Los Altos Hills City Council
November 17, 2022

City Council Staff Report Page 9
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM22-0004
November 17, 2022
approval of the driveway as a part of the new residential development. To provide further clarification, staff revised the COA # 20 to include that driveway access to parcel B shall be designed to meet the Town’s applicable standards.

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, and pursuant to Section 15315 of the Guidelines as a minor land division for subdivisions in residential zones of less than four parcels that is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, and where no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. 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
City Council directed the applicant to refile the application with a traffic safety study without prejudice, which means no application fees were paid. However, the applicant will pay for City Attorney and traffic consultant’s time.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. City Council meeting minutes August 18, 2022

3. Planning Commission meeting detailed notes November 3, 2022

4. Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolution November 3, 2022

5. Traffic Safety Study provided by applicant dated September 7, 2022

6. Peer Review of the Traffic Study dated September 19, 2022

7. Revised Traffic Safety Study dated October 13, 2022

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

9. Public Comments from the Planning Commission meeting November 3, 2022

10. Project plans

Resolution CC -22 Page 1
RESOLUTION CC __-22

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS

MAKING CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION AND APPROVING A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 2.2 GROSS ACRE LOT AT 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD (APN 182-028-026) WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills received an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TM22-0004) 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, on July 21, 2022 and August 18, 2022, the Planning Commission and City Council respectively held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Project, where the City Council ultimately denied the Project without prejudice but with instructions for the applicant to re-file the tentative map application to include a traffic safety study regarding driveway access at proposed Parcel B; and
WHEREAS, upon resubmittal of the tentative map application and traffic safety study by the applicant, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on November 3, 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 4-0-1 motion on November 3, 2022, recommended that the City Council approve the proposed two-lot subdivision subject to the proposed draft conditions of approval; and
Attachment 1

Resolution CC -22 Page 2
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 November 17,2022, 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, 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 a project when there is no possibility that the activity in question may have significant effect on the environment, and is als ; and
WHEREAS, the administrative record, including the Staff Report prepared in support of this Resolution and submitted to the City Council at its November 17, 2022 meeting and incorporated herein by reference, establishes that the Tentative Parcel Map is in conformity with the Los Altos Hills General Plan, the Subdvision Map Act, 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 determines that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15161(b)(3) and 15315, and APPROVES 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 meeting held on the 17th day of November 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By:

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

Resolution CC -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 and November 3, 2022 public hearing proceedings; and the City Council’s duly noticed August 18 and November 17, 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”), the Subdivision Map Act (implemented by the 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

Resolution CC -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.

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.

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

Resolution CC -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 and November 3, 2022 public hearings, 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 and November 17, 2022 City Council staff reports and the July 21 and November 3, 2022 Planning Commission staff reports, 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 and November 17, 2022 public hearings, 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 and there is basis for the Council to find project consistency therewith.

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, as previously requested by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant prepared a Traffic Safety Study dated September 7, 2022 (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.) regarding driveway access for Parcel B at Page Mill Road. The Council notes that Page Mill Rd is

Resolution CC -22 Page 6
under the County of Santa Clara jurisdiction and therefore, sight distance analysis and traffic safety measures would be required to meet the standards of the Department of Roads and Airports of Santa Clara County. The County’s Department of Roads and Airports, pursuant to the County’s sole jurisdiction over the roadway at issue, sets the standard for single residential driveways based on “stopping sight distance” requirements. The County thus required the applicant to submit a Sight Distance Analysis and determined that said analysis submitted by the applicant was acceptable on April 25, 2022. There are also frontage improvements (County Standard B/4A) required by the County including removal of vegetation or other obstructions as necessary for lineof-sight. The County’s sight distance requirement is 200 feet for single residential driveways, as applicable to the proposed subdivision.

The traffic safety study report prepared by the applicant pursuant to the Council’s direction further analyzed the sight distance analysis that was submitted to the County. The study notes that the available sight distance is 275 feet, which means that this roadway’s sight distance exceeds the County’s distance requirements. As described in the various staff reports to the Council and Planning Commission, the Town peer reviewed the applicant’s study, and the applicant prepared a revised study to address issues identified in the peer review including a Ball Bank indicator study noting that the proposed driveway meets the 200 feet requirement at a conservative 30 mph vehicle travel speed. The applicant would be required, as a part of the conditions of approval, to explore with the County whether additional safety and speed signage would be appropriate and to construct said signage if required.

Further, the applicant would also be required to demarcate 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 and be constructed consistent with applicable Town standards. Finally, the applicant has also submitted a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. 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.

Resolution CC -22 Page 7

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVIDING
27600 Altamont Road – File #TM22-0004

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.

Resolution CC -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. The applicant shall obtain a septic tank abandonment permit through the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health for the existing septic system. The abandonment permit shall be obtained, inspected, and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prior to the recordation of the Final Map.

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

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

Resolution CC -22 Page 9

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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.

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

20. 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. Site Development applications are required for the new residences and new residential development shall meet all applicable Town standards, including that any new driveway serving Parcel B shall be designed to meet applicable Town standards.

21. 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.

22. 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.

Resolution CC -22 Page 10

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

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.

1 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
CALL TO ORDER (6:00 P.M.)
A. Roll Call
B. Pledge of Allegiance
Via teleconference according to the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, Mayor Tyson called the hybrid City Council Regular Meeting to order at 6:04 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, Assistant Planner Areli Perez, Management Analyst II Cody Einfalt, City Clerk Deborah Padovan

1. AGENDA REVIEW
There were no changes to the agenda. Mayor Tyson also stated that there was no reportable action resulting from the closed session.

2. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
A. Reappointment to the Los Altos Hills Environmental Design and Protection Committee.

City Clerk Padovan presented the application of Vijay Chawla.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to appoint Vijay Chawla to the Los Altos 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
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Thursday, August 18, 2022 – 6:00 p.m.

Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California Attachment 2

2 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
ABSENT: None
B. Appointment to the Los Altos Hills History Committee City Clerk Padovan presented the application of Bernado Ferrari.

Mr. Ferrari introduced himself to the Council.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Tyson moved to appoint Bernado Ferrari to the Los Altos Hills History Committee for a four-year term. 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. Appointment to the Los Altos Hills Pathways Committee City Clerk Padovan presented the two applications.

Jennifer Basiji introduced herself to the City Council and withdrew her application to the committee as she will not be available to serve.

Joe Mitchell, Los Altos Hills, introduced himself to the City Council and expressed interest in serving on the committee.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Schmidt moved to appoint Joe Mitchell to the Los Altos Hills Pathways Committee for a 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. Mid-Year Status Update on 2022 Council Strategic Goals City Manager Peter Pirnejad presented a review of the 2022 work plan and provided a status update on the items that were listed on the plan. He also provided a progress report on Council projects not on the 2022 priority workplan. The report was

3 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
received, and no action was taken.

E. Planning Commission’s Ad Hoc Committee’s Presentation on SCCFD Driveway Requirements Relating to ADU and Lot-Split Development by Planning Commission Chair Jim Waschura

Planning Commission Chair Jim Waschura presented the subcommittee’s report on the fire department requirements for new construction. The subcommittee had the following recommendations:
• Ask SCCFD to have a fast-track process for urgent changes that is separate from the normal 2-year revision cycle.
• Ask SCCFD to make available online updated documents with objective criteria. • Ask SCCFD to have a fast-track process for urgent changes that is separate from the normal 2-year revision cycle.
• Ask Staff to communicate the requirements for SCCFD plan approval during the pre-application stage to avoid surprises.
• Ensure SCCFD approval happens before site development approval. This will avoid creating conflicts between LAH and SCCFD approvals.
• For Ministerial projects that don’t have a site-development phase, route plans to SCCFD upon receipt, and don’t grant building permits until SCCFD approval is completed.
• Ask SCCFD to be proactive in responding to SB9 legislation. Work with other municipalities with similar concerns to raise the priority of this issue with SCCFD.

Council discussion ensued.

Brad Fox, Assistant Fire Marshal, Santa Clara County Fire Department, was in attendance and responded to questions from the Council.

Hector Estrada, Fire Marshal, Santa Clara County Fire Department, was in attendance and responded to questions from the Council.

Public Comment
Breene Kerr, Los Altos Hills, said Sherlock Road will never be 20 feet wide as it is not physically possible to engineer a project like that. There are six homes on that road that were approved, built with permits and if those homes become uninhabitable, there will have been a public taking and litigation may ensue. He said the City Council has delegated veto power to the Fire Department, and they can take that back.

A clear set of allowable mitigating factors is needed.

Rajiv Bhateja, Los Altos Hills, said his home is subject to this issue. He expressed concerns about buyers needing to be notified that they may not be able to rebuild, you just penalized the current owners. He would like to see a flexible solution.

4 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
Jitze Couperus, Los Altos Hills, thanked the Fire Department for attending. He said driveway widths are different for other local cities, but not Los Altos Hills. He talked about the standards the Fire Department uses. He requested further communication from the Fire Department.

Further discussion ensued. No action was taken.

Councilmember Tankha requested that the Fire Marshal return in two months to see how we are doing with this issue. There was no commitment from the Fire Department to return.

F. Presentation by the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff on the Differences Between a Motorcycle and a Patrol Vehicle
Sheriff Captain Rich Urena provided information on the difference between a motor unit deputy and a motorcycle unit deputy. He provided some options:
• Option 1: Continue to fund a motor deputy and focus on traffic matters and complaints
• Option 2: Continue to have a traffic deputy, but instead of a motorcycle, use a motor vehicle.
• Option 3: Discontinue the use of a traffic deputy and replace that with a patrol deputy.

The Council asked questions of Captain Urena and received his responses.

Kjell Karlsson, Los Altos Hills, thanked the captain for explaining the difference between the two units. He said that Option 3 was best - to discontinue the use of a traffic deputy and replace it with a patrol deputy.

Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to ask Captain Urena to institute Option 2 - continue to have a traffic deputy, but instead of a motorcycle, use a motor vehicle. 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
The Council recessed at 7:48 p.m.

The Council reconvened to open session at 7:56 p.m.

5 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022

3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Rajiv Bhateja, Los Altos Hills, provided an update on the activities of the Technology Committee. He said that the committee passed a motion proposing some speed alert systems in town. They also passed a second motion for gas shut-off valves.

Dru Anderson, Los Altos Hills, reported that her neighborhood (LAHE005) the Saddle Mountain neighborhood received Firewise certification. The Firewise program is a grassroot neighborhood wildfire preparedness program developed by the NFPA National Fire Protection Association.

J. Logan, General Manager, Los Altos Hills County Fire District, congratulated Dru and her team members. The Fire District completed the criteria to become a nationally recognized Firewise USA program participant.

Allan Epstein, Los Altos Hills, reported on the FIC on excessive building fees. The committee recommends further study and requests to calculate the Building Department revenue used in his study in conformity with the matrix study methods and calculate related costs after considering corrections noted by the City Manager. The corrections include compensating for the timing differences between recording the revenue and incurring the cost and then present to FIC.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

Public Comment
Allan Epstein, Los Altos Hills, spoke on item 4.N, regarding the procurement process. He stated that the town has not met the legal procurement requirements for this project.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Schmidt moved to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Tankha.

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tankha, Tyson, Mok, Schmidt, Swan
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
A. Approval of Regular City Council Meeting Minutes – June 16, 2022 B. Approval of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting – June 20, 2022
C. Approval of Special City Council Meeting Minutes – July 18, 2022

6 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
D. Review of Disbursements for July 1-31, 2022 $1,679,756.87 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. Request by the Los Altos Hills History Committee for approval to hold the Committee’s Fall Annual Presentation the “Tales of Former Mayors” and to Advertise the Presentation (History Committee)
G. Receive Quarterly Investment Portfolio Report Quarter Ending June 30, 2022 (Staff:

S. Revillar)
H. Resolution 70-22 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Standing Purchase Orders for Fiscal Year 2022-23 in an amount not to exceed $6,949,991 (Staff: S.

Revillar)
I. Resolution 71-22 Approving Changes to Job Description for Management Analyst II, Creating a Job Description for an Assistant to the City Manager, Reclass the Senior Community Services Supervisor to Community Services Manager, Create a Job Description for Deputy Building Official/Plan Examiner and Resolution 72-22 Approving Amending the Employee Classification and the Salary Schedule (Staff: S.

Revillar)
J. Resolution 73-22 of the Town to Abide by the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, and Resolution 74-22 Clarifying Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Registered Disaster Service Worker Volunteers (Staff: C.

Einfalt)
K. Resolution 75-22 Awarding a Contract for the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project (Staff: O. Antillon)
L. Resolution 76-22 Awarding a Contract for Design and Permitting Services for the Summerhill Pathway Project (Staff: O. Antillon)
M.Resolution 77-22 Approving the Designation of System Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Credits to Power Flex (Staff: O. Antillon)
N. Resolution 78-22 Awarding a Contract for the Corporation Yard Site Improvements Project (Staff: O. Antillon)
O. Notification of Fast Track Approval; 26880 Ortega Drive – File #SD22-0006 – Lands of Rajwar Family Trust - Site Development Permit for a 1,866 square-foot addition, which includes a new 789 square-foot lower floor, to an existing single-story

7 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
residence and new patios and walkways. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(e) (Staff: J. Loh). Appeal Deadline: Tuesday, August 23, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.

