santa Clara
Attachment 6

Page 481 of 622 ends

Time Calls Target
Time Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime 1 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 4.60 1 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 4.60 1 9 2 10.00 64 14 9.96 76 14 9.88 59 14 6.53 46 14 9.20 47 14 9.95 54 14 9.62 47 14 11.89 61 14 10.54 45 14 9.76 43 14 9.52 46 14 11.28 46 14 9.84 634 14 3 11.93 54 25 11.30 47 25 15.64 73 25 12.08 74 25 15.76 65 25 17.05 39 25 15.60 55 25 14.98 52 25 13.78 54 25 9.38 40 25 10.86 48 25 11.29 46 25 13.30 647 25 Time Calls Target
Time Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime 1 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 5.30 1 9 6.30 2 9 9.12 1 9 6.91 4 9 2 10.86 44 14 10.16 33 14 10.38 50 14 11.31 51 14 11.65 62 14 12.66 62 14 10.73 55 14 9.76 51 14 11.17 60 14 11.57 75 14 11.73 73 14 11.12 80 14 11.09 696 14 3 17.15 74 25 14.46 44 25 15.43 58 25 14.13 56 25 11.25 56 25 15.10 55 25 11.95 55 25 15.58 60 25 14.36 46 25 18.43 38 25 15.45 25 25 18.74 22 25 15.17 589 25 Time Calls Target
Time Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime Time Calls TargetTime 1 8.01 4 9 6.28 1 9 0.00 0 9 0.00 0 9 6.68 1 9 10.67 3 9 4.12 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 7.15 13 9 2 10.27 59 14 12.96 92 14 11.63 100 14 11.55 81 14 10.72 96 14 9.30 102 14 9.46 81 14 14 14 14 14 14 10.84 611 14 3 17.73 41 25 16.43 47 25 9.58 37 25 11.97 28 25 10.33 34 25 11.87 57 25 10.97 51 25 25 25 25 25 25 12.70 295 25 Response Times for Los Altos Hills
2020 - 2022
Los Altos Hills 2020
Priority
January February March June October November Target
Time
Los Altos Hills 2021
Priority
January February
April May July August September Avg
Time
Total
Calls
December Avg
Time
Total
Calls
November
December
Los Altos Hills 2022
March April May June July August September October Target Time
July August
Priority
January February March Target
Time
April September October November Avg
Time
December Total
Calls
May June

Page 482 of 622 ends

Code Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0000000000000
2021
0000000000000
2022
00000000
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
277000103335 31
2021
800010201442 22
2022
5630045 23
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0011000000002
2021
0000000000000
2022
00000000
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
2000300300008
2021
0010100020004
2022
00010001
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0011100100105
2021
111120120110 11
2022
11000002
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0010000000012
2021
1000000000102
2022
00000011
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
414111001001 14
2021
1102102000018
2022
11200419
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
111022002012 12
2021
202001410221 15
2022
5120141 14
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0001001000114
2021
0000010110003
2022
01000203
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0001100010003
2021
0000000100001
2022
00100102
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0000000001001
2021
1001010100015
2022
01000001
Burglary,
Residential 4590
Robbery 2110 2115
Town of Los Altos Hills
Public Safety Report Page 1
Selected Crimes
Burglary,
Commercial 4591 4592
Burglary,
Vehicle 4593
Auto Theft 4703
Grand Theft 4870
Identity Theft
Forgery
Fraud
4700 4702
Vandalism 5940 5941
Sex Crimes
2610 2615
2880 2885
2890 2895
Domestic
Violence 2430 2730
Simple &
Aggravated
Assaults
2400 2401
2402 2403
2404 2405

Page 483 of 622 ends

Code Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020 49 97
5243477 2072 207
2021 18
43433 1390561 69
2022
35665 128 45
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020 29 12 10
01353 11 1041 89
2021
816 2203 16 281 1562 108
2022
2342062 19
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020 66 73 30 38 66 26 16 14 12 32 46 33 452
2021 64 124 60 52 40 19 24 35 12 24
67 467
2022 12
719696 50
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0000000000000
2021
1000001001003
2022
01000001
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
211120120001 11
2021
101212200110 11
2022
2111122 10
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
303131022303 21
2021
234235205201 29
2022
4416101 17
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2020
0000000000000
2021
0000000000000
2022
00100001
Speeding
Citations 8305
Town of Los Altos Hills
Public Safety Report Page 2
Traffic Related Activity
Moving
Violations 8300
Other
Citations
8310 8315 8320
8325 8330 8335
Accidents,
DUI
8050 8055 8060
Accidents,
Injury
8000 8005 8030
8035
Accidents,
Property
Damage
8010 8015 8020
8025 8040 8045
DUIs 8500 8505 8510

Page 484 of 622 ends

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Injury (8000, 8005) 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 10
Property Damage (8010) 3 3 0 3 1 0 1 11
Accident, No Details (8015) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bike / Pedestrian (8020, 8025) 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 4
Hit & Run - Injury (8030, 8035) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hit & Run - Property Damage (8040) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
Hit & Run - No Details (8045) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI - Injury (8050, 8055) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI - Property Damage (8060) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 6 5 3 7 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 28

4.0 25
West Valley Patrol Accidents
Los Altos Hills
July 2022
5 3
7 2 2
3 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Page 485 of 622 ends

1 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
This meeting was conducted virtually pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 and Government Code Section 54953(e) related to conducting public meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mayor Tyson called the City Council Special Meeting to order at 5:55 p.m.

Present: Mayor George Tyson, Vice Mayor Linda Swan, Councilmember Stanley Q.

Mok, Councilmember Lisa Schmidt, Councilmember Kavita Tankha

Absent: None
Staff: City Manager Peter Pirenjad, City Attorney Steve Mattas, Planning and Building Director Sofia Mangalam, Public Works Director Oscar Antillon, Administrative Services Director Sarina Revillar, Principal Planner Steve Padovan, Management Analyst II Cody Einfalt, City Clerk Deborah Padovan

1. CALL TO ORDER (5:30 P.M.)
Mayor Tyson called the closed session meeting to order at 5:55 p.m.

For the record, City Attorney Mattas abstained for the closed session portion as it relates to him.

2. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING:

A. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION -There was no public comment on the Closed Session Item)

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Unrepresented Employee: City Attorney and Department Directors Agency Designated Representative: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager

3. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
The closed session adjourned at 6:07 and Mayor Tyson opened the meeting at 6:09 p.m.

4. OPEN SESSION (6:00 P.M.)
A. Roll Call
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Moment of Silence
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Thursday, March 17, 2022 – 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California Attachment 7

Page 486 of 622 ends

2 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
Mayor Tyson asked for a moment of silence in support of the brave people in the country of Ukraine.

5. AGENDA REVIEW AND REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
There were no changes to the agenda and no reportable action arising out of closed session.

6. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
A. Reappointment to the Los Altos Hills Environmental Design and Protection Committee
City Clerk Padovan presented the application.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to reappoint Buvana Dayanandum to the Los Altos Hills Environmental Design and Protection Committee for a second, four-year term. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schmidt.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
B. Reappointment to the Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee City Clerk Padovan presented the reappointment request.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to reappoint Peter Brown to the Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee for a second, four-year term. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schmidt.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
C. Reappointment to the Los Altos Hills History Committee

Page 487 of 622 ends

3 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
City Clerk Padovan presented the reappointment request of Sylvia Jensen.

Sylvia Jensen expressed her interest in serving. She has enjoyed her first term on the committee and would like to continue.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to reappoint Sylvia Jensen to the Los Altos Hills History Committee for a second, four-year term. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Tankha.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
D. Report and Information on the Los Altos Hills County Fire District’s Upcoming Vegetation/Evacuation Route Hardening Project on Altamont Road Captain Denise Gluhan, Los Altos Hills County Fire District, presented the LAHCFD upcoming vegetation route hardening project on Altamont Road.

The Council received the report. No action was taken.

E. Report on the Status of Los Altos Hills Community Fiber Project Gautam Agrawal, Los Altos Hills Community Fiber, presented a report on the activites of the fiber project in town.

The Council asked questions of Dr. Agrawal and received his responses. No action was taken.

7. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no presentations from the floor.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

Page 488 of 622 ends

4 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
ABSENT: None
Mayor Tyson commented on Item 8.D that we are following the law and will be looking at returning to in person/hybrid meetings in the near future.

A. Approval of Special City Council Meeting Minutes – February 17, 2022 B. Approval of Regular City Council Meeting Minutes – February 17, 2022 C. Review of Disbursements for February 1-28, 2022 $1,087,539.99 D. Motion to Re-Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Town of Los Altos Hills, Including the Planning Commission and Committees, due to the Imminent Risks to the Health and Safety of Attendees and Making Related Findings Pursuant to AB 361 (Staff: S. Mattas)
E. Approval of the Change in Regular Meeting Schedule for the Los Altos Hills Environmental Initiatives Committee (Staff: D. Padovan) F. Request by the Los Altos Hills History Committee to Host and Advertise a History Walk on Saturday, April 30, 2022 (History Committee)
G. Resolution 26-22 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with MIG, Inc. for a Community Facility Needs Assessment (Staff: S. Robustelli) H. Receive Report on the Los Altos Hills 2022 Summer Internship Program (Staff: C.

Einfalt)
I. Notification of Fast Track Approval: 25959 Alicante Lane; File #SD21-0088; Lands of Liu; Site Development Permit for a new 5,338 square-foot two-story residence with a 2,757 square-foot basement, an attached 583 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU), a 271 square-foot cabana, a 1,131 square-foot swimming pool and a 5,897 square-foot tennis court. (Staff: J. Loh) Appeal Deadline: March 23, 2022 by 5:00 p.m.

9. ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Review of the Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) Pilot Program and Resolution 27-22 Accepting the Continued use of the ALPR System in Town (Staff:

C. Einfalt)
Management Analyst Cody Einfalt presented the staff report.

Captain Rich Urena, Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff, commented on recent burglaries in town. He suggested if you have an alarm, use it. If you are going out of town, please let your neighbors know.

Page 489 of 622 ends

5 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
Council discussion ensued.

Mayor Tyson said he will talk to the City Manager about overtime for an additional deputy.

Public Comment
Anand Ranganathan, Los Altos Hills, asked that every camera have a note for residents on how to opt out.

City Manager Pirenjad said there are 38 cameras are installed and we have two left that need to be installed. He suggested working with the sheriff to determine where the last two cameras should be installed. Mayor Tyson agreed with that suggestion.

Rajiv Bhateja, Los Altos Hills, said there are additional entrances in the town today that are not covered. He requested that the town administration deploy cameras at every feasible location to maximize the coverage so all entrances to town are covered.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to adopt Resolution 27-22 Accepting the Continued use of the ALPR System in Town. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ex Parte Communications: None
A. Consideration of Heritage Tree Designation for two (2) Heritage Oak Trees at Byrne Preserve (Staff: J. Loh)
Planning Director Sofia Mangalam presented the staff report.

Mayor Tyson opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mayor Tyson closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to adopt Resolution 28-22 Designating Two Valley Oak Trees at Byrne Preserve as Heritage Trees. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schmidt.

Page 490 of 622 ends

6 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
B. Resolution 29-22 Approving an Update to the Town’s Existing Outdoor Lighting Policy to Provide Additional Guidelines, Clarifications, and Definitions (Staff: J.

Loh)
Principal Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report.

Council discussion ensued.

Mayor Tyson opened the Public Hearing.

Birgitta Indaco, Los Altos Hills, thanked the planning staff and the Environmental Design and Protection Committee for the numerous hours and hard work on this project. She thanked the Council for considering this topic.

Mayor Tyson closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to approve Resolution 29-22 Approving an Update to the Town’s Existing Outdoor Lighting Policy to Provide Additional Guidelines, Clarifications, and Definitions. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Swan.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
C. 27210 Altamont Road – File #CUP21-0003 – ATC Sequoia LLC/Lands of Town of Los Altos Hills; Resolution 30-22 to Approve a Ten (10) Year Renewal of the Conditional Use Permit for the existing wireless telecommunications facility at 27210 Altamont; CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Sections 15301(b) (Staff: S.

Padovan)
Principal Planner Steve Padovan presented the report.

Council asked questions of staff and received responses.

Page 491 of 622 ends

7 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
Mayor Tyson opened the Public Hearing.

John Merritt, American Tower, thanked the Council for hearing the item. He said the ALPR cameras are supported by the tower.

Mayor Tyson closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to approve Resolution 30-22 to Approve a Ten (10) Year Renewal of the Conditional Use Permit for the existing wireless telecommunications facility at 27210 Altamont; CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Sections 15301(b). The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
D. 2021 Annual Progress Report. Review of the 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report and 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report; and Authorize transmittal of the reports to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) (Staff: S. Mangalam) Director Mangalam presented the staff report. She thanked Assistant Planner Areli Perez for putting the report together.

The town has met its RHNA goal for very-low, Low, and Above-Moderate (market rate) income units.

The town has met its overall RHNA allocation of 121 units for the planning period 2015-2023; however, the town still need to meet its obligation for moderate housing units.

The ADU regulations enacted by the State and the ADU ordinance adopted by the City Council have significantly increased ADU production in the town. The increased production over the next few years will be beneficial to the town in meeting its RHNA goals for the next housing cycle as well.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the report and direct staff to forward the report to OPR and HCD.

Council asked questions of staff and received responses.

Mayor Tyson opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mayor

Page 492 of 622 ends

8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
Tyson closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Schmidt moved to approve the report and direct staff to forward the report to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
Recess: 8:07 p.m.

Reconvene to Open Session: 8:14 p.m.

11. NEW BUSINESS
A. Resolution 31-22 Authorizing Subapplication for the State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Service Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funds and Appropriating $200,000 from the Unreserved General Fund for the 25% Match Needed for the Grant (Staff: C. Einfalt)
Management Analyst II Cody Einfalt presented the staff report.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
Allan Epstein, Los Altos Hills, complimented Mr. Einfalt on an outstanding job putting this grant together. The consultant suggested keeping the number low. He felt that by demonstrating success with the program, we would be more likely to be eligible. He suggested ways of determining the criteria for homes eligible for the program.

Jitze Couperus, Los Altos Hills, commented that we have had a requirement in our codes for a class A roof, which is not a shake roof. There may be an old, abandoned house that has a shake roof. He would be surprised if there were more than a few shake roofs.

City Manager Pirnejad complimented Allan Epstein for doing the “lion’s share” of the work to get this grant.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to approve Resolution 31-22 Authorizing Subapplication for the State of California Governor’s

Page 493 of 622 ends

9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
Office of Emergency Service Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funds and Appropriating $200,000 from the Unreserved General Fund for the 25% Match Needed for the Grant. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
B. Resolution 32-22 Declaring the Intention to Increase Sewer Service Charges in Both Palo Alto and Los Altos Sewer Basins, Setting a Public Hearing and Directing Staff to Mail Notices to all Sewer Users (Staff: O. Antillon) Public Works Director Oscar Antillon presented the staff report along with Rick Simonson and Geoff Michalczyk with HF&H Consultants.

Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to approve Resolution 32-22 Declaring the Intention to Increase Sewer Service Charges in Both Palo Alto and Los Altos Sewer Basins, Setting a Public Hearing and Directing Staff to Mail Notices to all Sewer Users. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schmidt.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
Vice Mayor Swan mentioned that the Council, during their 2023 Goal Setting Session, should consider reviewing the allocation of charges for sewer treatment and conveyance between the town of Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Palo Alto.

12. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND

COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Mayor Tyson) Mayor Tyson presented the undergrounding report. He and Public Works Director Antillon were continuing to reach out to PG&E contacts. He had also reached out to the CPUC contact to see how we can get better support in terms of incentives for utility undergrounding.

Page 494 of 622 ends

10 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
Council received the report. No action was taken.

B. Request by Councilmember Schmidt to Rename the Fire Taskforce Subcommittee to the Public Safety Subcommittee (Councilmember Schmidt)
Councilmember Schmidt presented the report.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
Rajiv Bhateja, Los Altos Hills, said this is a really important and valuable direction.

There was a general consensus for support.

C. Report from the Council Subcommittee on Community Surveys (Councilmember Schmidt)
Councilmember Schmidt presented the report. Residents have expressed a strong for desire for more communication with governments. The town has contracted with FlashVote for a series of scientific surveys.

Individuals can sign up at www.flashvote.com/LosAltosHills. The goal is to have 200+ residents participating in the surveys. The first survey will focus on common space needs and inform the Council on the general sentiment of the community. A consultant has been contacted on doing community outreach.

