Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2023

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 192
Table 64 RHNA Shortfall
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Base RHNA 125 72 82 210 489
ADUs 48 48 48 16 160
SB 9 +
Associated
ADUs
4 5 5 18 32
Single Family
Subdivision 0 0 0 48 48
Total Units 52 53 53 82 240
Remaining
Need 73 19 29 128 249
The Town’s overall strategy is to accommodate the RHNA shortfall through adopting a Multifamily Infill Overlay zone (MF-IO), rezoning of the Twin Oaks Court and Arastradero Road parcels to multifamily residential, along with new City policies and creating programs to facilitate increased ADU production, SB 9 production, and increased density in the R-A zone.

These strategies will allow the Town to fully meet its housing needs for all income levels during the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

RHNA Strategy
A key component of the Town’s RHNA strategy is to create a Multi-family Infill Overlay (MFIO) zone, which will allow multi-family development and increased densities on identified institutional use sites. The Town will adopt standards to allow and facilitate multi-family development in the zone, which will be used for the multi-family infill overlay. The properties have a total realistic capacity of 397 285 units. Of these, 192 135 are counted towards the above moderate-income RHNA, 55 40 for the moderate RHNA, and 150 110 toward the lower-income RHNA.

Rezoning of the six (67) Twin Oaks Court parcels and 27690 Arastradero Rd parcel will add a significant amount of housing capacity, . The properties have a total projected capacity of 92 units. Of these, 49 are counted towards the above moderate-income RHNA, 13 for the moderate RHNA, and 30 toward the lower-income RHNA. The Twin Oaks Court and Arastradero Road properties meet the following criteria:
▪ The properties are adjacent to an arterial roadway; and ▪ The six (6) Twin Oaks Court parcels have a net developable site of approximately 7.5 acres (under common ownership); and
▪ The property owners of 27690 Arastradero Road has submitted a letter of interest and commitment to build within the 6th cycle planning period; and

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 193
▪ The Town has received an application for a mixed-income development of the Twin Oaks Court parcels which includes lower-income and senior housing in excess of the projected number of units (80); and
▪ The properties are not used for utility, public, or private right-of-way purposes.

The overlay zone and rezoninge strategies will provide increased housing capacity in prime areas with excellent access to employment centers and educational facilities. The Town has proposed a program to initiate the zoning amendments to create a new multifamily zone with objective development standards and design guidelines (Program A-1). Multi-family zoning districts will provide a streamlined approval process for projects that are consistent with objective development standards and design guidelines. All projects with affordable housing will receive expedited approval under Program B-1.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 194
Site Descriptions
Figure 43: RHNA Site Inventory

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 195
Non-Vacant Sites
Government Code Section 65583.2 (g) (2) states that housing elements relying on non-vacant sites for more than 50 percent of their lower-income RHNA units must demonstrate that the existing uses of these sites do not impede additional residential development. This government code section does not apply to the Town of Los Altos Hills, as less than 50 percent of the lower income units are achieved through the use of non-vacant sites. More than 50 percent of the site inventory is achieved through vacant sites, pending projects, and ADUs, as shown in Table 65.

Los Altos Hills has very little non-constrained vacant land that is available for development.

However, in accordance with HCD Sites Inventory Guidebook (page 26) for calculating the percentage of lower-income households (LIH) on vacant and non-vacant sites, 65% of the 197 RHNA for lower-income household units will be provided on vacant lands. The 129 lower-income units on vacant sites include 96 ADUs, nine SB 9 associated ADUs, and 24 units on the three vacant Twin Oaks parcels. The remaining 68 (35%) lower-income households LIH units could be on non-vacant sites (Foothill College and the St. Nicholas School). This totals to 129 units, or 65 percent of the lower income RHNA, achieved through vacant sites and ADUs. Government Code Section 65583.2 (g) (2) requires housing elements relying on non-vacant sites for more than 50 percent of their lower-income RHNA units to demonstrate that the existing uses of these sites do not impede additional residential development. As 65 percent of the lower-income households RHNA units are achieved through vacant sites and ADUs, only 35 percent of lower income units are achieved through non-vacant sites.

Therefore, pursuant to Government Code 65583.2(g)(2), Los Altos Hills does not require the City Council to adopt findings that the existing uses will not be an impediment to the development of the site for housing.

However, since the January 31, 2023 adoption of the housing element update, the Town has received substantial evidence demonstrating that the existing uses do not impede development of housing during the planning period.

The Town has received a preliminary application from the owners of the Twin Oaks Court rezone site to develop mixed-income senior and farmworker and employee housing including a community center, gymnasium. The project proposes to construct at least 80 lower and moderate-income units, (exceeding 100% of the 24 lower- and 10 moderateincome RHNA units projected for the site), along with 120+ units of senior housing and a few additional units for current management of the property as well as some limited ownership units.

The Town has received a letter from the owner of a 2.15-acre lot on Arastradero Road immediately adjacent to the Twin Oaks Court parcels requesting to be included in the rezone to multifamily and their intention to build affordable multifamily units within the planning period.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 196
The Town has also received a letter from Foothill College that confirms the interest and affirmative actions, including $246,000 grant funded studies of the feasibility of affordable housing for the student and faculty and employees of the Foothill and DeAnza colleges, and $200 million in funding for housing for the period between January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2027.

The application and rezoning request letter from the adjacent lot demonstrates that the existing single family uses on two of the seven parcels is not an impediment. Further, the letter from Foothill College demonstrates the interest in affordable housing that would complement the existing educational uses and facilities on the property. In aggregate, these demonstrate the market feasibility, developer interest, and the effectiveness of the proposed zoning plan to build affordable housing in Los Altos Hills.

Each site has one or more areas of available land suitable for development that are undeveloped or underdeveloped portions of the site with existing road access, full utility service, and free of significant environmental constraints. The site location and design and placement will be determined by the site owners. The site suitability analysis also prioritized parcels that included available areas of roughly 5 acres or more because these are the preferred size for the most cost effective development of affordable housing. To support the development of affordable housing, the Town will provide technical assistance through efforts including but not limited to site design, permit processing, and site placement (Program A-9).

There is no intent to replace any of the existing uses. The Town wants to retain the existing institutional uses. It is expected new housing development on the properties will be infill development only. It is possible, but not necessary, that the property owners. or new housing developers, may wish to subdivide the property to create new parcels to allow separate and independent ownership. The Town will support and facilitate subdivision as part of any development application if desired by the owner or developer. Subdivision is a normal and routine process that does not impose any significant constraint on the overall development program.

Appendix C - Owner, Developer Interest includes a variety of materials demonstrating recent owner and developer interest in development of housing on LAH RHNA sites and similar projects in the region. The Town worked closely with Foothill College to revise the draft HEU to address and response to its comments on the public review draft. The appendix includes a letter from Foothill that accepts the revised HEU including the planned addition of the multifamily overlay zone on the college site.

The realistic development potential of the non-vacant sites was determined by a review of the existing site conditions. Areas suitable for infill development were identified. They typically include undeveloped lands with moderate or flat slopes, large surface parking lots.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 197
The non-vacant nature of the properties is an advantage since they already include road access and utility connections and the lands are generally previously disturbed, graded, and do not have any known environmental constraints, are free and independent of existing buildings and operations. The potential sites each have the potential for creating lots for multi-family units for student and faculty housing without demolishing any structures or primary uses.

The size of several such suitable areas were identified. The realistic potential was calculated only on these areas. These net developable areas were then multiplied by the average permissible density of 30 dwelling units per acre for the institutional properties. The minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre was used to calculate the realistic yield for the noninstitutional site. The very high land and residential values and desire to live in Los Altos Hills will create a very strong financial incentive to develop the properties with the permitted number of units.

In addition to identifying only net suitable acreage, the maximum yields were reduced by a conservative factor of 50% to reflect the likelihood of development within the next eight years. This allows for a variety of different housing types and densities. Although the densities would allow 100% of the units to be counted toward the lower-income RHNA, these realistic yields were then distributed among the very low, low, moderate- and abovemoderate income categories. The non-vacant institutional sites were generally split 40/60 for lower-income and moderate- and above moderate income households. The noninstitutional site was split 30/70. The slightly higher percentage of lower-income units for the institutional uses was based upon the larger trends of such institutions to build mostly affordable, below-market rate units. Because the net buildable areas are relatively independent of the existing buildings and operations, the existing uses will not impede the residential development. No change to existing uses is necessary.

The existing zoning code sets forth development capacity standards for single-family and institutional uses in the form of Maximum Development Area (MDA) and Maximum Floor Area (MFA). The new multifamily overlay zone will include new developments standards that allow and promote the development of the full projected development capacity of each site.

If the existing MDA and MFA standards were applied today, the 17.2-acre St. Nicholas property would be allowed an MDA of approximately 182,633 square feet and MFA of approximately 82,835 square feet. The school has utilized approximately 50% of allowable MFA and thus there is excess capacity to accommodate additional potential residential developments. Additional development capacity standards will be implemented for multifamily housing as a part of the proposed overlay zone.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 198
Table 65: Lower-Income Site Capacity
Category Units % of Lower-Income RHNA
Low and Very Low Income RHNA 197 100%
50% of Low and Very Low Income RHNA 99 50%
Total Lower-Income Households Units Provided: 129 65%
Lower Income Projected ADUs 96 48%
Lower Income Projected SB 9 + Associated
ADUs 9 5%
Lower Income Capacity - Vacant Sites 24 12%
Excess Capacity beyond 50% 30
The following discusses the non-vacant sites where overlay zones are proposed to allow for multi-family housing to meet the RHNA and housing needs.

Foothill College
The Foothill College site consists of a portion of three parcels located along El Monte Road with a gross area of approximately 124 acres. As a part of the Town’s planned Multi-family Infill Overlay Zone to allow and facilitate multi-family residential to meet the RHNA, the adopted overlay would allow a projected density of 30 du/ac. The Town would allow Foothill College to develop approximately 14.5 cumulative acres on the campus as that is the amount of acreage that can realistically be developed without the displacement or removal of any existing use on the campus (through redevelopment or building retrofitting).

The property could accommodate a mix of incomes within the housing allocation.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 199
Figure 44 Foothill College Parcels
Looking north on College Loop Road

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 200
Table 66 Foothill College Site Profile
Foothill College Description
APN(s) 17541014, 17541015, 17541016
Size (gross acreage) 124
Net Buildable/Developable AcresBuilding
Sites (2+)
14+2 suitable development sites: 7+9.5- and 4.5-
acre sites
Existing Zoning R-A
Existing General Plan Designation Institutional Public School Proposed General Plan Designation/Zoning Institutional/Multi-family Projected Incomes Mix
Total Projected Units 210
Very Low Income 55
Low Income 25
Moderate Income 35
Above Moderate Income 95
There are few if any environmental constraints on the site campus as the large site 124-acre property was developed in the 1970s as a college campus and most of the property was graded and developed over the next 50 years. The only areas of the site with more significant constraints would be along Adobe Creek which crosses through the southerly portion of the campus and Purissima Creek which flows along the northerly side. No development would be permitted within 25 feet of these creeks and all riparian habitats would need to be protected.

The site campus is located directly off the Interstate 280/El Monte Road interchange with access provided via El Monte Road at the southern boundary of the site. Currently, wWater, public sewer, and dry utilities are all available on the property.

The existing use is a school campus consisting of multiple buildings, parking lots, and sports courts/fields.

Surrounding uses include low-density residential, one faith-based facility (St. Luke’s Chapel In the Hills), and one kindergarten through 8th grade school (St. Nicholas Catholic School) within a mile of the site. This site also has access to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus lines (Route 40 and 52) that serve Foothill College with several stops located on the campus as well as adjacent to the campus along El Monte Ave.

In 2021, Foothill-De Anza Community College District created an Affordable Housing Task Force to find solutions to housing insecurity within the district community. The task force meets monthly and in November 2021, it submitted a California Community College Planning Grant to fund a feasibility study to explore building student housing on the De Anza College

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 201
campus and Foothill College campus and begin the planning process for construction. The College received two $132,000 grants. The study is underway and expected to be completed in 2023. See Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest, for the letter from the College summarizing its interest and actions in support of affordable housing the students, faculty and staff.

The College will determine the nature, extent, type and location of any housing based on the feasibility study, the colleges mission and goals, and in consultation with housing developers.

Surface parking areas are among the most likely areas to accommodate infill housing. Two parking lots, approximately 9.5 and 4.5 acres in area are located at the northern and southwestern portions of the campus property. Both sites are accessed by the loop road through the campus. The parking lots are easily developed since they already have road access and utilities, a lack of habitat or environmental constraints. Some of the parking spaces would be converted from spaces for daily commuters to resident parking. Depending on the site and building design, some of surface parking areas may replaced with a parking structure. Both could be developed and maintained by the College as part of the campus, or sold or leased to a housing developer.

St. Nicholas Catholic School
The St. Nicholas Catholic School site consists of two parcels located off El Monte Road with a gross area of approximately 17 acres. Existing uses include a school, a chapel, a parking lot, a residence used by the Catholic Church, and open space. As a part of the Town’s planned overlay zone to allow for multi-family residential to meet the RHNA, the future multi-family overlay administered to the property would allow for a projected 75 total units. The property is expected to accommodate a mix of incomes within the housing allocation.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 202
Figure 45 St. Nicholas Catholic School Parcels
Looking north on Voorhees Drive

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 203
Table 67 St. Nicholas Catholic School Site Profile
St. Nicholas School Description
APN(s) 33621003, 33621004
Size (gross acreage) 17.2
Net Buildable/Developable AcresBuilding Site 5+ acres
Existing Zoning R-A
Existing General Plan Designation Institutional Religious, Residential Proposed Zoning R-A, Institutional Multi-family Infill Overlay Proposed General Plan Designation Institutional Religious, Residential, Multi-family Projected Incomes Mix
Total Units 75
Very Low Income 25
Low Income 5
Moderate Income 5
Above Moderate Income 40
The school buildings, parking lot and playfields encompass less than 50% of the total site and the facility consists of low-rise, single-story structures. The property contains ample room to accommodate new residential units by developing the vacant, approximately 5-acre portion on the north side of the site above El Monte Road.

The northern five-acre portion of the St. Nicholas school property is vacant and independent of the school facilities and operations to the south. The 5-acre site is located between El Monte Road and the campus facilities. The site has over 800 feet of frontage along El Monte Road and is accessible from an existing paved service road off the school access road at the west side of the property. There is also a separate entry gate and second access driveway and several internal service roads from the eastern end of the property near the intersection of El Monte Road and O'Keefe Lane. This access and roads served the original estate and orchard uses on the property that have since been removed. The former home site and roads suggest a useful layout and suitability for multifamily development.

Currently, there is a driveway leading up from the parking lot and there is an old access road that leads down to El Monte Road. This identified portion of the property has a high potential to be developed as there are no existing structures, the site has been previously disturbed, there is availability of water, sewer and other utilities, and the area at the top of the hill is relatively flat.