Item 6 was heard next:

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

► City Council Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure

A. Approval of a Tentative Map to create a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel (APN 182-028-026. Proposed new Parcel A would be 1.010 acres and the proposed new Parcel B would be 1.073 acres (Staff: S. Mangalam)

Mayor Tyson had no contacts but has walked the property. Councilmember Mok spoke to Allan Epstein and Kjell Karlsson. There were no other ex parte communications.

Mayor Tyson opened the Public Hearing.

Assistant Planner Areli Perez presented the staff report.

The Council asked questions. Areli Perez and Planning and Building Director Sofia Mangalam addressed them.

Council discussion ensued.

Carlos (Gustavo) Auqui, Applicant, presented his request to the City Council.

Public Comment
Michael Milani, Milani and Associates, Civil Engineer on the project, said there are a number of objective standards that have been applied to the project. They are in agreement with the conditions of approval. The intersection meets objective standards by the state of California.

Kit Gordon, Los Altos Hills, is encouraged that all driveways go onto Altamont and not Page Mill Road. The study may not convey the dangers of Page Mill Road.

Waidy Lee, Los Altos Hills, said she shares a fence with the subject property. She expressed concerns about the driveway coming out on Page Mill Road. The traffic study should come forward for Council review prior to the map approval.

John Lewis, Los Altos Hills, said the only responsible decision is to accept option 3 as the traffic study has not been completed yet. It may not be possible to make the driveway entrance off of Page Mill safe.

8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
Mayor Tyson closed the Public Hearing.

Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to deny the subdivision application without prejudice and allow the applicant to re-file; direct the applicant to refile the application with a Traffic Safety Study prepared, for Planning Commission review; and any application fees for re-filing to be waived for the applicant. 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

5. ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Receive a Report on the Findings for the Community Facilities Needs Assessment and Provide Direction on Town Hall Addition/Community Space (Staff: S.

Robustelli)

Community Services Supervisor Sarah Robustelli presented the staff report.

Ryan Mottau, MIG, Inc., Berkeley, and Kevin Lyons, Chief Scientist, Governance Sciences Group, each presented the reports on the survey results.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
Allan Epstein, Los Altos Hills, complimented the staff on surveying the public and hearing all voices. With regard to the public space, the survey results are statistically accurate. Regarding the town staff needs, he doesn’t believe the report identifies the needs or the needs over a period of time: what the space will be used for, who will use it and how will it grow over time. The needs need to be established.

Council discussion continued.

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

MOTION PASSED 5-0:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha

9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
Brene Kerr, Los Altos Hills, said that the public is greeted outdoors lately. There must have been some of the public spaces taken over by the staff. He hopes the town will provide a more welcoming place for the residents. The tables outside do not feel very permanent. It is worth taking a look at.

Council discussion continued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Schmidt moved to direct staff to look at ways to expand Town Hall that incorporate the ideas set forth in the report put together by staff based on FlashVote and MIG reviews that we assume we need more room for staff and that we include community involvement in the design as well. The motion was seconded by Mayor Tyson.

MOTION FAILED 2-3:

AYES: Tyson, Schmidt
NOES: Mok, Swan, Tankha
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha moved to direct staff to return to Council with projections for the next 10 years in terms of staffing needs, any additional space for staffing, and how that space would be used. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.

Council discussion continued.

MOTION PASSED 4-1:

AYES: Tyson, Swan, Mok, Tankha
NOES: Schmidt
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None
The Council recessed at 10:11 p.m.

The Council reconvened to Open Session at 10:18 p.m.

B. Resolution 79-22 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 (Staff: C. Einfalt)

10 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
Management Analyst Cody Einfalt presented the staff report.

Council discussion ensued.

Public Comment
Anand Ranganathan, Los Altos Hills, said there is no accountability the Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s Department should give a report every month reflecting which deputies were in town, what days, and what they were doing. All we get from the Sheriff’s Department is the monthly bill. The town needs to demand more accountability.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Schmidt moved to approve Resolution 79-22 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. 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. Update to Council Appointments to Committees and Outside Agencies 2022 (Staff:

D. Padovan)

City Clerk Padovan presented the update of the Council appointments.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to accept the updated schedule of Council Appointments to Committees and Outside Agencies 2022. 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

7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Introduction of Ordinance 602 (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

11 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
and Resolution 80-22 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 (Staff: S. Revillar)

Administrative Services Director Sarina Revillar presented the staff report.

Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Schmidt moved to waive reading and introduce Ordinance 602 (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 80-22 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. 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

8. STAFF REPORTS
A. City Attorney -No report.

B. City Clerk
City Clerk Padovan reported on the volunteer dinner scheduled for September 7th. A special City Council meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 19th to discuss the outcome of the nomination period for the November City Council election. Staff is working with a consultant to come up with streamlined guidelines for agenda, minutes, and training. She is planning to bring a proposal back to the City Council in quarter 4 to determine how to preserve the records that are stored at the Corp Yard.

C. Planning Director
The State mandated Public Review Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Plan 2023 – 2031 Housing Element (draft) for the Town of Los Altos Hills is available online for public review and comment. We have sent emails via listserv, social media messaging, and advertising in the Town Crier and Daily Post.

The community can provide comments via email, online feedback form, or in person during counter hours. Staff will also be available on August 22nd and 29th between 5

12 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
pm and 7 pm to assist residents with reviewing the draft and providing comments. So far, we have received three public comments via email.

Keeping in mind the water supply challenges due to the drought, a condition of approval stating that “all required plantings shown on the plans shall be installed during the winter months between October and March” has been added to recently approved Site Development Permits for landscape screening. In addition, staff will send request letters to homeowners who recently got their landscaping projects approved to defer the planting of trees and shrubs to the winter months.

Dan Edds, consultant for the building permit fee study, will be presenting his findings to the City Council in the October meeting. He also made a presentation to the FIC on August 8th.

D. Administrative Services Director
Administrative Services Director Sarina Revillar reported that staff created an internship program this summer. Three interns were hired in the areas of City Manager, Administrative Services, and Community Services. Some of the following projects included:

1. Research and recommendation regarding an EOC.

2. Research and draft financial policy.

3. Research and draft tabling policy.

4. Learned about the sewer system and shadowed the Engineering staff.

Jonathan Reichental will present the IT Master Plan at the September City Council meeting.

E. Public Works Director
Public Works Director Oscar Antillon reported on the following:

Pathways update
Public Works continues to define the list for the next ten segments. There are lots of opportunities to improve many paths in which the town already has the easements, but the path has not been improved due to lack of resources.

Matadero Creek
On August 10th the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control board (Water Board) responded to our letter from July 19th. In the latter the Executive Officer said that the quality certification for the project will be issued once the town completed and submitted the mitigation and monitoring plan for the project. We expect a draft to be completed by the end of August.

13 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
Personnel
We expect the newest member of our maintenance team, Walter Fiallos, to start work on Monday, August 22, 2022. We have selected our new assistant engineer, currently going through the pre-hiring process.

Prop 68 and Town Hall
Both projects are waiting for building permits.

East Sunset
Complete and great job by our associate engineer John Chau managing a difficult contract, but the project was completed on schedule and on budget. 4 Additional EV Chargers.

Thanks to staff engineers Daniel Liang and Melissa Elian-Carrillo for their efforts working on the project and coordinating with the EIC to procure the new chargers.

Once the chargers are installed, we welcome the community to use them.

Procurement Process update
We follow our procurement procedures, basically construction projects under $200,000 can be done with informal bid procedures, as part of that the town needs the list of contractors we use.

F. City Manager
City Manager Peter Pirenjad reported on the following:

Drought Planning
• Water Conservation Meeting
Staff hosted a meeting with Cal Water Service and Purissima Water District to discuss ways in which the town can help residents conserve water

• QWEL Program
Staff is working with the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP) to put together a proposal on bringing the Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper (QWEL) program to Los Altos Hills.

Emergency Management
• Disaster Council Meeting
The Los Altos Hills Disaster Council held its first meeting since the pandemic. Attendees included the Director of Emergency Services, Peter Pirnejad: City Manager, Mayor of Los Altos Hills: George Tyson, Management Analyst: Cody Einfalt, and Emergency Management Consultant:

Ann Hepenstal. At least one annual meeting of the Disaster Council is required to remain in compliance with state regulations.

14 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
• Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Fair
Mark your calendar for Saturday, September 10th and visit the county’s Emergency Preparedness Fair in San Martin from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm.

• Emergency Communication Meeting with the Fire Department In response to the few fire incidents over the past few weeks, town management staff held a meeting with the Fire Department (Brian Glass) to understand how they can establish better communication during these events.

Town staff has assembled an efficient Public Information Officer (PIO) team that oversees outgoing messages from the town.

Please continue to use Watch Duty and Pulse Point to get the latest updates on town emergencies.

GreenWaste
July 23, 2022 GreenWaste Neighborhood Clean-up event
GreenWaste hosted the Neighborhood Clean-Up Event at Foothill College. A total of 612 cars utilized the drop-off service totaling 68.34 tons collected.

LAFCO Fire Service Review Meeting
Santa Clara LAFCO resumed their Technical Advisory Committee and held a meeting on the Countywide Fire Service Review. A replacement consultant has been chosen to pick up the work that has already been started, and an updated timeline in available on LAFCOs website.

Community Services
The Fall/Winter Activity Guide is at the printer and will be mailed by the end of the month. In the guide you will find community events, activities, and resources.

Upcoming Events:

On Saturday, August 20th the 4th Adult Softball Game taking place from 1-3 pm at Purisimma Park. Come out and cheer for your home team and watch LAH take home the trophy!
Mark your calendar for the Los Altos Hills Hoedown Saturday, September 10th from 4-7 pm at Westwind Community Barn. The event will include Equestrian Expo, Live Music, Line Dance Caller, Capelo’s BBQ, and arts and crafts. See you there!
Want to stay informed? Sign up on the Town’s website for the City Manager’s Weekly Report.

15 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022

9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND

COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Mayor Tyson)

Mayor Tyson reported that PG&E has provided a contact person and Public Works Director Oscar Antillon has been in touch with them.. No action was taken.

B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee on Community Surveys (Mayor Tyson/Councilmember Schmidt)

Councilmember Schmidt said the committee’s work has concluded.

C. Report from the Council Town Hall Ad Hoc Committee (Mayor Tyson/Councilmember Schmidt)

Councilmember Schmidt said the committee’s work has concluded.

D. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)

Councilmember Mok said the committee has met twice, once with Comcast and once with AT&T. They hope to have a report at the next City Council meeting.

E. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Subcommittee and Outside Agencies Activities

Vice Mayor Swan reported that the TEDx committee set a date for January 28, 2023.

The title of the program is The Power of Creativity and Innovation in Silicon Valley.

The guest list is limited to 100, so sign up right away when the invitations are sent.

Mayor Tyson encouraged council liaisons to encourage their committees to work through the liaison for presenting at Council meetings. There were a couple of committee reports made during public comment this evening. Additionally, Council Initiated items are generally new ideas that are not in the work plan. He encouraged Councilmembers to discuss topics with the City Manager in advance to see what type of background work needs to be done.

10. COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS

A. Request by the Environmental Initiatives Committee for Consideration to Direct Staff to Prepare Leaf Blower Regulations (Councilmember Mok)

Councilmember Mok presented the item.

Council discussion ensued.

16 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
Chris Schiebl, Los Altos Hills, is asking for a leaf-blower ordinance. Not trying to ban gas powered leaf blowers, but sensible hours and noise ordinance.

Anand Ranganathan, Los Altos Hills, clarified the enforcement piece. The EIC discussion centered on the enforcement - it should be a civil defense using code enforcement. We should not be involving law enforcement in the enforcement of the matter.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Mok moved to direct staff to prepare leaf-blower regulations for noise and hours of operation and to not use the Sheriff for enforcement, but a compliance officer. The first offense would be a warning, the second warning would be a set fine, and third would be an infraction.

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. Request for Consideration to Offering a Lifetime Volunteer Award to Qualified Individuals (Vice Mayor Swan)
Vice Mayor Swan presented the request.

Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Swan moved to create an ad hoc committee made up Councilmember Tankha and Vice Mayor Swan to develop a process and criteria for Offering a Lifetime Volunteer Award to Qualified Individuals. 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. Request by the Environmental Initiatives Committee to Participate in a new Community-Based Network to Sample the Chemical Composition of Natural Gas Delivered to Los Altos Hills Homes (Councilmember Schmidt)

17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2022
Councilmember Schmidt presented the item.

Council discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Tyson moved to participate in a study to sample the chemical composition of natural gas delivered to Los Altos Hills homes. 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

11. ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Deborah L. Padovan
Deborah Padovan
City Clerk
The minutes of the August 18, 2022, regular City Council meeting were approved as presented at the September 15, 2022, regular City Council meeting.