There will be four or five surveys between now and August.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
John Swan, Los Altos Hills, emphasized the importance of including input from the Parks and Recreation Committee in the decision-making process.

No action was taken.

D. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Subcommittee and Outside Agencies Activities
Mayor Tyson commented on the previous Education Committee. He listened and heard concerns. He had a series of meetings with LASD Superintendent Jeff Baier and talked about Los Altos Hills needs and the future. Based on his suggestion, he then reached out to Fred Gallagher on the Los Altos Citizen Advisory for finance. He also met with the president of Los Altos School District Steve

Page 495 of 622 ends

11 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
Taglio. He suggested asking staff to add an annual meeting of the Mayor and the president of the school district on the calendar.

He also reported that he met with the GM and President of Purissima Hills Water District. Attended the Peninsula League of California Cities event and also the Los Altos Little League day last week.

Councilmember Mok said that he can no longer serve on the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) due to conflicts of interest.

13. STAFF REPORTS
A. City Manager
City Manager Pirnejad reported that the community survey mailer has been sent and he encouraged everyone to sign up to take the surveys. Now that the Council approved the internships, the openings will be on CalOpps tomorrow (March 18th).

He further reported on the action of council subcommittees including the legacy giving, Greenwaste, town facility needs, and the ad hoc on the sheriff’s contract. Further, a roundtable has been scheduled with committee chairs, the City Manager, and Mayor to discuss collaboration between committees and any unmet needs. The Technology Committee has met twice this month and he complimented their dedication.

B. City Attorney
No report.

C. City Clerk
City Clerk Padovan reported that the State of the Cities luncheon is scheduled for Friday, March 25th. Those wishing to sign up should visit the Los Altos Chamber of Commerce website.

D. Planning Director
Director Mangalam reminded everyone that the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Housing Element Workshop is set for Thursday, March 24th.

E. Administrative Services Director - Report on Licenses and Permits and Charges for Service
Director Revillar talked about licenses and permits and charges for services.

F. Public Works Director

Page 496 of 622 ends

12 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022
Director Antillon reported that the Public Works Department is now fully staffed. He commented that the landscape contract will extend for another year as the council approved a 2-year program. A year from now we will go out to bid and combine the two landscape contracts. We will also be doing an inventory program for the signs in town.

14. COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS
A. Possible Action on Hosting a Roundtable with the Community on Public Safety (Councilmember Tankha)
Councilmember Tankha presented the item. She suggested having small meetings with residents along with the sheriff. She requested having the sheriff at these meetings.

There was Council consensus to allow Councilmember Tankha to continue having a series of community roundtables with the sheriff’s office present to provide information on how residents can protect themselves from residential burglaries. She agreed to report back to the council.

15. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Deborah L. Padovan
Deborah Padovan
City Clerk
The minutes of the March 17, 2022, regular City Council meeting were approved as presented at the April 21, 2022, regular City Council meeting.

Page 497 of 622 ends

Public Art (2nd Mon/month - 5:00 PM) Schmidt (2)
Community Relations (4th Tues/month - 7:00 PM) Tyson Schmidt Education (Feb, May, Aug, Nov 2019 - 7:00 PM)
Emergency Communications (1st Tues/month - 7:00 PM) Schmidt (1) Emergency Preparedness and Response (1st Tuesday/month 6:00 pm Schmidt Environmental Design & Protection (2nd Tues/month - 5:45 PM) Tankha Environmental Initiatives (2nd Thur/month - 6:30 PM) Mok (1) Finance/Investment (1st Mon/month - 4:00 PM) Tyson/Swan History (3rd Tues/month - 3:30 PM) Swan (2)
LA/LAH Jt. Comm. Vol. Service Awards (As Needed) Swan (2) LA/LAH Senior Commission (1st Mon/month - 3:30 PM) Swan (2) LA/LAH Library Commission Schmidt (2)
Open Space (2nd Thur/month - 9:00 AM) Schmidt
Parks & Recreation (3rd Mon/month - 5:30 PM) Mok (1)
Pathways (4th Mon/month - 7:00 PM) Swan (1)
Technology Committee (Time/Date TBD) Mok (1), Schmidt (1) Mok LAH Emergency Council (Ordinance 550 states: (3) The Mayor, or as an alternate, the Vice MayoTyson/Swan Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) (3rd Thur/month every other month) Tankha North County Library Authority (no fixed schedule 4X/year) Schmidt (2) Joint Powers Authority Board (Library) Schmidt (2)
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board (Group 2) (1st Thur/month 5:30 PM) Tyson VTA Policy Advisory Group (2nd Thur/month 4:00 PM) (Alternate is okay) Tyson/Swan (Was Mok/Swan) SCVWD Water Commission (4th Wed/month every quarter 12:00 PM) Schmidt (2) Santa Clara County Cities Assn. Board (2nd Thur/month 7:00 PM, no meeting in July) Mok Los Altos Hills County Fire District (3rd Tues/month 7:00 PM) Tyson/Tankha CHAC JPA (4thWed/month 4:30 PM-no meeting July & Dec) Tyson (1) Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority (2nd Wed/month 6:00 PM) Tyson(1)/Schmidt Town Standing Committees 2022 Council Liaison Proposed Update Outside Agencies 2022 Council Liaison
AGENDA ITEM #5.C

Page 498 of 622 ends

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 18, 2022
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 2.20 GROSS ACRE PARCEL.

FROM: Areli Perez, Assistant Planner
Sofia Mangalam, Planning Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to approve a tentative map to create a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel.

BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 2.2 gross acre lot located at the southeastern quadrant of the Altamont Rd. and Page Mill Rd. intersection. See Figure 1. The existing parcel has one single-family residence that is accessed via Altamont Rd. The parcel has a slope of 14% and an existing lot unit factor (LUF) of 2.03. As explained in detail below, the proposed project would be required to make road right-of-way dedications along Altamont Rd. and Page Mill Rd. based on requirements of the Town and the County of Santa Clara. With the dedications, the net acreage of the subject parcel is reduced to 2.083 acres with an LUF of 1.90.

Figure 1 27600 Altamont Road Source: Google Maps
Altamont Road
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
P.P.

A.P.

Page 499 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 2
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022
On September 30, 2021, the applicant applied for a Tentative Map for a two-lot subdivision. As a subdivision, the project was reviewed for consistency with development standards and regulations, including requirements under the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance (Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 1). Among other things, Section 9-1.604 requires new parcels created through subdivisions to have a LUF of 1. In this case, the two lots resulting from the subdivision would have an LUF of less than 1 for each parcel due to the required roadway dedication.

The tentative map was scheduled for the July 7, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. However, on June 29, 2022, after the public notice was published and posted, staff received a letter from applicant’s counsel (see Attachment 4) on behalf of the applicant regarding the proposed subdivision project. Staff required additional time to review the issues raised in that correspondence in order to advise the Planning Commission and provide responses thereto. Thus, it was recommended that the Commission continue the item further to allow such review to occur.

At the July 7, 2022, meeting, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission Special Meeting of July 21, 2022.

On July 21, 2022, staff reviewed counsel’s correspondence and concluded that, although applicant’s arguments appear to be unsupported, it appears approval is warranted for the proposed subdivision. This is because the proposed subdivision does comply with all applicable standards except for the LUF requirement under the Subdivision Ordinance, and the Subdivision Ordinance also provides the Town with authority to grant a conditional exception for inconsistencies with the provisions of the ordinance if certain findings can be made. Thus, it was recommended that the proposed subdivision be approved including granting a conditional exception for the LUF requirement. At the hearing on July 21, the Planning Commission heard additional evidence and testimony and further concluded that approval of the proposed subdivision does not actually require the granting of a Conditional Exception as presented by staff, since the proposed subdivision can be determined to be consistent with the standards and intentions of the General Plan and also is compliant with other applicable requirements. These conclusions are explained further below in this report. Thus, the Commission, by 5-0 motion recommended that the City Council approve the tentative map to create a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel with conditions. Please see Attachment 3 for Planning Commission meeting minutes for details.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the tentative map to create a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel.

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners who own property within a 500-foot radius – August 5, 2022 • Posted at the project site – August 5, 2022
• Public Posting Places – August 5, 2022
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – August 12, 2022

Page 500 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 3
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022

MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENT
General Plan Land Use Element
• The lot unit factor (LUF) for any given parcel is based on lot size and average slope as determined by a formula established in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Newly created lots must have a LUF of one or more. Some lots with a LUF of less than one were created early in the Town’s history, prior to incorporation. These lots are considered nonconforming and their development is restricted today. Lots with a LUF of less than one may not be created today. Lots with a LUF of less than .50 require a conditional development permit. • Slope Density Standards for Subdivisions
Within those areas designated for low density residential use, net lot area should be not less than one acre (43,560 square feet) per primary dwelling unit. In addition, the minimum net lot area for subdivisions should increase with an increase in average slope, based on the following slope-density standards:

Average slope of land to be subdivided— Minimum net lot size 0 – 10% slope One acre
10 – 50% slope An increase from one to seven acres, based on the average slope of the land.

Over 50% slope These areas generally should not be developed for residential purposes.

Municipal Code
• Section 9-1.603 Preparation of tentative lot design and development plans of the Municipal Code includes requirements for tentative lot design and development plans. • Section 9-1.604 Lot size and requirements of the Municipal Code includes minimum requirements for parcels, including minimum parcel area, slope density requirements, lots which does not front on the public road system, lots with difficult terrain and other unusual conditions and related requirements.
• Section 9-1.512 Actions by the Planning Commission of the Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation on the tentative map to the City Council. The Commission may recommend the Council approve the map or deny the map; if the latter, there are certain findings of denial that the Commission would need to make.

Page 501 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 4
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022
(a) Once the Planning Commission has made a recommendation on the map, the City Clerk shall place the map upon the next available meeting agenda of the City Council.

The City Council shall approve, conditionally approve, deny, or deny without prejudice the tentative map within thirty (30) days of the Planning Commission recommendation.

The City Council shall also take action on any and all conditional exceptions that may accompany the tentative map;
(b) If no action is taken by the City Council within fifty (50) days after the official filing date of the tentative map, or of a longer period mutually agreed to by the subdivider and the City Council, then the tentative map, as filed, shall be deemed to be approved, insofar as it complies with other applicable requirements of this article, and it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the legislative body to certify such approval; and (c) The determination of the Council after the hearing upon the tentative map shall be transmitted to the City Planner, and shall, if there has been approval or conditional approval, constitute final action upon the tentative map.

DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant is requesting to subdivide the 2.20 gross acre (2.083 net acre) parcel into two (2) parcels of 1.010 net acre (Parcel A) and 1.073 net acres (Parcel B) with Lot Unit Factors (LUFs) of 1.009 and 1.003 per the Zoning Ordinance. See Fig. 2.

Figure 2: Existing lot and proposed subdivision Source: Project Plans Parcel A
Parcel B
Existing Lot
Page Mill Rd

Page 502 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 5
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022
The existing property is an approximately 2.20 gross acres with a slope of 14% and an existing LUF of 2.03. The existing property is a corner lot and has frontages on Altamont Rd and Page Mill Rd. Page Mill Rd is under the County of Santa Clara’s jurisdiction.

Per Article 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance, every subdivider shall bring the widths of right-ofway (ROW) into the conformity and the minimum ROW width for all public and private roads.

The minimum width, except fire or emergency roads, is 60 feet. Thus, the applicant is required to dedicate a 10-foot-wide road ROW easement along Altamont Rd. In addition, because the property fronts the portion of Page Mill Rd. that is within the County of Santa Clara jurisdiction, the County also requires a 10-foot-wide road ROW dedication along Page Mill Rd.

Access
The existing parcel is accessed from Altamont Rd. Similar to the existing parcel, proposed Parcel A will be accessed from Altamont Rd, and Parcel B will be accessed from Page Mill Rd. Page Mill Rd. is not within the Town Limits, and the applicant had to receive approval from the County of Santa Clara for access. The County’s Department of Roads and Airports required the applicant to submit a Site Distance Analysis which was found acceptable by the Department on April 25, 2022.

The accepted Site Distance Analysis has conditions of approval including the road right-of-way dedication, frontage improvements, and removal of vegetation or other obstructions necessary for line-of-sight of the proposed. See Attachment 9.

Geotechnical Review
The subdivision falls within the Town’s Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones, specifically within Zone D (ground deformation/fault rupture) and Zone F (Fault Rupture). The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. The report was reviewed by the Town Geotechnical Consultant, Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc. and the peer review has been included in Attachment 5.

Per Section 9-1.902 a final geological report will need to be approved at least 30 calendar days prior to submission of the final parcel map to the City Council (see Attachment 1, condition #1 and #2).

Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the proposed plans and provided comments that the applicant will need to address during the development of each parcel for the driveway grade. (See Attachment 1, condition #27 and #28). However, there are no outstanding issues for the proposed subdivision as the project does comply with applicable standards.

Page 503 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 6
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022
Town Committee Review
The proposed submission application was reviewed by three (3) Town Committees including the Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC), the Open Space Committee (OSC), and the Pathway Committee.

The EDPC’s first and second review had comments regarding the calculation for LUF. The second review also noted that the removal of any trees should be approved after the Tentative Parcel Map is approved. The Committee also had questions about the viability of the driveway entrance to Parcel B from Page Mill Rd. See Attachment 6.

The Open Space Committee recommended that LUF and contour length data be further reviewed by Planning Staff as the LUF does not meet the 1.0 requirement. The Committee also recommended the removal of the eucalyptus trees at south border and at Altamont Rd. See Attachment 7.

The Pathway Committee recommended that the Altamont Road ROW easement be specified as a pedestrian/equestrian easement. See Attachment 8.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL At the July 21, 2022, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the application for a tentative map subdivision and a potential granting of a conditional exception to the LUF standard. For staff reports and meeting minutes, refer to Attachments 2 and 3.

Staff noted that the proposed two (2) lots do meet all applicable subdivision standards except for LUF requirement:
• Each lot is a minimum of one net acre.
• Each lot contains a 160-foot diameter building circle within the proposed parcel boundaries thereby indicating that the parcels contain a viable building site; and • Each lot contains an area of at least one net acre within a 350-foot diameter circle that encompasses each parcel.

Lot Unit Factor
Prior to the adoption of the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance (Ordinance No. 232), lots or parcels only had a minimum of 1 acre requirement. Lots that were created prior to the ordinance and have a LUF less than 1.0 are considered non-conforming. The LUF and average slope are used to determine maximum floor area (MFA) and maximum development area (MDA).

Under the current General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance, all newly created lots must have a minimum one net acre lot or parcel and a LUF of 1.0 or more. As noted earlier, General Plan includes that the Lot Unit Factor (LUF) for any given parcel is based on lot size and average slope as determined by a formula established in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance uses that same formula to calculate LUF.

Page 504 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 7
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022
Under the Subdivision Ordinance, the formula to calculate LUF is the same one as that set forth under the Zoning Ordinance, which calculates LUF from the “net acreage” of a parcel. Net area is defined under the Subdivision Ordinance as the gross area of any parcel minus panhandles and public and private vehicular access easements but including maintenance and emergency access easements. In addition, the net area for parcels where the slopes are between 10 percent and 45 percent must be equal or greater than “a” as determined by the following formula, where S is the average slope of the parcel (determined by separate formula):
a = 1/(1-0.02143(S-10))
LUF is then calculated as below:

LUF = An [1-0.02143(S-10)]
Where:

An = Net Area of the parcel
S = Average slope of the net area of the parcel
The proposed subdivision would result in two (2) lots that are approximately 1.010 acres and 1.073 acres in net area, with an average slope of 12.5% for Lot A and 15.3% for Lot B. Thus, applying the foregoing formula for parcels with slope degrees between 10 and 45 percent, the resulting LUFs for the new parcels would be 0.956 for Parcel A and 0.951 for Parcel B if taken into account the definition of “net area” from the Subdivision Ordinance. These numbers are less than the number 1, which is the required LUF number.

Table 1 below demonstrates the calculations of LUF using ‘net area’ definition from Subdivision Ordinance.

Table 1: LUF calculations per Subdivision Ordinance
Site Data per Subdivision Ordinance
With Dedication of Road ROW
Gross Lot Area Existing Parcel Proposed
Parcel/Lot A
Proposed
Parcel/Lot B
Gross Lot Area 2.20 acres 1.067 acres 1.132 acres
Net Lot Area 2.08 acres 1.010 acres 1.073 acres
Average Slope 14.3 percent 12.5 percent 15.3 percent
Lot Unit Factor 1.9 0.956 0.951
However, if LUF is using net area definition per the Zoning Ordinance (Title 10 of the Municipal Code), these two new lots would have LUFs greater than 1. This is because under the Zoning Ordinance when determining LUF, net lot area only excludes the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access. Under this scenario, using the same LUF formula but a different input of net lot area when there are no deductions for ROW to calculate the net lot area,

Page 505 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 8
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022
the resulting LUFs for the new parcels would be 1.009 for Parcel A and 1.003 for Parcel B (see Table 2).