The adopted overlay zone will allow for a density of 30 du/ac to incentivize and allow residential redevelopment. The maximum unit capacity for this site is 150 units, while the realistic capacity assumed for this site is 75 units. The site is in close proximity to Foothill

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 204
Community College on the other side of I-280, and less than one mile from Covington Elementary School in the City of Los Altos, where residents travel for a majority of goods and services and community facilities that support residential development. This site also has good access to transit. There are two VTA bus lines (Route 40 and 52) that serve the site, with the stops located along its El Monte Avenue frontage.

The existing zoning code sets forth development capacity standards for single-family and institutional uses in the form of Maximum Development Area (MDA) and Maximum Floor Area (MFA). These standards are expected to be revised as part of the new Multifamily Overlay Zone to allow and promote the full planned potential number of units. However, if applied as they exist today, the 17.2-acre St. Nicholas property would have an MDA of approximately 182,633 square feet and MFA of approximately 82,835 square feet. The school has utilized approximately 50% of allowable MFA and thus there is excess capacity to accommodate additional potential residential developments. Additional development capacity standards will be implemented for multi-family as a part of the proposed overlay zone.

The Town has been in contact with the school and received positive initial feedback regarding the potential for new housing at the project site.

Vacant and Single-Family Homes (Rezone Sites)
Twin Oaks Court and Arastradero Road
Twin Oaks Court and Arastradero Road consists of three undeveloped/vacant parcels and three four parcels with single-family structures. The site is located in northwest Los Altos Hills with a gross area of approximately 12 14.6 acres. Existing zoning allows for single-family residential. As part of the Town’s overlay rezoninge strategy to meet the RHNA, the parcels would have an overlay zone to will be rezoned to allow multi-family development at a minimum of 20 and up to 30 dwelling units per net acre. The Twin Oaks Court parcels site isare assumed to have a developable area of 7.5 acres, a maximum yield of 225 units and a realistic capacity of 77 total units within the next eight years. The Arastradero Road parcel is assumed to have a developable area of 1.5 acres, a maximum yield of and a realistic capacity of 15 units in the next eight years. The properties are expected to accommodate a mix of income of the housing allocation. The properties could be developed separately or combined and developed together.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 205
Figure 46 Twin Oaks Court and Arastradero Road Rezone Sites

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 206
Table 68 Twin Oaks Court & Arastradero Rezone Site Profile Twin Oaks Court Description
APN(s) 18202017, 18202018, 18202019, 18202020,
18202021, 18202022, 18202007
Size (gross acreage) 1215
Net Buildable/Developable Acres 78.5+
Existing Zoning R-A
Existing General Plan Designation Single Family Residential Proposed Zoning Multi-family Infill Overlay20-30
Proposed General Plan Designation Multi-family Infill Overlay Projected Incomes Mix
Total Units 7792
Very Low Income 1720
Low Income 710
Moderate Income 1013
Above Moderate Income 4349
These lots have a high potential for concurrent development, as all parcels are under common ownership. This common ownership means that lot acquisition and consolidation would not be necessary for a larger project over multiple parcels.

The property has slopes that could potentially reduce the yield of the property. A very minor portion of the 6 lots are over 40 percent slope and there is a conservation easement recorded. There are four existing utility easements on the property. These constraints were accounted for in the realistic capacity calculation through a reduction from the maximum yield of the property and are not expected to significantly inhibit or prevent development on the property. The properties are bordered on the northwest by Interstate 280 and have existing steep slopes between 13 percent and 35 percent for the northernmost parcels.

The site is accessed via Twin Oaks Court via Arastradero Road, which runs parallel to Interstate 280; Arastradero Road connects the east side and west side of Los Altos Hills and provides a great connection to Stanford Business Park, a large employment center also located off Arastradero Road and directly north of the Town. A bus shuttle operated by Stanford University serves a portion of the business park with a shuttle stop that is approximately one mile from this site.

The Twin Oaks Court site has access to existing water, electricity, and gas services on Arastradero Road along the site frontage. The Town also has public sewer mains nearby on Saddle Mountain Road and on Stirrup Road. To connect to the public sewers, the site development will require an extension on the existing public sewer mains, and an installation

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 207
of a private sewer force main to discharge into the public sewers. Sewer connections are not expected to be a constraint on the development of the RHNA units, as adequate capacity is available close by, as sewer connections can be made in a cost-effective and efficient manner for future residential construction. The Town will implement a program to coordinate with the Purissima Hills Water District to expand water rights or increase water conservation and provide water for the RHNA units (Program B-8).

Ability to Meet the RHNA
Using the realistic assumptions listed above, the Town will have adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA for all income levels after the creation of the overlay zone.

Table 69 illustrates the residential capacity that is being counted toward the RHNA. The Town has adequate sites at all income levels. The inventory includes a total lower-income capacity of 236 units, exceeding the 197 units to achieve a 15 percent buffer. The inventory accommodates 98 moderate units, 4 units above what is required to achieve a 15 percent buffer. The inventory also supports 254 above-moderate units, exceeding the RHNA plus 15 percent buffer requirement of 242 units.

Table 69 Housing Capacity
Category Very
Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Total Requirement with 15% Buffer 144 83 94 242 563
ADUs 48 48 48 16 160
SB 9 + Associated ADUs 4 5 5 18 32
Single Family Homes 48 48
Overlay and Rezone Zone Sites:

Foothill College 55 25 35 95 210
St. Nicholas School 25 5 5 40 75
Twin Oaks Court 17 7 10 43 77
Arastradero Road 3 3 3 6 15
Total Capacity 149152 9093 103106 260266 602617
Surplus 58 710 912 1824 5439
Constraints
The site inventory analysis takes into consideration any environmental constraints such as habitat, flood, noise hazards, and steep slopes, among others. Any environmental constraints that would lower the potential yield (e.g., steep slopes) have already been accounted for in the site/unit capacity analysis. In general, the deductions in the yield from

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 208
the maximum will cover and accommodate any reductions in site capacity due to environmental constraints.

Site-specific constraints, including environmental constraints, are noted in the site description of each site. Steep slopes, easements, and any other known constraints were considered in the calculation of the realistic capacity. The capacity of the sites were reduced from the maximum capacity to accommodate for known constraints on the sites. No other environmental or other constraints are known.

Analyzed constraints considered in realistic capacity calculations for Foothill College include areas along Adobe Creek on Foothill College campus where no development would be permitted within 25 feet, and the need to accommodate development without displacing existing uses. Topographic constraints for St. Nicholas School and Twin Oaks considered in the realistic capacity of both sites and the yields were reduced from the maximum capacity to account for areas with steep slopes. Twin Oaks parcels contain a number of utility easements and small portion of the site with over 40 percent slope that were also accounted for in a reduction from the maximum capacity.

Foothill College, St. Nicholas School, and Twin Oaks all have no known contamination, and access and the shape of the parcels would not preclude or impact development.

Infrastructure
Full urban-level infrastructure services are available to most of the sites in the inventory, including St. Nicholas School and Foothill College, and could be expanded if necessary to accommodate the new units. The Twin Oaks Court site has access to water, electricity and gas lines that are located within Arastradero Road along the site frontage. The Town has sewer mains located on Saddle Mountain Road, approximately 1,000 feet uphill from the site or downhill on Arastradero Road about 1 mile to the northeast. Development on the site will require short extensions or laterals for the multi-family residential development. Such connections are not expected to be a constraint on the development of the RHNA units, as adequate capacity is located close by and can be extended in a cost-effective and efficient manner for future residential construction. The Town will implement a program to coordinate with the Purisima Water District to expand water rights or increase water conservation and provide water for the RHNA units.

Topography
The Town of Los Altos Hills has many areas with slope constraints as most of the Town lies on rolling hills. The St. Nicholas School, Arastradero Road, and Twin Oaks Court sites contain some areas of moderately steep slopes; however, they are not anticipated to constrain the site capacity below what was assumed in the RHNA as there are adequate areas with less than 20% slopes that can accommodate the proposed development. Topographical

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 209
constraints were considered in the realistic capacity of both sites and the yields were reduced from the maximum capacity to account for areas with steep slopes.

Fire Hazard Areas
Although the Town of Los Altos Hills does not have areas identified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, there are areas of high and moderate fire severity zones primarily on the lands west of Interstate 280, with smaller portions off Old Page Mill Road and on the La Cresta ridgeline (see Figure 47). The Town has also adopted the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) regulations from the California Building Code for all properties in the Town Limits. For example, these WUI regulations require ignition resistant exterior wall and roof materials, tempered glass for doors and windows, and enclosed roof eaves and louvered roof vents. In addition, the Town’s regulations (Title 4, Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code) include spark arrestors, reduction or removal of vegetation around structures, outdoor fireplace regulations and other codes to reduce fire risks to new and existing structures. CalFire is currently in the process of updating the fire hazard severity zone maps for the state which should provide more clarity of the fire hazard zones in the Town. In any event, the Town has taken the proactive step of adopting the WUI standards town-wide, therefore, all new development will require that structures meet the WUI regulations in the building code.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 210
Figure 47 Los Altos Hills Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Flooding
Portions of Los Altos Hills fall into flood hazard zones as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Figure 48 displays the special flood hazard areas in Los Altos Hills. The vast majority of the Town falls into Zone X, which has a 0.2 percent or less annual chance of flooding; these areas are not subject to special standards.

A few areas located along the creeks in the Town fall within the AE and AH zones, which indicate areas that are subject to inundation by 1 percent annual chance of shallow flooding.

Foothill College is the only RHNA site that falls within the AE and AH zone. While the Town has development standards for building near a creek bank, it is not considered a major constraint to housing production as the flood zone areas on the campus do not encompass the potential development sites for multi-family housing. Furthermore, the Foothill College site is already disturbed and no proposed development would encroach on the adjacent creeks. The Town does not have any RHNA sites within floodways, which is a water channel that directly conveys stormwater and experiences rapid velocities during wet weather events.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 211
Figure 48 Los Altos Hills Special Flood Hazard Area

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 212
Figure 49 Flood Hazard Foothill College
Financial Resources
Santa Clara County provides funding and subsidies for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of housing units for lower-income households in Los Altos Hills. Many of these programs capture funding from the state and federal governments and administer the money for local tenants, owners, and developers of affordable housing.

Countywide Programs
Community Development Block Grant
The Town of Los Altos Hills is a Participating Jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME Program). Program administration is provided by the County’s Office of Supportive Housing.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 213
CDBG funds are provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are meant to be a flexible way of giving communities the resources to provide suitable housing, improve livability, and enhance economic opportunity, with the provision of affordable housing being one of the program’s major goals. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance, economic development, homeless assistance, and public services.

Through Program C-3, the Town will continue to participate through Santa Clara County in the federal housing and CDBG program.

Home Investment Partnerships Program
The HOME Program is federally funded by HUD to provide decent affordable housing to lower-income households. The HOME Program is administered on behalf of the Urban County cities, which include Los Altos Hills.

Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is a rental assistance program that helps very low-income families to live in market-rate housing units rather than public housing.

Households are provided with vouchers that are paid to private market-rate landlords, who are then reimbursed by HUD. In addition to the regular voucher program, Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) administers special housing programs, including the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Program, Mainstream Program, and Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV).
▪ The VASH Program is for homeless veterans with severe psychiatric or substance abuse disorders. SCCHA and Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) have partnered to provide rental vouchers and supportive services to eligible veterans. The veteran must demonstrate to the VAMC that he/she is homeless (has been living outdoors, in a shelter, in an automobile, etc.) before being evaluated for this program. ▪ The Mainstream Program is designed to provide assisted housing to persons with disabilities to enable them to rent suitable and accessible housing in the private rental market. Mainstream applicants are offered a voucher as allocations become available.

Participants must be participating in programs of rehabilitation and/or support services within the community that are directly related to their disability. ▪ The EHV program is available through the American Rescue Plan Act. Through EHV, HUD provided SCCHA with 664 housing vouchers to assist individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness; fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking; or were recently homeless or have a high risk of housing instability.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 214
Project-Based Voucher Program
The Project-Based Voucher Program provides rental assistance to households living in specific housing sites. Because the rental assistance is tied to the unit, a family who moves (voluntarily or through eviction) no longer qualifies to receive housing assistance. The SCCHA administers different waiting lists by bedroom size for each project-based housing site.

These housing sites are either multi-family or senior housing developments.

Statewide Programs
No Place Like Home
The No Place Like Home program provides loans to eligible counties to acquire, design, construct, rehabilitate or preserve permanent supportive housing for persons who are experiencing homelessness or chronic homelessness, or who are at risk of chronic homelessness, and who need mental health services. Projects funded must be apartment complexes of 5 or more units.

Energy Conservation
The primary uses of energy in Los Altos Hills are for transportation, lighting, water heating, and space heating and cooling. The high cost of energy demands that efforts be taken to reduce or minimize the overall level of urban energy consumption. Energy conservation is important in preserving nonrenewable fuels to ensure that these resources are available for use by future generations. Several benefits are also associated with energy conservation, including improved air quality and lower energy costs.

The Town’s energy goals, stated in the Conservation Element of the General Plan, make every effort to conserve energy in the Town, thus reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The Town’s policies relating to energy include encouraging the use of alternative energy systems; green building that maximizes opportunities for solar energy use and energy conservation; and promoting energy-conserving standards and requirements for new construction including the requirement that all new dwellings have all electric water and space heating systems.

The Town encourages the use of both passive and active solar energy conservation techniques in building design and siting. To encourage the use of solar power, Los Altos Hills has developed the following incentives:
▪ Building permit fees are waived for the construction or installation of solar energy generation equipment.
▪ For ground-mounted photovoltaic systems, up to 500 square feet may be exempt from development area calculations.

The California Building Standards Code includes green building regulations, referred to as CALGreen (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). This is the nation’s first mandatory statewide green building code, intended to encourage more sustainable and

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 215
environmentally friendly building practices, require low pollution-emitting substances to minimize harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy-efficient materials and equipment.

CALGreen requirements for new buildings include:
▪ Reduce water consumption by 20 percent;
▪ Divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills; ▪ Install low pollutant-emitting materials;
▪ Separate water meters for nonresidential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use; ▪ Moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects; and ▪ Mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies.

These regulations respond to California's energy crisis and need to reduce energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic condition for the state. The Town of Los Altos Hills has adopted the 2019 California Building Codes and will look to implement the newly adopted 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards where appropriate as part of Program C-4 Energy Efficient Housing. In addition, the Town adopted REACH codes in 2019 that required all electric water and space heating in all new residences and pre-wiring for all electric appliances. It is anticipated that these codes will be re-adopted in late 2022.