NOVEMBER 03, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTES
On November 3, 2022, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and the traffic safety study prepared by Hexagon. At the meeting, Town’s traffic consultant, Jamie Rodriguez from Traffic Patterns, was present to answer any technical questions related to the Traffic Study.

The Commissioners asked numerous questions from the traffic consultant for clarification and understanding of the traffic safety issues (Traffic Consultant’s response/comments included in italics):
• What is the consultant’s opinion on Hexagon’s report regarding 275 feet of clear visibility in both directions from the driveway?
o The consultant noted that we are conservative when evaluating sight distance, and his recommendation is that there is a 200 feet sight distance from the proposed driveway to the south of Page Mill Road because of the obstruction from the embankment. And this meets the requirement for a 30 miles per hour (mph) designed speed. He further elaborated that at this location, the speed limit is assumed to be 25 mph, so this meets all the State and County standards. • What is the process for speed to be validated at this location? o The speed limit is an important element of peer review. The Hexagon traffic study made an assumption of 25 mph along Page Mill Road. The peer review tried to validate that and found out that there is no posted speed limit. This is the reason that peer review recommended that Hexagon conducts a ball bank indicator study.

All other curves north and south of Altamont Road have some sort of curve warning, with the exception of the curve close to the subject site. And the ball bank indicator resulted that the speed is at 25 mph. Furthermore, the traffic consultant reached out to the County to discuss that the speed at this location is ambiguous and forwarded a recommendation to post the speed limit at the discussed location. • Planning Commission further asked the consultant to clarify what does it mean that the speed limit is assumed at 25 mph?
o The traffic consultant noted to the north of Altamont Road that there is a 25 mph speed limit with an end sign, and beyond that point, the limit is not reinstated again.

Also, rural county roads are assumed to be at 25 mph unless posted otherwise. • One of the Commissioners further noted that she reached out to the County as well and inquired about making a service request to the County. Furthermore, starting from 280, there are speed signs posted at 35 mph, 30 mph, and 25 mph, but as soon you hit Altamont Road, there are only yellow cautionary signs and no speed limit signs. Also, there are two (2) traffic mirror signs installed going south towards Skyline. Can we request County to place such traffic mirrors?
o The traffic consultant explained that any such requests would need to go through the maintaining agency, which in this case is the County. The County has chosen to be ambiguous as there are a lot of changing advisory speeds. However, in this

Planning Commission Meeting Notes Page 2
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM22-0004
November 03, 2022
case, a new driveway is coming up, and even though the proposed driveway meets the requirement for a sight distance for 30 mph, it will be appropriate for the County to place the sign. He stated that upon forwarding his recommendation, the County is investigating it. Regarding traffic mirrors, they are usually placed by private entities and are rare.
• The Commission inquired about a 4-way stop at the intersection of Altamont Road and Page Mill Road.
o The traffic consultant discussed that he did think about the establishment study while doing the peer review. The peer review focused a lot on operational issues, much less on trip generation and distribution. However, these are important to document, which is why he recommended that trip generation be added for transparency. Also, the State has very specific thresholds for an all-way stop which the County usually follows. He noted that there needs to be more volume to justify the installation of an all-way stop which would include - for a minimum of 8 hours of a day on Page Mill Road, there needs to be 300 vehicles per hour in each direction. This is the reason the peer review did not recommend an establishment study for an all-way stop at the intersection.
• The commission asked if the traffic consultant visited the site. o The peer review was a quick turnaround and staff helped with the initial investigation of the signage, but the consultant made a visit to the site to validate the 200 feet sight distance.
• The Commission asked about the purpose of the trip generation that the traffic consultant recommended in the peer review.
o For a larger development, a traditional traffic study accurately tracks the cumulative impact of the multiple developments in the area by calculating how much new traffic is going to be generated during peak commute timings from the new development and how the net trips will be distributed. We are used to seeing trip generation for transparency, and that’s why we recommended it. • The Commission consultant asked to explain two (2) types of distances – sight distance and cornering distance.
o Stopping sight distance is reaction and stopping time for a motorist entering the roadway and for the motorist already on the roadway. It includes the view, the reaction of both the motorists and the time to stop before the collision does occur.

There should be no obstruction in this sight distance. However, Hexagon report shows the line of sight crossing through the embankment. That is why the peer review recommended that there is 200 feet for sight distance and not 275 feet. He noted that 200 feet meets the requirement.
o One of the Commissioner pointed out to the notes included on the application presented to the County for sight distance analysis. The design includes a design speed of 25 mph and that per Caltrans Highway Design Manual (see table 405.1A in the link), corner sign distance is 275 feet. However, the County did not use this standard instead asked for 200 feet in both directions. Commission asked the traffic

Planning Commission Meeting Notes Page 3
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM22-0004
November 03, 2022
consultant to explain the applicability of corner sight distance and why it is not used here.
o The traffic consultant explained that stopping sight distances are typically applied at intersections and not driveways. However, because we are in a rural environment, and there are fewer frequencies of driveways in between the driveway is treated as an intersection. Hence, a stopping sign distance is applied with an assumed speed of 25 mph which has a lower threshold. Hexagon aimed for 30 mph and that is where 200 feet distance is coming from.
o Further in the discussion, the traffic consultant noted that stopping sight distances as included in the reports, applies to pre-powered cars like 1960 Volkswagen, a modern vehicle will stop at a much shorter distance.

At the meeting, Melanie Griswold, the attorney representing the applicant, spoke about the proposed subdivision. She stated that the applicant has a vested interest in the safety of the proposed driveway and that it does not create a hazardous situation. Even previously, the applicant agreed to the conditions of approval to conduct a traffic safety study and carry out mitigation measures. And when the City Council directed the applicant to refile the application with the traffic safety study, they immediately hired Hexagon to prepare a traffic safety study. The driveway meets safety standards. However, owners are not required to design their driveway to make it safe for and from every reckless driver. This could never be the standard. Instead, the driveway is required to meet the standards set by the County. We also have the results of the ball bank indicator reviewed by the County and by the Town’s traffic consultant, indicating that the driveway meets the safety standards at 30 mph.

Mr. Black from Hexagon then shared an image showing their measurement of 275 feet for sight distance. To this point, one of the Commissioners noted that he measured the distance at the site, and that distance is not 275 feet; however, it does not matter as the required sight distance is 200 feet.

Ms. Griswold further noted that the proposed subdivision will improve public safety in key areas including:
o A dedication of a 10-foot ROW along Altamont Road will allow pedestrian and cyclists a safe distance from the road.
o Improve site triangle and visibility at the intersection. o In addition to a 10-foot ROW dedication to the County, additional 10-foot pedestrian and equestrian easement will improve the safety.
o Removal of vegetation that at present limits the visibility.

In the end, Ms. Griswold asked that the Commission confirm the findings of the experts and the County and recommend the approval of the subdivision to the City Council.

Public Comments
Planning Commission received eight (8) written comments (see Attachment 8) and three (3) oral comments at the public hearing.

Planning Commission Meeting Notes Page 4
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision- TM22-0004
November 03, 2022
The oral comments made during the November 3, 2022, public hearing was all related to the safety concerns on Page Mill Rd access to Parcel B, including how motorists and cyclists do not drive at 25 mph or 30 mph.

Planning Commission’s deliberation on the proposed subdivision The Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 (one abstaining) to recommend to the City Council approval of the subdivision. The following is a summary of the Commission’s discussion points in reaching said recommendation.

1. The safety issue of parcel B is the only issue that is the point of discussion. Several commissioners noted that the Commission received information from three (3) sources, including Hexagon, Traffic Patterns, and the County, and all three noted that the driveways meet the distance requirement. The Commission suggested that neighbors reach out to the County to post the speed limit sign of 25 mph at the location.

2. The portion of Page Mill Road at issue is not within the Town’s jurisdiction; the County confirmed that its standard is the 200 feet sight distance requirement. The Town had asked the applicant to conduct a traffic safety study, which the applicant did and additional studies from different sources confirmed the proposed driveway meets this requirement.

3. Design of the driveway would be approved by the Town during the site development permit process. The applicant should understand that traffic safety is a serious concern and can cause significant harm; the driveway needs to meet Town standards as a part of site development permit review. These issues have been brought to the applicant’s attention and there wouldn’t be surprises at the later review stage.

4. The question at issue is whether the lot can be subdivided- the answer is yes as the proposal meets Town’s subdivision standards. The Commission noted that the applicant’s counsel had described the delay and cost to the applicant and that applicant has a right to subdivide this property.

5. The Commission also noted that even though the proposed subdivision will dedicate a 10- foot ROW and a 10-foot wide equestrian and pedestrian easement, there is a 6-foot drop and a 4-foot drop along Page Mill Road. Based on Town’s Grading Policy and Fire Department apparatus access requirements, the proposed driveway would need an 8-foot fill and cautioned the applicant that if the subdivision is approved, there are still issues with the driveway design (in and out) due to steep slope.

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS November 3, 2022
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 27600 Altamont Road – Lands of Auqui and Putnam – TM22-0004 A request for a tentative map to create a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.20 gross acre parcel. 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).

FROM: Areli Perez, Assistant Planner
APPROVED: Sofia Mangalam, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission do one of the following:

1. Adopt a resolution to forward a recommendation to the City Council for APPROVAL of the requested Tentative Parcel Map application, based on the listed findings and conditions of approval in Attachment 1; or,

2. Adopt a resolution to forward a recommendation to the City Council for DENIAL of the requested Tentative Parcel Map application, based on the listed findings in Attachment 2.

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. The proposed project would be required to make road right-of-way (ROW) dedications along Altamont Rd and Page Mill Rd based on requirements of the Town and the County of Santa Clara. 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). The Town’s General Plan states under the Land Use Element that the LUF for any given parcel are to be determined by a formula established in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, and that newly created lots must have a LUF of one or more. When LUF is calculated based on the net area definition under the Zoning Ordinance (Title 10 of the Municipal Code), these two new lots would have LUFs greater than 1.

Attachment 4

Planning Commission Page 2
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
November 3, 2022
Figure 1: 27600 Altamont Road aerial Source: Google Earth On September 30, 2021, the applicant applied for a Tentative Map for a two-lot subdivision. The tentative map and a potential conditional exception request 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 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.

On July 21, 2022, the Planning Commission noted that the proposed subdivision does not require a granting of a Conditional Exception as presented by staff since the proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of the General Plan mandating calculation of LUF using the Zoning Ordinance formula and LUFs for new lots must equal or exceed 1, and is also compliant with other applicable requirements. Based on the additional evidence and testimony, the Planning Commission 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. At the July 21st meeting, Planning Commission took note of the safety concerns raised by the public regarding the driveway for Parcel B from Page Mill Road and included a condition to provide a “traffic safety study” and four (4) additional conditions related to the project. The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes can be accessed through the following link: https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/469/files.

The item was then scheduled for the City Council public hearing on August 18, 2022. At the meeting, the Council noted the concerns of the public regarding the potential safety impact of Parcel B being accessed off Page Mill Rd. The Council discussed with Staff the possibility of having the driveway for Parcel B accessed through Parcel A and onto Altamont Rd, however staff explained how this proposal would bring the subdivision out of conformance with the General Plan and LUF requirements. Staff also noted that the applicant had previously proposed the Altamont Road

Planning Commission Page 3
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
November 3, 2022
driveway off Altamont but due to LUF requirements, the applicant could not proceed with this proposal. Thus, the Council made a motion to deny the subdivision application without prejudice and directed the applicant to refile the application with a Traffic Safety Study for review by the Planning Commission. The City Council Meeting Minutes are in Attachment 3.

The applicant refiled the Tentative Parcel Map application for a two-lot subdivision of an existing parcel on August 27, 2022 with a Traffic Study as directed by City Council. The Traffic Study was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. dated September 7, 2022 (Attachment 4) and was peer reviewed by Traffic Patterns, a Town Consultant (Attachment 5). The applicant prepared a response traffic study to the peer review and submitted to the Town on October 13, 2022 (Attachment 6). Thus, the Tentative Parcel Map is before the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to City Council as required by the Subdivision Map Act and the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance.

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 – October 21, 2022
• Posted at the project site – October 21, 2022
• Public Posting Places – October 21, 2022
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – October 21, 2022 Staff has had conversations with the neighbors regarding the proposed project. Thus, we have received one (1) written public comment from a neighbor. The public comment is regarding the traffic safety study. The comment notates that the issues are sight distance and speed, and this has not been addressed, in addition to the lack of information regarding accidents. The public comment is included as Attachment 8.

MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENT
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. 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

Planning Commission Page 4
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
November 3, 2022
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.

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 (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; (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.

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. There is no change in the plans for the submittal reviewed at the July 21, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting. The project submittal now includes the Traffic Safety Study report as recommended by the Planning Commission via a proposed condition of approval and as directed by the City Council. The Traffic Safety Study is explained further below in this report.

Planning Commission Page 5
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
November 3, 2022
Figure 2: Existing lot and proposed two-lot subdivision Source: Project Plans 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 the 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.

DISCUSSION
Traffic Safety Study (Attachment 4)
The Traffic Safety Study was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. and is dated September 7, 2022. As previously stated, Page Mill Rd is under the County of Santa Clara jurisdiction and therefore sight distance analysis and traffic safety measures would be required to meet the standards of the Department of Roads and Airports of Santa Clara County.