Table 2: LUF calculations per Zoning Ordinance.

Site Data per Zoning Ordinance
With Dedication of Road ROW
Gross Lot Area Existing Parcel Proposed
Parcel/Lot A
Proposed
Parcel/Lot B
Gross Lot Area 2.20 acres 1.067 acres 1.132 acres
Net Lot Area 2.20 acres 1.067 acres 1.132 acres
Average Slope 14.3 percent 12.5 percent 15.3 percent
Lot Unit Factor 2.03 1.009 1.003
Conditional Exception
Section 9-1.1501 of the Municipal Code provides the Planning Commission with the ability to consider recommending to the Council to approve “conditional exceptions” from the subdivision ordinance requirements. The Commission may consider making this recommendation when it opines that undue hardship may result from the strict compliance with the provisions of the subdivision ordinance, and an exception would not be contrary to the public interests.

Initially, Staff presented the potential granting of a Conditional Exception as an option for the Planning Commission as the new parcels’ LUF is calculated using the definition of net lot area under the Subdivision Ordinance. However, upon hearing additional testimony and pursuant to further deliberations, the Planning Commission noted that the intent of the General Plan is to utilize the approach under the Zoning Ordinance as the General Plan Land Use Element states “the LUF for any given parcel is based on lot size and average slope as determined by a formula established in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance.” The approach in the Zoning Ordinance indicates that “for purposes of determining lot unit factor (LUF), net area shall only exclude the paved portions of panhandles and the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access.” Thus, the Commission determined that utilizing the net acre approach in the Zoning Ordinance to calculate LUF is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, and consequently no conditional exception is required as the proposed two (2) new lots meet the LUF standards when calculated in the manner as shown in Table 2 above. Thus, the Commission recommended the City Council approve the subdivision tentative map as proposed.

Public Comments
Planning Commission received seven (7) written comments received prior to the July 21, 2022 public hearing and five (5) oral comments at the public hearing. See attachment 9 for public comments received for Planning Commission public hearing. Since the July 21, 2022, Commission hearing, staff has received no further public comments.

Page 506 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 9
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022
The written public comments were regarding (i) removing eucalyptus trees, (ii) the total number of trees to be removed, (iii) safety concerns on Page Mill Rd access to Parcel B, and (iv) objection to subdividing a lot that has a LUF less than 1.

The oral comments made during the July 21 public hearing were all related to the safety concerns on Page Mill Rd access to Parcel B and some regarding creation of lots with LUF less than 1. The safety concerns included location and slope of the proposed driveway, speeding on the Page Mill Road, and siting of the driveway for the location of the house.

Planning Commission’s deliberation on additional issues raised at the meeting Planning Commission discussed safety concerns regarding access from the Page Mill Road and LUF calculations in detail.
• The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the ‘Subdivision Ordinance’ including the requirement of LUF greater than 1.0, as the General Plan clearly states to use the LUF formula included in the Zoning Ordinance. Per Zoning Ordinance, the resulting LUFs for the new parcels would be 1.009 for Parcel A and 1.003 for Parcel B. The Commission also noted that no conditional exception is required as described above. • The Planning Commission took note of the safety concern raised by the members of the public and included the following conditions of approval (COA) as a part of its recommendation to the Council:
 Future Site Development Permits for both the parcels, Parcel A and B shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
 The applicant shall provide a ‘traffic safety study’ for the driveway access to proposed ‘Parcel B’ and comply with recommendations/mitigation measures from the study.

Planning staff shall appoint the traffic consultant and the applicant shall bear the cost of the study.
 The applicant shall work with the Santa Clara County to install safety signage along the Page Mill Road and a reflection sculpture (traffic safety mirror) to improve safety of the proposed driveway.
 All pathways and easements shall be clearly indicated on the submittal plans.  All existing easements will be cleared for access during the construction.

Staff believes these conditions are reasonably related traffic and pedestrian safety concerns and preservation of easement access issues, which were raised by public testimony during the hearing.

These conditions have been included in the Resolution (See Attachment 1, Exhibit A, COA #22- 26). The applicant also agrees with these conditions.

Staff comments
The proposed subdivision of the existing lot into two (2) lots meets the requirements and intent of the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Additional conditions of approval have also been proposed to address further concerns received by the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff

Page 507 of 622 ends

City Council Staff Report Page 10
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM21-0001
August 18, 2022
recommends that the City Council approve the tentative map subject to conditions included in the Exhibit A of the attached draft resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Upon review, staff’s assessment is that the proposed two-lot subdivision would be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) which allows a project to be exempt when there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The subdivision of the existing lot would result in a two-lot subdivision thereby creating one additional single-family lot.

There would not be any significant impacts on the surrounding environmental or on the subject parcel as single-family residential use is already in existence. It can be seen with certainty that the subdividing of land and ultimately the potential for one additional single-family home on the project site will not have a significant impact on the environment. 2022 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This application for two-lot subdivision is “below the water line” projects of the Planning Department.

FISCAL IMPACT
The application for subdivision includes a fee $725 and a deposit of $5,000. Staff time including planning staff and City Attorney for preparation of staff report and City Council meeting will be paid from the deposit.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Planning Commission Staff Reports – July 7, 2022, and July 21, 2022

3. Planning Commission Meeting minutes – July 7, 2022, and July 21, 2022

4. Letter from applicant’s counsel

5. Cotton, Shires and Associates Peer Review Report, dated October 25, 2021

6. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Report, dated March 11, 2022

7. Open Space Committee Report, dated October 20, 2021

8. Pathways Committee Report, dated October 25, 2021

9. Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports COAs, dated April 25, 2022

10. Public Comments

11. Project plans

Page 508 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 1
RESOLUTION __-22

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 2.2 GROSS ACRE LOT AT 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills received an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TM21-0001) from Carlos Gustavo Auqui (Applicant) for the subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel into two lots at 27600 Altamont Road (APN 182-028-026) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, proposed new Parcel A would be 1.010 acres and the proposed new Parcel B would be 1.073 acres; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Zoning designations for the Project site are residential; and WHEREAS, approval of a Tentative Parcel Map is governed by Sections 66410 - 66450 of the State of California Government Code (“Subdivision Map Act”) and Chapter 1 “Subdivisions” to Title 9 “Subdivisions and Plan Lines” (“Subdivision Ordinance”) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (“LAHMC”) which implements the Subdivision Map Act; and WHEREAS, the Project application was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the LAHMC; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LAHMC Section 9-1.512 (a), the Planning Commission shall determine whether the tentative map is in conformity with all the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning ordinance, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance, and either recommend the City Council approve the map with or without conditions and/or exceptions; continue deliberation with the concurrence of the subdivider; or recommend the City Council deny the map with or without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on July 7, 2021 and upon recommendation from staff, the meeting was continued to July 21, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on July 21, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and considered all evidence and testimony, including written documentation and public comments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the foregoing State and local authorities and based on the evidence and findings in the record, the Planning Commission, by a 5-0 motion on July 21, 2022, recommended that the City Council approve the proposed two-lot subdivision subject to the proposed draft conditions of approval which includes additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 66452 et seq. and LAHMC section 9-

1.514, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2022, at which time all Attachment 1

Page 509 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 2
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and considered all evidence and testimony, including written documentation and public comments; and WHEREAS, based on the entirety of the record before the City Council, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.)pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.) which exempts project when there is no possibility that the activity in question may have significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the administrative record, including the Staff Report prepared in support of this Resolution and submitted to the City Council at its August 18, 2022 meeting and incorporated herein by reference, establishes that the Tentative Parcel Map is in conformity with the Los Altos Hills General Plan and the requirements of Title 9, Chapter 1 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, the CITY COUNCIL of the Town of Los Altos Hills APPROVE the Tentative Parcel Map (TM21-0001) based on the findings contained in Exhibit “A” and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit “B”, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By:

George Tyson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____
Deborah L. Padovan, City Clerk

Page 510 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 3

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
27600 Altamont Road – File #TM21-0001
Based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation: the Los Altos Hills General Plan; the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, including but not limited to the Los Altos Hills Subdivision Ordinance; the Los Altos Hills Land Use Diagram; all relevant applications, correspondences, all oral and written comments, site plans, and all reports, submittals, presentations, recordings, minutes, written correspondence, and public testimony submitted to the Town of Los Altos Hills; the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission’s duly noticed July 21, 2022 public hearings proceedings; and the City Council’s duly noticed August 18, 2022 public hearing; and any other evidence and testimony presented in the record below, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills makes the following findings with regard to the application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TM21-0001) at 27600 Altamont Road (APN 182-028-026):

1. The Tentative Parcel Map is in conformity with the requirements of Title 9, Chapter 1 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (“Subdivision Ordinance”) and the Los Altos Hills General Plan.

The applicant is requesting to subdivide the 2.20 gross acre (2.083 net acre) parcel at 27600 Altamont Road into two (2) new parcels of 1.010 net acres (Parcel A) and 1.073 net acres (Parcel B) with Lot Unit Factors of 0.956 and 0.951. The subject parcel currently contains a residential home and is zoned Residential under the Los Altos Hills General Plan (“General Plan”). The parcel has a slope of 14% and an existing lot unit factor (LUF) of 2.03. The proposed project would be required to make road right-of-way dedications along Altamont Rd. and Page Mill Rd. based on requirements of the Town and the County of Santa Clara. With the dedications, the net acreage of the subject parcel is reduced to 2.083 acres with an LUF of 1.90.

As presented in the accompanying staff report to the City Council, the following standards apply to the proposed subdivision:

General Plan Land Use Element
• The lot unit factor (LUF) for any given parcel is based on lot size and average slope as determined by a formula established in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Newly created lots must have a LUF of one or more. Some lots with a LUF of less than one were created early in the Town’s history, prior to incorporation. These lots are considered nonconforming and their development is restricted today. Lots with a LUF of less than one may not be created today. Lots with a LUF of less than .50 require a conditional development permit. • Slope Density Standards for Subdivisions
Within those areas designated for low density residential use, net lot area should be not less than one acre (43,560 square feet) per primary dwelling unit. In addition, the minimum

Page 511 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 4
net lot area for subdivisions should increase with an increase in average slope, based on the following slope-density standards:

Average slope of land to be subdivided— Minimum net lot size 0 – 10% slope One acre
10 – 50% slope An increase from one to seven acres, based on the average slope of the land.

Over 50% slope These areas generally should not be developed for residential purposes.

In addition, the Planning Commission may recommend the City Council consider conditional exceptions to the subdivision ordinance requirements if certain findings are made.
• Section 9-1.514 City Council action of the Municipal Code states that the Council, once the Planning Commission has made a recommendation on the map, shall approve, conditionally approve, deny, or deny without prejudice the tentative map within thirty (30) days of the Planning Commission recommendation.

The parcel proposing to be subdivided is designated as Residential under both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. The proposed subdivision, as indicated by the circumstances presented along with the application, is to further divide the existing parcel into new developable lots for residential homes. The record below shows that the project is not proposing to create different uses or to continue any existing non-conforming uses. The project site is physically suitable for residential development and the potential construction of an additional dwelling. The proposed subdivision is also consistent with applicable subdivision standards:
• Each lot is a minimum of one net acre;
• Each lot contains a 160-foot diameter building circle within the proposed parcel boundaries thereby indicating that the parcels contain a viable building site; and

Page 512 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 5
• Each lot contains an area of at least one net acre within a 350-foot diameter circle that encompasses each parcel.

Additionally, based on the record below and on recommendation by the Planning Commission at its July 21, 2022 public hearing, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan LUF requirement. The General Plan states, under its Land Use Element development standards, that newly created lots must have a lot unit factor (LUF) of one (1) or more. The Los Altos Hills Subdivision Ordinance under Title 9, Chapter 1, implements this General Plan standard by requiring under Section 9-1.604 (b) that “the area of parcels or lots created in any subdivision after January 16, 1980, shall have a Lot Unit Factor of 1.0 or greater”, in addition to complying with other requirements including net area. On the other hand, the City Council notes that the General Plan also states “the LUF for any given parcel is based on lot size and average slope as determined by a formula established in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance.” As shown in the accompanying staff report and the record below, the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances use the same LUF formula, which calculates LUF from the “net acreage” of a parcel.

Net area is defined under the Subdivision Ordinance as the gross area of any parcel minus panhandles and public and private vehicular access easements but including maintenance and emergency access easements. When applying the LUF formula to the subject parcel (which possesses slope degrees between 10 and 45 percent), the resulting LUFs for the new parcels would be 0.956 for Parcel A and 0.951 for Parcel B if taken into account the definition of “net area” from the Subdivision Ordinance.

However, as demonstrated in the August 18, 2022 City Council staff report and the July 21, 2022 Planning Commission staff report, if LUF is using net area definition per the Zoning Ordinance (Title 10 of the Municipal Code), these two new lots would have LUFs greater than 1. This is because under the Zoning Ordinance when determining LUF, net lot area only excludes the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access. Based on the recommendation from the Planning Commission and the August 18, 2022 public hearing, the City Council concurs with the Commission’s conclusion that the intent of the General Plan is to utilize the approach under the Zoning Ordinance as the General Plan Land Use Element states “the LUF for any given parcel is based on lot size and average slope as determined by a formula established in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance.” Thus, it is consistent with the General Plan to utilize “net lot area” under the Zoning Ordinance to calculate LUFs for the resulting new parcel for the project.

Finally, there is no indication that approving the subdivision would be likely to cause substantial environmental or wildlife damage; to cause serious public health problems; or to conflict with public or private access easements. Based on the record of hearings, the proposed subdivision is set up to provide adequate roadway access, complies with the Town and County right-of-way dedication requirements, and meets requirements for emergency access. Additionally, conditions of approval have been proposed at the July 21 hearing and included with this resolution for a traffic safety study, the installation of safety signage, and demarcation of all easements and pathways on the submitted plans and which will be kept clear during construction. Future site development permits are also subject to Planning Commission review as conditioned. Finally, the applicant has also submitted a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering.

Page 513 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 6
The report was peer reviewed by the Town Geotechnical Consultant, Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc. with no additional comments.

Therefore, based on the record and testimony presented before the City Council, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision conforms to all requirements of the Town’s General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance which implements the state Subdivision Map Act. Its approval is warranted under the Town’s Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act.

Page 514 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 7

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVIDING
27600 Altamont Road – File #TM21-0001

GEOTECHNICAL/ EARTHWORK

1. Engineering Geologic Investigation – A Certified Engineering Geologist should perform a study that investigates potential hazards at the subject property and provides appropriate findings regarding the risk of surface fault rupture, ground deformation, landsliding, etc., as applicable (i.e., low, moderate, high, etc.). The anticipated study should incorporate a review of historic aerial photographs, technical maps, and subsurface exploration designed by the applicant’s Geologist. The Certified Engineering Geologist should clarify soil and bedrock materials encountered at the subject property and provide an engineering geologic cross section and map of the property depicting their interpretation of the surficial and subsurface distribution of earth materials and structure (e.g., artificial fill, colluvium, bedrock, etc.).

The results of the Engineering Geologic Investigation should be compiled by the applicant’s Engineering Geologist in a report with appropriate data, figures, and findings, to be submitted to the Town for supplemental peer review by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to approval so subject permit applications.

2. The final geological report shall be completed and submitted to the City Geologist for review and approval at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the submission of the final map or parcel map to the City Council.

LAND AND EASEMENT DEDICATION

3. Payment of park and recreation dedication fees, pathway in lieu fee, and all other applicable fees shall be required prior to recordation of the Final Map. The park and recreation dedication fees shall be provided in accordance with sections 9.1.1403 and 9.1.1404 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.

4. The applicant shall relocate or abandon existing public utility easements and grant new public utility easements where needed to all utility companies for utility construction and maintenance, including but not limited to: AT&T Telephone Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Comcast Cable Television, and Purissima Hills Water District. The dedications shall all be completed in conjunction with Final Map approval, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

5. The Final Map shall depict and label additional “10’ right-of-way easement dedication” to create a 30’ half-width right-of-way easement adjacent to Altamont Road. The r-o-w easement shall also be included as a pedestrian/equestrian easement.