Other measures may be proposed by the Environmental Initiatives Committee, a standing committee charged with the development of incentives for energy conservation and other environmental objectives.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides both natural gas and electricity to residential consumers in Santa Clara County, including Los Altos Hills. The company provides a variety of energy conservation services for residents. PG&E also participates in several energy assistance programs for lower-income households, which help qualified homeowners and renters conserve energy and control electricity costs. These include the following:
▪ The California Alternate Rates for Energy Program—Provides a 20 percent monthly discount on gas and electric rates to income-qualified households, certain nonprofits, facilities housing agricultural employees, homeless shelters, hospices and other qualified nonprofit group living facilities.
▪ The Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH) Program— Provides one-time emergency energy assistance to low-income customers who have no other way to pay their energy bill. REACH aims to assist those in jeopardy of losing

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Resources 216
their electricity services, particularly the elderly, disabled, sick, working poor, and the unemployed, who experience severe hardships and are unable to pay for their necessary energy needs. Customers who have experienced an uncontrollable or unforeseen hardship may receive an energy credit up to $200. ▪ The Balanced Payment Plan (BPP)—Designed to eliminate big swings in a customer’s monthly payments by averaging energy costs over the year. On enrollment, PG&E averages the amount of energy used by the household in the past year to derive the monthly BPP amount. PG&E checks the household’s account every four months to make sure that its estimated average is on target. If the household’s energy use has increased or decreased dramatically, PG&E will change the amount of monthly payment so that the household does not overpay or underpay too much over the course of a year.
▪ The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Block Grant—Funded by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, LIHEAP provides two basic types of services. Eligible low-income persons, via local governmental and nonprofit organizations, can receive financial assistance to offset the costs of heating and/or cooling dwellings, and/or have their dwellings weatherized to make them more energy efficient. This is accomplished through these three program components:
o The Weatherization Program provides free weatherization services to improve the energy efficiency of homes, including attic insulation, weather-stripping, minor home repairs, and related energy conservation measures. o The Home Energy Assistance Program provides financial assistance to eligible households to offset the costs of heating and/or cooling dwellings. o The Energy Crisis Intervention Program provides payments for weather-related or energy-related emergencies.
▪ The Family Electric Rate Assistance Program—PG&E’s rate reduction program for large households of three or more people with low to middle incomes. It enables lowincome large households to receive a Tier 3 (131 percent to 200 percent of baseline) electric rate reduction on their PG&E bill every month. ▪ Medical Baseline Allowance Program—PG&E offers additional quantities of energy at the lowest (baseline) price for residential customers that have special medical or heating/cooling needs.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs 217
Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs
General Strategy
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation is based on regional housing needs as determined by the state. The Town remains committed to ensuring that residential development and housing opportunities within the Town will build upon the progress made through the 2002, 2009 and 2015 – 2023 Housing Elements.

In order to meet a substantially increased RHNA obligations, the Town’s approach to providing additional low and moderate income housing opportunities will be the creation of new multifamily overlay zoning in select and limited areas of the Town. The strategy is to allow and encourage relatively high density housing on large institutional sites and to minimize the rezoning of single family residential areas to a new multifamily zone.

Additionally, the strategy will help preserve the majority of the Town’s semirural residential environment and retain the predominantly rural character and natural setting of the community.

The Town will continue to emphasize the construction of new accessory dwelling units on existing lots and in future subdivisions, and the conversion of portions of existing primary residential units to ADUs, which are a practical solution for affordable housing in affluent and semirural communities such as Los Altos Hills with large, existing lot sizes.

The Town has had success with the strategy of facilitating and encouraging ADU production in the last Housing Element Update cycle and will continue to build on that success. The Town met its RHNA for lower-income and above moderate-income households and is projected to meet the remaining RHNA goals for moderate-income by the end of the 5 th cycle planning
period ending January 31, 2023.

On the following pages are a series of goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives designed to guide the Town along a path of ensuring housing opportunities for all existing and future residents of the community.

Encourage New Housing Production
Goal 1: Ensure that all local housing needs and the Town’s fair share of the regional housing needs identified in the ABAG RHNA are met while protecting the Town’s sensitive natural resources and predominantly rural residential land-use pattern. ▪ Policy 1.1: Allow multi-family housing in designated areas to meet the town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for affordable housing.
▪ Policy 1.2: Ensure that new residential development and reconstruction, and rehabilitation of existing residences preserve existing views, hills, ridgelines, water courses, riparian vegetation, open spaces, native trees, and Town character as much as possible while remaining consistent with all aspects of state housing law.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs 218
▪ Policy 1.3: Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of housing with particular emphasis on housing that is affordable to persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, female-headed households with children, veterans, and homeless persons.
▪ Policy 1.4: Continue to facilitate and promote the development of accessory dwelling units on single-family parcels.
▪ Policy 1.5: Work and cooperate with the Foothill-DeAnza Community College District to support the development of housing at Foothill College. ▪ Policy 1.6: Maintain and improve necessary community services and amenities as needed to accommodate multi-family development.
▪ Policy 1.7: Allow by-right approval of projects containing 20% or more units affordable to lower-income households for the proposed sites in the overlay zone to meet the lower-income household RHNA requirements.
▪ Policy 1.8: Ensure that residential development sites have appropriate and adequate services and facilities, including water, wastewater, and neighborhood infrastructure.

Removal of Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints to the development of affordable housing exist in every community. The types of governmental constraints in Los Altos Hills are typical of those constraints and include zoning regulations, code enforcement, on and off-site improvements, fees and exactions, processing, and permit procedures. These categories are required to protect the public’s health and safety or to provide for necessary infrastructure to support the project. To ensure that such governmental constraints are minimized as a barrier to the creation of housing opportunities, the Town will constantly monitor impacts on the feasibility of projects and remove constraints wherever possible.

Goal 2: Reduce or remove unnecessarily restrictive governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing where feasible and legally permissible.
▪ Policy 2.1: Review Town policies and regulations on a regular basis to ensure that the regulations, the process, and the fees do not lead to unnecessary impediments to housing development nor unnecessary increases in housing development costs. ▪ Policy 2.2: Continue cooperative agreements, as appropriate, with State, County, and other agencies, so that community housing needs are met to the greatest degree possible.
▪ Policy 2.3: Offer financial and/or regulatory incentives, where feasible, to offset or reduce the costs of developing quality housing affordable to a wide range of households.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs 219
▪ Policy 2.4: Make sure the Town’s development regulations accommodate housing needs for lower-income households and special needs persons. ▪ Policy 2.5: Establish objective design standards to facilitate streamlined project permitting.
▪ Policy 2.6: Incentivize development of affordable housing through density bonuses.

Conserve, Preserve, and Improve the Housing Stock
Goal 3: Maintain and preserve the quality of the Town’s housing stock. ▪ Policy 3.1: Encourage all households to maintain and rehabilitate housing to prevent deterioration.
▪ Policy 3.2: Encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorating houses where feasible and provide assistance when possible for households who cannot afford the costs of such improvements.
▪ Policy 3.3: Incentivize energy efficient buildings and conservation as part of new construction and rehabilitation.

Special Housing Needs and Assistance
Goal 4: Meet the needs of all Los Altos Hills residents, especially households with unique and special needs.
▪ Policy 4.1: Make provisions for all low-income families to receive and/or be advised of the existence of any special housing financial assistance which currently exist or become available in the future.
▪ Policy 4.2: Allow housing that meets the special housing needs including but not limited to seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons in need of emergency or transitional housing.
▪ Policy 4.3: Encourage and enable non-profits and other governmental and communitybased organizations to provide assistance and necessary support services to residents and persons with special needs to successfully function as full members of the community.
▪ Policy 4.4: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to remain in compliance with applicable state law, to reduce constraints to emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, and group homes.
▪ Policy 4.5: Pursue funding sources for affordable housing. ▪ Policy 4.6: Promote production of housing for seniors on the RHNA sites.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs 220
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Goal 5: Promote housing opportunity and mobility for all residents to reside in housing of their choice, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster a more inclusive community free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics including but not limited to race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status, or disability. ▪ Policy 5.1: Allow and facilitate the construction of housing that is affordable to a wide range of household types, sizes and incomes.
▪ Policy 5.2: Allow and facilitate the construction of a wide range of housing types, including multifamily or low-income rental opportunities, in high opportunity areas with access to employment and transportation services.
▪ Policy 5.3: Encourage the development of residential units that are accessible to disabled persons or are adaptable for conversion to residential use by disabled persons.
▪ Policy 5.4: Reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities who seek waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. ▪ Policy 5.5: Accommodate emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, transitional housing, supportive housing, residential care facilities, and community care facilities in compliance with State laws.
▪ Policy 5.6: Improve awareness, access, and use of education, training, complaint investigation, and mediation services of the fair housing service provider. ▪ Policy 5.7: Refer complaints of discrimination to groups such as the Mid-peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing to provide fair housing services. ▪ Policy 5.8: Improve awareness of housing that is affordable to a wide range of household types and incomes
Housing Awareness, Education and Outreach
Goal 6: Increase awareness of housing rights and responsibilities through frequent and effective education and outreach.
▪ Policy 6.1: Continually engage the community and policy-makers with regular workshops, informational bulletins, and easily accessible information on the Town website, and informational booths at events.
▪ Policy 6.2: Conduct special workshops on specific topics or for specific groups. ▪ Policy 6.3: Demonstrate the value and benefits of providing new types of housing and increased diversity of new residents in the community.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs 221
Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that quantified objectives be developed with regard to new construction, rehabilitation, conservation and preservation activities that will occur during the eight-year Housing Element cycle. Table 70 summarizes the Town of Los Altos Hills’ quantified objectives for the provision of affordable housing opportunities based on its programs during the eight-year 2023–2031 Housing Element cycle. ▪ The New Construction objective represents the Town’s RHNA of 125 units for very lowincome households, 72 units low-income households, 82 units for moderate-income households, and 210 units for above moderate-income households. ▪ The Rehabilitation objective represents the potential number of units that may require some form of repair or significant maintenance to remain habitable. ▪ The Conservation/Preservation objective reflects the opportunity to maintain ADUs and future below-market rate units as an affordable housing option in Los Altos Hills.

Table 70: Total Quantified Objectives Los Altos Hills, 2023 – 2031 Target Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
New Construction 125 72 82 210 489
Rehabilitation 0 0 0 15 15
Conservation/Preservation 10 10 10 0 30
Programs
The programs in this section of the Housing Element describe specific actions the Town will carry out over the eight- year Housing Element cycle to satisfy the community’s housing needs and meet the requirements of State law. The programs are organized in the following six major housing goals.
▪ Housing Production
▪ Removal of Governmental Constraints
▪ Housing Preservation and Improvement
▪ Special Housing Needs
▪ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
▪ Education and Outreach

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 222
Programs
A. Housing Production
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
A-1
Availability of
Adequate Sites
for New Housing
to meet the
Regional Housing
Needs Allocation
(RHNA)
Rezone at least 34 acres via Create an overlay zone and rezone to ensure that the Town fully meets RHNA
capacity within three years of the adoption of the
housing element, including a buffer of 15% of the RHNA
to ensure adequate capacity.

Create a high density multifamily infill overlay zone that requires a minimum of 20 du/ac and permits densities
of at least 30 du/ac for at least 19 acres on institutional properties..

Rezone 15 acres from R-A to a new multifamily zone
with a minimum density of 20 du/ac.

The combined rezone and overlay zone will include
capacity for at least 377 units as identified in the sites inventory.

The Town will amend the zoning code to ensure
compliance all by-right requirements pursuant to
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and
(i) through Program A-4.

The Town will initiate the rezoning process, including the retention of a consultant to create a multifamily overlay zone with appropriate and objective development
PBD General
Fund
Complete
rezoning by Q1,
2026, or as
required by
state law
Mid-cycle
review in Q1
2027. Any
additional
zoning
amendments
by Q1 2028, or
as required by
state law

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 223
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
standards and design guidelines (see Program B-4B-4).

The overlay zone and any future zones will allow for a
variety of uses as identified in the constrains analysis of the Housing Element. This includes allowing for multifamily housing, SROs, and transitional and supportive housing as required by state law.

The Town will conduct a mid-cycle review of
development progress and the effectiveness of the new
zone in 2027. Should the mid-cycle review find that the zone is not effective, the Town will either identify
additional incentives for existing sites, or additional sites for the overlay zone or rezoning.

Quantified Objective: Provide adequate sites to
accommodate the Town’s entire RHNA allocation.

Selection of consultant by end of Q1 2023. Creation and implementation of multi-family housing overlay zone by
Q1 2026, or as required by state law.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 224
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
A-2
No Net Loss
Monitoring
To ensure that the Town monitors its compliance with
SB 166 (No Net Loss), the Town will develop a procedure to, and will, track:
• Unit count and income/affordability assumed on
parcels included in the sites inventory.
• Actual units constructed and
income/affordability when parcels are
developed.
• Net change in capacity and summary of
remaining capacity in meeting remaining RHNA.

The Town will resubmit APRs from any years that an APR
was not submitted.

Quantified Objective: No net loss of capacity below the RHNA requirement during the planning period.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2024
A-3
Surplus
Lands/Affordable
Housing on TownOwned/Successor
Agency Sites
Assess Town-owned properties for their potential
redevelopment or development for residential uses that
include housing for extremely low-income households
and those with special needs such as seniors and
persons with disabilities. Pursuant to that assessment, identify sites with residential development potential.

Comply with surplus land determination process and
implement the Surplus Lands Act to annually review
Town-owned parcels, provide notices of availability,
engage in negotiation or disposal of sites declared to be surplus, provide affordable housing developers the first right of refusal for designated surplus lands, and comply PBD General
Fund
Annual review
in conjunction
with the review
of Surplus
Lands.

Develop list of
nonprofits by
Q1 2025.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 225
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
with other applicable requirements regarding
development of affordable housing on surplus
properties and reporting requirements in compliance
with the Surplus Land Act.

There are no Town-owned properties included in the
RHNA. Should a Town-owned property be identified as
surplus through the annual review of lands as required
by the Surplus Land Act, the Town will provide required notices of availability of properties declared surplus in conformance with the requirements of the Surplus Land
Act, and will establish a schedule and process for
disposition via an RFP process within 6 months of
identification of surplus land. The Town will develop a list of active nonprofit housing developers in the region to receive RFPs.

A-4
By-Right Approval
of Projects with 20
Percent Affordable
Units on “Reuse” or
rezone and overlay
zone lower income
sites
The Town will amend the zoning code to ensure
compliance all by-right requirements pursuant to
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and
(i).

Pursuant to GC 65583.2(h) and (i), amend the Zoning
Ordinance to require by-right approval of housing
development that includes 20 percent of the units as
housing affordable to lower-income households, on
sites being used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA that
represent “reuse sites” previously identified in the 4th and 5th cycles Housing Element.

Establish a by-right process for rezone sites and sites that are in the overlay zone to meet the lower-income
PBD General
Funds By Q1, 2026

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 226
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
RHNA shortfall.