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 boundaries and not within the Town’s jurisdiction, and the applicant had to receive approval from the County of Santa Clara for using such road for driveway access.

The County’s Department of Roads and Airports required the applicant to submit a Sight Distance Analysis which was found acceptable by the Department on April 25, 2022 (Attachment 7). The Existing Lot
Parcel A
Parcel B

Planning Commission Page 6
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
November 3, 2022
sight distance analysis evaluates speed and driveway design with the stopping sight distance. The accepted Sight 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. The next step for the applicant should the subdivision be approved, is to obtain an encroachment permit from the Department of Roads and Airports for the driveway.

During the encroachment permit application process, the county verifies this driveway approach is consistent with the approved sight distance analysis.

As discussed earlier that at the July 21, 2022 hearing, Planning Commission deliberated on issues raised at the hearing and through written testimony about concerns regarding access from Page Mill Rd. Thus, the Planning Commission added conditions of approval as part of its recommendation to the Council. Of those conditions, the applicant was required to prepare a traffic safety study for the driveway access to Parcel B from Page Mill Rd and comply with recommendations/ mitigation measures from the study. At the August 18 City Council meeting, Council directed the applicant to resubmit the subdivision plans with the traffic study for Planning Commission’s review.

The traffic safety study report prepared by the applicant further analyzed the sight distance analysis that was submitted to the County. The study notes that the required stopping sight distance is 250 feet, and the available sight distance is 275 feet, which means that this roadway’s sight distance exceeds the County’s distance requirements. Roadway design is discussed in the study as well as its impact on speed and sight.

Peer Review of the Traffic Safety Study (Attachment 5)
The Town obtained a peer review of the report provided by the applicant. The peer review includes four (4) findings and recommendations, these findings and recommendations are suggested to be modified within the Traffic Study prepared by the applicant. • The review explains what a stopping sight distance is, which is a “required ‘clear’ distance along a roadway that should be maintained between motorists so that can see one another and stop their vehicles in the event of a hazard ahead on the roadway”. • The peer review found that there is no posted speed limit of 25 MPH within the project area but agrees that it likely is a 25 MPH speed facility, but the speed should be validated by the County. The posted speed relates to the traffic study as the study proposes a design speed to estimate the stopping sight distance requirements. • The peer review noted that there is no curve warning nor advisory speeds for the curve closest to the proposed project driveway and suggest a Ball Bank Indictor study be undertaken to analyze the curve speed operations in both directions in both directions of Page Mill Rd. The peer review states that these findings are to be shared with the County for their determination if sign installations are appropriate or if sign installation can be recommended as an off-site improvement condition.
• The recommendation also discusses the stopping sight distance identified in the study and finds that for a stopping sight distance for a 30 MPH speed is 200 ft. and not 250 ft. per the Caltrans – Highway Design Manual and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD- CA). The peer review found that the stopping sight distance from the project driveway does provide the required 200 ft assuming the conservative 30 MPH design speed.

Planning Commission Page 7
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
November 3, 2022
The peer review was supplied to the applicant for their review and an opportunity to prepare a response report.

Revised Traffic Safety Study by the Applicant (Attachment 6) The applicant prepared a revised report on October 13, 2022. The applicant provided the modifications recommended by the peer reviewer. This includes the Ball Bank Indicator test results and the revision of the stopping sight distance of 200 ft. based on design speed of 30 MPH.

The study further notates that there is a sight distance of 275 ft. which is exceeding the required 200 ft.

Planning Staff Comments
Based on the Planning Commission and City Council directions, the applicant has provided a traffic study which the Town has peer reviewed. Issues identified by the peer review were then addressed by the applicant. It should be noted that the traffic safety study evaluated the project’s compliance with sight distance requirements, which the County (as the only entity with jurisdiction over this roadway) imposes on applicants to address traffic safety concerns and as a precondition for obtaining access approval from the County. The study does note that there are “other safety improvements” that are considered when evaluating the sight distance, and it is important to be aware that these improvements can continue to be evaluated as the project moves forward taking in consideration the roadway is County property and the particular circumstances at the site. As noted in the study and on the project plans (see Figure 3), the line-of-sight begins where the property line is. There are also frontage improvements (County Standard B/4A) required by the County including removal of vegetation or other obstructions as necessary for line-of-sight. The peer review recommended restricting the installation of new shrubbery, trees, or postal mailboxes within a 200-FT stopping sight distance triangle of the Page Mill Rd project driveway.

It is important to note that once the development of each parcel is approved by Planning Commission, and once landscape screening and erosion control plans are also approved, any development, landscaping specific to screening, and fencing, will be within the property lines, out of the road ROW, and easements. Any potential future line-of-sight obstructions that could be caused by development, landscape screening or fencing are evaluated once again by the Town’s required applications. Any changes to the existing driveway approach will need to be reviewed by the County and may be rejected by the County if the line of sight becomes obstructed or does not meet the sight distance required.

Planning Commission Page 8
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
November 3, 2022
Figure 3: 27600 Altamont Road Parcel B Driveway Approach and Easement Lines Source: Project Plans Staff spoke with the County regarding the condition of approval added at the July 21, 2022 Planning Commission meeting of the safety signage along Page Mill Rod and a reflection sculpture (traffic safety mirror) to improve safety. The County noted that they are open to considering the installation of additional signage as warranted ; however, a traffic safety mirror or reflection sculpture does not meet the County standards and therefore could not be considered within the road ROW.

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.

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.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Parcel A
Parcel B

Planning Commission Page 9
Altamont 2-Lot Subdivision
November 3, 2022
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. At this time, staff has assessed that 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. Resolution for recommending denial

3. City Council Meeting Minutes of August 18, 2022

4. Traffic Safety Study provided by applicant dated September 7, 2022

5. Peer Review of the Traffic Study dated September 19, 2022

6. Revised Traffic Safety Study dated October 13, 2022

7. Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports COA, dated April 25, 2022

8. Public Comments

9. Project plans – Planning Commission only

September 7, 2022
Mr. Gustavo Auqui
27600 Altamont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Re: Traffic Study for 27600 Altamont Road in Los Altos Hills, California Dear Mr. Auqui:

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic study for the proposed development at 27600 Altamont Road in Los Altos Hills, California. The project proposes to divide an existing parcel into two parcels and construct a single-family home on each parcel. The existing home on the site would be demolished. Figure 1 shows the proposed site plan. The project proposes to construct a new driveway along Page Mill Road to access the proposed second home.

It should be noted that the project has already been approved by the city’s planning department, public works, the fire department, and the city’s planning commission. The city council has requested a traffic study to determine whether any additional enhancements or modifications are needed for the project site. The planning commission meeting on July 21, 2022, and city council meeting on August 18,2022 discussed the project and included as Attachment 1 are the Hexagon responses to the transportation questions from these meetings.

Traffic Operations in the Project Vicinity
The proposed project would add a negligible number of trips to the surrounding streets. Since the project would construct a new driveway along Page Mill Road, the project would potentially add one trip per peak hour to Page Mill Road. Traffic operations would not be noticeably affected.

Driveway Design
The proposed driveway along Page Mill Road meets all applicable County design standards. The required sight distance is based on traffic speeds. Design speeds typically are assumed to be 5 mph over the speed limit. In the southbound direction on Page Mill Road near the driveway, there is a 25 mph sign and then a curve sign. The curve would slow down traffic, so an assumed design speed of 30 mph would be conservative. In the northbound direction on Page Mill Road near the driveway, there is a curve with a 15 mph advisory speed and then a curve with a 20 mph advisory speed. A design speed of 25 mph would be appropriate for the northbound direction. The required stopping sight distance is 250 feet based on a design speed of 30 mph and accounting for the grade along Page Mill Road. The available sight distance is 275 feet, which exceeds the requirement. Therefore, the proposed driveway would provide adequate sight distance for vehicles entering or leaving the project site. Additionally, vehicles traveling along Page Mill Road are able to see vehicles located in the project driveway from both directions. Figure 2 shows the sight distance exhibit from the project’s civil engineer. The exhibit shows that exiting vehicles can see at least 275 feet in each direction along Page Mill Road, which provides adequate sight distance for exiting drivers to make the decision to safely turn out of the driveway and speed up in Attachment 5

Mr. Gustavo Auqui
September 7, 2022

either direction. Figure 3 shows the existing street view from the approximate driveway location looking north and south along Page Mill Road.

County traffic engineers, who have the governing jurisdiction along Page Mill Road, have found the sight distance to be adequate given the roadway design and speed and have already approved the project’s proposed driveway along Page Mill Road.

Other Safety Improvements
The project proposes to dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way along the project frontage on Page Mill Road, increasing the existing County right-of-way from 50 feet to 60 feet. Although not required, an additional 10-foot wide easement is proposed by the applicant along the project frontage on Page Mill Road that can be used for a pedestrian pathway or equestrian trail. Thus, the new edge of right-of-way would be 20 feet back from the existing edge of pavement. By providing the easement, a wider pathway would allow pedestrians to be farther away from the vehicular traveled way, increasing pedestrian safety and comfort.

Figure 1
Project Site Plan
27600 Altamont Road (Los Altos Hills)
#
#
#
#

27600 Altamont Road (Los Altos Hills)
Figure 2
Sight Distance Exhibit

Mr. Gustavo Auqui
September 7, 2022

Figure 3
Existing Street View from Proposed Driveway Location
Northbound View
Southbound View

Mr. Gustavo Auqui
September 7, 2022

Attachment 1
Response to Comments
Question: (public question) Are there other locations with driveways along Page Mill Road?
Response: Along Page Mill Road there are four driveways within a half mile north of the project site and four driveways within a half mile south of the project site.

Question: (Planning Commission question) Can warning signs be added to Page Mill Road?
Response: There are warrants that need to be met to justify the addition of warning signs.

The proposed project driveway does not meet these warrants. Furthermore, Page Mill Road is a Santa Clara County facility, and the County has already reviewed and approved the driveway location as is without additional warning signs on the roadway.

Question: (City Council and Planning Commission question) Can the applicant provide a traffic study that looks at sight distance?
Response: This report serves to address this question.

Traffic Patterns Ÿ 169 Front Street, Suite 203Ÿ Danville, CA 94566 Ÿ (408) 916-8141 Ÿ www.trafficpatterns.net September 19, 2022
Sofia Mangalam
City of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Subject: Traffic Study Peer Review – 26700 Altamont Rd, Los Altos Hills Findings & Recommendations: 1. Trip Generation Table
Add a Trip Generation Table to better provide transparency regarding Net Trip Generation from the project.

2. Page Mill Rd Speed Limit Signs: 25 MPH Missing
The study references an existing 25 MPH posted speed limit condition along Page Mill Rd but there are no such existing signs in the field. The report references a conversative 30 MPH stopping sight distance for the Page Mill Rd project driveway (5 MPH above the posted speed limit) but with no existing speed limit establishment this is an incorrect design assumption. Conduct Ball Bank Indicator study to determine appropriate speed through curve on Page Mill Rd closest to proposed Page Mill Rd driveway.

3. Stopping Sight Distance for 30 MPH is 200-FT
Assuming that Page Mill Rd is a 25 MPH roadway, and 30 MPH can be used as a conservative design speed for the proposed Page Mill Rd project driveway, the Stopping Sight Distance for a 30 MPH design speed per the Caltrans – Highway Design Manual and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD- CA) is 200-FT, not 250-FT as referenced within the report.

4. 200-FT Stopping Sight Distance for Page Mill Rd Satisfied The proposed Page Mill Rd project driveway does provide the required 200-FT stopping sight distance assuming a conservative 30 MPH design speed. Restrict the installation of new shrubbery, trees, or postal mailboxes within a 200-FT stopping sight distance triangle of the Page Mill Rd project driveway.

Attachment 6

To: Sofia Mangalam
Subject: Traffic Study Peer Review, 26700 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills Date: September 19, 2022
Page: 2
Traffic Patterns Ÿ 169 Front Street, Suite 203Ÿ Danville, CA 94566 Ÿ (408) 916-8141 Ÿ www.trafficpatterns.net Background
Traffic Patterns conducted a peer review of the traffic study dated 9-7-2022 by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed two single family home project at 27600 Altamont Road. On the site is one existing single family with driveway access on Altamont Road, the project proposes removal of the existing dwelling unit and replacement with two new single-family homes. One of the new project dwelling units with will be served with a driveway on Altamont Road, the other will be served with a proposed new driveway on Page Mill Rd. The Hexagon Traffic Study focuses on the operation of the new Page Mill Rd driveway with a focus on a stopping sight distance analysis.

Peer Review
Traffic Patterns recommends the following modifications to the 27600 Altamont Rd traffic study. 1) Trip Generation Table
The traffic study references a “negligible number of trips to the surround streets” as “the project would potentially add one trip per peak hour along Page Mill Rd. This reference to the addition of a single new net trip on Page Mill Rd is the net change in new vehicle trips from the project site compared to the existing field condition.