Page 515 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 8

IMPROVEMENT

6. A Subdivision Improvement Plan which includes an Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer as part of the Subdivision Improvement Plans. This plans shall conform to all standards adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills and shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town’s NPDES Permit relative to grading and sediment erosion control including but not limited to: a) restricting grading during the moratorium from October 1 to April 30; b) protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion using such techniques as hillside benching, erosion control matting and/or hydroseeding; c) protecting downstream storm drainage inlets from sedimentation; d) appropriate use of sediment rolls to retain sediment on the project site; e) any other suitable measures outlined in the ABAG Manual of Standards.

7. All lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public water system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Purissima Hills Water District. Services shall be installed to the property lines or be bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map. An encroachment permit shall be required to be issued by the Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way. Any necessary fees shall be paid prior to the recordation of the Final Map.

8. All existing and proposed utilities located within the subdivision that serve the subdivision shall be placed underground, in accordance with Subdivision Ordinance, Sec. 9-1.1105. Cable television, gas, electric, and telephone services, to the property lines are included in this requirement. Plans for the location of all such utilities are to be included in the improvement plans for the subdivision. Improvements shall be installed or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map.

9. All lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public sanitary sewer system. An encroachment permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way. Services shall be installed to the property lines or bonded for prior to the recordation of the Final Map.

10. Improvement plans for the subdivision shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to commencement of improvement work.

11. All subdivision improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map.

12. All subdivision conditions of approval and subdivision improvements shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any site development or building permits.

13. Any, and all, wells on the property shall be shown on the Improvement Plans, shall be properly registered with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and shall be abandoned, capped in accordance with the SCVWD standards.

Page 516 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 9

14. All existing structures located within the building setback lines shall be removed prior to recordation of the Final Map.

15. At the intersection of Altamont Road and Page Mill Road, the r-o-w easement lines shall be rounded with a curve having a radius of not less than thirty (30) feet.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

16. The applicant shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by construction of the subdivision improvements to pathways, private driveways and public or private roadways prior to recordation of the Final Map.

17. Prior to beginning any grading, construction or demolition operations, all significant trees shall be fenced with chain link type material at the dripline. Planning Staff must inspect the fencing and trees prior to starting demolition, grading, or construction. The fence must remain in place throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines. All large and heritage oak trees shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.

18. The addresses for the two parcels shall be required and done in accordance with Town policies.

19. The residences on parcels A and B shown on the Tentative Parcel Map are conceptual only, and no approval of any residence is indicated by approval of the Tentative Map.

Site Development applications are required for the new residences and shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission.

20. At such time development on each of the newly created parcels is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage improvement plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. Peak discharge shall not exceed the existing pre-development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre-development value. The applicant’s engineer shall provide data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development.

21. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department for the access from Page Mill Road to Parcel B.

22. Future Site Development Permits for both the parcels, Parcel A and B shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

23. The applicant shall provide a ‘traffic safety study’ for the driveway access from Page Mill Road to the proposed ‘Parcel B’ and comply with safety recommendations/mitigation measures from the study. Planning staff shall appoint the traffic consultant and the applicant shall bear the cost of the study.

Page 517 of 622 ends

Resolution -22 Page 10

24. The applicant shall work with the Santa Clara County to install safety signage along Page Mill Road and a reflection sculpture (traffic safety mirror) to improve safety of the proposed driveway to Parcel B.

25. All pathways and easements shall be clearly indicated on the submittal plans.

26. All existing easements will be cleared for access during construction.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

27. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveways Required: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 40 feet outside and 20 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. Both proposed driveways grades exceed 15%. Provide engineering justification for all grades in excess of 15%. Justification shall specifically address concern of traction, approach and departure angles, including transitions thereto to be addressed during the Site Development application.

28. Plans for new residences shall be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department at the time of site development permit application. Conditions that may be applied at that time include, but are not limited to, providing an acceptable water supply, based on the size of the new residences, providing an emergency vehicle turnaround, placement of property address signs that are clearly visible from the right-of-way, and providing an approved access system if the lots are fences and gated.

Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. To the extent that these Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, the project applicant is hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. To such extent applicable, the project applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If the project applicant fails to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

Page 518 of 622 ends

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 21, 2022
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 27600 Altamont Road – Lands of Auqui and Putnam – TM21-0001 A request for a tentative map to create a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel and consideration of a potential conditional exception to the Lot Unit Factor requirement. The subdivision of the 2.20 gross acre parcel into two lots will result in 1.010 net acre (Parcel A) and 1.073 net acres (Parcel B) with Lot Unit Factors of 0.956 and 0.951.

FROM: Areli Perez, Assistant Planner
APPROVED: Sofia Mangalam, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to make findings and RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE the Tentative Parcel Map and a Conditional Exception, and forward said recommendation to the City Council for approval of the map application, based on the listed conditions of approval in Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 2.20 gross acre lot located at the southeastern quadrant of the Altamont Rd and Page Mill Rd intersection. See Figure 1. The existing parcel has one single-family residence that is accessed via Altamont Rd. The parcel has a slope of 14% and an existing lot unit factor (LUF) of 2.03. As explained in detail below, the proposed project would be required to make road right-of-way dedications along Altamont Rd and Page Mill Rd based on requirements of the Town and the County of Santa Clara, which will reduce the net acreage to 2.083 with a LUF of

1.90. Consequently, the two lots resulting from the subdivision would have an LUF of less than 1 for each parcel, while the Town’s ordinance requires a LUF of 1 for each lot. The Municipal Code provides the Planning Commission the ability to recommend the Council consider a conditional exception under the Town’s subdivision ordinance (i.e., to the LUF standard) in conjunction with a recommendation to approve the map application. These issues are thus presented to the Commission for consideration.

Attachment 2

Page 519 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 2
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
Figure 1:27600 Altamont Road Source: Google Maps
On September 30, 2021, the applicant applied for a Tentative Map for a two-lot subdivision. The tentative map was scheduled for the July 7, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. However, on June 29, 2022, after the public notice was published and posted, Staff received a letter from applicant’s counsel (see Attachment 3) on behalf of the applicant regarding the proposed subdivision project. Staff required additional time to review the issues raised in this correspondence in order to advise the Planning Commission and provide responses thereto. Thus, it was recommended that the Commission continue the item further to allow such time. At the July 7, 2022, meeting, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission Special Meeting of July 21, 2022.

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners who own property within a 500-foot radius – July 8, 2022 • Posted at the project site – July 8, 2022
• Public Posting Places – July 8, 2022
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – July 8, 2022 Staff received three (3) written public comments from neighbors. The public comments are regarding (i) removing eucalyptus trees, (ii) the total number of trees to be removed, (iii) safety concerns on Page Mill Rd access to Parcel B, and (iv) objection to subdividing a lot that has a LUF less than 1. The public comments are included as Attachment 9.

Staff comments to issues raised in these comments are as follows:
(i) The removal of eucalyptus trees is typically associated with a site development permit, currently the project scope of the two-lot subdivision does not have an associated site development permit for construction of any structures.

Altamont Road

Page 520 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 3
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
(ii) The residences and tree removals shown on the plans are conceptual only and are not part of the subdivision scope (See Attachment 1, condition of approval #19). They will be further reviewed when the applicable entitlement request comes before the Town. (iii) The Page Mill Rd adjacent to the subject parcel is not within Town limits and is within the County of Santa Clara. Access from Page Mill Rd was determined to be acceptable by the Roads and Airports Department of the County of Santa Clara, see Attachment 8. The applicant worked directly with the County to obtain approval regarding the access from Page Mill Road and also provided site distance analysis for review. The applicant will need to obtain an encroachment permit from the County to construct the driveway access. (iv) The public hearing includes consideration of a potential conditional exception to the LUF requirement.

CODE REQUIREMENT
Land Use Element
• Development Standards included in the Land Use Element of the General Plan states that newly created lots must have a LUF of one or more. It also includes that Lots with a LUF of less than one may not be created today.
• Slope Density Standards for Subdivisions
Within those areas designated for low density residential use, net lot area should be not less than one acre (43,560 square feet) per primary dwelling unit. In addition, the minimum net lot area for subdivisions should increase with an increase in average slope, based on the following slope-density standards:

Average slope of land to be subdivided— Minimum net lot size 0 – 10% slope One acre
10 – 50% slope An increase from one to seven acres, based on the average slope of the land.

Over 50% slope These areas generally should not be developed for residential purposes.

Page 521 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 4
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
• Section 9-1.512 Actions by the Planning Commission of the Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation on the tentative map to the City Council. The Commission may recommend the Council approve the map or deny the map; if the latter, there are certain findings of denial that the Commission would need to make.

In addition, the Planning Commission may recommend the City Council consider conditional exceptions to the subdivision ordinance requirements if certain findings are made.
• Section 9-1.1501 Commission Recommendations of the Municipal Code includes that the Planning Commission may recommend for Council approval conditional exceptions from the provisions of this chapter when, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, undue hardship may result from the strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter, and an exception would not be contrary to the public interests. In making its findings, the Planning Commission shall consider the existing land use of the area, the nature of the proposed use of the land, and the effect on traffic conditions probable therefrom. The Planning Commission need to make findings in order to make recommendation for conditional exception.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting to subdivide the 2.20 gross acre (2.083 net acre) parcel into two (2) parcels of 1.010 net acre (Parcel A) and 1.073 net acres (Parcel B) with Lot Unit Factors of 0.956 and 0.951. See Fig. 2.

Figure 2: Existing lot and proposed subdivision Source: Project Plans Parcel A
Parcel B
Existing Lot
Page Mill Rd

Page 522 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 5
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
The existing property is an approximately 2.20 gross acres with a slope of 14% and an existing LUF of 2.03. The existing property is a corner lot and has frontages on Altamont Rd and Page Mill Rd, Page Mill Rd is under the County of Santa Clara’s jurisdiction.

Per Article 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance, every subdivider shall bring the widths of r-o-w into the conformity and the minimum right-of-way (r-o-w) width for all public and private roads. The minimum width, except fire or emergency roads, is 60 feet. Thus, the applicant is required to dedicate a 10-foot-wide road r-o-w easement along Altamont Rd. In addition, because the property fronts the portion of Page Mill Rd that is within the County of Santa Clara jurisdiction, the County also requires a 10-foot-wide road r-o-w dedication along Page Mill Rd. Thus, the road r-o-w dedications reduce the site to 2.083 net acres with a resulting LUF of 1.90, which will result in two (2) lots that are a greater than one (1) acre but with an LUF of less than 1.0. See Table 1 for the site data of the existing parcel and the two (2) proposed parcels.

Table 1: LUF calculations per Subdivision Ordinance
Site Data per Subdivision Ordinance
With Dedication of Road R-O-W
Gross Lot Area Existing Parcel Proposed
Parcel/Lot A
Proposed
Parcel/Lot B
Gross Lot Area 2.20 acres 1.067 acres 1.132 acres
Net Lot Area 2.08 acres 1.010 acres 1.073 acres
Average Slope 14.3 percent 12.5 percent 15.3 percent
Lot Unit Factor 1.9 0.956 0.951

TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW
In order to recommend the City Council, approve the subdivision, the Planning Commission must determine that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning ordinance, the Subdivision Map Act and Subdivisions chapter of the Municipal Code.

The proposed two-lots do not meet all the minimum requirements of the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance because does not meet the requirement that the new lots created need to each have a LUF of 1 or greater. However, the proposed lots do meet the other applicable subdivision standards:
• Each lot is a minimum of one net acre;
• Each lot contains a 160-foot diameter building circle within the proposed parcel boundaries thereby indicating that the parcels contain a viable building site; and • Each lot contains an area of at least one net acre within a 350-foot diameter circle that encompasses each parcel.

Lot Unit Factor
Prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 232, lots or parcels only had a minimum of 1 acre requirement. Lots that were created prior to the ordinance and have an LUF less than 1.0 are

Page 523 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 6
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
considered non-conforming. The LUF and average slope are used to determine maximum floor area (MFA) and maximum development area (MDA).

Under the current General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance, all newly created lots must have a minimum one net acre lot or parcel and a LUF of 1.0 or more. LUF is calculated from the net acreage of a parcel under Municipal Code Sections 9-9-1.201 and 202, and 10-1.202. The net area for parcels where the slopes are between 10 percent and 45 percent is:
a = 1/(1-0.02143(S-10))
Where:
a = Net Area of the parcel
S = Average slope of the net area of the parcel
LUF is calculated as below:

LUF = An [1-0.02143(S-10)]
The proposed subdivision would result in two (2) lots that are approximately 1.010 acres and 1.073 acres in net area, with an average slope of 12.5% for Lot A and 15.3% for Lot B. Thus, applying the foregoing formula for parcels with slope degrees between 10 and 45 percent, the resulting LUFs for the new parcels would be 0.956 for Parcel A and 0.951 for Parcel B. These numbers are less than the number 1, which is the standard LUF number. Staff notes that the General Plan and the Municipal Code including the Subdivision Ordinance do not contain any standards, policies or guidance for rounding up a numeric figure. It is the Town’s practice to present calculations to the second or third decimal point for clarity only.

However, for the purposes of taking into account special circumstances surrounding the property at issue, the Commission should be aware that if the two proposed lots were existing parcels and LUF is calculated to determine developable area under the Zoning Ordinance (Title 10 of the Municipal Code), these two new lots would have LUFs greater than 1. This is because under the Zoning Ordinance when determining LUF, net lot area only excludes the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access. It is assumed that this was done to address existing non-conforming lots created prior to 1976. Under this scenario when there are no deductions for r-o-w to calculate the net lot area, the resulting LUFs for the new parcels would be

1.009 for Parcel A and 1.003 for Parcel B (see Table 2). Thus, the two (2) new parcels would need granting of a conditional exception to the LUF standards under Subdivision Ordinance.

To further illustrate if these two proposed lots were existing lots requiring r-o-w dedication, the LUF calculations would be as follows in Table 2.

Page 524 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 7
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
Table 2: LUF calculations per Zoning Ordinance.

Site Data per Zoning Ordinance
With Dedication of Road R-O-W
Gross Lot Area Existing Parcel Proposed
Parcel/Lot A
Proposed
Parcel/Lot B
Gross Lot Area 2.20 acres 1.067 acres 1.132 acres
Net Lot Area 2.20 acres 1.067 acres 1.132 acres
Average Slope 14.3 percent 12.5 percent 15.3 percent
Lot Unit Factor 2.03 1.009 1.003
Conditional Exception
Section 9-1.1501 of the Municipal Code provides the Planning Commission with the ability to consider recommending to the Council to approve “conditional exceptions” from the subdivision ordinance requirements. The Commission may consider making this recommendation when it opines that undue hardship may result from the strict compliance with the provisions of the subdivision ordinance, and an exception would not be contrary to the public interests. To recommend the Council approve a conditional exception, the Planning Commission must determine under Section 9-1.1501 that:
a) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting such property so that the strict application of the provisions of [the subdivision ordinance] would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his or her land.
b) By granting the conditional exception applied for, any other landowner shall not be deprived of the reasonable use of his or her land nor be subjected to undue burdens or hardships or be deprived of any material use or enjoyment of his or her property.

In this case, staff believes the circumstances of the proposed subdivision supports these findings and the grant of a conditional exception.

Under Finding (a), the project site fronts two (2) roadways that are limited in width and each with their own r-o-w dedication requirements imposed by two (2) different jurisdictions. Specifically, the parcel has frontage on Altamont Road, within Los Altos Hills Town Limits, and on Page Mill Road, within Santa Clara County. The project is required by the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance, the property is required to dedicate a 10-foot-wide road r-o-w easement along Altamont Road (total area of 2,518 square feet or 0.059 acres) and required by the County to dedicate a 10-foot-wide ro-w along Page Mill Road (2,584 square feet or 0.058 acres). The road r-o-w easements and dedications reduce the lot to 2.083 net acres and the LUF to 1.90, resulting in two (2) parcels that are greater than one (1) acre but do not meet the minimum LUF of 1.0. It is important to note that the existing project site parcel is a 2.20 gross acre parcel with a slope of less than 14% and an existing LUF of 2.0; if the project site were not required to offer these dedications, it would be able to meet the Town’s subdivision LUF standard. Therefore, the requirement to dedicate r-o-w on two (2) road frontages constitutes a special circumstance or condition affecting the property that is not typical of most properties in Town because most parcels only have frontage on one (1) roadway with sufficient width and no r-o-w dedications would be required. In particular, despite

Page 525 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 8
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
their resulting LUF being less than 1, the proposed new parcels do meet the minimum lot requirement of one net acre per new residence. A parcel of similar size and characteristics as the subject parcel, with no dedications for r-o-w, would be subdividable to achieve the one (1) dwelling per net acre and the LUF of 1.0. Additionally, as discussed earlier, under the Zoning ordinance, the net lot area is calculated differently than the Subdivision Ordinance, the resulting LUFs for the new parcels would be 1.009 for Parcel A and 1.003 for Parcel B. Thus, the project site is uniquely constrained by the roadway width and dedication requirements that constitutes a special circumstance with regards to the LUF standard. Thus, Finding (a) is supported by these facts.