A-5 Minimum Density
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish minimum
densities to ensure that parcels are able to be
developed at appropriate densities for lower-income
development, per Government Code section 65583.2(h).

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2026
A-6
Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance
Conduct an inclusionary zoning feasibility study to
identify appropriate inclusionary requirements that will not constrain housing production. Upon a
demonstration of feasibility, develop and amend the
Zoning Ordinance to establish inclusionary housing
requirements so that new developments reserve up to
15 percent of the total units for lower- and moderateincome households.

Quantified Objective: With a determination of feasibility based on inclusionary zoning study, the Inclusionary
Housing ordinance to be adopted by Q1 2026.

PBD General
Fund
The ordinance
will be adopted
by Q1, 2026
A-7
ADU Tracking and
Monitoring
Continuously track the Town's progress for ADUs. Each
year, analyze the affordability of ADUs built in the Town.

Within the Housing Element period, assess whether
additional strategies are necessary to increase ADU
production. If annual production and affordability rates do not match the estimates included in the Housing
Resources Section, update the RHNA strategy to ensure
that the Town continues to maintain adequate capacity
for all income-levels.

PBD General
Fund
Maintain
tracker as ADU
permits are
submitted.

Review
strategies
annually as part
the Annual
Progress
Report process.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 227
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
In the event of an ADU shortfall that results in a net loss of units below the RHNA, adopt another ADU program
within six months to facilitate additional ADU
production.

Additionally, the Town will conduct a mid-cycle review of development progress, including of ADU trends in 2027.

Should the mid-cycle review find that ADU trends are
not at the levels anticipated to meet the RHNA, the Town will either identify additional incentives for existing sites, or additional sites for the overlay zone or rezoning.

Quantified Objective: Development of 20 ADUs per
year, for a total of 160 during the planning period.

Six months
after significant
mid-cycle
shortfall.

Mid-Cycle
review in 2027,
with any
additional
zoning
amendments
completed by
Q1 2028.

A-8
Pre-Approved ADU
Plans
The Town will develop pre-approved, “model” plans for
ADUs that meet building and fire codes, height and size requirements, including designs that are ADA accessible.

The Town will work with the Santa Clara County Housing
Collaborative on the option of creating a sub-regional
program of pre-approved ADU plans that are available
to all residents and cities in Santa Clara County. The
Town may use models developed by other cities.

The Town will require development of five or more units to include an ADU option in their development.

Quantified Objective: Develop four (4) pre-approved
PBD General
Fund
By Q1, 2025

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 228
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
plans for ADUs. Target development of 20 ADUs per
year, for a total of 160 during the planning period.

A-9
Outreach and
Technical
Assistance to RHNA
Site Owners and
Affordable Housing
Developers
To promote and facilitate the near-term development of
RHNA sites, especially to meet the needs of lower,
moderate, ELI and special needs households, the Town
will proactively conduct outreach annually to inform
property owners and affordable housing developers
with residential development potential and provide
technical assistance and coordination for property
owners and housing developers on RHNA sites.

Technical assistance includes but is not limited to:
permit processing, site design, and site placement, and infrastructure planning.

PBD General
Fund
Initially by Q3,
2023, and
annually
thereafter
A-10
Waive Pathway Fee
for ADUs
Extend the Pathway Impact fee waiver for ADUs through
RHNA cycle 6 planning period.

Quantified Objective: Development of 20 ADUs per
year, for a total of 160 during the planning period.

PBD General
Fund By Q3, 2023
A-11 Large Sites
To encourage and facilitate the development of
affordable housing on larger sites (greater than 10
acres), the City will regularly and at least once a year coordinate with property owners and assist in site
planning, parceling and other mechanisms to promote
affordable housing consistent with the assumptions in
the sites inventory.

Affordable housing projects will receive priority and
expedited review in conjunction with Program B-1.

PBD General
Fund
Coordination
with property
owners on an
annual basis

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 229
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
A-12
Conversion to
Duplex or Triplex
To increase housing opportunity and mobility beyond
identified RHNA sites, the Town will amend the zoning
ordinance to allow existing, conforming single family
residences to be converted to up to three units (i.e., into a duplex or triplex), subject to objective development
standards to be prepared by the Town. These
conversion units would be permitted in residential areas in specific portions of the R-A zone that are in lower fire hazard areas with adequate water and sewer service
availabilities, as determined by the City Council through the zoning ordinance amendment process, which goal is
to identify areas that increase housing choice and
mobility throughout Town and will include areas equal
to at least 25% of conforming single family residences in the Town. The Town will conduct a mid-cycle evaluation
to examine progress of the conversion units program.

Quantified Objective: Conversion of 50 single family
homes to duplexes or triplexes throughout the planning
period.

PBD General
Fund
Amend Zoning
by Q1, 2027
A-13
ADU Survey &
Tracking
The Town will create a process to survey ADU applicants and owners of intended use and occupancy, rent ranges
to track affordability and occupancy as part of the
application process. Town will conduct mid-cycle review and provide additional program requirements or
incentives if ADU vacancies are greater than 20%.

Quantified Objective: 80% of ADUs are occupied.

PBD General
Fund
Develop
application
survey by Q2,
2023; mid-cycle
adjustments by
Q1 2028

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 230
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
A-14
Backup and
Replacement Sites
The Town will continue to identify and maintain a list of potential backup and replacement sites, including a web page location where residents can volunteer their
properties for possible future rezone for future
affordable housing and inclusion in the duplex/triplex
conversion program (A-12).

PBD General
Fund
Web page for
owners
operational by
Q3 2024
B. Constraint Removal
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
B-1
Permit
Streamlining
Establish and implement expedited permit processing for affordable housing projects, including projects that qualify for density bonuses (in compliance with SB 35 and SB
330). Advertise the expedited permit process on the
Town’s website and circulate a notice with the Building Industry Association and Chamber of Commerce.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2026
B-2
Zoning and
General Plan
Densities
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the
maximum density allowed the General Plan is achievable
(Housing Accountability Act/AB 3194).

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2024
B-3
Density Bonus
Updates
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to update density bonus
regulations to meet updated state requirements (AB 2345, SB 1763, SB 1227).

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2026

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 231
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
B-4
Objective
Standards
Pursuant to SB 330, adopt objective design standards and Design Review Board handbooks to ensure development
standards, design guidelines, and findings are objective, promote certainty in the planning and approval process.

This includes revising the definition of “family” to remove subjective language could be misinterpreted as a
requirement that would limit unrelated individuals from forming a household.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2026
B-5
Climate Action
Plan
Implementation/
Energy Efficient
Project
Streamlining
Provide incentives to encourage energy efficient projects, including implementation of the identified community
measures and actions identified in the 2021 Climate
Action Plan.

Actions include: incentives for electrification and energy efficient buildings, permit streamlining for electrification, a subsidized home electrification assessment, Electric
Vehicle Charging Station Permit Streamlining, and Reach Codes.

PBD General
Fund
Initially adopt
incentives by Q1,
2024 and
ongoing
throughout
planning period
B-6
ADU Ordinance
Update to Meet
State Law
Monitor state law on an annual basis and revise the
Zoning Ordinance as appropriate. The Town has sent the
ADU ordinance to the State and is currently in compliance with State law. The Town will make any revisions to the ADU ordinance as necessary per any further State review.

PBD General
Fund
Initially by Q1,
2024 and
annually
thereafter

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 232
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
B-7
Public Fees,
Standards, and
Plans Online
Pursuant to AB 1483, the Town will compile all
development standards, plans, fees, and nexus studies in an easily accessible online location. The Town will update its zoning and general plan maps to provide a high quality, parcel-specific reference.

Quantified Objective: Information will be available on
development standards, plans, fees, and nexus studies on Town website. Amendments to zoning and general plan
maps.

PBD General
Fund
Website
availability by
Q3, 2023 if not
already
available;
remainder
efforts by Q1,
2026
B-8 Infrastructure
Update Town Sewer Master plan with the projected
demand, and work with the City of Palo Alto and City of Los Altos to ensure the system has the required capacity.

Quantified Objective: An updated plan to provide
adequate infrastructure capacity for sewer and water to meet the Town’s RHNA for the planning period.

PBD
Sewer
Fund and
General
Fund
By Q1, 2026
B-9
Reasonable
Accommodations
Procedure
The Town will adopt a clear and objective procedure to
follow for reasonable accommodation requests for land
use and zoning decisions and procedures that ensures
that housing for people with disabilities is attainable without discretionary review. The reasonable
accommodations procedure will include procedures and
findings to ensure certainty and provide for clear decisionmaking standards for the process.

Quantified Objective: Adopted Reasonable
Accommodations procedure.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2025

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 233
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
B-10
SB 9 Ordinance
Amendments
The Town is in the process of adopting a revised,
permanent SB 9 ordinance. The permanent SB 9 ordinance
will include a number of revisions from the interim
ordinance including:
• Allow SB 9 units to have floor areas larger than 800
sf., with a maximum floor area of 2,500 sf. for SB 9
units constructed on newly created SB 9 parcels.

Maximum size of SB 9 units constructed on existing
parcels will be determined through the Town’s
Maximum Floor Area/Maximum Development Area
formula applicable to single-family residential
developments in the Town.
• Remove affordability restriction to promote
development of units of all income levels, rather
than only affordable units.
• Only subject a newly created SB 9 lot to the
development standards applicable to constrained
lots in the Town
PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2024
B-11
Grading
Ordinance
Amendment
Amend the Town’s current grading ordinance Section 10-

2.404 to state that City Engineer “may” restrict grading permits instead of “shall” and to allow grading permits to be issued year-round, subject to appropriate conditions of approval for seasonal constraints.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2024

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 234
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
B-12
Improve Existing
Permit Tracking
System
Update and improve the Town’s permit tracking and
reporting system to provide transparency and consistency during development review. The updated permit tracking
system will allow applications to be submitted online, fee payment online, and include updated tracking of permit
status online.

Quantified Objective: Online tracking system available to applicants by Q2 2023.

PBD General
Fund By Q2 2023
B-13 Fee Nexus Study
Conduct fee nexus study and make appropriate revisions
to assure that the fees charged do not exceed the Town’s costs of delivering services.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2027
B-14
Simplified
Planning Process
Prepare and upload a simplified worksheet for LUF
calculations for development projects
Quantified Objective: Available simplified LUF worksheet on Town website.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2024
B-15
Streamline
Committee
Review Process
Amend the Town’s Zoning Ordinance to limit advisory
committee meetings to one meeting, and require
comments be provided to the decision making body within thirty days of a complete application. Further, specify that advisory committee review shall only provide comments
relating to conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, Council- adopted policies and guidelines, and
specific, Objective Design Standards.

PBD General
Fund By Q3, 2024

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 235
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
B-16
Story Pole Policy
Revisions
The Town will develop a process to streamline the story pole requirement or will allow a rendering to be provided in lieu of Story Poles.

PBD General
Fund By Q3, 2025
C. Housing Preservation and Improvement
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
C-1
Preservation of
At-Risk Housing
Implement strategies to preserve future units identified as being at risk of converting to market-rate housing.

Strategies include:
• Monitoring project status annually.
• Notify property owners annually about compliance with the extended noticing requirement (three year, one-year, and 6 month Notice of Intent) under state law.
• Include preservation as an eligible use in Notices of Funding Availability.
• If below-market rate units appear to be at risk of
conversion, work with qualified operators, HCD, and the property owners to preserve the housing for lowerincome households.

PBD General
Fund
Ongoing,
annual
monitoring and
noticing
C-2 CDBG Allocations
Participate through Santa Clara County in the Federal
Housing and Community Development Block Grant
Program to provide housing rehabilitation loans for low and moderate income housing units/households. Make
information about CDBG funds available to the Town
residents on the Town Website.

PBD CDBG
Ongoing,
annual CDBG
allocation

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 236
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
C-3
Displacement
Prevention
Program
Pursuant to GC 65583.2(g)(3) and 65915(c)(3), ensure that when existing housing is demolished, at least an equivalent number of units at the same level of affordability as the existing units are created as replacements.

Quantified Objective: No net loss of affordable units.

PBD General
Fund
Ongoing, as
needed
C-4
Energy Efficient
Housing
Continue to implement the CALGreen Building Code and
Encourage Energy efficient buildings.

Assist/inform homeowners of PG&E energy efficiency
programs.

Quantified Objective: Inform 20 homeowners annually of
PG&E energy efficiency programs.

PBD General
Fund
Ongoing, as
needed
C-5
Water
Conservation
Publicize the County Water-Wise Audit and Lawn removal
incentive program. Under the program, residents can
receive up to a $3,000 rebate and commercial and multifamily properties can receive up to a $100,000 rebate by replacing high water using plants such as turf grass, with low water using plants from our Approved Plant List or by installing permeable hardscape.

PBD Valley
Water
Ongoing, as
needed

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 237
D. Housing Assistance
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
D-1
Housing Choice
Vouchers
Assist eligible, low-income households in receiving
Housing Choice Voucher assistance. Market housing
vouchers and inform landlords that discrimination
based on source of income (including vouchers) is
prohibited.

Quantified Objective: Provide information on HCVs to
50 households throughout the planning period.

PBD
LIHTC
CalCHA
bonds
CHFA
HOME
Continuous
and ongoing
D-2
Affordable
Housing and
Services Funds.

Funding
strategies for
affordable
housing and
supportive
services
Allocate funding in a competitive process or issue
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), in an equitable
manner for affordable housing development and/or
supportive services.

Pursue funding sources for affordable housing through
LIHTC, CalCHA bonds, CHFA, HOME Investment
Partnership Program, etc. for affordable housing.

PBD
LIHTC
CalCHA
bonds
CHFA
HOME
Continuous
and ongoing

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 238
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
D-3
Landlord -
Tenant
Mediation
Continue to utilize Santa Clara County’s contract with a fair housing specialist to provide fair housing and
landlord/tenant mediation services. Provide LandlordTenant mediation through Los Altos Dispute Resolution Services or another similar service. Distribute
information about these services to tenants through a
variety of media and online outlets, namely the Town
website, the Los Altos Hills and paper materials at the Town Hall.

Quantified Objective: Increase inquiries to fair housing specialist for information and referral. Increase traffic and downloads to the Town’s housing website by 20%
throughout the planning period. Provide fair housing
materials at Planning and Development Services booth
at Town events at least once a year. Promote
educational materials and resources through at least
three different mediums (paper/hard copies, social
media, direct mailers, in-person events, website)
PBD
Fair Housing
Specialist
General
Fund
Continuous
and ongoing

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 239
E. Special Housing Needs
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
E-1
Fair Housing
and Mobility
Education and
Counseling
Provide education and literature on fair housing,
housing mobility, and resolving disputes; providing
Health, Safety and Building referrals; distributing
landlord/tenant guidebooks printed by the
Department of Consumer Affairs; provide Housing
Choice Voucher Assistance referrals; providing
counseling and resolution of housing discrimination
complaints.