Traffic Patterns recommends the addition of a Trip Generation Table to better clarify for the public the net change in vehicle trips during both peak hours of the day and the overall day.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITS) publishes a Trip Generation Manual that cites trip generation estimates based on land use types. The ITE Land Use Factor 210 is used for Single Family Homes. The ITE Trip Generation estimates a single-family home to generate up to ten (10) trips per day and up to one (1) trip per peak hour.

The Trip Generation Table should site the proposed land use from the project (2 single family home dwelling units) with credit assigned for the existing single-family home. 2) Posted Speed Limit and Advisory Speed Limits along Page Mill Road The traffic study references an existing 25 MPH posted speed limit along Page Mill Rd. This is an important statement within the traffic study because the study later references the recommended use of a 30 MPH design speed for the proposed Page Mill Rd project driveway to estimate stopping sight distance requirements.

Traffic Patterns used Google Earth Street View imagery to determine the existing posted speed limit conditions to validate the above traffic study assumption. Northbound, Traffic Patterns found no 25 MPH posted speed limit signs from the entrance of the Foothill Nature Preserve to the project area. Southbound, Traffic Patterns also failed to find a 25 MPH posted speed limit condition. In fact, in the Southbound direction of Page Mill Rd there is an “End 25 Speed Limit” sign approximately 450-FT north of the Page Mill Rd & Altamont Rd intersection where the project is located. City staff did a field survey and validated the Google Streetview conditions.

Traffic Patterns does agree with Hexagon that Page Mill Rd is likely a 25 MPH facility in the project area, but validation should be provided by the County of Santa Clara (whom owns & operates Page Mill Rd in this area) and the report updated to clarify field conditions.

To: Sofia Mangalam
Subject: Traffic Study Peer Review, 26700 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills Date: September 19, 2022
Page: 3
Traffic Patterns Ÿ 169 Front Street, Suite 203Ÿ Danville, CA 94566 Ÿ (408) 916-8141 Ÿ www.trafficpatterns.net In addition to the posted speed limit, the traffic study reference “advisory speed limits” through horizontal / vertical curves in the roadway. Operations of the proposed Page Mill Rd project driveway is influenced by the northbound speed of Page Mill Road as the northbound Page Mill Rd approach traverses a horizontal / vertical curve in the roadway that may limit driveway visibility. Northbound along Page Mill Rd from Foothills Preserve Park there are a series of three curves approaching the proposed project driveway. The first curve is signed with a sharp curve warning sign and a 15 MPH advisory speed placard. The second curve is posted with a curve warning and 20 MPH advisory sign followed by Chevron signs along the hillside to slow motorists through the curve. There are no curve warning nor advisory speeds for the third curve closest to the proposed project driveway. The Hexagon traffic study assumes the third curve to operate under an unposted 25 MPH condition with a design speed of 30 MPH.

Figure 1 – Existing Page Mill Sign Conditions

To: Sofia Mangalam
Subject: Traffic Study Peer Review, 26700 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills Date: September 19, 2022
Page: 3
Traffic Patterns Ÿ 169 Front Street, Suite 203Ÿ Danville, CA 94566 Ÿ (408) 916-8141 Ÿ www.trafficpatterns.net Although this segment of Page Mill Rd is operated and maintained by the County of Santa Clara, Traffic Patterns recommends a Ball Bank Indicator Study to determine if the third curve northbound, immediately before the proposed Page Mill Rd driveway, should have an advisory speed limit at or below 25 MPH given the lack of existing 25 MPH regulatory speed limit signage along Page Mill Rd.

The Ball Bank Indicator study should analyze the curve speed operations in both directions of Page Mill Rd. The findings should be shared with the County of Santa Clara so that the County may determine if sign installations are appropriate ahead of the project or if sign installation can be a recommended Off-Site Improvement Condition of the project. 3) Stopping Sight Distance
Stopping sight distance is a required “clear” distance along a roadway that should be maintained between motorists so that can see one another and stop their vehicles in the event of a hazard ahead on the roadway.

The traffic study recommends the use of a 30 MPH stopping sight distance design speed for Page Mill Rd at the location of the proposed Page Mill Rd driveway. The study then identifies the stopping sight distance for 30 MPH to be 250-FT. Traffic Patterns finds the recommended 250-FT stopping sight distance for 30 MPH to be incorrect. Per Table 201.1 of the California – Highway Design Manual and Table 6C-2 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD – CA Edition, both published by the California Department of Transportation – Caltrans, the stopping sight distance for a 30 MPH speed is 200-FT.

The traffic study references an existing available 275-FT of unobstructed sight distance along Page Mill Rd through the curve immediately south of the proposed Page Mill Rd driveway location. This finding was not validated by Traffic Patterns but assuming it to be correct, the stopping sight distance of 200-FT per the Caltrans design manuals is provided.

Figure 2 – Caltrans Design Manuals, Stopping Sight Distances

To: Sofia Mangalam
Subject: Traffic Study Peer Review, 26700 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills Date: September 19, 2022
Page: 4
Traffic Patterns Ÿ 169 Front Street, Suite 203Ÿ Danville, CA 94566 Ÿ (408) 916-8141 Ÿ www.trafficpatterns.net Figure 3, 200-FT Stopping Sight Distance Estimation (30 MPH)

To: Sofia Mangalam
Subject: Traffic Study Peer Review, 26700 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills Date: September 19, 2022
Page: 5
Traffic Patterns Ÿ 169 Front Street, Suite 203Ÿ Danville, CA 94566 Ÿ (408) 916-8141 Ÿ www.trafficpatterns.net The recommended Ball Bank Indicator study may find the advisory speed through the Page Mill Rd curve closest to the proposed Page Mill Rd driveway to be at a slower speed so before finalizing the traffic study stopping sight distance validation the Ball Bank Indicator study should be conducted.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 916-8141.

Sincerely,
Jaime O. Rodriguez
Principal

October 13, 2022
Mr. Gustavo Auqui
27600 Altamont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Re: Traffic Study for 27600 Altamont Road in Los Altos Hills, California Dear Mr. Auqui:

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic study for the proposed development at 27600 Altamont Road in Los Altos Hills, California. The project proposes to divide an existing parcel into two parcels and construct a single-family home on each parcel. The existing home on the site would be demolished. Figure 1 shows the proposed site plan. The project proposes to construct a new driveway along Page Mill Road to access the proposed second home.

It should be noted that the project has already been approved by the city’s planning department, public works, the fire department, and the city’s planning commission. The city council has requested a traffic study to determine whether any additional enhancements or modifications are needed for the project site. The planning commission meeting on July 21, 2022, and city council meeting on August 18,2022 discussed the project and included as Attachment 1 are the Hexagon responses to the transportation questions from these meetings.

Traffic Operations in the Project Vicinity
The proposed project would add 10 daily trips and one PM peak hour trip to the surrounding streets (see Table 1). Since the project would construct a new driveway along Page Mill Road, the project would potentially add one trip per peak hour to Page Mill Road. Traffic operations would not be noticeably affected.

Table 1
Trip Generation Table
Driveway Design
The proposed driveway along Page Mill Road meets all applicable County design standards. The required sight distance is based on traffic speeds. Design speeds typically are assumed to be 5 mph over the speed limit. In the southbound direction on Page Mill Road near the driveway, there Land Use Size Rate Trip Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Land Uses
#210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 2 Dwelling Units 9.430 19 0.700 0 1 1 0.940 1 1 2 Existing Land Uses
#210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 1 Dwelling Units 9.430 9 0.700 0 1 1 0.940 1 0 1 Net Project Trips 10 0 0 0 0 1 1
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition 2021.

Trip Trip
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Attachment 7

Mr. Gustavo Auqui
October 13, 2022

is a 25 mph sign and then a curve sign. The curve would slow down traffic, so an assumed design speed of 30 mph would be conservative. In the northbound direction on Page Mill Road near the driveway, there is a curve with a 15 mph advisory speed and then a curve with a 20 mph advisory speed. A design speed of 25 mph would be appropriate for the northbound direction.

A ball bank indicator test was conducted to confirm the recommended assumed design speeds for the curve just south of the project driveway along Page Mill Road. A ball bank indicator test is typically used for determining the maximum speed without discomfort to the driver and to determine an advisory speed at a curve. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) indicates that the following ball bank indicator values that would cause discomfort:
• 16 degrees of ball-bank for speeds of 20 mph of less
• 14 degrees of ball-bank for speeds of 25 to 30 mph
• 12 degrees of ball-bank for speeds of 35 mph or greater The results of the ball-bank indicator test can be found in Attachment 2. The results indicate that the southbound direction would experience a maximum 12.4 degrees of ball-bank at 25 mph and

17.4 degrees of ball-bank at 30 mph. Therefore, the advisory speed should be set at 25 mph and the assumed design speed of 30 mph is adequate. The results indicate that the northbound direction would experience a maximum 10.1 degrees of ball-bank at 20 mph and 14.1 degrees of ball-bank at 25 mph. Therefore, the assumed design speed of 25 mph is adequate.

The required stopping sight distance is 200 feet based on a design speed of 30 mph and accounting for the grade along Page Mill Road. The available sight distance is 275 feet, which exceeds the requirement. Therefore, the proposed driveway would provide adequate sight distance for vehicles entering or leaving the project site. Additionally, vehicles traveling along Page Mill Road are able to see vehicles located in the project driveway from both directions.

Figure 2 shows the sight distance exhibit from the project’s civil engineer. The exhibit shows that exiting vehicles can see at least 275 feet in each direction along Page Mill Road, which provides adequate sight distance for exiting drivers to make the decision to safely turn out of the driveway and speed up in either direction. Figure 3 shows the existing street view from the approximate driveway location looking north and south along Page Mill Road.

In order to maintain the required 200 feet stopping sight distance, the installation of new shrubbery, trees, or mailboxes should be restricted within the 200-foot stopping sight distance triangle adjacent to the Page Mill Road project driveway.

It should be noted that County traffic engineers, who have the governing jurisdiction along Page Mill Road, have found the sight distance to be adequate given the roadway design and speed and have already approved the project’s proposed driveway along Page Mill Road.

Other Safety Improvements
The project proposes to dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way along the project frontage on Page Mill Road, increasing the existing County right-of-way from 50 feet to 60 feet. Although not required, an additional 10-foot wide easement is proposed by the applicant along the project frontage on Page Mill Road that can be used for a pedestrian pathway or equestrian trail. Thus, the new edge of right-of-way would be 20 feet back from the existing edge of pavement. By providing the easement, a wider pathway would allow pedestrians to be farther away from the vehicular traveled way, increasing pedestrian safety and comfort.

Figure 1
Project Site Plan
27600 Altamont Road (Los Altos Hills)
#
#
#
#

27600 Altamont Road (Los Altos Hills)
Figure 2
Sight Distance Exhibit

Mr. Gustavo Auqui
October 13, 2022

Figure 3
Existing Street View from Proposed Driveway Location
Northbound View
Southbound View

Mr. Gustavo Auqui
October 13, 2022

Attachment 1
Response to Comments
Question: (public question) Are there other locations with driveways along Page Mill Road?
Response: Along Page Mill Road there are four driveways within a half mile north of the project site and four driveways within a half mile south of the project site.

Question: (Planning Commission question) Can warning signs be added to Page Mill Road?
Response: There are warrants that need to be met to justify the addition of warning signs.

The proposed project driveway does not meet these warrants. Furthermore, Page Mill Road is a Santa Clara County facility, and the County has already reviewed and approved the driveway location as is without additional warning signs on the roadway.

Question: (City Council and Planning Commission question) Can the applicant provide a traffic study that looks at sight distance?
Response: This report serves to address this question.

Attachment 2
Ball-Bank Indicator Test

Analysis summary
Warnings are disabledSign recommendation summary
Safe Curve Speed Analysis Report
Curve: Page Mill Rd south of Altamont CirCorridor: N/AMile Post: 0.00 - 0.00 Posted Speed: 25 mph
Lateral Friction Limit: 14° Selected RAS - Right: 25 mphModel Geometry: Parabolic Selected RAS - Left: 25 mph Pass # Turn
Direction
TravelDirection
Point of Curvature Latitude Longitude
Point of Tangent Latitude Longitude
GPS Fit Average
Test Speed
CurveRadius
CurveLength
DeflectionAngle
CurveClass.