Under Finding (b), there is no evidence or circumstance showing that any other landowner would be deprived of the reasonable use of their land if the conditional exception at issue were granted.

Here, the subdivision of this parcel will not result in the creation of any landlocked parcels nor prevent access to a public right-of-way from the proposed parcels or any existing parcels. Any other landowners will continue to be able to have the reasonable use of their land and not be subjected to undue burdens or hardships due to the subdivision of the subject property. The conditional exception will not result in a parcel that is less than 1 acre and the additional right-ofway easements that will be dedicated will allow for any future widening of the roads and future pathways. Thus, Finding (b) is also supported.

Although this would be the first conditional exception before the Planning Commission for subdivision since the Subdivision Ordinance was revised in 2018, the circumstances of the proposed project show that the conditional exception would be supported. Thus, staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to grant the exception. Draft findings have been included as a part of the resolution in Attachment 1 and any additional findings may be articulated by the Commission during the public hearing.

Access
The existing parcel is accessed from Altamont Rd. Similar to the existing parcel, proposed Parcel A will be accessed from Altamont Rd, and Parcel B will be accessed from Page Mill Rd. Page Mill Rd is not within the Town Limits, and the applicant had to receive approval from the County of Santa Clara for access. The County’s Department of Roads and Airports required the applicant to submit a Site Distance Analysis which was found acceptable by the Department on April 25, 2022.

Page 526 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 9
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
Per Section 9-1.902 a final geological report will need to be approved at least 30 calendar days prior to submission of the final parcel map to the City Council (see Attachment 1, condition #1 and #2).

Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the proposed plans and provided comments that the applicant will need to address during the development of each parcel for the driveway grade. (See Attachment 1, condition #22 and #23). However, there are no outstanding issues for the proposed subdivision as the project does comply with applicable standards.

Town Committee Review
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee reviewed the application, the resubmittal, and visited the property. The first and second review had comments regarding the calculation for LUF. The second review also noted that the removal of any trees should be approved after the Tentative Parcel Map is approved. The Committee also had questions about the viability of the driveway entrance to Parcel B from Page Mill Rd. See Attachment 5.

The Open Space Committee reviewed the application, the resubmittal, and visited the property.

The Committee recommended that LUF and contour length data be further reviewed by Planning Staff as the LUF does not meet the 1.0 requirement. The Committee also recommended the removal of the eucalyptus trees at south border and at Altamont Rd. See Attachment 6.

The Pathway Committee recommended that the Altamont Road r-o-w easement be specified as a pedestrian/equestrian easement. See Attachment 7.

RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S CORRESPONDENCE
On June 29, 2022, the applicant’s counsel submitted a letter to the Town (Attachment 3) on behalf of the applicant regarding the proposed subdivision. The letter raises certain arguments under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code section 65589.5) that the proposed 2-lot subdivision would have to be approved and no conditional exception is required. Specifically, the applicant’s primarily claims are that under the Housing Accountability Act, the Town is required to interpret and apply zoning standards in favor of housing development and also required to apply only objective standards to housing development projects. The applicant argues that the proposed twolot subdivision is within the permitted density under the General Plan (i.e. one acre per primary dwelling unit) and thus the LUF should be applied to facilitate such density. The applicant further argues that any General Plan recommendations to consider slope in acreage calculations are subjective and inapplicable, and that the Town’s application of the LUF measured to the thousandth of a decimal point is a subjective interpretation as the number should be rounded up.

Staff has reviewed the correspondence in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office and disagree with the claims raised in the letter. For clarification purposes, staff’s responses are documented below. However, staff does continue to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant the conditional exception and approve the map application for the reasons explained in the prior sections of the report.

Page 527 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 10
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
By way of background, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a state statute that limits local governments’ ability to deny or lower the density of a qualifying housing development project that complies with objective standards and regulations of the municipality (i.e. applicable general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design standards). Under the HAA, objective standards are those that do not involve personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is able to be uniformly verified by reference to an “external and uniform benchmark” or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official. Additionally, the HAA does include requirements for local governments to apply objective standards and apply them in a manner to facilitate the permitted density at a particular site. It also does limit local governments’ ability to impose standards that require subjective interpretation.

However, at the outset, the HAA applies to housing development projects consistent of “residential units” or to other types of housing developments such as mixed-use projects where at least twothirds of the project square footage is designated for residential use. Case law and the state Department of Housing and Community Development have opined that the HAA only applies to housing development projects where at least two residential units are proposed. As the proposed subdivision project does not involve the construction of any housing units, the HAA does not apply to the subdivision project as proposed by the applicant.

Additionally, even assuming in arguendo that the HAA does apply, or that the applicant proposes additional housing units along with the two-lot subdivision and the project ultimately comes within the scope of the HAA, the project would still be required to comply with applicable objective standards and regulations including subdivision standards. Here, the LUF is an objective subdivision standard, and the Town has been applying the standard in an objective manner.

Municipal Code section 9-1.604(b) clearly states that any lot created after January 16, 1980, shall have a Lot Unit Factor of 1.0 or greater” and comply with certain net area requirements calculated by a mathematical formula based on whether the slope is between 10 - 45 percent or exceeds 45 percent. The General Plan likewise states that newly created lots must have a LUF of 1 or more and does not allow the creation of lots with a LUF of less than 1. Based on a plain reading of the code, the LUF and acreage calculations are numeric figures and also calculated based on mathematical formulas. The particular LUF formula applied to this project is an objective calculation of site formula data. As discussed previously, there is no standard or requirement under the General Plan or Municipal Code for rounding up LUF numbers or any other numeric calculations. Thus, a plain review of the resulting LUFs for the proposed two lots would mean that the numbers, which are 0.956 and 0.951 respectively, are less than 1.0. Therefore, based on a strict interpretation of applicable code provisions, the proposed two lots would not be consistent with the Town’s objective subdivision standard. Therefore, staff disagrees with the conclusions stated in applicant’s letter.

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff continues to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the map application with the conditional exception. As presented throughout this report:
• The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the General Plan aside from the LUF standard; however, as discussed above, there are special circumstances that exists for the

Page 528 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 11
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
project site to support a conditional exception to the LUF standard, which would bring the proposed map into full compliance with the General Plan and applicable Municipal Code requirements.
• There are special circumstances affecting the property so that strict compliance with the LUF standard would result in undue hardship for the applicant as they would not be able to subdivide the property. As described in detail above, the required roadway dedication constitutes a unique condition for the project site. This is further illustrated by the fact that if the new lots resulting from this proposed subdivision were existing lots and evaluated under the Zoning Code, their LUFs would be greater than 1 and development would be permitted.
• For the reasons discussed above, granting the conditional exception would not result in any detriment to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare, and would not create any injurious effects to other parcels or property owners.
• The project site currently contains a single-family residence and is zoned residential; there are no facts to indicate that site is not suitable for subdivisions (as other similarly sized lots would be subdividable and the resulting new parcels would have a minimum size of 1 acre), or that the proposed subdivision would likely cause any environmental or wildlife impacts. • There are no facts suggesting that the proposed subdivision would be in conflict with any easements or impair access. The project actually does comply with applicable access standards and includes required roadway dedications.

Although applicant’s arguments in the June 29 letter appear to be unsupported, the circumstances of the proposed subdivision nonetheless indicate that a conditional exception is supported due to the unique circumstances of the project site as discussed above. Further, as the proposed subdivision complies with all other applicable standards including minimum lot size, the grant of a conditional exception would not contradict the intent behind Town subdivision requirements to maintain 1 acre lots and rural characteristics and would not be contrary to public interests. Thus, staff continues to recommend the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that the Council approve the conditional exception and grant the subdivision application.

If, after reviewing this report and hearing the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing, the Commission still desires to recommend that the City Council deny the map application, we have prepared an alternate draft resolution to set forth findings for a recommendation to deny. Additional findings relating to such recommendation may also be articulated by the Commission during the hearing.

Page 529 of 622 ends

Planning Commission Page 12
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
July 21, 2022
There would not be any significant impacts on the surrounding environmental or on the subject parcel as single-family residential use is already in existence. It can be seen with certainty that the subdividing of land and ultimately the potential for one additional single-family home on the project site will not have a significant impact on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with findings for recommending approval

2. Alternative Resolution with findings for recommending denial

3. Letter from applicant’s counsel

4. Cotton, Shires and Associates Peer Review Report, dated October 25, 2021

5. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Report, dated March 11, 2022

6. Open Space Committee Report, dated October 20, 2021

7. Pathways Committee Report, dated October 25, 2021

8. Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports COAs, dated April 25, 2022

9. Public Comments

10. Project plans – Planning Commission only

Page 530 of 622 ends

Page 531 of 622 ends

Page 532 of 622 ends

Approved July 21, 2022 Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 7, 2022 Minutes
Zoom Meeting and Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California

1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Via teleconference according to the Government Code Section 54953(e), Chair Indaco called the July 7, 2022 Planning Commission Regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Bredo, Vice-Chair Waschura, Chair Indaco
Staff: Planning Director Mangalam, Associate Planner Loh, Assistant Planner Perez, Administrative Clerk/Technician Brunner

2. SWEARING IN CEREMONY & REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION

2.1 Alisa Bredo
City Clerk Padovan administered the Oath of Office to Planning Commissioner Alisa Bredo.

2.2 Rajiv Patel
City Clerk Padovan administered the Oath of Office to Planning Commissioner Rajiv Patel.

2.3 Appointment of Chair
Chair Indaco thanked Commissioner Smith for his many years of service on the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Couperus nominated Vice-Chair Waschura to the position of Planning Commission Chair.

The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Patel.

There were no objections or alternate nominations and Vice-Chair Waschura accepted the position of Chair.

Chair Waschura thanked Commissioner Indaco for her service as the Planning Commission Chair. He also thanked former Commissioner Charles (Ed) Smith for his service as Planning Commissioner for the past 4 years.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Couperus moved to appoint ViceChair Waschura as Chair for the 2022-2023 Planning Commission.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Bredo, Vice-Chair Waschura, Chair Indaco
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
Attachment 3

Page 533 of 622 ends

2 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2022 Minutes

2.4 Appointment of Vice-Chair
Commissioner Indaco nominated Commissioner Bredo to the position of Planning Commission Vice-Chair.

The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Couperus.

Commissioner Bredo offered comments regarding her acceptance.

There were no objections or alternate nominations, and Commissioner Bredo accepted the position of Vice-Chair.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Couperus moved to appoint Commissioner Bredo as Vice-Chair for the 2022-2023 Planning Commission.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Bredo, Commissioner Indaco, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Waschura opened PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

No presentations from the floor.

Chair Waschura closed PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

4.1 Motion of the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills to continue meeting virtually through teleconference meetings and making related findings pursuant to AB 361.

Vice-Chair Bredo requested the Consent Calendar motion be separated by item number because she planned to vote differently on each.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Chair Waschura moved to APPROVE the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills to continue meeting virtually through teleconference meetings and making related findings pursuant to AB 361.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Indaco.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

Page 534 of 622 ends

3 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2022 Minutes

4.2 Approval of June 15, 2022 Special Meeting Minutes
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Patel moved that the June 15, 2022 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes be APPROVED.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Indaco.

MOTION PASSED: 4-0-1-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Vice-Chair Bredo
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ex parte:

Chair Waschura has communications with the applicant on Item 5.1 and the applicant on Item

5.2 Commissioner Indaco had communications with Commissioner Bredo, Carol Gottlieb, of the Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC), the applicant, Greg Goumas, and the neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. Peng, on Item 5.1.

Commissioner Bredo had communications with Commissioner Indaco and the applicant’s neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. Peng, on Item 5.1.

Commissioners Couperus and Patel had no ex parte communications.

Chair Waschura proposed, and the Commission unanimously supported, consideration of Item

5.3 before Items 5.1 and 5.2.

5.1 12051 Moody Springs Court – File # SD22-0010 – Lands of Eggers Site Development Permit for landscape screening for an approved two-story accessory structure.

CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304(b) Project Planner: Jeremy Loh
Associate Planner Loh presented the staff report.

Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and staff ensued.

The applicant, Greg Goumas, addressed the landscape screening, water run-off, and fencing concerns of a neighbor and his proposed solutions.

A question-and-answer session between the applicant and the Commissioners ensued.

Staff provided clarifying answers.

Public Comment
Carol Gottlieb, representing the EDPC, offered comments regarding the proposed landscape screening, fence, and water run-off concerns.

The applicant provided responses to address the public comments and questions.

Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Page 535 of 622 ends

4 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2022 Minutes
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Indaco shared a presentation and provided comments in agreement with the recommendations of the EDPC.

Commissioner Couperus offered comments on the landscape screening proposal and noted Commissioner Indaco's photographs in her presentation helped to clear up some confusion.

Vice-Chair Bredo offered comments in support of moving the laurels as suggested.

Chair Waschura offered comments in favor of moving the laurels up the property line and maintaining the swale.

Commissioner Patel offered comments regarding planting around the swale and along the property and suggestions regarding addressing water drainage concerns.

Chair Waschura noted that there appeared to be some confusion regarding the definition of the swale.

Commission discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Indaco moved to adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to APPROVE the Site Development Permit, subject to the listed conditions of approval, with the added condition of planting the identified screening laurel hedge 20 feet away from the property line.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

5.2 26896 Alejandro Drive – File # SD22-0024 – Lands of Lam and Stepanov Site Development Permit for landscape screening and hardscape improvements for an approved addition and remodel to an existing residence.

CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Sections 15303(e); 15304(b) Project Planner: Jeremy Loh
Associate Planner Loh presented the staff report.

Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and staff ensued.

Representing the applicant, Landscape Architect Keith Willig, offered comments on the proposed project.

The applicant, Max Stepanov, offered comments on the proposed project.

Public Comment
Carol Gottlieb, representing the EDPC, offered comments regarding proposed plantings in the open space easements and other areas.

Page 536 of 622 ends

5 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2022 Minutes
The applicant, Max Stepanov, provided rebuttal comments to address the questions posed in previous comments.

Landscape Architect Keith Willig, representing the applicant, provided rebuttal comments to address the questions posed in previous comments, specifically, about the lighting.

A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and the applicant ensued.

Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Commission Discussion
Commissioner Patel offered approving comments regarding the landscape screening design.

Vice-Chair Bredo offered approving comments regarding the landscape screening design.

Commissioner Indaco offered comments regarding her suggestion of reducing the landscape lighting by half.

Chair Waschura offered comments regarding the lighting of the parking area and offered suggestions to address this concern.

Commissioner Indaco shared photographs of the site.

Commission discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Patel moved to adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to APPROVE the Site Development Permit, subject to the listed conditions of approval, with the added condition of reducing the driveway puck lights from 11 to 8.

The motion was seconded by Chair Waschura.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

5.3 27600 Altamont Road – File # TM21-0001– Lands of Auqui and Putnam Consideration of a motion to continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission Special meeting of July 21, 2022, to consider a request for a tentative map to create a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel and consideration of a potential conditional exception to the Lot Unit Factor requirement. The subdivision of the 2.20 gross acre parcel into two lots will result in 1.010 net acre (Parcel A) and 1.073 net acres (Parcel B) with Lot Unit Factors of 0.956 and 0.951.

CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15061(b)(3) Project Planner: Areli Perez
Planning Director Mangalam presented the staff report, which was to read a statement to continue to a special meeting on July 21, 2022. She also read excerpts from the applicant's letter to the Town and provided the reasoning for the continuance.

Page 537 of 622 ends

6 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2022 Minutes
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Indaco moved that Item 5.3 be CONTINUED to a date certain, which will be the July 21, 2022 Planning Commission Special Meeting.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

5.4 26379 Fremont Road – File # SP22-0002– Town of Los Altos Hills An update to Town’s existing Outdoor Lighting Policy to include temporary construction lighting and revisions to tree lights.

Project Planner: Sofia Mangalam
Planning Director Mangalam presented the staff report.

Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and staff ensued.

Public Comment
Vijay Chawla, a resident of Los Altos Hills, raised a question regarding construction lighting.

Planning Director Mangalam validated the issue that was raised by Vijay.