Quantified Objective: Increase inquiries to fair
housing specialist for information and referral.

Increase traffic and downloads to the Town’s housing
website by 20 percent throughout the planning
period. Provide fair housing and housing choice and
mobility materials at Planning and Development
Services booth at Town events at least once a year.

Promote educational materials and resources
through at least three different mediums
(paper/hard copies, social media, direct mailers, inperson events, website). Provide educational materials to 50 people annually.

PBD General
Fund, CDBG
Continuous
and ongoing

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 240
E-2
Emergency
Shelters
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to amend the
emergency shelters requirements to ensure that
shelters are not subject to standards that do not
apply to other uses in the A-1 zone or development
standards that are not objective or inconsistent with
state law and to address spacing or proximity
requirements, bed limits, and parking requirements
in conformance with state law. These amendments
include crafting additional objective standards
consistent with Government Code section 65583(a)(4)
and related applicable state law and permitting
emergency shelters as a primary use in the R-A zone.

Specifically, Section 10-1.702.j of the Zoning
Ordinance will be reviewed and revised to ensure
compliance with Government Code section 65583 as
follows:
• Remove the requirements that emergency
shelters be within 1,000 feet of a public
transit stop
• Require that parking requirements are set
based on staff level only and not more than
other residential uses within the same zone
• Revise the requirement for submission of
management plan to contain objective
factors only- specifically, that the plan is to
demonstrate the provision of onsite
management (including in-take
requirements, facility operation standards,
hours of operation and services and
PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2024

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 241
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
oversight to be provided), length of stay,
lighting, and security for the facility
• Evaluate the maximum number of beds to be
served by the facility.
• Ensure that all standards that apply to
emergency shelters are objective
E-3
Low Barrier
Navigation
Centers
Pursuant to SB 48, amend the Zoning Ordinance to
establish provisions for low-barrier navigation
centers (LBNCs). Allow LBNCs that meet specific
objective requirements by-right in areas zoned for
mixed-uses and Public or Institutional Uses.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2024

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 242
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
E-4
Transitional
and Supportive
Housing
Pursuant to AB 2162 and AB 2988, supportive
housing meeting certain criteria must be permitted
by-right where residential uses are permitted. Permit
transitional and supportive housing as a residential
use in all zones allowing residential uses and only
subject to those restrictions that apply to other
residential dwellings of the same type in the same
zone. Review AB 2162 and amend Zoning Ordinance
to ensure compliance.

The Town will ensure compliance with all state law
regarding transitional and supportive housing. This
includes ensuring transitional and supportive
housing is allowed as a residential use in all zones
allowing residential uses and is only subject to those
restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings
of the same type in the same zone.

To establish additional zoning opportunities for a
variety of housing types, transitional and supportive
housing will be allowed, as required by state law, in
the multifamily overlay zone and any future zones
that will be created through Program A-1.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2025

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 243
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
E-5
Residential
Care
The Town will update its code to expressly permit the
development of residential care facilities (6 or fewer
residents) in residential zones. Adopt objective
standards for residential care homes with 7 or more
individuals in residential zones.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2025
E-6
Priority Water
and Sewer
Service for
Affordable
Housing
Developments
Pursuant to Government Code 65589.7, work with
public service providers to establish written
procedures for the prioritization of water and sewer
services to housing developments serving lowerincome households.

PBD, Public
Works, Purissima
Hills Water
District, Cal
Water, City of
Los Altos, City of
Palo Alto
General Plan By Q1, 2024
E-7
Senior Center
Funding
Continue to provide financial support to the
Community Services Agency and the Los Altos Senior
Center for the provision of such services as
emergency assistance, nutrition and hot meal
programs, information and referral, and senior care
management.

Quantified Objective: Maintain or increase annual
financial support.

PBD General
Fund
Annually in
the budgeting
process
E-8
Farmworker
and Employee
Housing
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections
17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8, define and permit
employee housing in compliance with the Employee
Housing Act. Revise zoning to allow farmworker
housing in all agricultural zones throughout the
Town.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2025

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 244
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
E-9
Single Room
Occupancy
(SROs)
Continue to allow SROs on public and institutional
land uses. Implement a code amendment to create
objective standards and further encourage the
development of SROs in the Town.

To establish additional zoning opportunities for a
variety of housing types, SROs will be allowed as an
accessory use in the multifamily overlay zone,
multifamily zone, and any future zones that will be
created through Program A-1.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2025
E-10
Incentives For
Senior
Development
Create a set of incentives for development of senior
housing on RHNA sites zoned for multi-family
development. Specifically, the Town will:
• Develop a process for expedited review of
senior housing projects
• Reduce parking standards for senior housing
projects
• Biennially, contact developers to inform them
of the opportunity to develop senior housing
in the Town and help connect developers to
property owners to facilitate their
development
Quantified Objective: Adopted set of incentives for
senior housing.

PBD General
Fund
Initially by Q1,
2025; Biennial
outreach to
developers

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 245
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
E-11
Incentives for
Lower-Income
Housing
Development
Create a set of incentives for the development of
housing affordable to lower-income households,
especially extremely low-income (ELI) households.

Specifically, the Town will:
• Amend the zoning ordinance to adopt a set
of density bonus incentives beyond state law
for ELI housing units
• Develop a program that would provide for
financial assistance for infrastructure studies
related to sewer and water improvements
necessary for affordable housing.

Quantified Objective: Development of 62 ELI housing
units.

PBD General
Fund By Q3 2025
F. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
F-1
Place-Based
Community
Improvements
– Streetscape
and Right of
Way
Improvements
Develop programs and strategies to create placebased improvements through investments in the public right of way. Specific actions include:
• Streetscape improvements adjacent to the
lower-income RHNA sites to ensure safe
pedestrian and transit access, where applicable.
• Provide technical assistance to property owners
and future developers to assist in the design of
any required infrastructure improvements.

PBD
PWD
Staff time,
General
Fund, CDBG
Between 2029
and 2031

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 246
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
F-2
Housing
Mobility
In coordination with programs A-1, A-3,and A-6,
allow multi-family residential opportunities in the
Town. Additionally, in coordination with programs
G-1 and G-3, maintain an education program to
inform tenants of the 2019 Tenant Protection Act
and provide information on the Town webpage.

PBD General
Fund By Q1, 2026
F-3
Town
Affordable
Rental Unit
Registry
Create a registry of affordable rental units as the
units are built. The Town will create a webpage
with information about the units and advertise any
vacant units.

Quantified Objective: Affordable rental unit
webpage and registry.

PBD General
Fund
As affordable
units are created.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 247
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
F-4
Fair Housing
Outreach and
Enforcement
In coordination with program D-3 and E-1,
continue to provide fair housing enforcement,
landlord-tenant mediation, and fair housing
information to residents and property owners.

Advertise the Town’s fair housing specialist as a
resource to resolve disputes and reports of
discrimination.

Quantified Objective: Increase inquiries to fair
housing specialist for information and referral.

Increase traffic and downloads to the Town’s
housing website by 20 percent throughout the
planning period. Provide fair housing materials at
Planning and Development Services booth at Town
events at least once a year. Promote educational
materials and resources through at least three
different mediums (paper/hard copies, social
media, direct mailers, in-person events, website)
PBD
Fair Housing
Specialist
General
Fund
Continuous and
on-going
F-5
Transit
Improvements
Program
Provide housing projections and other information
so that Valley Transit Authority continues to
provide needed transportation services to Los
Altos Hills, including at Foothill College and
employment centers outside of the Town limits.

PBD
PWD
General
Fund
Continuous and
on-going

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 248
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
F-6
Regional
Participation in
Housing
Mobility Efforts
The Town will participate and with regional efforts
to encourage housing mobility through promotion
of affordable units in a common or countywide
registry and other County incentives, such as Santa
Clara County Housing Authority’s cash incentive
for first time HCV landlords, and mobility
assistance.

Quantified Objective: Promote available regional
resources to 10 households annually.

PBD General
Fund
Continuous and
on-going

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 249
G. Education and Outreach
Number Title Action Responsib
le Party
Funding
Source Timeline
G-1
Housing
Information
Continue to improve and expand the use of the
various media to inform and promote the use of
Los Altos Hills housing programs to its residents
and developers by creating a dedicated webpage
on the Town’s website. Include the resources
listed in G-3 on the webpage, in addition to
information about new and existing residential
units.

Quantified Objective: Monitor and increase
website traffic and downloads to the Town’s
housing website by 20% throughout the planning
period. Provide fair housing materials at Planning
and Development Services booth at Town events
at least once a year. Promote educational
materials and resources through at least three
different mediums (paper/hard copies, social
media, direct mailers, in-person events, website).

PBD General Fund
Establish webpage by
Q1, 2024; other efforts
continuous and
ongoing.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 250
Number Title Action Responsib
le Party
Funding
Source Timeline
G-2
ADU,
conversion
units, and SB 9
Education
Develop and implement a comprehensive
marketing program to advertise the ability of
homeowners to create conversion units, ADUs
and SB 9 units on their properties.

The program will contain information for
residents who may be unaware of the ability to
build or incorporate an ADU and/or JADU, SB 9
unit, or conversion units on their properties, as
well as detailed guidance on how to go through
these unit construction/conversion processes and
what financial resources are available, including
available incentives for units made available to
lower-income households.

The Town will also provide a pamphlet with
detailed information on ADU/JADU, conversion
units, and SB 9 opportunities in the Town. This
will include a FAQ and detailed guidance on how
to utilize these processes in the Town.

The Town will provide pamphlets on the Town
website and at Town Hall with detailed
information on the SB 9, conversion units, ADU,
and JADU processes.

Quantified Objective: Construction of 20 ADUs
per year throughout the planning period.

Construction of 32 SB 9 units throughout the
planning period. Conversion of 50 single family
homes to duplexes or triplexes throughout the
planning period.

PBD General Fund
Develop marketing
plan by Q1, 2024;
implement marking
program by Q1, 2025

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 251
Number Title Action Responsib
le Party
Funding
Source Timeline
G-3
Source of
Income
Protection /
Housing
Mobility
Within one year, conduct a meeting or workshop
to inform residents of sources of income
protection and state rent control laws such as AB
1482. Afterward, conduct outreach to inform
landlords and tenants of recent changes to state
law that prevent source of income discrimination.

Ensure that it is known that HCVs are allowed to
establish a renter’s financial eligibility.

Quantified Objective: Conducted workshop
within one year. Outreach to 10 landlords and
tenants per year throughout the planning period.

PBD
Fair
Housing
Specialist
General Fund
Initially by Q1, 2024.

Afterward-continuous
and on-going
G-4
Housing
Services and
Referrals
Website
Create a page on the Town’s website that
contains information about service providers,
emergency shelters, tenant protections available
to persons experiencing housing needs or
challenging circumstances. Refer individuals
inquiring about services to the website, and assist
individuals with technical access issues with
accessing the resources listed on the website.

Quantified Objective: Operational Town website
for housing services and referrals. Monitor and
increase website traffic and downloads to the
Town’s housing website by 20% throughout the
planning period.

PBD General Fund
Establish the website
by Q3, 2023; Annually
update the website to
add/remove
resources, ensure
accuracy of
information, and
increase accessibility.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 252
Number Title Action Responsib
le Party
Funding
Source Timeline
G-5
Tenant
Matching and
Outreach
Developing materials for applicants who may be
seeking tenants for their ADUs, SB 9 units, and
any conversion units created through Program A12. Materials will be provided to applicants at the time they apply for a building permit or ADU
permit. These affirmative marketing materials will
include contact information for housing service
providers (such as the home share programs)
and non-profit housing organizations that serve
lower-income tenants in the surrounding region.

Interested residents can use these materials to
find prospective tenants in a larger market area
beyond Town limits, including residents of all
races, ethnicities, ages, and abilities.

The Town will conduct a survey of ADU tenants
and owners by Q1 2028 to evaluate the
demographics of tenants to monitor the success
of ADU, SB 9, and unit conversion programs for
increasing housing choice and mobility in the
Town.

Quantified Objective: Construction of 32 SB 9
units throughout the planning period.

Construction of 20 ADUs per year throughout the
planning period. Achieve 50 percent of occupants
from outside Los Altos Hills, including those who
work but do not live in the City.

PBD General Fund By Q1, 2025; ADU
survey by Q1 2028

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List A-1
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List
APN
General Plan Land UseExisting ZoneProposed ZoneMaximum Density (Proposed)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Land Use/VacancyInfrastructurePublicly OwnedIdentified in Last 2 Housing CyclesVery Low Income CapacityLow Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal Capacity 175 21 119 Residential R-A NA 1 1.0 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 23 032 Residential R-A NA 1 1.2 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 27 053 Residential R-A NA 1 1.2 Vacant No 1 1
175 32 039 Residential R-A NA 1 1.2 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 32 040 Residential R-A NA 1 1.3 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 32 045 Residential R-A NA 1 1.1 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 32 061 Residential R-A NA 1 1.3 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 39 012 Residential R-A NA 1 8.2 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 39 018 Residential R-A NA 1 4.4 Vacant No 1 1
175 41 014
Institutional
Public
School
I

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 16.8 School
(Public) Yes No 55 25 35 95 210
175 41 015
Institutional
Public
School
I

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 52.4 School
(Public) Yes No - - - - -
175 41 016
Institutional
Public
School
I

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 60.5 School
(Public) Yes No - - - - -
175 42 033 Residential R-A NA 1 0.7 Vacant No 1 1

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List A-2
APN
General Plan Land UseExisting ZoneProposed ZoneMaximum Density (Proposed)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Land Use/VacancyInfrastructurePublicly OwnedIdentified in Last 2 Housing CyclesVery Low Income CapacityLow Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal Capacity 175 43 047 Residential R-A NA 1 4.3 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 43 049 Residential R-A NA 1 1.5 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 45 056 Residential R-A NA 1 1.8 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 45 059 Residential R-A NA 1 1.8 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 45 060 Residential R-A NA 1 1.8 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 45 063 Residential R-A NA 1 0.9 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 50 024 Residential R-A NA 1 1.8 Vacant Yes No 1 1
175 50 026 Residential R-A NA 1 1.3 Vacant Yes No 1 1
182 02 007 Residential R-A MF 30 2.1 SF
Home Yes No 3 3 3 6 15
182 02 016 Residential R-A NA 1 42.7 Vacant Yes No 1 1
182 02 017 Residential R-A

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 2.0 Vacant Yes No 3 2 2 8 15
182 02 018 Residential R-A

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 2.8 Vacant Yes No 3 1 2 7 13
182 02 019 Residential R-A

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 2.9 Vacant Yes No 3 1 2 7 13

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List A-3
APN
General Plan Land UseExisting ZoneProposed ZoneMaximum Density (Proposed)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Land Use/VacancyInfrastructurePublicly OwnedIdentified in Last 2 Housing CyclesVery Low Income CapacityLow Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal Capacity 182 02 020 Residential R-A