SuperElevationat Apex
CurveGrade
Min. CalculatedAdvisory Speed
RecommendedAdvisory Speed(RAS)
1 Right South-West
Decreasing

37.36490°
-122.16743°

37.36423°
-122.16810°

93.8% 13.7 mph 187 ft 348 ft 79° F 2.7% B 25.7 mph 25 mph 2 Left East
Decreasing

37.36423°
-122.16809°

37.36489°
-122.16742°

94.2% 16.3 mph 188 ft 351 ft 79° F 0.2% A 24.1 mph 25 mph 3* Right South-West
Decreasing

37.36490°
-122.16741°

37.36425°
-122.16809°

95.3% 13.9 mph 195 ft 361 ft 79° F -0.1% B 26.2 mph 25 mph 4 Left East
Decreasing

37.36420°
-122.16808°

37.36491°
-122.16739°

95.8% 16.2 mph 199 ft 375 ft 80° F -2.5% C 24.1 mph 25 mph 5 Right South-West
Decreasing

37.36491°
-122.16740°

37.36427°
-122.16811°

93.0% 14.0 mph 176 ft 345 ft 82° F 2.0% A 25.2 mph 25 mph 6 Left East
Decreasing

37.36415°
-122.16807°

37.36489°
-122.16748°

95.5% 15.5 mph 179 ft 361 ft 83° F -1.9% B 24.4 mph 25 mph 7 Right South-West
Decreasing

37.36489°
-122.16745°

37.36422°
-122.16809°

94.8% 13.7 mph 177 ft 355 ft 83° F 1.2% A 25.0 mph 25 mph 8* Left East
Decreasing

37.36413°
-122.16806°

37.36488°
-122.16751°

97.0% 15.2 mph 185 ft 358 ft 81° F 1.0% A 24.4 mph 25 mph 9 Right South-West
Decreasing

37.36489°
-122.16745°

37.36421°
-122.16808°

94.2% 13.6 mph 177 ft 348 ft 82° F 4.2% B 25.6 mph 25 mph Pass # Differential Curve Sign Curve Sign Requirements Advisory Speed Sign
Speed Sign Requirements Chevron
Sign
ChevronSpacing
Chevron Requirements Note
1 N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
2 N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
3* N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
4 N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
This report is an output from the Rieker® Curve Advisory Reporting Service (CARS™), which provides recommendations based on the methods for Establishing Advisory Created By [email protected] Printed on 10/13/2022 12:56 Speed published by the US Federal Highway Administration, the 2009 MUTCD and the data collected by the user. Due to the inherent variability of road geometries, Saved On 10/13/2022 12:54Page 1 of 12 driving practices, and data analysis, the results should be verified by qualified personnel, licensed to practice in the municipality for which these data are intended to be used. Report Version 2.169_2336

Sign recommendation summary, (continue)
*Selected passes shaded and in bold
Safe Curve Speed Analysis Report
Curve: Page Mill Rd south of Altamont CirCorridor: N/AMile Post: 0.00 - 0.00 Posted Speed: 25 mph
Lateral Friction Limit: 14° Selected RAS - Right: 25 mphModel Geometry: Parabolic Selected RAS - Left: 25 mph Pass # Differential Curve Sign Curve Sign Requirements Advisory Speed Sign
Speed Sign Requirements Chevron
Sign
ChevronSpacing
Chevron Requirements Note
5 N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
6 N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
7 N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
8* N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
9 N/A W1-1 none 25 mph none W1-8 40 ft none The Recommended Advisory Speed for this pass is at or above the postedspeed limit
This report is an output from the Rieker® Curve Advisory Reporting Service (CARS™), which provides recommendations based on the methods for Establishing Advisory Created By [email protected] Printed on 10/13/2022 12:56 Speed published by the US Federal Highway Administration, the 2009 MUTCD and the data collected by the user. Due to the inherent variability of road geometries, Saved On 10/13/2022 12:54Page 2 of 12 driving practices, and data analysis, the results should be verified by qualified personnel, licensed to practice in the municipality for which these data are intended to be used. Report Version 2.169_2336

Curve map reference - Page Mill Rd south of Altamont Cir Safe Curve Speed Analysis Report
Curve: Page Mill Rd south of Altamont CirCorridor: N/AMile Post: 0.00 - 0.00 Posted Speed: 25 mph
Lateral Friction Limit: 14° Selected RAS - Right: 25 mphModel Geometry: Parabolic Selected RAS - Left: 25 mph This report is an output from the Rieker® Curve Advisory Reporting Service (CARS™), which provides recommendations based on the methods for Establishing Advisory Created By [email protected] Printed on 10/13/2022 12:56 Speed published by the US Federal Highway Administration, the 2009 MUTCD and the data collected by the user. Due to the inherent variability of road geometries, Saved On 10/13/2022 12:54Page 3 of 12 driving practices, and data analysis, the results should be verified by qualified personnel, licensed to practice in the municipality for which these data are intended to be used. Report Version 2.169_2336

Side friction summary - Page Mill Rd south of Altamont Cir, pass 3 Theoretical side friction at the point producing the minimum calculated advisory speed and generating the maximum side frictionRadius: 196 ft; Super elevation: -0.7% Safe Curve Speed Analysis Report
Curve: Page Mill Rd south of Altamont CirCorridor: N/AMile Post: 0.00 - 0.00 Posted Speed: 25 mph
Lateral Friction Limit: 14° Selected RAS - Right: 25 mphModel Geometry: Parabolic Selected RAS - Left: 25 mph Advisory Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70Auto Side friction guideline (deg) 16 16 16 16 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12Max side friction (deg) 0.9 2.3 4.7 8.1 12.4 17.4 23.0 28.9 34.8 40.6 46.0 50.9 55.3 59.2 This report is an output from the Rieker® Curve Advisory Reporting Service (CARS™), which provides recommendations based on the methods for Establishing Advisory Created By [email protected] Printed on 10/13/2022 12:56 Speed published by the US Federal Highway Administration, the 2009 MUTCD and the data collected by the user. Due to the inherent variability of road geometries, Saved On 10/13/2022 12:54Page 6 of 12 driving practices, and data analysis, the results should be verified by qualified personnel, licensed to practice in the municipality for which these data are intended to be used. Report Version 2.169_2336

Side friction summary - Page Mill Rd south of Altamont Cir, pass 8 Theoretical side friction at the point producing the minimum calculated advisory speed and generating the maximum side frictionRadius: 205 ft; Super elevation: -4.8% Safe Curve Speed Analysis Report
Curve: Page Mill Rd south of Altamont CirCorridor: N/AMile Post: 0.00 - 0.00 Posted Speed: 25 mph
Lateral Friction Limit: 14° Selected RAS - Right: 25 mphModel Geometry: Parabolic Selected RAS - Left: 25 mph Advisory Speed (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70Auto Side friction guideline (deg) 16 16 16 16 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12Max side friction (deg) 3.2 4.6 6.9 10.1 14.1 18.8 24.1 29.7 35.3 40.8 46.0 50.7 54.9 58.7 This report is an output from the Rieker® Curve Advisory Reporting Service (CARS™), which provides recommendations based on the methods for Establishing Advisory Created By [email protected] Printed on 10/13/2022 12:56 Speed published by the US Federal Highway Administration, the 2009 MUTCD and the data collected by the user. Due to the inherent variability of road geometries, Saved On 10/13/2022 12:54Page 11 of 12 driving practices, and data analysis, the results should be verified by qualified personnel, licensed to practice in the municipality for which these data are intended to be used. Report Version 2.169_2336

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 8

1 Areli Perez
From: Camacho, Leo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 12:15 PM
To: Areli Perez
Subject: RE: Minor subdivision application - 27600 Altmont Road - LAH - PLN21-01 Attachments: EDR22-010 Comments and Conditions.pdf
Hello Areli,
The submitted sight distance analysis was acceptable. Attached are our conditions of approval outlining the need for:

1. Dedication necessary to achieve 30’ half street along Page Mill Road.

County Roads and Airports Encroachment permit for :

2. County Standard driveway approach appropriate for access level of use:
a. B/4 for one residence
b. B/5 for two residence

3. B/4A Frontage improvements will be required along Page Mill road.

4. Addressing Tree removal or other line of sight issues Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Leo Camacho, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer | Land Development and Permits
Roads and Airports Department
County of Santa Clara
101 Skyport Dr.

San Jose | CA  95110
Phone: (408) 573‐2464
[email protected]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From: Areli Perez [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 3:03 PM
To: Camacho, Leo <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Minor subdivision application ‐ 27600 Altmont Road ‐ LAH ‐ PLN21‐01 Hi Leo,
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon. Again, as a new Planner for the town, your assistance is greatly appreciated as I learn the processes. As we discussed, please view the following link to be directed to the new proposal for the subdivision here: TM21‐0001_27600 Altamont Rd

2 Comments from your office will be helpful in determining whether the subdivision proposal can remain as is with access off Page Mill Road.

If you need me to send an email to a different email address for documentation purposes, please let me know.

Best,
Areli Perez
Assistant Planner
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-947-2504 | F: 650-941-3160
E: [email protected]
Stay informed.

From: Camacho, Leo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 2:30 PM
To: Areli Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Minor subdivision application ‐ 27600 Altmont Road ‐ LAH ‐ PLN21‐01 Hello Areli,
This is the correspondence I had with the applicant regarding the subdivision off page mill.

Thank you,
Leo Camacho, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer | Land Development and Permits
Roads and Airports Department
County of Santa Clara
101 Skyport Dr.

San Jose | CA  95110
Phone: (408) 573‐2464
[email protected]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From: Camacho, Leo
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 10:21 AM
To: Mike Milani <mmilani@milani‐eng.com>
Cc: Gustavo Auqui <[email protected]>; Steve Gigoux <sgigoux@milani‐eng.com>; Ken Alcock <kalcock@milani‐ eng.com>
Subject: RE: Minor subdivision application ‐ 27600 Altmont Road ‐ LAH ‐ PLN21‐01 Hello Mike,

3 At this point we reviewed a plan that proposed access from Altmont Road. In order for the County to determine if access can be approved from Pagemill we would need to see a proposed plan.

Once we review the proposed plan and determine the level of impact, we would be able to provide the level of improvements necessary in a conditions/confirmation letter.

Typically when new access is proposed from a County roadway a sight distance analysis is required to establish a safe access point based on a County standard driveway/intersection (B4 ‐single residence,  B5 – 2 residences, A4 – 2+).

Changing access to the County right‐of‐way will also likely require B4A frontage improvements along the property.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Leo Camacho, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer | Land Development and Permits
Roads and Airports Department
County of Santa Clara
101 Skyport Dr.

San Jose | CA  95110
Phone: (408) 573‐2464
[email protected]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

From: Mike Milani <mmilani@milani‐eng.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 9:02 AM
To: Camacho, Leo <[email protected]>
Cc: Gustavo Auqui <[email protected]>; Steve Gigoux <sgigoux@milani‐eng.com>; Ken Alcock <kalcock@milani‐ eng.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Minor subdivision application ‐ 27600 Altmont Road ‐ LAH ‐ PLN21‐01 Leo, hope all is well.  You provided comments to City of Los Altos Staff regarding your review of the proposed minor subdivision application, LAH ‐ PLN21‐01.

Your review letter notes that any access from Page Mill Road will require the processing of an encroachment permit and , if trees are impacted,  at tree removal permit.

The Tentative Map has been revised to reflect the required dedication of an additional 10 feet of street right of way along the easterly side of Page Mill to comply with the ultimate right‐of‐way width of 60'.

Planning staff is requesting a confirmation letter from your office that private driveway access can be provided from Page Mill Road, subject to any tree removal/encroachment permit applications and sight visibility considerations.

Please advise at to your ability to provide our office with a letter confirming driveway access from Page Mill Road.

4 Please call with any questions.

Thanks.

Mike
Michael E. Milani
President
Milani & Associates
2655 Stanwell Drive, Suite 105
Concord, CA 94520
Ph:(925)674‐9082
DD: (925) 465‐2033
Fax:(925)674‐9279
Cell:(925)260‐4447
mmilani@milani‐eng.com
A California Certified Small Business‐Cert. No. 53293, Exp July 31, 2022

1 From: Waidy Lee
Date: October 31, 2022 at 6:09:56 AM PDT
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Areli Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: 27600 Altamont Subdivision
Dear Planning Commissioners:

I am still very concerned of community safety for the added driveway on Page Mill.  We, and many other neighbors, take kids and grandkids traveling in this section of road several times a day.  I appreciate the Planning Commissioners’ and City Councils’ effort requiring the review of a Traffic Safety Study.

I took my measurement tools to Page Mill. My measurement of the visible distance (line of sight) is more consistent with the measurement of 200 feet made by the 9/19 Traffic Study Peer Review.  Not 275 feet in both of the 9/7 and 10/13 reports.  The 75 feet differences is significant.  I sincerely request this line of sight distance to be re‐confirm.  Thank you.

An additional line of sight measurement was made from the proposed driveway to the 280 side: 195 feet.

The most bothersome scenario is shown in the following photo.  My measurement of where Car A and Car B can see each other is only 150 feet.  At the time when they can see each other, Car B is traveling at speed where Car A just press their gas pedal with maximum speed.