Commissioner Couperus offered comments on occupied vs. non-occupied construction projects and noted his confusion with the statement, "tree lights shall not be combined with path lights."
Commissioner Indaco offered clarifying comments.

Vijay Chawla, a resident of Los Altos Hills, offered two additional comments, addressing security and safety issues of construction sites.

Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Commission Discussion
Commissioner Patel asked a question regarding the safety of construction projects and lighting.

Commissioner Couperus offered comments regarding the suggestion of having two lighting policies, one for residences and one for construction sites.

Chair Waschura offered comments regarding the suggestion of having a safety plan that includes lighting during the construction plan phase as a security measure for the jobsite.

Page 538 of 622 ends

7 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2022 Minutes
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Patel moved that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed amendments, accept public comment, and provide the discussed recommendations to the City Council to ACCEPT the proposed amendments to the Outdoor Lighting Policy to include temporary construction lighting and revisions to tree lighting with three added revisions including (i) adding rows for tree lighting and temporary construction lighting to the light emission and color temperature table; (ii) maximum 2700 kelvins for tree lighting, combined lumens shall not exceed 600; and (iii) tree lights shall not be provided in close proximity to path lights.

The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Bredo.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

6. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

6.1 Past Meeting
x June 16, 2022 – Chair Indaco
Chair Indaco provided highlights of the past City Council meeting.

6.2 Upcoming Meeting Assignments
x August 18, 2022 – Commissioner Patel
x September 15, 2022 – Commissioner Couperus
x October 20, 2022 – Vice-Chair Waschura
Chair Waschura confirmed upcoming meeting assignments.

7. REPORT ON PAST FAST TRACK/SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS

7.1 JUNE 21, 2022
13673 La Paloma Road – File #SD21-0073 – Lands of Lee
Site Development Permit for landscape screening and fencing for an approved new residence.

Continued from March 22, 2022. APPROVED
28010 Natoma Road – File #SD21-0094 – Lands of Geiseler Site Development Permit to convert an existing 1,218 square-foot accessory structure into a habitable new residence and construction of two new, 200 square-foot single-car carports.

CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN
13830 Page Mill Road – File #SD21-0098 – Lands of Altalune LLC Site Development Permit for a new 8,613 square-foot two-story residence with a 2,213 squarefoot basement, a detached 913 square-foot pool house, a 1,116 square-foot swimming pool, and a 1,500 square-feet of ground mounted solar panels. APPROVED

Page 539 of 622 ends

8 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 2022 Minutes

7.2 JUNE 28, 2022
12023 Adobe Creek Lodge Road – File #LLA21-0001 – Lands of 12023 Adobe Creek Lodge LLC
Lot-Line Adjustment between Parcel A: 12023 Adobe Creek Lodge Road (1.258 acres), Parcel B: vacant lot APN 351-37-014 (1.202 acres) and, Parcel C: 26220 Moody Road (4.274 acres) to adjust property lines between parcel A and B, and Parcel B and C. The resultant parcel A will be

1.322 acres, parcel B 1.087 acres, and parcel C 4.276 acres and will have Lot Unit Factors greater than 1.0. Continued from May 10, 2022. APPROVED
13051 La Paloma – File #SD22-0009 – Lands of Krishnamurthy and Sheth New 8,642 square-foot two-story residence with an attached 980 square foot, 4-car garage and detached 1,138 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and related hardscape improvements.

APPROVED

7.3 JULY 5, 2022

CANCELLED
Commissioner Couperus noted there was a bit of confusion regarding the posting of the supplemental for Item 7.1 regarding its location in the online packet.

It was clarified by staff that the posting is not attached to the Page Mill Road project, but to the La Paloma Rd project.

Planning Director Mangalam provided highlights on past Site Development/Fast Track hearings.

Chair Waschura asked about an open space easement that was approved at an earlier time.

Planning Director Mangalam provided clarification on that specific application.

8. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Planning Director Mangalam provided these highlights in her report to the Planning Commission:
x Provided congratulations to all the commissioner on their appointments. x Noted there would be continuing work on the Housing Element x Noted her plans to meet with the Open Space Committee regarding the fence ordinance.

Commissioner Couperus asked about the fire department update.

Planning Director Mangalam replied she has discussed this issue with the City Manager and the expectation of getting a representative from the Fire Department to attend a Town meeting.

8. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:39 PM by Vice-Chair Bredo.

Respectfully submitted,
Keren Brunner
Planning Technician
Keren
Brunner
Digitally signed by Keren
Brunner
Date: 2022.07.22
15:47:37 -07'00'

Page 540 of 622 ends

Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission Special Meeting
July 21, 2022 Minutes
Zoom Meeting and Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California

1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Via teleconference according to the Government Code Section 54953(e), Chair Waschura called the July 21, 2022 Planning Commission Special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
Staff: Planning Director Mangalam, Principal Planner Padovan, Administrative Clerk/Technician Brunner

2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Waschura opened PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

Commissioner Indaco noted Principal Planner Padovan’s upcoming retirement and thanked him for his service to the Town of Los Altos Hills.

Chair Waschura closed PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Motion of the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills to continue meeting virtually through teleconference meetings and making related findings pursuant to AB 361.

3.2 Approval of the July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Indaco moved to APPROVE the consent calendar.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES:

Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ex parte:

Chair Waschura had communications with John Lewis, a neighbor to the applicant, Leo Camacho, Civil Engineer with the County of Santa Clara, and Vice-Chair Bredo on Item 4.1.

Commissioner Couperus had communications with John Lewis, a neighbor to the applicant and Commissioner Indaco on Item 4.1.

Commissioner Indaco had communications with Commissioner Couperus; John Lewis, a neighbor to the applicant; Carol Gottlieb, of the Environmental Design and Protection

Page 541 of 622 ends

2 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 2022 Minutes
Committee (EDPC); Kit Gordon, of the Open Space Committee (OSC); Keith Carlino, of Lea & Braze; and Mark Helton, Civil Engineer from Giuliani & Kull; on Item 4.1.

Vice-Chair Bredo had communications with Chair Waschura and Carol Gotlieb of the EDPC on Item 4.1.

Commissioner Patel had communications with John Lewis, a neighbor to the applicant, on Item

4.1. 4.1 27600 Altamont Road – File # TM22-0001 – Lands of Aqui and Putnam A request for a tentative map to create a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel and consideration of a potential conditional exception to the Lot Unit Factor requirement. The subdivision of the 2.20 gross acre parcel into two lots will result in 1.010 net acre (Parcel A) and

1.073 net acres (Parcel B) with Lot Unit Factors of 0.956 and 0.951.

CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15061(b)(3) Project Planner: Areli Perez
Planning Director Mangalam presented the staff report.

Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and staff ensued.

Gustavo Auqui, the applicant, greeted the commission and spoke on behalf of his proposed project.

Michael Milani, a civil engineer representing the applicant, offered comments.

A question-and-answer session between the applicant and the Commissioners ensued.

Public Comment
John Lewis, a neighbor to the applicant, offered comments against the applicant’s proposal, specifically regarding the proposed driveway placement.

Kit Gordon, a Los Altos Hills resident, offered comments against the applicant's proposal, specifically regarding requiring the Lot Unit Factor (LUF) to be a minimum of 1 and the proposed driveway placement. She also asked the staff about rounding up and down calculations.

Carol Gottlieb, representing the EDPC, commented on the project, voiced personal concerns, and offered a suggestion.

Waidy Lee, a neighbor to the applicant, commented on her concern regarding the LUF calculations of the applicant’s property and noted concerns about the proposed driveway location.

Shawn McLaren, a neighbor to the applicant, offered comments in support of the previous public comments.

Michael Milani, representing the applicant provided responses to address public comments.

Gustavo Auqui, the applicant, responded to public comments.

Robert Putnam, the other applicant, and property owner (of Parcel A), offered a response to public comments.

A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners, staff, and the applicant’s civil engineer, Michael Milani, ensued regarding a pathway easement.

Page 542 of 622 ends

3 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 2022 Minutes
Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Commission Discussion
Commissioner Couperus shared a presentation and offered comments. He proposed a compromise regarding driveway placement with development considerations.

Commissioner Patel offered comments regarding the LUF margin and driveway safety issue on Parcel B and expressed a general agreement with Commissioner Couperus’ compromise idea.

Vice-Chair Bredo shared a presentation and offered comments regarding her LUF calculations, safety concerns on Page Mill Road, and easements. She also commented she would support a compromise for safety and development considerations.

Commissioner Indaco offered comments against the proposed development.

Chair Waschura offered comments regarding the LUF calculations and voiced his agreement with Carol Gottlieb’s LUF suggestion. He also noted his concerns for safety on Page Mill Road, which is not in agreement with Santa Clara County’s official assessment of that street.

Commissioner Patel offered comments in agreement with Chair Waschura's comments and noted that staff should work on clarifying the conflicting language in the municipal code.

Planning Director Mangalam suggested a short recess to review the proposal to relocate the driveway off Altamont Road so she could offer an informed response.

Commission discussion ensued.

Chair Waschura RECESSED the meeting at 8:20PM.

Chair Waschura RECONVENED the meeting at 8:30PM.

Chair Waschura noted that the General Plan does not allow offering an exception to the LUF and noted the choices for the Commission are to accept the request the subdivision as is, accept it but place conditions of approval, or deny it without prejudice so the applicant may resubmit with a different proposal. He proposed requiring conditions such as a traffic survey.

Commission discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Chair Waschura moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council ACCEPT the two-lot subdivision described in Item 4.1 with the existing conditions of approval and with these added conditions:
• that future site development projects for Parcels A and B return to PC for review, • that subdividers provide a traffic study relating to the driveway on Parcel B and to comply with safety recommendations resulting from that study, • that the applicant will work with Santa Clara County to permit safety signage along Page Mill Rd and reflective sculptures, i.e. mirrors, to improve traffic safety for the proposed driveway,
• that all pathway easements will be indicated on the plans and • that all easements shall be cleared for pedestrian and equestrian access during construction.

The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Bredo.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES:

Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None

Page 543 of 622 ends

4 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 2022 Minutes
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

5. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

5.1 Past Meeting
• July 18, 2022 – Special Meeting, Not Assigned
Chair Waschura provided a summary of the past City Council meeting.

5.2 Upcoming Meeting Assignments
• August 18, 2022 – Commissioner Patel
• September 15, 2022 – Commissioner Couperus
• October 20, 2022 – Vice-Chair Waschura
Chair Waschura confirmed upcoming meeting assignments.

6. REPORT ON PAST FAST TRACK/SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS

6.1 JULY 12, 2022

CANCELLED

6.2 JULY 19, 2022
27400 Purissima Road – File #SD22-0048 – Lands of Town of Los Altos Hills Site Development Permit for the construction of a 900 square foot concrete pad for materials storage, a 3,100 square foot asphalt equipment area and two bio-retention basins for stormwater pollution protection at the Town’s existing Corporation Yard.

Planning Director Mangalam provided highlights on past Site Development/Fast Track hearings and noted that the July 19, 2022 project was APPROVED.

8. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Planning Director Mangalam provided these highlights in her report to the Planning Commission:
• Noted this was Steve Padovan's last Planning Commission meeting and thanked him for all of his assistance during their tenure together. Offered well wishes in his retirement and expressed hope he would consider assisting with future planning department projects. • Noted staff is working with the fire department to get a representative to attend one of the upcoming PC meetings to explain fire requirements.

Chair Waschura noted he and Commissioner Couperus prepared a presentation for the fire department and inquired about follow up actions.

Planning Director Mangalam and Commissioner Couperus responded with comments.

Chair Waschura asked Commissioner Couperus to resurrect the letter to the City Council and share it with Planning Director Mangalam.

Principal Planner Padovan thanked the commissioners and planning staff for working with him during his tenure at Los Altos Hills and supported the current suggestion with restarting the fire department inquiry.

8. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:19 PM by Chair Waschura.

Respectfully submitted,

Page 544 of 622 ends

5 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 2022 Minutes
Keren Brunner
Planning Technician

Page 545 of 622 ends

MELANIE GRISWOLD

ATTORNEY AT LAW
SBN 234917
1842 University Ave, San Jose, CA 95126 I 415.265.1086 I [email protected] 1 Sofia Mangalam
Planning and Building Director
City of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
[email protected]
Via Email
June 29, 2022
RE: File #TM21-001
27600 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hill – 2-Lot Minor Subdivision Dear Ms. Mangalam,
I have been retained to assist Mr. Carlos (Gustavo) Auqui and Mr. Robert Putnam (“Applicants”) in their application for 2-Lot Minor Subdivision at 27600 Altamont Road (“Project”) in the City of Los Altos Hills to subdivide a 2.14-acre residence into 2 parcels.

As explained in greater depth below, the Project satisfies all objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that the City is allowed to enforce under the Housing Accountability Act. As such, the Project should be forwarded to Planning Commission, and then to City Council, with an unconditional recommendation for approval.

Instead, the Planning Department has set this Project for hearing on whether a conditional exception to the required Lot Unit Factor of 1.0 should be granted. The Applicants want to make it clear that they have not requested a conditional exception. It is not needed. The Applicants also have serious concern about any process which invites the City to exercise its discretion to withhold approvals when (1) the Housing Accountability Act demands that the City only apply objective, non-discretionary decisionmaking criteria and (2) the Project is fully compliant with all enforceable City zoning and development standards.

For the reasons set forth below, we urge you to recommend to Planning Commission, and then to City Council, that the Applicants’ housing development project be approved for a two-lot subdivision.

Attachment 4

Page 546 of 622 ends

1. The Housing Accountability Act Requires all Zoning Codes to be Interpreted and Applied in Favor of Housing Development at the 2-Lot Density Permitted by the General Plan for this Site.

The Planning Department’s insistence that the Lot Unit Factor be measured to the thousandth of a decimal point is directly contrary to the City’s obligation under state law to further the production of housing. The Housing Accountability Act requires local agencies to apply zoning standards to “facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed by the general plan on the project site as proposed by the housing development project.” (See Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(j)(4).) The density permitted under the objective criteria of the Los Altos Hills General Plan (“General Plan”) for this Project is one dwelling per net acre. For a “Residential” designation, the General Plan states that, “[d]ensity is described in terms of dwelling units per net acre of land and is related to the average slope of the parcel or lot.” The General Plan goes on to define “density” for low density residential use as a minimum net lot size of “one acre (43,560 square feet) per primary dwelling unit.” (See General Plan Land Use Element Page LU-7, #122.) Notably, the allowable density is not expressed in terms of Lot Unit Factor (“LUF”). (See General Plan Land Use Element Page LU-8, #124.) While the General Plan contemplates that net lot area may increase beyond one acre if the lot is sloped, this is expressed in subjective terms. (See General Plan, LU-7 #123 “In addition, the minimum net lot area for subdivisions should increase with an increase in average slope based on the following slopedensity standards…” (emphasis added).) The Housing Accountability Act prohibits local agencies from applying any standard to disapprove of a housing development project that is subjective. (See Gov’t Code § 65589.5(f).) Stated another way, subjective standards such as a prescriptive recommendation to consider slope in the net acre calculations, cannot be used to reduce the otherwise allowable density under the General Plan without violating the objective criteria requirements of the Housing Accountability Act. (Id.) Because consideration of slope is not expressed objectively in the General Plan, the City of Los Altos Hills’ allowable density is simply one primary dwelling unit per net acre.

According to the calculations prepared by Michael Milani of Milani & Associates, which we understand that staff has accepted without further comment, the Project proposes two parcels, each of which meet the minimum net lot area requirements of one lot per 43,560 SF or one acre. As such, the Project is compliant with the density permitted by the objective standards in the General Plan.

Even if the LUF standard were an enforceable limitation on density, the Housing Accountability Act requires that all standards must be applied to further development at the density permitted under the General Plan. (See Gov’t. Code §65589.5(j)(4).) Similarly, to the extent that the LUF standard is inconsistent with the permissible density of two primary dwelling units and two lots for this Project, the LUF standard is unenforceable. Under Government Code section 69515(j(4), if the density allowed

Page 547 of 622 ends

under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land-use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail.

2. The Housing Accountability Act Prohibits Local Agencies from Applying any Standard which is not Objective, Written, or Quantifiable to Disapprove a Housing Project.

Even if the LUF standard were enforceable as an objective standard consistent with allowing the Applicants to achieve the density permitted by the General Plan, the Planning Department’s insistence that the Project does not meet the 1.0 LUF requirement is based on a subjective interpretation of the LUF criteria, not on an objective and written policy. As such, the City’s interpretation and application of the LUF standard also runs afoul of the Housing Accountability Act.