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 1.8 NonVacant Yes No 3 1 2 7 13
182 02 021 Residential R-A

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 1.5 SF unit Yes No 3 1 1 7 12
182 02 022 Residential R-A

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 1.4 NonVacant Yes No 2 1 1 7 11
182 04 010 Residential R-A NA 1 0.8 Vacant No 1 1
182 04 062 Residential R-A NA 1 4.9 Vacant No 1 1
182 04 089 Residential R-A NA 1 1.3 Vacant No 1 1
182 09 043 Residential R-A NA 1 6.9 Vacant Yes No 1 1
182 19 049 Residential R-A NA 1 1.8 Vacant No 1 1
182 22 022 Residential R-A NA 1 3.0 Vacant No 1 1
182 22 023 Residential R-A NA 1 7.7 Vacant No 1 1
182 23 005 Residential R-A NA 1 1.5 Vacant Yes No 1 1
182 23 027 Residential R-A NA 1 0.9 Vacant Yes No 1 1
182 29 002 Residential R-A NA 1 1.7 Vacant No 1 1
182 29 038 Residential R-A NA 1 2.2 Vacant No 1 1
182 29 063 Residential R-A NA 1 3.0 Vacant No 1 1

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List A-4
APN
General Plan Land UseExisting ZoneProposed ZoneMaximum Density (Proposed)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Land Use/VacancyInfrastructurePublicly OwnedIdentified in Last 2 Housing CyclesVery Low Income CapacityLow Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal Capacity 182 29 064 Residential R-A NA 1 3.7 Vacant No 1 1
182 29 065 Residential R-A NA 1 3.0 Vacant No 1 1
182 30 022 Residential R-A NA 1 0.6 Vacant No 1 1
182 31 064 Residential R-A NA 1 5.4 Vacant No 1 1
182 48 049 Residential R-A NA 1 1.0 Vacant Yes No 1 1
336 19 042 Residential R-A NA 1 2.0 Vacant Yes No 1 1
336 21 003 Institutional
Religious R-A

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 5.7 School
(Private) Yes No 25 5 5 40 75
336 21 004 Residential R-A

MF-IO /
Housing
Overlay
30 11.4 School
(Private) Yes No - - - - -
336 25 024 Residential R-A NA 1 1.8 Vacant Yes No 1 1
336 25 045 Residential R-A NA 1 3.1 Vacant Yes No 1 1
336 25 049 Residential R-A NA 1 2.9 Vacant Yes No 1 1
336 26 023 Residential R-A NA 1 1.5 Vacant Yes No 1 1
336 26 025 Residential R-A NA 1 1.1 Vacant Yes No 1 1
336 31 026 Residential R-A NA 1 19.1 Vacant No 1 1
336 34 018 Residential R-A NA 1 3.9 Vacant No 1 1
336 34 999 Residential R-A NA 1 12.3 Vacant No 1 1
336 37 010 Residential R-A NA 1 3.5 Vacant No 1 1

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List A-5
APN
General Plan Land UseExisting ZoneProposed ZoneMaximum Density (Proposed)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Land Use/VacancyInfrastructurePublicly OwnedIdentified in Last 2 Housing CyclesVery Low Income CapacityLow Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal Capacity 336 37 029 Residential R-A NA 1 2.2 Vacant No 1 1
336 37 030 Residential R-A NA 1 1.9 Vacant No 1 1

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List A-6
Appendix A: Vacant Lots with Potential SB 9 Units
APN
General Plan Land UseExisting ZoneProposed ZoneMaximum Density (Proposed)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Land Use/VacancyInfrastructurePublicly OwnedIdentified in Last 2 Housing CyclesVery Low Income CapacityLower Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal Net Capacity 17545060 Residential R-A NA 1 1.8 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
17545063 Residential R-A NA 1 0.9 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
18213035
Residential
/Open Space
Conservation
R-A NA 1 2.7 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
18220062
Residential/O
pen Space
Conservation
R-A NA 1 2.3 Vacant Yes Yes 1 1 2
18225018 Open Space
Conservation R-A NA 1 0.2 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
18229040 Open Space
Conservation R-A NA 1 2.3 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
18229063 Residential R-A NA 1 3.0 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
18229065 Residential R-A NA 1 3.0 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
18230026 Residential R-A NA 1 0.5 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
18231081 Residential R-A NA 1 1.9 Vacant Yes No 1 2
18241001 Open Space
Conservation NA 1 0.4 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
33117084 Residential R-A NA 1 1.0 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List A-7
APN
General Plan Land UseExisting ZoneProposed ZoneMaximum Density (Proposed)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Land Use/VacancyInfrastructurePublicly OwnedIdentified in Last 2 Housing CyclesVery Low Income CapacityLower Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal Net Capacity 33619042 Open Space
Conservation R-A NA 1 2.0 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
33630012 Open Space
Conservation R-A NA 1 0.4 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
33640077 Residential R-A NA 1 1.9 Vacant Yes No 1 2
35137019
Residential/O
pen Space
Conservation
R-A NA 1 1.0 Vacant Yes No 1 2
18207018
(App’l
Submitted)
Residential R-A NA 1 1.1 Vacant Yes No 1 1 2
17554076
(App’l
Submitted)
Residential R-A NA 1 1.1 No Yes No 1 1 2
17544069
(App’l
Submitted)
Residential R-A NA 1 1.3 No Yes No 1 1

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix A: RHNA Sites List A-0
Appendix A: Lots < 1 Acre Subject to CDP

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-1
Appendix B: Online Survey Results
Survey results for the Town of Los Altos Hills
▪ 538 Total Responses
Q1. Please identify your relationship with the Town of Los Altos Hills. (Choose all that may apply)
Answered: 535
Skipped: 3
Other Responses
▪ Grew up in LAH, attending college outside of town
▪ I am an adult living with my parents, who own their home ▪ retired
▪ pay too much in taxes
▪ Church
1%
95%
2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-2
▪ Member of Hills 2000 Civic League 501 C 4.
▪ I hike and bicycle in Los Altos Hills regularly
▪ a volunteer on committees 50 years.

Q2. How long have you lived, worked, attended school/college, and/or been involved with the Town?
Answered: 536
Skipped: 2
Other Responses
▪ Sunnyvale
▪ Los Altos
▪ San Francisco
2% 7% 10%
81%
1%
Less than one
year
1 to 4 years 5 to 10 years Over 10 years I don’t live,
work, or attend
school/college
in Los Altos Hills
(please note
your city here)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-3
Q3. Please share your age.

Answered: 536
Skipped: 2
Q4. Please share your race/ethnicity. (Choose all that apply) Answered: 533
Skipped: 5
0%
2%
7%
16%
25% 24%
22%
4%
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Prefer not
to say
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-4
Other Responses
▪ Mongrel
▪ Indian American
▪ Mixed
▪ Citizen of the world
▪ Asian Indian
▪ South Asian
▪ South Asian Indian
Q5. Please select all that apply to you:

Answered: 536
Skipped: 2
65%
0%
20%
3% 0% 0%
14%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-5
Q6. Please select up to three (3) of the following groups who have the greatest need for housing and related services in the Los Altos Hills.

Answered: 437
Skipped: 101
1%
47%
4% 1% 6% 2%
87%
1% 0% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
40%
28%
40%
6%
29%
12% 11%
3%
9%
1%
51%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-6
Q7. Please select at least three (3) housing issues that are most relevant in Los Altos Hills:

Answered: 437
Skipped: 101
Other Responses
▪ Access to services (town)
▪ Transportation
▪ None of the above
▪ Poor town support for remodeling and upgrades
▪ 1 acre+ lot LAH quasi-rural housing inventory with large setbacks from neighboring properties.
▪ Lack of water
▪ NONE
▪ Poor aesthetics when compared to Portola Valley and Woodside 33%
78%
16%
32%
8% 7% 5%
40%
1%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-7
▪ None are relevant and these questions are biased toward a demographic that is not relevant to an affluent community.
▪ Empty houses
▪ Tax changes requiring owners to sell and move out
▪ This survey already seems biased in a direction
▪ Keeping the rural character of the properties in LAH (over 1 acre per house) AND High cost of taxes
▪ Infrastructure
▪ Outrageously costly water
▪ Lack of local control over zoning
▪ Too many restrictions imposed by city of Los Altos Hills for building ADUs ▪ want to maintain rural character
▪ Preserving the open spaces & trails of LAH (too much housing) ▪ There are no true housing issues in LAH. People settle there when they require space, the outdoors and a sense of nature and privacy. It's not a place for multiple housing. Its not near public transportation. An automobile and a bicycle will be necessary.
▪ traffic noise pollution from I-280 is too high
▪ relevant to whom?
▪ Vulnerability to wildfires.
▪ Protection of historic zoning and building setbacks.
▪ Meddling politicians with no respect for private property ▪ Preservation of rural atmosphere
▪ None, I really don't think there are any housing issues

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-8
▪ Taxes too high
▪ Road maintenance and preserve parking
▪ Concern for SB 9 and 10. Also over development. And sub division of lots. And undermining the rural nature of our community to obey woke regulations created by people who don’t live here.
▪ Setbacks are too generous to properly use the available land. We have a very narrow lot and there is no way to build an in-law units for my parents without getting into setbacks.
▪ The lack of open space that is undeveloped. That is what the town was created to preserve and now everything is being permitted development. ▪ I don’t see any issue.
▪ fire danger/ water availability/houses over sized
▪ None of above "issues" are relevant to LAH except 1-acre minimum lot size lot ▪ Nine of these are issues for Los Altos Hills. They may be issues for others but the town should worry about current residents and maintaining the value of the property of current residents.
▪ No housing issues
▪ Speeding
▪ Hilly terrain
▪ Why pick at least three (3)? This survey is not objective. ▪ Sheriff 1. Enforce car & 2. bicycle laws 3. Burglaries & crime ▪ I don't think any of these are issues.
▪ Difficulty paying property taxes
▪ I selected these because I had to. Don't really see an issue. Supply and demand. ▪ strict septic requirement from the county

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-9
▪ SB 9
▪ High property tax after renovating or rebuilding the aged house ▪ Save walk ways
▪ None of these are relevant.
▪ Very high Property Taxes
▪ Why I am required to have 3 “issues”, what if I have none? Your survey structure is obviously biased.
▪ Los Altos Hills is a place with large homes and generally wealthy families ▪ Lack of infrastructure- Sewer system, fiber optic network ▪ to my knowledge none of the above
▪ Very high Property taxes incongruent with the level and quality of infrastructure and public services provided - a County & state issue
▪ None
▪ It’s crazy expensive. I could never live here now. If we didn’t own. We are poor compared to all our Tesla google neighbors
▪ Maintaining the rural character of the town
▪ Housing proximal to employment or transportation corridors ▪ Remodeling your house that makes the reassessment unaffordable. ▪ Too many houses in these hills
▪ Maintenance of utilities, especially power lines & water ▪ None of the above
▪ Maintaining the nature of the LAH housing element
▪ this is a bullshit guestion
▪ High cost of utilities

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-10
▪ the mortgage is affordable it's that taxes that are not. ▪ Need more ADUs
▪ High density and disregard for setbacks.
▪ nontransparent complicated permitting process - especially when outsourced, when the agency is interested in multiple resubmitals
▪ Fire danger
▪ Difficulty dealing with Planning department; unneighborly neighbors ▪ Maintaining the rural look and feel of Los Altos hills ▪ state has an issue no LAH residents
▪ Preservation of the rural nature of our town
▪ None
▪ ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
▪ Maintain Local Land Use Control.
▪ sewer fees
▪ None- this is a beautiful town who is exclusive to those who have worked to afford living here.
▪ Permitting process is very painful and difficult
▪ Starter homes for families
▪ NONE
▪ Infrastructure to support higher populations, tight hilly roads, fire danger, constant power outages
▪ Too many rules for small stuff
▪ Too much regulation and permitting cost to build adu
▪ None, LAH is perfect.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-11
▪ Bad town management through ignoring our Greensheet foundation ▪ Price of water, now and with impossible increase in future ▪ Can’t think of anything to add.
▪ Assisted Living for seniors
▪ property tax
▪ starter homes
▪ Sewer connections, mandatory lot size, overhead power lines ▪ Not screwing up the high quality of living that motivated us to invest in a home in this community.
▪ Fire/Emergency preparedness, property crime, infrastructure (reliable electricity & internet)
▪ I do not want high density housing.

Q8. Which of the following housing types are missing or most needed in Los Altos Hills? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 410
Skipped: 128

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-12
Q9. Effective January 1, 2022, SB 9 requires every city and county to permit a lot split and/or the addition of second primary dwelling unit via a ministerial (nondiscretionary) approval. How likely or interested are you to add a primary or secondary dwelling unit on your property within the next 8 years? Answered: 466
Skipped: 72
37%
19%
9%
17%
4%
23%
31%
16%
44%
50%
2% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-13
Q10. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small living spaces on single-family home lots that can be rented. They can be a room in or a new addition to an existing home, or separate building on the same lot. They can provide additional income to homeowners, housing for parents, adult children, single persons and small families. Please select all the reasons you would consider owning or constructing an ADU:

Answered: 426
Skipped: 112
17%
15%
12%
43%
6% 6%
1%
I have
strong
interest
I have
moderate
interest
I have little
interest
I have no
interest
Don’t know This
doesn’t
apply to
me
Prefer not
to say
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-14
Other Responses
▪ LAH Parents intend on building ADU; extended family with small children may live there as well
▪ Housing for health care provider
▪ Wouldn’t consider an ADU
▪ Guests
▪ Housing for local teachers and nurses
▪ Separate rental unit
▪ Not at all interested given property size
▪ NONE
▪ I'm against adding ADUs as it violates 1 acre rule that we moved here for. ▪ Separate garage or personal office space
▪ Rent out to others in need
28%
64%
34%
16%
35%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-15
▪ Senior care giver
▪ Housing for a live-in nurse for aged home owners
▪ we already have a second unit
▪ people who need more cheap space should move out of LAH ▪ Housing for grandchildren
▪ Provide housing for lower income workers
▪ I have an Au-pair unit
▪ I would not consider owning or constructing an ADU.
▪ NA
▪ I would never consider an adu. This is another poorly formed question which tries to nudge respondents into agreeing with your suppositions. ADUs should not be allowed period.
▪ Someone to help with care
▪ NA
▪ I wouldn't consider owning or constructing an ADU due to the negative impacts on my neighborhood
▪ Guest House for visiting friends and adult children
▪ I'm against adus.
▪ guests, house sitter, etc
▪ Increasing the market value of my property.
▪ Providing additional housing for people in the area
▪ None
▪ No interest in building an ADU