Attachment 9

2 Best Regards,
Waidy Lee

From: Ted and Ivana Chang
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]>; Areli Perez <[email protected]> Subject: Neighbor Support for Proposed Subdivision - 27600 Altamont Rd - TM22-0004 Dear LAH Planning Commission Staff -
My name is Ted Chang and I am the property owner of-Altamont Cir which is on the other side of Page Mill Rd diagonally across from the lands of Gustavo Auqui and Robert Putnam. I would like to express my support for the proposed subdivision of 27600 Altamont Rd:
• Creating 10 ft ROW easements along Page Mill Rd and Altamont Rd will enhance pedestrian and equestrian safety along both roads. My daily observation is pedestrians and equestrians often traverse along the sides of the roads which poses a safety hazard given oncoming automobile and cyclist traffic • A wider pathway will improve aesthetics for the surrounding neighborhood. Right now the pathway only widens further up Page Mill Rd towards Central Dr
• The ROW easements will increase lines of sight and make it easier and safer for automobile and cyclist traffic to turn on and off Altamont and Page Mill Rds. As someone who frequently crosses the intersection, I exercise a high degree of caution as I am not always certain vehicles and cyclists see me • I have personally inspected the location where the proposed driveway will intersect Page Mill Rd and am satisfied with the sight distances which comply with Santa Clara County guidelines • I have reviewed the traffic report submitted by the applicant as well as the peer review comments and am satisfied with their findings and recommendations
It is my hope the Los Altos Hills Town Council will formally approve the subdivision proposal. I believe the ROW improvements will provide more safety and benefit the overall neighborhood aesthetics. Please contact me if you have further questions.

Thank You!
Ted Chang

From: John Lewis
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 11:12 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Subdivision at 27600 Altamont
Hello Commissioners,
We have some concerns about the proposed line of sight for the driveway at 27600 Altamont Road. Would it be possible for anyone to meet with us on site to discuss our concerns? ‐john
Item 4.3 Supplemental 3

From: Julia Zarcone
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 3:13 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Kavita Tankha; David Patmore; Kit Gordon; Waidy Lee Subject: DO NOT approve driveway for 27600 Altamont Way Dear Planning Commission Members:

I strongly urge you to reject the application for the ingress/egress driveway from 27600 Altamont Way onto Page Mill Road.

The plan map as submitted for this project has an outright falsehood represented on it. The owners of the property depict the line of site as being 275 feet. They show it running through a HILLSIDE that is opposite the proposed driveway on Page Mill Road.

I have lived at-Central Drive for over 35 years. I have seen accidents, near misses and all kinds of bad driving on the stretch of Page Mill between Altamont and Foothills Park. Tragically, a pedestrian was killed in this stretch of road as well a few years ago.

The line of site for the proposed driveway for oncoming, downhill traffic is likely less than 150 feet. The law requires that any project approved have safe ingress and egress and this project does not offer this.

Add to this that there is a stop sign at the T intersection of Altamont and Page Mill with limited line of site near this driveway as well and you have a recipe for accidents.

Cars regularly come down Page Mill at 35 MPH, bikes as well. The chance of a fatality and liability is high. Please reject this application.

Sincerely,
Julia
Julia Zarcone MA
(She/Her)
Senior Lead Consultant I The Arora Collective
�

THE ARORA COLLECTIVE
Consulting For Social Good

From: Melanie Griswold <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 2:15 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]>
Cc: Gustavo Auqui ; 'Robert L Putnam'
Subject: Agenda Item 4.3 - Altamont Rd. Subdivision
Good afternoon, Planning Commissioners and Director Mangalam, Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 4.3 on the Nov. 3 Planning Commission Agenda. Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider this letter.

Kind regards,
Melanie Griswold
DRE: #0260412 ISBN #234917
415.265.1086 I [email protected]
1

MELANIE GRISWOLD

ATTORNEY AT LAW
SBN 234917
1842 University Ave, San Jose, CA 95126 I 415.265.1086 I [email protected] 1 Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
[email protected]
Sofia Mangalam
Planning and Building Director
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
[email protected]
Via Email
November 1, 2022
RE: File #TM22-004
27600 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hill – 2-Lot Minor Subdivision Dear Chair Waschura, Vice Chair Bredo, Planning Commissioners, and Director Mangalam, As you may know, I have been retained to assist Mr. Carlos (Gustavo) Auqui and Mr. Robert Putnam (“Applicants”) in their fully compliant application for 2-Lot Minor Subdivision at 27600 Altamont Road (“Project”) in Los Altos Hills to subdivide a 2.2 acre parcel into 2 lots. Prior to the hearing, the Applicants had obtained the Santa Clara County’s Roads and Airport Department approval for the proposed driveway on Page Mill Road. On August 18, 2022, City Council denied the initial submission (TM21-001) without prejudice and directed the Applicants to reapply with a traffic study to determine whether any additional enhancements or modifications were needed for the project site.

Going into hearing on the resubmitted application, we want to clarify the record and set forth the Applicants’ position that the Project is in fact covered by the Housing Accountability Act, it meets or exceeds all objective safety standards. It has also been approved by the entity with jurisdiction over the access to Page Mill Road.

First, the Housing Accountability Act Applies Because the Proposed Tentative Map is a Required Approval for a Covered “Housing Development Project” Within the Clear Terms of the Statute.

In July of 2022 when this Project first came on for hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council, the assertion was made that the Project is not covered by the Housing Accountability Act. This is incorrect.

2 The Housing Accountability Act applies to all subdivision maps and any discretionary land use application that are necessary for the issuance of a building permit for a housing development project. (See Government Code (“Gov’t. Code”) Section 65589.5(h)(6) [confirming that the disapproval of a “housing development project” covers “any instance which a local agency…(A) [v]otes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit”] (emphasis added).) This is also reiterated in the Technical Assistance Advisory memo the published by the Department of Housing and Community Development at p. 19 (See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf.) The July 2022 staff report advised the Planning Commission and Council that the Housing Accountability Act does not apply because proposed map is only for only one new residential unit. This is also incorrect.

Once approved, the newly created lots allow the Applicants to build at least 4 new residential units. As depicted on Sheet 6 of the Tentative Map, the Applicants do in fact plan to build 4 new residential units – 2 new units on Lot A and 2 new units on Lot B, both consisting of a primary unit and ADU. 1 Because the
lot split is a necessary precursor to building multiple units2 , it qualifies as “a housing development
project” under the City’s narrow interpretation of the Housing Accountability Act.3 Second, Neutral Traffic Experts with Governing Jurisdiction over Page Mill Road Have Found That the Proposed Driveway Meets all Safety Standards Governing Roadways.

Understanding that the Housing Accountability Act applies, the City’s decision must be based on whether the Project meets objective, written and quantifiable standards. 4 (See Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(f).
1 Los Altos Hills Planning Department did not allow the applicant to submit a site development permit concurrently with the tentative map. The Tentative Map nonetheless contains the outline of the four new proposed residences. (See Tentative Map Sheet 6; see also Schematic Design for Lot 1, attached as Exhibit A and hereby incorporated by reference.)
2 The existing home straddles the property line and must be demolished. 3 The Applicant does not agree that multiple new units must be constructed in order for the Housing Accountability Act to apply. The term “housing development project” is defined in the Housing Accountability Act as a “use consisting of…(A) Residential units only…” (See Gov’t. Code §65589.5(h)(2)(A) [emphasis added].) The use proposed by the Tentative Map here is for residential units. Nowhere is there a requirement in the statute that two new units be constructed. Rather the term “housing development project” is specifically defined by the use, i.e., more than one residential unit and should cover any project consisting of more than one residential unit. This issue is moot, however, in light of the fact that multiple new residential units will be constructed on the property. 4 The Project’s compliance with the Lot Unit Factor appears to have been resolved and, as such, will not be addressed herein except to note that all prior arguments, including but not limited to the Applicants’ June 29, 2022 letter sent to Planning Commission, which is attached at Exhibit B and hereby incorporated by reference.

3 Moreover, if challenged, the burden will be on the City to support its decision by a preponderance of the evidence in the record (i.e., more likely than not).5

As the staff report recognizes, the County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airport Department (“Roads and Airport”) is “the only entity with jurisdiction over the roadway.” (See Staff Report for November 3, 2022 Planning Commission Packet (“PC Packet”) at p.7.) Because the Town of Los Altos does not have authority over Page Mill Road, the Applicants were required to obtain Roads and Airport’s approval of their proposed driveway design.

Then, as now, the County has approved the proposed design as meeting all objective safety standards. (See Item 4.3, Attachment 7 to PC Packet.) More recently, the County has concluded that a traffic safety mirror or reflection sculpture does not meet County standard requirements, and as such, cannot be considered within the road right-of-way. (See Staff Report for PC Packet at p. 8.) Roads and Airport is not just the approving authority over the driveway access to Page Mill Rd, it is specifically tasked with “protecting the traveling public’s interest and safety by insuring [sic] all construction in the public right-of-way (ROW) is design and constructed to County standards and specifications.” (https://countyroads.sccgov.org/about-roads-and-airports-department). As such, its employees are experts in traffic safety whose stated mission is to ensure that the roadways are safe. (See https://countyroads.sccgov.org/about-roads-and-airports-department [stating “[e]ach division [within the Roads and Airport Department] plays a key role to provide the traveling public with safe County roads…”].)
When neutral experts to whom the City of Los Altos Hills has delegated authority to manage and operate Page Mill Road have approved the proposed driveway as designed, this decision must be given substantial deference.

Third, the County’s Decision has been Confirmed in Multiple Traffic Study Reports, all of Which Show that Project Meets or Exceeds all Traffic Safety Standards.

Every traffic consultant and civil engineer who has evaluated the driveway access has found the driveway to meet or exceed all standards and specifications. Mr. Mike Milani is a licensed civil engineer and surveyor who prepared the first sight distance exhibits for the County.6 The County’s Senior Civil Engineer for the Roads and Airport Department later approved the driveway design in April of 2022. (See Item 4.3, Attachment 7 to PC Packet) As noted in the staff report, the Applicants have since conducted a 5 To that end, the Applicant objects to any ex parte communications, the contents of which are not fully disclosed and made a part of the record with an opportunity for the Applicant to respond. 6 The first traffic sight distance analysis was prepared by licensed civil engineer Mike Milani in connection with application #TM21-001. This exhibit is included as Figure 2 in Hexagon’s original traffic study, which included as Item 4.3., Attachment 4 to the PC Packet.

4 second traffic study by Hexagon, had that study peer reviewed by an outside consultant selected by City, and then have had Hexagon respond and address all issues in yet another traffic safety report. 7

Specifically:

1. A ball bank indicator test8 performed by Hexagon establishes that the southbound curve on Page Mill Road should have a 25 mph advisory posting and that an assumed speed of 30 mph is adequate. The ball bearing indicator revealed that drivers will experience unacceptable levels of discomfort traveling at 30 mph. According to Hexagon, “the curve would slow down traffic, so an assumed speed of 30 mph would be conservative.” (October 2022 Hexagon Traffic Study Report at p. 2.)

2. For the Northbound curves, the advisory speeds are at 15 mph and 20 mph. Hexagon’s ball bearing indicator tests showed that drivers will experience unacceptable levels of discomfort at 25 mph. As such, Hexagon has concluded that “design speed of 25 mph would be appropriate for the northbound direction.” (October 2022 Hexagon Traffic Study at p. 2.)

3. According to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the required stopping distance for a vehicle traveling at 25 mph is 150’ and for a vehicle traveling at 30 mph is 200’. Drivers can see at least 275’ in either direction.

4. Hexagon has further concluded that there is adequate sight distance “for exiting drivers to make the decision to safely turn out of the driveway and speed up in either direction.” (October 2022 Hexagon Traffic Study at p. 2.)
When Roads and Airport’s neutral and expert approval of the Applicant’s first traffic study prepared by a licensed engineer is later confirmed by two subsequent traffic studies by Hexagon, one of which the City has peer reviewed, there can be no reasonable argument that the driveway presents an unreasonable safety risk. The proposed driveway clearly meets all objective safety standards. 7 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (“Hexagon”) conducted a second traffic study in September of 2022. (See Item 4.3., Attachment 4 to the PC Packet.) Following a peer review by Traffic Patterns (see Item 4.3, Attachment 5 to PC Packet), Hexagon conducted additional tests and published an updated report on October 13, 2022 (“October 2022 Hexagon Traffic Study”) (see Item 4.3, Attachment 6 to the PC Packet.)
8 A ball bank indicator test is based on a weighted ball that floats in a curved glass tube. As a vehicle enters into a curve, the ball will deflect. That movement is measured in degrees of deflection. The measurement represents the combined effect of superelevation, lateral acceleration, and vehicle roll.

The allowable degree of deflection is higher for slower speeds. (See https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1122/ch3.cfm, United States Department of Transportation, Procedures for Setting Advisory Speeds on Curves, Chapter 3.6.)

5 ********
The Applicants have worked diligently with City staff to address all concerns during a 2-year long planning process. Unfortunately, the Project (#TM21-001) was denied at Council on August 18, 2022, with direction to reapply with additional traffic studies. While the Applicants opted to reapply versus litigating the matter, it is not lost on the Applicants that this first decision was a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. There was no objective evidence in the record to substantiate any safety concerns and none that would rise to the proof needed for the City justify its denial.

The City’s earlier denial caused the Applicants damage, and that damage (e.g.., holding costs, unnecessary consultant fees, attorney fees) continues to accumulate. Further delay and, certainly, any disapproval will be challenged in court. Subjective feelings about whether a proposed driveway is safe are no substitute for evidence from qualified experts that clearly shows the driveway meets or exceeds all written, objective, and quantifiable safety standards.

That said, we hope that the additional traffic studies have put to rest any concerns. We look forward to your full support for this Project at the upcoming hearings.

Regards,
Melanie Griswold

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

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.

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

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].)

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

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).)