Under the Housing Accountability Act “an agency may deny approval of a housing development project on the basis that it is inconsistent with development standards only if those standards are “objective.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 776 (“Bankers Hill 150”).) As was stated in California Renters, supra and repeated again in Bankers Hill 150, supra:

If a municipality wishes to enforce limitations on housing developments, it must promulgate standards that are not so malleable that reasonable minds could differ on whether they are met. In short, the [Housing Accountability Act] does not wrest control from local governments so much as require them to proceed by way of clear rules adopted in advance, rather than by ad hoc decisions to accept or reject proposed housing.
(Id. at 777 [internal citations omitted.]
If a standard “cannot be applied without personal interpretation or subjective judgment, it cannot serve as the basis for disapproval under the [Housing Accountability Act].” (Id. at 778.) Stated another way, if there are two reasonable interpretations, the standard is subjective and thus, unenforceable if used to deny a project or disallow the density permitted under the General Plan.

Here, because two lots are permitted under the General Plan density, the Housing Accountability Act in turn requires that the LUF analysis be applied to facilitate and accommodate development of two lots on this site. To this end, the Planning Department could have chosen to analyze the LUF to one significant digit or it could have allowed the Applicant to round up. Not only would this interpretation have fulfilled its obligation under the Housing Accountability Act, the language of the General Plan and the Zoning Code support this interpretation.

Under the General Plan, the Lot Unit Factor as a whole integer, i.e., “one.” In the Zoning Code, the Lot Unit Factor is expressed to 1/10th of a decimal point. (See Section 10-1.501(a) [either “1.0” when referring to the LUF or “0.5” when referring to the threshold for a conditional development permit].)

Page 548 of 622 ends

Indeed, the required number for the LUF in the General Plan is “one,” and the LUF required in Section 9-

1.604(b) is stated to only one significant digit, “the area of parcels or lots created in any subdivision after January 16, 1980, shall have the Lot Unit Factor of 1.0 or greater…”).

Instead, the Planning Department has taken the position that the LUF should be calculated and held to three significant digits. This restrictive position directly contravenes the Housing Accountability Act requirements that LUF analysis be applied in favor of allowing the development, not using unwritten and subjective technicalities to limit the production of housing.

The Planning Department has responded that the requirement for LUF being measured to the thousandth of a decimal point comes from a worksheet that describes how certain calculations should be made; however, this worksheet does not actually contain any instructions about how the final number should be expressed and to what level of significance. As such, it is not a written standard as is required for enforceability under the Housing Accountability Act. (See Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(f).) Even if one were to read this worksheet as requiring the LUF to be expressed to the thousandth of a decimal point, it is inconsistent with both the General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, it is unenforceable under Government Code section 65589.5(j)(4).

Any requirement that the Project round down instead of up, as one would expect with any last digit that is 5 or over, when the City of Los Altos Hills has no written objective standards for how an applicant should round their numbers, also runs afoul of the local Zoning Code. According to Section 10-1.104 of the Zoning Code, the City is required interpret and apply the Zoning Code “to the minimum requirements for the provision of the public health, safety, and welfare,” (see Zoning Code § 10-1.104).

This local mandate also does not support a requirement that LUF be stated to the thousandth of a decimal place when this requirement is nowhere to be found in either the General Plan or the Zoning Code.

Finally, common sense is on the Applicants’ side. Topographic surveys for residential projects are not prepared to a level of accuracy that supports a calculation of LUF to the thousandth of a decimal place.

Even at a third decimal place, the LUF calculation would be nothing more than a best estimate. Given the acceptable level of tolerance in a survey which precludes any reasonable level of certainty to a fourth decimal place, the City should not require that a LUF be stated and measured to the thousandth of an acre and nor should that standard be used as the benchmark to deny a project. ************
While no decision has yet to be made on the Project, the Applicants have been advised that the chances of receiving a conditional exception are slim to none. Throughout this process, the Applicants have tried to work with the City, have adjusted the Project to meet its concerns, and have addressed all

Page 549 of 622 ends

outstanding comments.1 If the Project is disapproved, the Applicants will have no choice but to file suit to redress a clear violation of the Housing Accountability Act.

By this letter, the Applicants hope to avoid that outcome. However, the Applicants also want to make clear that anything less than full approval of two lots with two primary dwelling units will be challenged.
2 Regards,
Melanie Griswold
1 The Applicants also note that no written response was received during the 30-day time period after their last submission as is required to preserve the City’s position that the proposed lots do not comply with the applicable objective, written and quantifiable development standards. 2 If the Court finds that the City’s insistence on taking the LUF analysis to the thousandth of a decimal point in the absence of any written standard to that effect in the General Plan (or even in the Zoning Code) is frivolous or wholly lacking in merit, the mandatory minimum fine is $50,000/unit. (See Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(l).)

Page 550 of 622 ends

Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 699 Hampshire Road, Suite 101 Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361-2352 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 370-8710 www.cottonshires.com
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
October 25, 2021
L6231
TO: Areli Perez
Assistant Planner

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Auqui, 2-Lot Subdivision
TM21-0001
27600 Altamont Road
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the subject subdivision application using:
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering, dated September 7, 2021; and
• Tentative Map Plans (8 Sheets) prepared by Milani & Associates, Inc., dated September 24, 2021.

In addition, we have reviewed pertinent documents and maps from our office files and completed a recent site reconnaissance from the property perimeter.

DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes demolish the existing site improvements and subdivide the existing lot located at 27600 Altamont Road into two parcels. Parcel A borders Altamont Road. Parcel B is proposed downslope and south of Parcel A. Access to the subject properties is proposed to be provided by a shared driveway extending from Altamont Road.

SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is generally characterized by gentle to moderately steep southfacing slopes. The proposed new home site is to be located in the eastern portion of the property. Drainage at the site is generally characterized by sheetflow towards the Attachment 5

Page 551 of 622 ends

Areli Perez October 25, 2021

Page 2 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
southwest where it is intercepted by a drainage that flows east and eventually into Adobe Creek.

The Town Geologic Map indicates that the site is underlain, at depth, by greenstone bedrock materials of the Franciscan Complex. The site is mapped within a “D” zone on the Town Geotechnical Hazard Map indicating an increased potential for secondary ground deformation from the Altamont Fault. The Town Geotechnical Hazard Map indicates that a trace of the potentially active Berrocal Fault is mapped approximately 200 feet south of proposed Parcel B. Additionally, the active San Andreas Fault is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the site.

The Project Geotechnical Consultant conducted an investigation of the subject property, that included five exploratory borings, geotechnical laboratory testing, and analysis. Borings advanced on proposed Parcel A (Borings B-1, B-2, and B-3) encountered approximately 9 to 10 feet of surficial soil overlying olive to tan weathered bedrock described as sandstone, siltstone and claystone. Borings advanced on proposed Parcel B (Borings B-4 and B-5) encountered 6 to 8.5 feet of surficial soil overlying similar bedrock.

No groundwater was encountered to the maximum explored depth of 15 feet.

Geotechnical laboratory testing conducted by the Consultant has determined that the soil at the subject property has a moderate expansion potential with a Plasticity Index of 17 percent.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed subdivision is primarily constrained by moderately expansive soil materials, moderately steep slopes, secondary ground deformation related to the nearby Altamont Fault, and anticipated strong seismic ground shaking. Given the proximity of the mapped Berrocal Fault and the site’s location within a “D” hazard zone on the Town’s Geotechnical Hazard map, we find that additional engineering geologic characterization and analysis is necessary prior to approval of the subject Tentative Map. Prior to approval of the subject Tentative Map application, we recommend completion of the following Item 1 by a Certified Engineering Geologist:

Page 552 of 622 ends

Areli Perez October 25, 2021

Page 3 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
property and provide an engineering geologic cross section and map of the property depicting their interpretation of the surficial and subsurface distribution of earth materials and structure (e.g., artificial fill, colluvium, bedrock, etc.).

LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified and a preparation of this letter. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.

Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Craig Stewart
Senior Geologist
PG 9786
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
DTS:CS:TS

Page 553 of 622 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE
New Residence, Addition/Remodel, 2nd Unit
Application For: Two Lot Parcel Map
Applicant Name: Carlos G. Auqui & Robert
Site Address: 27600 Altamont Road
Reviewed By: Carol & Vijay
Field Trip Date: March 11, 2022
Planner: Areli Perez
Due Date: March 6, 2022 - Second Visit
File Number: TM-21-0001
Approximate location of Driveway:

Attachment 6

Page 554 of 622 ends

SITE IMPACT (Location: Ridgeline/Hilltop/Knoll, Slopes, Views) Prior to the removal of any trees, the TM-21-0001 shall be approved as well as the proposed development on the site.

Neighbors: (Views, Screening, Noise)
The easterly neighbor will now be less impacted by the parcel split with the change of entrance to Parcel B Area of driveway entrance to Page Mill, beyond the road on the right and close to the far PGE Pole.

ENVIRONMENT (Pathways, Open Space, Riparian Habitat, Heritage Trees, other mature trees) Driveways: We question the viability of the new entrance to Parcel B. From what we could determine on ground, it looked like the entrance would be in the vicinity of the curve and the sight distance for entering and exiting would be poor; thus dangerous. Both driveways have areas that have a slope over 15%. The new driveway looks like it will encroach on Parcel A
Pathways: There two pathways located along the property boundaries on Page Mill and Altamont. The existing pathway on Page Mill should be relocated to the top of the slope.

Moody Creek: Not addressed.

Fault Zone: Not addressed.

LUF Calculation: Question

Page 555 of 622 ends

TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT
See Site Impact.

WILDFIRE SAFETY (Defensible Space, Zones, Tree Spacing, Ladder Fuels, Mulch) Please refer to the Fire Safe Council's recommendations for defensible space:
https://cafiresafecouncil.org/resources/fire-safety-information-for-residents/ )

Page 556 of 622 ends

Pathway Committee
Minor Subdivision to Create 2 New Building Lots
Applicant: Auqui Carlos G.

Site Address: 27600 Altamont Road
Reviewed by: Valerie Metcalfe
Field Date Trip: October 14 2021
Planner: Areli Perez
Due Date: October 30 2021
File Number: TM21-0001
APN 18228026
This parcel is situated on the corner of Page Mill Road and Altamont Road. Currently there is a Pathway along the side of Page Mill Road, and a walkable dirt track on the length of Altamont. The plans submitted show a 10foot pedestrian/equestrian easement along Page Mill and a proposal for a ten foot easement along Altamont.

Recommendation
Pathways Committee would request that the Altamont Road easement be specified as a pedestrian / equestrian easement
At the 10/ 25/2021 PWC meeting, the committee voted unanimously to have this as a condition of approval.

Attachment 7

Page 557 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 1
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Department
From: Kit Gordon, Open Space Committee Member
Date: Oct 20, 2021
Property address: 27600 Altamont Rd
Date of Site Visit: Oct 14, 2021
Lands of Aqui Carlos APN 185-28-026
Town
Planner
Areli Perez Project
Number
TM21-0001
Gross Lot
Area
Net Lot
Area
Slope LUF FA (sqft)
Entire lot 2.20 2.142 ? 13.2% ? 1.995 ? N/A
Parcel A 1.024 ? 1.024 ? 11.3% ? 1.0 ? N/A
Parcel B 1.118 ? 1.118 ? 14.9 ? 1.0 ? N/A
Reason for review: Minor Subdivision to Create 2 New Building lots

PROPERTY SUMMARY
The 2.2 acre property is bounded to the north by Altamont Road and to the west by Page Mill Road, a county road. The property slope is approximately 13%. The property is within the Ground Deformation/Fault Rupture zone of Berrocal Fault as shown in Cotton Shires Geologic Map of Los Altos Hills, 2009. An existing single two-story house with pool extends along the N-S axis of the property. The developer has planned remove the existing house and subdivide into two parcels with a shared driveway along the east border.

For subdivision, new parcels must meet a LUF calculation equal to or greater than 1. There is some confusion on the net lot area. Public and private easements and panhandles need to be subtracted from the gross lot area to determine the net lot area but not all easements are shown on the plan or known from the County. County road right-of-way (ROW) on the Page Mill Road border has not been marked.

Based on the information provided, which is incomplete, it doesn’t appear that there is sufficient area to subdivide this one parcel into two parcels of LUF > 1. • For lots with S equal to 10% or less: LUF = An
• For lots with S between 10% and 55%: LUF = (An)[1 - 0.02143(S - 10)]

NET AREA
• “Net area” shall mean the gross area of any parcel or lot of land, less panhandles and all public and private easements for vehicular access within the parcel or lot, excluding easements primarily for emergency access. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of determining Lot Unit Factor (LUF), “net area” shall only exclude the paved portions of panhandles and the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access.

Attachment 8

Page 558 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 2
Fences: Existing metal fence around the property. No mention of removing this fence.

Trees: Many oaks, redwoods, cedars and eucalyptus.

Creeks: Buried portion of Moody Creek is just beyond the property.

Wildlife Corridors: None noted but fields recently mowed.

Geology: Property is within Ground Deformation/Fault Rupture zone of Berrocal Fault Open Space Conservation Area: Not marked here
Existing Easements: Pathway easement on eastern border.

OSC RECOMMENDATION

1. Show all public and private easements and panhandles for vehicular access. Show calculations for net lot area and LUF for both parcels.

2. Use 5 foot interval for LUF & slope calculations, as specified in Town LUF & slope calculations.

3. Check contour lengths in LUF worksheets. Listed dimensions are lower than measured at some elevations.

4. Remove eucalyptus trees at south border (concern from neighbor) and at Altamont Road for fire access safety.

Page 559 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 3
Existing structures

Page 560 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 4
Proposed subdivision (red line) and development

Page 561 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 5
Policies:

Land Use Element Policy 2.5 Steep slopes, canyons and ravines generally in excess of 30% slope, as well as natural swales and drainage channels, and geologic hazard areas within areas designated for residential development shall be left undisturbed and preserved in their natural condition to the maximum extent feasible.

Land Use Element Policy 2.6 Limits on the development of individual residential lots shall be determined based on evaluation of such factors as natural vegetation, topographic characteristics, soils and geology.

Safety Element Policy 1.1 Open space easements, zoning and other land use regulations shall be used to limit and, in some cases, prohibit development in areas of unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined to be hazardous to public welfare and safety.

Safety Element Policy 1.2 Unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined hazardous to public welfare and safety shall not be developed unless unobtrusive corrective measures can assure public safety.

Safety Element Policy 2.2 Locate development so as to avoid geologic hazards, including slope instability, to the maximum extent feasible.

Safety Element Policy 3.1 Leave natural channels and flood plains in a natural state, unencumbered by development to the maximum extent feasible. Exceptions shall be made only in situations where it is essential to protect established property values or for public safety.

Conservation Element Policy 11.1 Develop and implement programs by which the natural environmental features of the planning area can be conserved to the maximum extent feasible and by which areas already unduly disturbed by man can be returned to a more natural condition.

Conservation Policy 2.2: Minimize disturbance of the natural terrain and vegetation Preserve and protect native and naturalized plants, with special attention to preservation of unique, rare or endangered species and plant communities such as oak woodlands.

Conservation Policy 2.3: Preserve and protect Heritage Trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property
Conservation Element Program 2.5 Encourage the dedication of conservation/open space easements or the public acquisition of areas that are rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature to ensure their protection.

Conservation Policy 2.7: Avoid the development of environmentally sensitive areas that are rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature, such as areas of rare or endangered species of plants, or riparian areas.

Conservation Goal 3: Maintain and enhance the integrity of wildlife habitat.

Conservation Section 315: Planning for natural movement of wildlife can help avoid, minimize and compensate for serious negative impacts on wildlife and humans. Areas that link wildlife habitat have become vital because native animals such as deer, fox, bobcat, and coyote are prevented by roads, fences, homes and other development from moving freely as they once did.

Page 562 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 6
Google Map view of property

Page 563 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 7

Page 564 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 8

Page 565 of 622 ends

OSC Review 27600 Altamont Rd.docx 9
Site Photos

Page 566 of 622 ends

County of Santa Clara
Roads and Airports Department
Conditions of Approval VER010522
SUBJECT PROJECT: EDR22-010 – 27600 Altamont Rd
Reviewer: Leo Camacho, P.E.

Date: 4/25/22
Conditions of Approval
General Condition:

1. A Tree Removal Approval Board of Supervisor process is required prior to any tree removal, replacement, or relocation within the County right-of-way (ROW). A tree within the ROW requiring removal approval is any tree at least 20 feet in height or at least 12 inches in diameter measured 4.5 feet above grade. The process for obtaining approval for a tree removal and the forms that are required can be found at: www.countyroads.org > Services > Apply for Permits > Tree Removal from County Right-of-Way.