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-16
▪ Adu's make a good way to serve different generations in a family. So used they enhance community solidarity and have few detriments. They should be encouraged.
▪ Not interested
▪ Someone to help with care as we get older
▪ I wouldn’t consider building - ugly
▪ Live-in care giver
▪ Not interested
▪ Not interested in adding can ADU
▪ Not interested
▪ Rent to someone that needs housing; LAH HAS to do its share ▪ Already have an ADU
▪ Would not consider
▪ I already have secondary unit in my lot.
▪ Housing for a local essential worker
▪ I wouldn't. Our lot is too sloped.
▪ Would not consider
▪ No. This puts more people living here. Don't want it. ▪ I would not consider an ADU. Town’s requirements make such units a loosing proposition.
▪ none
▪ No interest
▪ None
▪ To make dwelling more friendly for seniors, or assisted living.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-17
▪ I have an adu
▪ No reasons
▪ Not interested
▪ No interest whatsoever
▪ it is my property, i pay taxes, don't want gov't permission ▪ Caregiver housing
▪ To help with housing stock in region
▪ We already have a studio apartment at a reasonal rent that we rent--free wifi, free unility, free water/garbage
▪ I NOW HAVE A RENTAL ADU THAT CAN BE USED LATER FOR A LIVE IN CARETAKER AS I SLIP INTO MY 80'S
▪ Guests
▪ Provide housing for teachers or first responders
▪ already have one N/A
▪ I might want one. I don't want my neighbors to have one. ▪ Would not consider this
▪ already have one and we rent it at low cost
▪ Charity-help someone needing medical treatment at Stanford, etc ▪ NONE. I'M OPPOSED TO LOT SPLITTING.
▪ Provide housing community members with lower income
▪ Not interested
▪ I already have an ADU
▪ I think that ADU's should only be allowed under current MFA/MDA land coverage.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-18
▪ None, I don't want ADAs
▪ to use as an artist studio
▪ I don't want an ADU on my property - I like things as they are. ▪ I am not interested in owning or constructing an ADU
Q11. Please choose what obstacles may prevent you from building an ADU on your property (Select all that apply):

Answered: 449
Skipped: 89
Other Responses
▪ Cost of permits, water line, sewer
▪ Hilly property
▪ Topography
▪ Permitting. Same design CO $175/sq ft, LAH $1000+/sq ft 44% 46%
18%
9%
18%
27%
Cost to
convert
existing
space or
build an
addition
Technical
design,
construction
and
permitting
Adequate
space in
home or on
property for
an ADU
Management
of rental
(contract,
lease,
advertising,
collections,
taxes)
No obstacles Other (please
specify)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-19
▪ Dislike idea of compromising quality of LA Hills
▪ Too difficult and costly re: access to public utilities ▪ I would not want neighbor ADUs crowding our property either. Constantly barking dogs are already bad enough.
▪ All the houses on our street are on septic tanks which would add an additional cost/deterrent to adding an ADU. It would be nice if the town would focus on getting ALL residents on sewer.
▪ LAH zoning and set back rqmts
▪ NONE
▪ I do not want an ADU for me or my neighbors
▪ Already have ADU
▪ Adding a unit that does not improve the value or maintain traditional LAH standards that I had to obey when I built my home
▪ Need to cut down a large eucalyptus tree to fit one AND the hassle of going through construction (noise, mess, and dealing with contractor) ▪ Capacity of septic system
▪ Land development restrictions for property slope
▪ Los Altos Hills is overly restrictive in the max square footage allowed for an ADU ▪ Additional barriers that city of LAH has imposed above the state law ▪ I will not build an ADU on my property.
▪ sound issues from I-280
▪ see above
▪ Access to sewer connection.
▪ LAH zoning re: slopes

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-20
▪ Too big a project at my age
▪ trigger of increased property tax
▪ it would ruin the country feel of LAH
▪ ADU cost
▪ conservation easement
▪ Already have
▪ I rent
▪ NA
▪ My repulsion to undermining the beauty and character of my surroundings ▪ Setbacks
▪ Licensing obstacles
▪ This is supposed to be a rural community. The town didn’t update their gp from 1975 until 2000, for a reason: they had principals
▪ Not interested in adding an ADU.
▪ Cost
▪ Increased carbon footprint, utilities cost and traffic impacts ▪ Town permitting and approvals
▪ Hilly lot
▪ Permitting.
▪ Fire district
▪ I don't want more buildings on my land or more buildings throughout LAH. ▪ I already have one
▪ Reaction from neighbors

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-21
▪ Not interested
▪ Septic tank
▪ Already have one I don't use much or rent out.
▪ Difficulty in connecting to existing septic system
▪ Privacy concerns
▪ strict septic system from the county
▪ No need for an ADU
▪ High property tax
▪ Don’t like how these look
▪ property tax increases
▪ it takes too long to get City approval and high cost of permit and inspections ▪ Property tax reassessment
▪ Property on septic
▪ No access to sewer, septic cannot support more bedrooms/bathrooms ▪ Preserve single family housing on one acer lots
▪ Town applies very restrictive requirements rather than working with homeowner to figure out how to achieve home owner’s goal.
▪ already have an ADU
▪ At our age,not interested
▪ Town restrictions
▪ N/A
▪ Would not consider

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-22
▪ Our house is old and it would be a huge project. Might be a good idea though bc it would only be one or two more people and still on an acre. ▪ already have ADU
▪ We live on Elena Road, with most of our property line along the road. The 30' setback plus 10' easement (essentially 40' setback from Elena Road) leaves us little space to build an ADU. If the law would change to a 10'-20' setback along Elena, that would give us enough space to build an ADU which wouldn't interfere with our main residence. We currently have a design for an ADU, but it is 6' from our current residence, which is just too close together.
▪ We have had endless obstacles from department of environmental health due to lack of public sewer
▪ Town barriers
▪ I have no interest
▪ Not wanting to give up any of the property features that currently exist ▪ Regulatory complexity
▪ Privacy
▪ I wouldn't do it.
▪ Requirements imposed by Los Altos Hills government
▪ Building over 800 sqft within 30 ft of the property line is not allowed. ▪ The cost of an ADU built to meet Town’s requirements makes it a bad rental investment.
▪ not interes ted
▪ Do not want government shoving their crap down my throat. ▪ Privacy, responsibility, liability
▪ Ability to harmonize the ADU with the main house
▪ I have an adu

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-23
▪ Prefer privacy, not interested
▪ LAH
▪ that very big tax hit from our Democrats
▪ Onerous bureaucratic permitting process and fees
▪ Increase in property tax
▪ How do restrictions on MDA etc fit with this
▪ Unneighborly neighbors (who resent newcomers)
▪ For ideal placement of unit, it would be costly to redo/enlarge septic system or hook up to sewer. Also, it's not a priority since my older house needs kitchen and bathroom remodels/updates.
▪ I DID AN ADU BEFORE ADU'S WERE COOL. THE TOWN FOUGHT ME ON THIS, BUT I FOUND A LOOPHOLE AND PREVAILED!
▪ Age. We will probably be moving out within five years so it is not worth the effort. ▪ Oppose Sacramento dictating land use, support local control. ▪ already have one N/A
▪ I have an ADU
▪ I don't want ADU's in our fine town. That's not what we are for. ▪ Septic fields take up most of lot
▪ Cost of construction. Contractors see LAH addresses and seem to increase prices dramatically
▪ state requirements for septic upgrades / sewer connections adds ~$120k to the cost ▪ SCC Fire's requirement for a fire truck (40ft long, 75000lbs) turn around ▪ steep hillside
▪ Privacy

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-24
▪ I DO NOT WANT AN ADU.
▪ I don't own land
▪ county fire dept is obstacle
▪ septic tank and leach field limitations
▪ Planning time
▪ City planning department is aggressive with easement requests, deed restrictions, etc.
▪ Sq foot regulations.
▪ I don't want ADU's in LAH other than on properties where it conforms with current

MDA/MFA
▪ I dont want ADA
▪ The city might demand an easement on my entire property for no good reason. ▪ lack of sewer connection, excessive setback requirements ▪ I like my privacy and the wild things that live near my house. ▪ I don't want an ADU on my property - I like things as they are. ▪ lack of sewer.---- on septic
▪ Town is anti-housing and makes everything harder than it should be Q12. Every County and City in California is required to develop a housing plan to provide its fair share of housing to meet future growth for all income levels. In previous Housing Elements, the Town relied on ADUs to meet its affordable housing goals, but the state is now requiring multi-family housing in addition to ADUs. The Town of Los Altos Hills is required to develop programs to allow and encourage the development of at least 489 units over the next 8 years (2023-2031) including 279 units that are affordable to low- and moderate-income

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-25
households.Please select all of the following methods you believe the Town of Los Altos Hills should consider to meet its fair share of housing needs:

Answered: 452
Skipped: 86
Other Responses
▪ Provide access to low cost loans to finance ADUs.
▪ ADU/guest house renter lease for extended family, caretaker or student ▪ Buy up low performing strip malls and put housing on top. Transportation, utilities and parking are already there.
▪ Tie up ADU’s in court for next 50 years
▪ Allow higher density near transit corridors only-- to get extra cars in and out more easily.
▪ Make up the units with a dorm building at Foothill College. ▪ NONE
46%
38%
53%
24%
17%
42%
27%
19%
23% 20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-26
▪ Stop worrying about stupid things like height limits and building design and build some apartments in the downtown area.
▪ The reason we bought here was to have less housing with an acre minimum. Also built my place and had all of the town hall restrictions which doesn’t work with adu and split lots.
▪ It would be good for the Town to identify a location for a high density development.

I am most concerned about substantial redevelopment of existing single home lots and the loss of LAH rural character.
▪ This is unconstitutional and will be reversed when challenged in court so I would not waste time on this.
▪ Join other jurisdictions and fight the RHNA numbers
▪ Build tall apartment/condo on Lot 5 in foothill college. The infrastructure is in place, minimal impact to other residents.
▪ Increase property taxes to fund high density low cost housing near commute corridors
▪ No fees , that is absolutely absurd! Very frustrating it is not even on this survey. Do u know how violating that is to be ticketed based on your own property. Does anyone have a grasp of what we already pay in taxes?!
▪ Also need to provide affordable housing to teachers in Los Altos where our children attend public school
▪ Install town sewer system
▪ don’t feel changes are needed
▪ Construct High Density Housing adj to Freeway & Foothill Campus ▪ Require developers to build/fund affordable housing near transit hubs (which do not exist in LA Hills.)
▪ Do NOT allow for split lots. This is not the character or history of LAH. ▪ Stall until SB 9 is overturned
▪ Reduce short term rentals

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-27
▪ I thought we were “ag zoned”. Is there an exemption due to this? ▪ What’s the point of rezoning if the state has already usurped the towns authority? ▪ The entire town is supposed to be open space reserve. That what mary davis (mayor) did in 1975
▪ I don’t like any of this stuff.
▪ LAH doesn’t need to meet the needs.
▪ Foothill College has 122 acres, including tons of unused space that isn't visible from the neighborhood along the Perimeter Road. Similar to Cañada College, nice, affordable housing for faculty and staff could be developed there. ▪ Water is cares here. Build new towns in N. Cal. where there is lots of land ▪ I am opposed to all of the ideas listed.
▪ This is a bad idea. Please push back in the state before they destroy our bucolic town ▪ Make development area calculations reasonable.
▪ Absentee landlords of vacant houses are becoming a growing problem. They do not contribute to the community.
▪ Amend zoning for condominiums
▪ Through rezoning and eminent domain land acquisition, build an apartment complex on the eastern edge of town large enough to satisfy the requirements, and leave the rest of the town alone.
▪ No change
▪ LAH should do an economic impact and environmental safety study. ▪ Consider coop housing models
▪ None of this is satisfactory or makes sense. LAH does not make sense for this plan as there are plenty of other available lands around in the Bay Area. To impose this plan in a community that is not set up to house low income people is really wrong and would penalize the current residents and the newcomers.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-28
▪ ease septic requirement from the county based on number of bedrooms ▪ Fight the Communist takeover of zoning tooth and nail. ▪ No ideas
▪ Build apartment in baseball diamond near 280
▪ Be more reasonable with setbacks and MFA/MDA
▪ Legal defense to leave land use planning to the City
▪ The whole thing is a bad idea
▪ The Town should be fighting the state’s attack on local government. It is irresponsible not to fight this required destruction of suburban and rural zoning. ▪ Take no action, resist the mandate to retain rural character and 1 acre minimum lots ▪ Build 4 story blocks of Student housing at Foothill College. ▪ None
▪ Work on improving basic infrastructure needed for growth: sewer, roads, electrical & internet support
▪ Can not decide
▪ I do not believe the Town of Los Altos Hills has sufficient utility and water to serve more residents and feel STRONGLY that LAH and other communities should maintain local control!!
▪ Need to research ramifications more
▪ Appose all extreme land develement- keep our openness! ▪ Consider environment impact and maintain quality of life in town ▪ Purchase and develop property for higher density housing in areas near LAH but with better proximity to transportation and employment
▪ Don't do it.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-29
▪ Try everything possible to thwart SB 9.
▪ Open up foothill to high density housing, declare LAH a wildlife habitat zone ▪ This is irresponsible
▪ Multiple units in a lot is not suitable for Los Altos Hills ▪ affordable housing but who pays the tax??
▪ Fund multifamily in other nearby cities.
▪ I am against turning public land into housing of any kind. ▪ Employees of wealthy live on bosses property
▪ Build using zoning affordable apt/condo units at the border of the town ▪ should repeal SB 9
▪ Provide incentives to build ADU. The town has to keep its rural environment. ▪ THE TOWN SHOULD START A PAC TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THIS EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT OVERREACH.S
▪ The main focus should be AFFORDABLE housing for those less fortunate than most of us LAH homeowners.
▪ Densify along El Camino Real; Transportation available ▪ provide better wildfire prevention to encourage buyers ▪ None. It is our constitutional right to zone our properties as we see fit as a community. We already have all the zoning laws that we need. ▪ Plan where denser housing is closer to town/transit. Traffic/parking has to be considered
▪ No idea
▪ Consider Foothill College campus for RHNA

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-30
▪ Atherton allows JADU's to NOT count in the MFA. Follow suit and you will get more JADU units.
▪ 0.5 acre parcel minimum
▪ Use the land at Foothill College to build anything. Keep LAH itself rural. ▪ Fight it, we don't want it
▪ preservation and access for wildlife
▪ lower minimum parking requirements
▪ reduce setback requirements, allow lot splits
▪ Authorize multi-family housing at Foothill college - minimize at all costs negative impact on the LAH semi-rural environment.
▪ I do not want high density housing.
▪ Switch from LUF to gross area. Modestly reduce lot size minimums.