From: Ben Goodger
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 9:13:40 PM
To: Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for lot split at 27600 Altamont Road
Hi Sofia,
My name is Ben Goodger and I have been a resident of Los Altos Hills since 2007. I'm writing to support the Auqui family project at 27600 Altamont Road ahead of the hearing on November 3. My family & I lived near the site from 2011-2022 on Briones Court so we are very familiar with the area. I'm also quite familiar with the town's developmental process as I have done three construction projects in the hills during the time I've lived here.

My understanding of Mr Auqui's property is that it is more than two acres, and his intent is to split it into two ~ 1 acre properties, and build new single family homes on each. He will occupy one with his family. He & his family are currently residing in the existing home on the property.

My wife and I are very familiar with Mr Auqui & his wife through their involvement with the Gardner Bullis School in Los Altos Hills, where both our sons attend. They are very involved and integrated with the community. Mr Auqui has an appreciation for Los Altos Hills & what it has to offer. Because he is committed to this community, he is making changes that will benefit everyone.

Mr Auqui and I recently walked the property, and he outlined his intentions, including improvements along the street side of Page Mill Road. The corner of Page Mill and Altamont is quite difficult to traverse, as visibility uphill is limited due to placement of the existing fence and overgrowth. Mr Auqui told me he intends to move the fence back 20 feet supporting a pedestrian/equestrian pathway on the Page Mill side, which will open a large corridor for visibility uphill. This will be a substantial improvement to the safety of this corner. Although my wife and I don't live in this area any longer, we do visit friends in the area regularly (including Mr Auqui) and I am convinced this change will be a substantial benefit to everyone.

I've reviewed Mr Auqui's plans, and find them to be wholly consistent with the character of Los Altos Hills and that location in particular. I believe it will substantially improve the safety and appearance of that corner in ways that benefit everyone whether they live in the area or are visiting. It's the type of development that I believe the Town was incorporated to support, and as such I encourage any relevant bodies to approve his applications swiftly. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.

Regards,
-
Ben Goodger
LosA!tos
Fremont Pines Lane
Hills CA 94022

From: John Lewis
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 11:19 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Areli Perez <[email protected]>; Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]> Subject: Subdivision at 27600 Altamont
Dear Planning Commissioners:

I had a chance to meet with Jim earlier this week regarding the proposed subdivision at 27600 Altamont and wanted to follow up by highlighting the safety issues that Jim and I discussed regarding the proposed driveway off of Page Mill Road.

The applicant is claiming that he has a 275 foot line of sight from the driveway. However, this line of sight runs through a hill on the other side of Page Mill. If you stand at the proposed driveway location, you will see that the hill obstructs the claimed line of sight. Jim measured the actual line of sight at this location at a little over 200 feet.

As per section 10-2.1102(a) of the Municipal Code, “[d]riveways shall enter the fronting road or street in such a manner as to provide safe sight distance and ease of ingress and egress.” In other words, the Municipal Code does not allow you to create a parcel that does not have a safe sight distance from the driveway.

The Caltrans Highway Design Manual indicates that the standard for measuring safe sight distance at an intersection, such as the one created by the proposed driveway and Page Mill Road, is the corner sight distance measurement. Specifically, the Highway Design Manual states, “[t]he minimum corner sight distance (feet) should be determined by the equation: 1.47VmTg, where Vm is the design speed (mph) and Tg is the time gap (seconds) for the minor road vehicle to enter the major road.” The traffic reports provided by the applicant indicate that a design speed of 30 mph should be used for a road with a speed limit of 25 mph, and the Highway Design Manual defines the time gap as 7.5 seconds for a passenger car and 9.5 seconds for a singleunit truck, such as a delivery truck. Thus, the minimum corner sight distance measurements from the proposed driveway are as follows:
 For a passenger car: 1.47(30)(7.5) = 330.75 feet
 For a delivery truck: 1.47(30)(9.5) = 418.95 feet
These distances are well over the line of sight distance present at the proposed driveway location. Therefore, the proposed driveway does not have safe sight distance as required by the Municipal Code.

Additionally, it is important to note that the applicant’s encroachment permit from Santa Clara County does not supersede the safety requirements imposed by the Municipal Code or mean in any way that these requirements have been met.

As you can see from the above, the applicant’s proposed driveway on Page Mill is just not safe for the community, and I urge you to recommend that the City Council deny the applicant’s tentative map.

Sincerely,
John Lewis

Keren Brunner
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Areli Perez
Thursday, November 3, 2022 1 :39 PM
Keren Brunner
Sofia Manqalam
Subject: FW: Regarding 27600 Altamont Road-Lands of Auqui and Putnam: note to be read at tonight's (Nov 3 2022) Public Hearing
Another supplemental for Item 4.3. This supplemental has not been sent to Planning Commission as it was emailed to only me directly.

LOO ALTOO HilJ.S

CALIFORKIA
Areli Perez
Assistant Planner
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-947-2504 IF: 650-941-3160
E: a erez Josaltoshills.ca.oov
Ii B Stay infonned.

Sign-up to take Town Swveys!
From: Shawn Mclaren
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Areli Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Regarding 27600 Altamont Road-Lands of Auqui and Putnam: note to be read at tonight's (Nov 3 2022) Public Hearing
Regarding 27600 Altamont Road-Lands of Auqui and Putnam: this is William Mclaren. I have lived for 36 years immediately next door at-Altamont Road to this property. I believe there is a report regarding the safety of the location of the driveway off Page Mill Road which is based on the belief that people will drive down Page Mill Road as they should and will of course obey warning signs as they careen down the road. 'Should' does not equal 'will'.

I don't understand how anyone can see this in another way. All neighbors that opined pointed out Page Hill is NOT a road where you can expect the drivers to pay attention to warning signs in part because so often they are driving too fast to notice.

I think the fact that there is even a question about the safety of the proposed driveway is bizarre and I know others who LIVE AND DRIVE on Page Mill share that view.

Please read this comment at tonight's meeting.

Thank you.

William Mclaren

# # # # SHEET INDEX NO. DESCRIPTION 1 NO. REVISIONS BY LOS ALTOS HILLS APP DATE MICHAEL E. MILANI MEM MEM KRA DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: CALIFORNIA DATE 2015 SCALE: AUGUST 2022 OF SHEETS 7 SHEET SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN 182-028-026 AS SHOWN DESIGN: DRAWN: CHECKED: JOB NO: DATE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP RCE 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 09/30/23 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD PLS 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12/31/23 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N COVER SHEET AND NOTES Item 4.3 Attachment 9

# # # # # # NO. REVISIONS BY LOS ALTOS HILLS APP DATE MICHAEL E. MILANI MEM MEM KRA DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: CALIFORNIA DATE 2015 SCALE: AUGUST 2022 OF SHEETS 7 SHEET SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN 182-028-026 AS SHOWN DESIGN: DRAWN: CHECKED: JOB NO: DATE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP RCE 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 09/30/23 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD PLS 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12/31/23 2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

# # # # # # NO. REVISIONS BY LOS ALTOS HILLS APP DATE MICHAEL E. MILANI MEM MEM KRA DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: CALIFORNIA DATE 2015 SCALE: AUGUST 2022 OF SHEETS 7 SHEET SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN 182-028-026 AS SHOWN DESIGN: DRAWN: CHECKED: JOB NO: DATE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP RCE 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 09/30/23 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD PLS 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12/31/23 3 DEMOLITION PLAN

# # # # # # # # # # NO. REVISIONS BY LOS ALTOS HILLS APP DATE MICHAEL E. MILANI MEM MEM KRA DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: CALIFORNIA DATE 2015 SCALE: AUGUST 2022 OF SHEETS 7 SHEET SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN 182-028-026 AS SHOWN DESIGN: DRAWN: CHECKED: JOB NO: DATE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP RCE 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 09/30/23 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD PLS 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12/31/23 4 LOTTING EXHIBIT EXISTING LOT PROPOSED LOTS

#
# # NO. REVISIONS BY LOS ALTOS HILLS APP DATE MICHAEL E. MILANI MEM MEM KRA DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: CALIFORNIA DATE 2015 SCALE: AUGUST 2022 OF SHEETS 7 SHEET SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN 182-028-026 AS SHOWN DESIGN: DRAWN: CHECKED: JOB NO: DATE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP RCE 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 09/30/23 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD PLS 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12/31/23 5 LUF TOPOGRAPHY

# # # # # # # # # # # # NO. REVISIONS BY LOS ALTOS HILLS APP DATE MICHAEL E. MILANI MEM MEM KRA DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: CALIFORNIA DATE 2015 SCALE: AUGUST 2022 OF SHEETS 7 SHEET SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN 182-028-026 AS SHOWN DESIGN: DRAWN: CHECKED: JOB NO: DATE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP RCE 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 09/30/23 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD PLS 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12/31/23 6 160' CIRCLE COMPLIANCE - MASTER PLOT PLAN & UTILITY PLAN

# # # # # # NO. REVISIONS BY LOS ALTOS HILLS APP DATE MICHAEL E. MILANI MEM MEM KRA DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: CALIFORNIA DATE 2015 SCALE: AUGUST 2022 OF SHEETS 7 SHEET SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN 182-028-026 AS SHOWN DESIGN: DRAWN: CHECKED: JOB NO: DATE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP RCE 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 09/30/23 27600 ALTAMONT ROAD PLS 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12/31/23 7 PARCEL "B" - SIGHTING DISTANCE EXHIBIT INTERSECTION SIGHTING EXHIBIT - 25 MPH PAGE MILL ROAD DWY INTERSECTION - PARCEL "B"

2

1 Deborah Padovan
Subject: FW: 27600 Altamont Rd
From: Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:29 PM
To: Deborah Padovan <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 27600 Altamont Rd
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: Melanie Griswold <
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]>
Cc: Gustavo Auqui ; 'Robert L Putnam' ; 'Mike Milani'
Subject: 27600 Altamont Rd
Dear Sofia,
I am writing to address the recent objections to the subdivision regarding the slope and potential grading for the driveway. I want to emphasize that we have already evaluated how to engineer the driveway when we move into the site development phase, and our civil engineer is confident that the driveway will meet all relevant guidelines and safety standards.  It is also important to note the following:

First, in our initial subdivision application, the applicants submitted a driveway design, we were asked by City staff to remove all driveway profiles and engineering since it was not part of the tentative map process.  Because the City has already decided that the driveway design is not part of the tentative map process, the most recent round of objections from Mr. Lewis should be disregarded.

Second, even if the objections of Mr. Lewis were to be considered ‐ which they should not – his objections lack merit for the following reasons:

1. The Fire Department has already reviewed and approved the initial design. It has also conditioned any future approvals on the driveway’s consistency with the residential standards for driveway service (see proposed Condition Supplemental No. 6
AGENDA ITEM #6.B
Distributed 11/17/22

2 of Approval (“COA”)  #27). As such, the condition of approval already incorporates the need for compliance with the relevant standards.

2. The County has also reviewed and approved the initial design of the driveway. Once the subdivision is approved, the first 10’ of the driveway will fall under the jurisdiction of the County for it to review whether the driveway engineering complies with its standards. Los Altos City’s General Plan standards do not apply to land that is not within its jurisdiction. Also, as with the Fire Department approvals, because County approval is required prior to issuance of building permit, this means that the driveway design within County jurisdiction must conform to its standards.

3. Any assertion that the driveway will not be able to comply with the relevant standards is wholly speculative and lacking in any factual basis. Because driveway design is not part of the subdivision approval process, there are no driveway engineering plans before Council tonight.  As such, there is nothing for the City Council to evaluate. Once plans are prepared, the Public Works Department, Fire Department and the County will review the driveway design (see, e.g., COA #20, #27) based on the work of licensed civil engineers and fire safety experts – not unhappy neighbors who wish to block the project.  When we get to this point, we are confident that the plans will meet all relevant City and County standards.

Finally, the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act requires all housing development projects to be evaluated against objective standards and for there to be substantial evidence supporting any decision to deny a project.  Any consideration of belated, speculative objections to a driveway design that is not before City Council because the applicants were explicitly instructed not to provide driveway engineering plans runs afoul of the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act.

The applicants have done everything asked of them and more.  Most recently, they have provided the requisite traffic studies to prove that the proposed project is safe and meets all applicable requirements.

We appreciate the staff support for our project and we ask that City Council be advised to disregard the driveway design objections and to approve the project as recommended by your staff and the Planning Commission.

Kind regards,
Melanie Griswold
DRE: #0260412 I SBN #234917

AGENDA ITEM #7

7. REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS ON STANDING COMMITTEES, AD HOC

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Mayor Tyson) B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)
C. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Subcommittee and Outside Agencies Activities There are no reports for these items. They will be presented verbally.

AGENDA ITEM #7

7. REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS ON STANDING COMMITTEES, AD HOC

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Mayor Tyson) B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)
C. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Subcommittee and Outside Agencies Activities There are no reports for these items. They will be presented verbally.

AGENDA ITEM #7

7. REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS ON STANDING COMMITTEES, AD HOC

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Mayor Tyson) B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)
C. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Subcommittee and Outside Agencies Activities There are no reports for these items. They will be presented verbally.