Condition Prior to Grading, Building, Development, Etc. Permit

1. Dedicate the following curvilinear rights-of-ways: necessary right-of-way (ROW) to achieve a 30-foot half street for Page Mill Rd. All dedications shall include legal descriptions, plats, and corresponding documents to be reviewed and approved by the County.

2. Obtain a Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department (RDA) Encroachment Permit for the following required improvements:

A. Improvement of the property’s Page Mill Rd. frontage to County Standard B/4A.

B. Installation of the driveway approach to the County Standard appropriate for the level of use:
a. First residence using the driveway: County Standard B/4 b. Second residence using the driveway: County Standard B/5 C. Removal of any vegetation or other obstructions necessary to provide adequate line-of-sight at the driveway approach location.

The process for obtaining an Encroachment Permit and the forms that are required can be found at: www.countyroads.org > Services > Apply for Permits > Encroachment Permit.

3. Demonstrate that the post-development maximum flow rate into the County Road right-of-way is equal-to or less-than the pre-development corresponding storm event flow rate per the County Drainage Manual. Provide engineered plans and drainage calculations for any detention or retention system necessary to satisfy this requirement.

Prior to Building final Final

1. Construct all the improvements approved under the Encroachment Permit.

Attachment 9

Page 567 of 622 ends

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Steve Padovan
Areli Perez
FW: Sub division at 27600 Altamont
Monday, October 18, 202110:51:18 AM
FYI - Put this email in the file folder and print a copy for the file. Thanks Steve Padovan
Interim Planning Director
Tov.'Il of Los Altos Hills
ph (650) 947-2509
fax (650) 941-3160
[email protected]. gov
-----Original Message----
From: Waidy Lee
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 2:56 PM
To: Steve Padovan <[email protected]>
Subject: Sub division at 27600 Altamont
Attachment 10
Hello Steve, I would like to request the removal of all Eucalyptus trees on the prope1ty. I know I will have 2nd chance to request this removal. However, Eucalyptus is fire hazard, the sooner removing it the better and safer for the community. I hope the removal will get into the subdivision plan.

I can address the re-planting at other time. I will lost privacy after these Eucalyptus are cut dov.'Il, but safety is higher priority over privacy.

Thank you ve1y much.

Best,
Waidy Lee Los Altos Hills.

Immediate neighbor to 27600 Altamont (we share fence)

Page 568 of 622 ends

1 Areli Perez
From: Sofia Mangalam
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Areli Perez
Cc: Lai, Claire
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Packet- July 7, 2022 meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Public comments
Sofia Mangalam
Planning and Building Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-947-2507 | F: 650-941-3160
E: [email protected]
Subscribe to the Town Newsletter.

From: Waidy Lee
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Packet‐ July 7, 2022 meeting Hello Sofia, thank you so much for forwarding the packet for the July 7 meeting. I am currently out of town and am not able to get my USPS mail. Your email really helps a lot. Thank you.

After reviewing the sub‐division online plan, I have several concerns:

1. Safety issue: The proposed driveway on Page Mill Road going onto Parcel B is a safety concern. When the sub‐ division at 11990 Page Mill Road originally proposed to have a driveway at Page Mill the Town did an extensive study (I'm sure it is still on file) which determined that it was unsafe to add a driveway on that portion of Page Mill Road. Also, the blind spot at Altamont turning left onto Page Mill is already a problem, and adding a driveway nearby would only make it more unsafe. Although there is a speed limit on Page Mill there is still a lot of traffic (car and bicycle) which comes down very fast, well over the speed limit. It is a problem for those of us turning into and out of Central, it would be even worse with the added driveway.

2. Wildfire prevention: There are several Eucalyptus trees on the property. I believe the Town is already actively involved in removing eucalyptus along roadsides. Please require that they be removed. Eucalyptus is a fire hazard. Not only does its falling dead bark and leaves make a perfect pile for the fire, the plant releases flammable gas when its oils are heated. I am sure our Fire Marshalls would like to see those Eucalyptus trees go.

Page 569 of 622 ends

2 3. Forty‐two trees removed: It is unclear what kind and how big the trees are that are proposed to be removed; and how this affects our wildlife. Please request that the developers put the tree removal list on the plan, and re‐planting plan if any.

4. LUF of less than 1: I object to allowing a subdivision for a lot that has LUF of less than 1. The LUF was created to protect against the effects on our fragile hillsides of increased runoff from developed land. The principles that created the LUF are still viable. They are well documented in the Town records of the time.

I think items 1 and 2 above are most critical (life and death) and need to be addressed before going forward.

Please let me know if any of the above concerns are unclear. Thank you very much for you and your staff's great work ! Best,
Waidy Lee
On Jul 1, 2022, at 4:47 PM, Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,
Please Refer to agenda item 5.3 for subdivision at 27600 Altamont. We are requesting continuation of this item to July 21, 2022 meeting.

Public Link for your convenience:
https://losaltoshillsca.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=467&key=‐1&mod=‐1&mk=‐1&nov=0

Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

<image001.jpg>
Sofia Mangalam
Planning and Building Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-947-2507 | F: 650-941-3160
E: [email protected]
<image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Subscribe
to the Town Newsletter.

Page 570 of 622 ends

Page 571 of 622 ends

From: Ann Daugherty
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Areli Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: 27600 Altamont driveway issue
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to indicate my strong safety concern for one of the parts of the future subdivision of the property currently described as 27600 Altamont, Los Altos Hills.

Information has been shared with us neighbors that there is a plan for a driveway from the back part of the subdivided property out to Page Mill. Having driven Page Mill almost daily for the past 22 years from Buena Vista Drive to 280, I know the hazardous parts of this part of Page Mill. The section of Page Mill between Foothills Park and Altamont, with its curves and diminished visibility is a hazard to cars entering from Central and from Altamon, not to mention to pedestrians. I likely need not remind you of the fatality in recent years of a woman who was crossing the road nearby the park because the bicyclist could not see her from a distance due to the curves there.

Please do not allow the second, back property to have a driveway onto Page Mill. Instead the back subdivided property has to have an easement driveway with the front property of the current 27600 Altamont for safety to all of us who live in the area and for the many visitors to Foothills Park.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Ann

Page 572 of 622 ends

From: John Lewis
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Areli Perez; Sofia Mangalam
Subject: subdivision at 27600 Altamont
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2022 10:10:44 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Planning Commissioners:

We are writing to share our concerns regarding the creation of a new driveway off of Page Mill Road for the proposed subdivision at 27600 Altamont Road.

We live very close to the proposed subdivision, at 27985 Central Drive. Our property is bordered by Page Mill Road on two sides. Cars, motorcycles, and bicycles all routinely speed on this section of Page Mill Road, and, as you may already be aware, a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist in this area in 2015. Conditions on this stretch of Page Mill are already not safe, and locating a new driveway in this area would add a new and unnecessary safety risk for the entire community.

While the applicants have received an approval for their driveway from the county, it is important to note that no speed or traffic studies or safety analysis of the specific stretch of Page Mill Road were done as part of this approval. The approval was based solely on the applicants’ ability to meet the county’s engineering standard for a driveway intersecting a road that has a 25 mile per hour speed limit. As any resident of Los Altos Hills knows, the 25 mile per hour speed limit on Page Mill is usually exceeded. The applicants’ proposed location also has unique visibility issues as it is located adjacent to a blind curve. The driveway would also have to slope up towards Page Mill at a steep grade, which would further impact visibility.

Additionally, the county’s approval doesn’t mean that the driveway is required to be in the applicants’ proposed location. It only means that the county will allow the driveway to be in that location.

In fact, the Planning Commision is responsible for considering the safety and traffic impacts to the community when recommending a conditional exception for a subdivision. Under Section 9-1.1501 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is required to do the following when reviewing a conditional exception: (1) ensure that “an exception would not be contrary to the public interests,” (2) consider “the effect on traffic conditions probable [due to the subdivision],” (3) verify that there are special circumstances that would otherwise “deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his or her land,” and (4) confirm that other landowners would not “be subjected to undue burdens or hardships” (e.g., safety issues) due to the conditional exception.

Page 573 of 622 ends

A safer solution for the community would be to require the driveway for both properties to be located off of Altamont Road. The Planning Commission has done this before. Our property was part of a subdivision in 2011, and the then-Planning Commission determined that it was unsafe to locate a driveway off of Page Mill Road and directed that developer to turn our parcel into a flag lot with the driveway for both parcels off of Central Drive. The applicants’ initial proposal showed a shared driveway for both parcels off of Altamont Road, so this seems to be a workable solution for everybody.

Sincerely,
John Lewis and Shabneez Kotadia

Page 574 of 622 ends

From: Julia Zarcone
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:45 AM
To: Areli Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Objection to proposed subdivision at 27600 Altamont Road Dear Ms. Perez, Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioners and City Council Members:

This is a quick note to add our voice to many in objection to the proposed subdivision at 27600 Altamont Road.

There are several issues but the most important is safety. The possibility of a driveway onto Page MIii from this property is a very bad idea. All residents of Central Drive and surrounding roads the T into Page Mill Road can tell you how many near misses there are on a daily basis with speeding cars, bikes and low visibility curves on the road. Add to this the pedestrian fatality that occurred just up the road from the proposed driveway and its easy to see that any driveway onto Page Mill in this section is a very unsafe proposal.

In addition-this subdivision is asking for an exception to LAH zoning rules. Albeit a small one but nonetheless an exception. Why grant this? When we built our ecologically designed home in 2001 we were held to exceptionally strict standards on a parcel that is larger than the original parcel in question by .90 acres. We did not ask for a three or even two lot subdivision. We value wildlife corridors, rural open space and less dense housing in the HIiis. Additionally, we were subject to MDA, MFA and slope density requirements. Have these been adequately considered for this property? Are you truly applying the law and the rules fairly across all properties and to all residents? We were required to grant a conservation easement on part of our property, to say we would never build on it which seems quite rigid relative to the current stance of the town that favors development and subdivision of large parcels.

We were happy to grant that easement, knowing that it preserves the land and the rural nature of LAH.

I hope that you will reject the subdivision that the owners are asking for and uphold the zoning laws and building requirements that we have in place in LAH for good reason.

Sincerely,
Julia

Page 575 of 622 ends

From: Lee Patmore
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:26 AM
To: Areli Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Planned subdivision at the corner of Altamont and Page Mill Road We live at the end of Central Drive. We use the section of Page Mill Road between Central Drive and Altamont every day, Yesterday, we were going down Page Mill at 25 mph and a bicycle was riding on our bumper. When we pulled over a bit further down it passed us. This was not unusual. And the cars go even faster.

Two days ago we were driving past the point of the proposed driveway and a woman was walking slowly past with a child in a stroller and a dog. This is also not unusual. There is very poor visibility along that section of Page Mill and cars speed both up and down.

In fact, it is rather dangerous to drive at the speed limit in that section because motorcycles pass slower drivers there.

This is a very dangerous place to put a driveway. If the properties can enter and exit from Altamont, preferably as far as possible from the turn from Page Mill, it would be a lot safer.

Also - please require that the power pole at the corner of Page Mill and Altamont be moved away from the turn. It makes it difficult to make that turn from the uphill side.

Thanks
-Central
Lee and Jim Patmore
Drive

Page 576 of 622 ends

Attachment 11

Page 577 of 622 ends

Page 578 of 622 ends

Page 579 of 622 ends

Page 580 of 622 ends

Page 581 of 622 ends

Page 582 of 622 ends

Page 583 of 622 ends

From: Waidy Lee
To: City Council
Subject: 27600 Altamont Sub-division
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 4:38:16 PM
Dear City Council:

My name is Waidy Lee and I have a shared fence with 27600 Altamont Road. (This is item

6.A on the 8/18 Council Agenda.)
The addition of the driveway from Parcel B to Page Mill Road creates threats to public safety and should not be overlooked. The Sub-division of 11990 Page Mill Road (now 27983 and 27985 Central Drive) in 2010 suggested a driveway entrance from Page Mill and it was denied for safety reasons (after a traffic study). 11990 Page Mill was at a corner of Page Mill Road and Central Drive, and it was one lot away or 180 feet apart from 27600 Altamont. The reasons that the Page Mill access was denied are even more true today. There was more daily traffic pre-pandemic, and even more now since Foothills Park was open to non-Palo Alto residents and many of the drivers using it are not familiar with Page Mill speed limits.

On P.540 of the CC packet : EDPC report (Page 1 of attachment 6) states:

Driveways: We question the viability of the new entrance to Parcel B. From what we could determine on ground, it looked like the entrance would be in the vicinity of the curve and the sight distance for entering and exiting would be poor; thus dangerous. Both driveways have areas that have a slope over 15%. The new driveway looks like it will encroach on Parcel A
Planning Commissioner Jitze Couperus presented to the Planning Commission Meeting pages of photos and comments he found on the web showing how unsafe Page Mill Road is.

Planning Commissioners voted 5-0 for doing a traffic safety study. They asked the City Council to decide on the subdivision based on the traffic safety result. There is no traffic safety study report in the packet.

At the time of the PC meeting, with both lot LUFs under 1, moving the driveway to Altamont meant that the Council action would have to be Accept or Deny. That may not be true with the changed LUF calculations. Please require that Parcel B entrance be off Altamont, rather than Page Mill.

Best Regards,
Waidy Lee
Supplemental No. 1
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 8/16/22

Page 584 of 622 ends

From: Sofia Mangalam
To: Lee Patmore
Cc: Deborah Padovan
Subject: Re: Subject: Traffic study for Altamont subdivision on 8/18 Council Agenda Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 9:33:35 PM
Hello Lee and Jim,
The traffic study would be imposed as a condition of approval (under COA #23) if the City Council approves the project based on the recommendation from the Planning Commission. It should be noted that the Planning Commission is the recommending body for the proposed Tentative Map to create a two-lot subdivision, and the conditions included were recommended to the City Council to include in the resolution of approval.

Once the Tentative map is approved by the City Council and Condition 23 is included as a part of the approval, the applicant will be required to carry out the traffic study. Currently, the condition is still a part of the proposal being presented to the City Council, but no decisions have been made yet.

Also, COA #19 specifies that the residences on parcel A and B shown on the map are conceptual only and Site Development applications are required for Planning Commission’s review and approval
Best,
Sofia
From: Lee Patmore >
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 4:08 PM
To: Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Subject: Traffic study for Altamont subdivision on 8/18 Council Agenda You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important We were expecting to see the requited new Traffic Study for the Altamont subdivision (the item on the 8/18 Council Agenda) in the Council Packet. Could you please let us know where we can view a copy? It would be helpful to see it before the meeting so that we could respond.

If the new Traffic Study wasn't done, although required by the Planning Department, could you explain why? The location of the access to Parcel B is very important for us and coming off Page Mill Drive will create an additional danger for local drivers.

Thanks
Lee and Jim Patmore
Supplemental No. 2
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 8/17/22

Page 585 of 622 ends

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 18, 2022
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS

AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE BOARD OF

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND RESOLUTION OF

INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
FROM: Sarina Revillar, Administrative Services Director APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution of Intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the Town of Los Altos Hills and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for the removal of the Contract Exclusion of “persons compensated on an hourly basis”.

2. Introduce and waive first reading of the attached Ordinance to amend the contract between the Town and the Board of Administration of CalPERS.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) entered into a contract with the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) effective July 1, 1967, amended effective June 1, 1976, July 1, 1998, January 1, 2006, September 1, 2011, and January 1, 2013 which provides for participation in CalPERS (“Contract”). The CalPERS’ Office of audit services (“OFAS”) conducted and provided a Public Agency Review (“PAR”) of the Contract in March of 2021. The purpose of the review was to determine how the Town applies the retirement exclusion in the Contract for all hourly employees (“Contract Exclusion”). The Membership and Post-Retirement Employment Determinations Team (“MAPD”) reviewed OFAS’ information and documentation to determine if the exclusion is compliant with Government (Gov.) Code section 20502 and if it has been superseded by Gov. Code section 20305(b).

Gov. Code section 20502 allows for an employer to exclude by contract, employees based on groups such as department or duties, but not individual employees. However, the CalPERS board may disapprove the exclusion of a group, if in its opinion the exclusion adversely affects the interest of this system. Additionally, Gov. Code section 20502 states AGENDA ITEM #7.A
S.R.

P.P.

Page 586 of 622 ends

Los Altos Hills City CouncilAugust 18, 2022

Los Altos Hills City Council
August 18, 2022