Q13. Is there anything else Los Altos Hills should consider when developing housing policies and programs? Please provide any additional feedback here:

Answered: 218
Skipped: 320
Other Responses
▪ Organized neighbor associations for neighbors to chat about things like tips on saving water, landscaping ideas, managing wildlife like deer or coyotes, or to check the well-being of an aging neighbor. Also, would LAH consider implementing some best practice guidelines on keeping pets? Many other towns or counties have limits on the number of cats a resident may own, or require simple registration of backyard chickens, or have regulations about how close a chicken run/coop can be to others’ property/house. Thanks!
▪ I love the rural character of Los Altos Hills, but I believe we can maintain that feel while also significantly increasing the number of housing units. We can promote turning single family homes into fourplexes and encourage the construction of ADUs without compromising the residential look of the town. I also think there are

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-31
many places where garden apartments and townhouses would be lovely and could provide invaluable housing to young people, especially the grown children who were raised in Los Altos Hills and the professionals like teachers we need in our town but cannot afford to live here. In short, I support as much up zoning as possible and the creation of as many units as possible to ensure that Los Altos Hills can become more dynamic and accessible to those in the community!
▪ Please continue to push back to the state. Towns that have created more jobs than housing should be responsible for adding more housing. (LAH already has a surplus of housing over jobs)
▪ Minimize disruption to the existing one acre lots with single family homes, but allow ADUs to meet the above needs.
▪ Buy up some adjoining county land to do this but be sure there is an hourly transport to train. Do NOT consider paving MPOSD lands. This needs to be much closer to El Camino Real and the transit corridor.
▪ Systematic review of emergency access routes for escape from fires and access by fire trucks and ambulances.
▪ Don’t permit ADU’s
▪ Make it easier for homeowners to get permits for ADU's and other housing additions.
▪ Infra structure ,as in sewage and roads ,remains an obstacle to building additional units in los altos hills.
▪ Don't let the county or state screw up our rural zoning.

Be more helpful about remodeling and upgrades. Stop looking at it as a source of income.
▪ The bay area needs more housing ASAP. I truly hope Los Altos Hills takes this order to create almost 500 new units seriously, and succeeds. Thank you! ▪ Push back. Do not comply with this idiotic, narrow minded, liberal plan. Make the Gov and state legislators build ADUs and multistory building units on their property first.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-32
▪ Get it on the ballot for voters to overturn SB 9 &10 & retain the quasi rural quality of LAH that prompted us to purchase (& want to retain value of) homes in town. ▪ funds for increasing numbers in schools, safety of more cars on narrow winding roads, fire exit accessibility, providing sufficient parkland for increased population ▪ Purissima Hills does not have enough water supply for all this new housing. New residents should have to buy supply from existing residents. ▪ LAH is part of the Bay Area and should not be catered only the well to do. The day that LAH approved the development of huge houses has voided the claim that LAH is "rural" which is used as a pretext for its restricting codes. ▪ Lower our Taxes if you move non tax paying housing into our town ▪ The town council and the building permitting committee have little interest in allowing our town to grow to meet housing needs. They spend all their time critiquing building plans and cribbing about when they exceed the height limit.

People should be allowed to build what they want. All these rules are just people being intolerable busybodies at the best and closet racists at the worst. There is no reason to preserve the town exactly the way it is now. If everyone always thought that way, we would just be a bunch of dirt roads and orchards. Let the town evolve and progress.
▪ Want to maintain the rural nature of our town. Worried about fire and the issues with traffic and parking
▪ We have narrow roads and are in an area of fire hazards plus wildlife zones. I strongly oppose increasing density of houses or multiplexes. This one size fits all solution makes little sense. I do not want public lands to be used by profit and Alec service g developers.
▪ Continue to fight against SB 9 and for intelligent zoning based on local needs. ▪ I would love Los Altos Hills to continue the current characteristics without altering anything. The things that I miss most are having more parks and kids' play areas. ▪ The whole trend toward urbanizing our community abs dramatically changing the nature of our community with more housing density is unconstitutional and will be reversed in court. So I would discourage any efforts to comply with these offensive proposed regulations.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-33
▪ Using tax dollars, purchase 2 or 3 modest-size homes and manage them as rentals for Town staff and other essential workers.
▪ Again, build dense housing on Foothill College. Minimal impact to residents.

Housing can be for students/teachers/police/fire/very low income/low income.

California Bonus density law will let you build more units. Access to VTA means lower cars per unit. A larger plan with retail (grocery, casual restaurant) would benefit both the college and the community.
▪ Please make sure any infrastructure, such as private roads, are required to be updated with any increased use around whatever housing policies are decided upon. Increased building/people, means more services to support to support that building.
▪ Do not change the 1 acre rule. We moved here for that. Changing zoning retroactively is a violation of property rights of current owners. No infrastructure support for added density. You will ruin the nature of Los Altos Hills! ▪ Build dorms at Foothill college for the students and be done. ▪ There are so many vacant houses. Let's start by penalizing empty houses with a high fee that can fund affordable housing or dangerous tree removal. There are numerous empty houses nearby our house.
▪ To reach the goal of 489 units, it will take more than building ADUs. I could imagine surplus land being used to build large apartment building, 4-5 stories high, with affordable units, underground parking
▪ We need to make it much easier and cheaper to add dwelling units, either standalone units or separate entrances to existing homes. Streamline permitting, provide help from Town experts to landowners/homeowner, make permits very cheap or free. Town should serve to enable, not block, adding units. ▪ Until the Town has a public sewer there will be very little movement on this issue.

Septic system leach fields take up too much land. Land that could be used for additional dwellings.
▪ Los Altos Hills has been traditionally rural town. Preserving property values, space in between homes for privacy purposes should be at the forefront of the Towns goal with its new guidelines. I fear that developers will come in and purchase the land and destroy the quiet community by buying up ranch homes and changing them into apartment complexes and duplexes.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-34
▪ i think the current nature of semi rural housing density in the town is good. i hope that will be maintained
▪ I have a Jr. ADU apartment in my home. I think the town should do a survey and find out how many units already exist that they do not know about. This does not show in County records even though home was built/finished in 1991. ▪ Do not reduce setbacks between properties. Do allow wildlife corridors. Consider the constant drought and water and other infrastructure needed for all these new units. How will you achieve adequate water? Don't cut trees to allow for new houses.

Can our narrow winding roads accommodate new traffic? There will be increased fire danger with additional homes.
▪ Support CA state initiatives to modify or overturn SB 9 ▪ Allow any ADU (detached or attached) to be up to 1200 sq feet in area.... Not be subject to Max Developable Area limits which were set 30+years ago. ▪ I think we should do something to provide some lower income housing in line with the state‘s policy.
▪ Streamline process to get ADU approved.
▪ LAH should join the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative. Also - consider subsidizing housing for qualified workforce (first responders, teachers). ▪ Do not allow for splitting lights or putting multi dwelling units on LAH lots. This is not the culture or history of Los Altos Hills! Keep LAH as it has always been . ▪ Los Altos Hills is not Redwood City or Mountain View. Housing policies are not "one size fits all". Housing policies or programs must have relevance to the area in which they are located. The only housing that makes sense for lower income residents would be for teachers, fire and police personnel. Apartments, townhouses and condos could be built on public or semi-public lands near the 280 corridor. ▪ Minimize changes to the fundamental character of the town. ▪ Carefully plan the change to keep neighborhood character. Another concrete jungle would be no-no.
▪ City funded tree trimming efforts can help prevent over growth

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-35
▪ People who buy homes in Los Altos Hills do so to get away from people. If they wanted to live near people they would buy homes in Atherton, or Hillsborough. It is understandable then that people living in Los Altos Hills will not be in favor of trying to help figure out ways for more people to live here.
▪ No high density housing. It is important to maintain the rural environment. ▪ A high end multi-unit development of condos/townhomes/small residences for seniors. I am 77 & have a home and contiguous lot. A luxury smaller residence in LAH would be an excellent option for me. This option doesn’t exist currently and could get older residents out of their homes.
▪ Seek out and join other private parties, cities and other entities in filing suit to challenge the constitutionality and provisions of S.B. 9. ▪ Need to have better internet infrastructure. With many people working from home, getting high speed, stable internet has been a huge issue for many LAH residences. ▪ Require all SB 9 properties to underground all local utilities for themselves and their neighbors
▪ Preserve rural atmosphere, set backs, screening etc
▪ Enabling larger homes to accommodate renters is a good idea if it supports the community (elderly home owners). Enabling home owners to expand their existing homes to support more inhabitants is ok to a limit along with ADUs. The purpose of buying a home in Los Altos Hills is privacy, peace, and the enjoyment that comes with a more rural feel. The value of the town and area is diluted with the addition of multiplexes. Affordable housing is available in surrounding areas, the answer for essential workers is transportation, not housing. The city of Los Altos Hills does not have a housing issue, but it can accommodate additions to existing homes and ADUs.
▪ Do not require homeowners to split their lots or add ADU's. ▪ Please don't make us look like Woodside.
▪ What is the criteria for "affordable housing"? I am in favor of allowing residents to reduce lot size to 1/2 acre. The opposition is increased congestion, but not all LAH residents will want to reduce their lot size.
▪ Maintain rural atmosphere, low density as much as possible

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-36
▪ Infrastructure. Are utilities, traffic and parking enhancements being factored into the City's plans? Just adding housing may cause further issues that need to be addressed up front.
▪ We have septic -in the hills. if additional homes are built on my hill, it’s going to be a problem for me.

My home was built in 1940, adding AdU will cause issues as the town will make me upgrade my house to meet current guidelines. That will cost a lot.

No lights or proper sidewalks-how will the town account for at least 500 more families without infrastructure.

Why are developers allowed to clear cut and build huge homes? ▪ Perhaps you should expand your focus to fighting back. There’s a petition out there to put this on the ballot in November. Only needs 1.5m sigs. We should also replace our representative in Congress I think his name is Becker. Or Berman. Maybe work together with like-minded towns to push back hard in a regional effort. ▪ Yeah stop them all
▪ I favor let’s stay in control.
▪ I prefer small and quiet neighborhood. I am against building a lot more units to make the town crowded. I don’t want the traffic to get worse either. ▪ It's important to protect the scenic, natural beauty of Los Altos Hills. ▪ LAH is somewhat unique. We should strive, as much as possible, to keep it that way. ▪ Please keep the semi-rural character of our town as it is.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-37
▪ Consider the way to maintain the single family home and the spaciousness that LAH is known for
▪ Set a maximum on size of house in Los Altos Hills. Enforce a fire code that maintains safety of the area. Raise taxes to support construction in new areas of California where there is lots of land. People can work from home and start new zones of living. ▪ No lot splits or ADUs should be permitted on properties with private roads for ingress & egress due the additional/resultant maintenance costs (must be shared equally somehow) and adverse impacts from increased vehicle traffic and adverse safety impacts.
▪ Please continue to respect the rural nature of our Town. Insist on an impact report (on parking, traffic, water and sewage, environment, etc.) from the builders. ▪ Los Altos hills is a bucolic town. We need to push back on the state and prevent Los Altos hills from becoming another San Francisco or San Jose downtown ▪ Kill SB 9 and focus on encouraging ADAs
▪ Priority should be given to maintaining the value of the property existing residents while complying with state imposed regulations. Priority should NOT be given to solving some perceived societal macro issues.
▪ Please do not ruin the rural beauty of our town.
▪ Keep Real Estate people from buying the homes for investment They keep the prices up. They are bothering all the time. ▪ Permitting and approvals within the town are very time consuming. Please add or replace staff.
▪ Seek public funds required to support higher density housing, e.g. roadways, blind curves, pedestrian sidewalk, etc, before higher density housing is commissioned.

Los Altos Hill roads are not safe with increased traffic. ▪ Housing is a human right
▪ Fire department getting in the way of ADUs

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-38
▪ I live here because of the uncongested bucolic setting. Concerned that will be negatively impacted if we are forced into SB 9 regulations. The Hills with narrow country roads is not the place for high density housing. ▪ I would love to keep the town one that has land between homes. I know that doesn't support the goals of the city's mandate, but whatever can be done that prevents any of us finding ourselves with homes stacked up on one another would be ideal Perhaps those with over an acre can be encouraged to sub-divide to meet the goal? ▪ Fight like hell to overturn SB 9 & SB10 including lawsuits. Sacramento cannot manage it's current duties let alone manage the affairs of each city. ▪ Get less picky about adu conversions. But...keep trying to maintain the one acre lot standard.
▪ Consider abs respect the rural nature that attracted us to buying a property in Los Altos Hills. Be careful not to create eyesores! Don’t obstruct our lines of sight from our homes. Don’t create more traffic. Reduce our property taxes. Refund surplus taxes collected. Give neighbors the opportunity to have first right of refusal to neighboring properties and to purchase them. Prioritize fire prevention. Require owners to remove dead brush. Require owners to maintain their properties and not have them exist in a derelict state. Consider protecting wildlife. Zone affordable housing in commercial areas, not rural perhaps adjacent to schools. ▪ Don’t bc need high density housing here
▪ SB 9 was not voted on and is not supported by the majority ▪ Subdividing Lots and SB 9 is a load of crap being forced on us. It needs to be overturned and the politicians behind it replaced. Nobody voted for it and it is not supported by the majority. Water shortage.
▪ Sewer line’s
▪ Forcing more building will require more drilling into unstable hill sides, increasing the cost to build and making the hills more susceptible to landslides. Further, LAH does not have updated sewers that can handle the increased sewage capacity needed. LAH should do an economic impact and environmental safety study. ▪ (1) Please maintain minimum 1 acre lot size. (2) Please consider we have efficient supply of utility (such as water, sewer connection, etc.) (3) Please make sure there is

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-39
enough access roads and parking for the proposed additions of housing. Thank you!!
▪ Add housing for people with various CB kinds of disabilities ▪ The Town should prepare an in-depth document stating why this new law does not make any sense in LAH
▪ ease number of bedrooms requirement for county septic design ▪ Let's fight Communism rather than acquiescing to it. If the Commies succeed they will ruin out country.
▪ Many houses in the city are very old or structurally unsafe that require renovated or re-built. The cost to renovate/rebuild are high and also the re-appraisal property tax after remodel/rebuild is a significant increase. Is there a program to limit the property tax increase after remodel/rebuild especially for senior? ▪ No ideas.
▪ What about apartments on Lincoln Park or the baseball diamond? I love the idea of building teacher housing/housing for other town workers. Seems like apartments/condos would make some sense.
▪ Buy lots along 280 and build high density housing there. Start with the baseball diamond.
▪ I feel like the town is way too restrictive with allowing owners to use their property.

Removing the administrative red tape will give people the incentive to invest in housing.
▪ Support a proposition to get SB 9 removed
▪ If the state mandates 489 units over the next 8 years with 289 being low income the question is will the community voluntarily add 289 ADUs and what assurance is there that they will be rented at the low income level? Sounds like LAH would be required to break the one acre minimum code. LAH would also have to allow higher density per acre or lot split and allow multi unit properties (duplex, triplex, four plex, etc.) in specific areas in the current R-A zone that are in lower fire hazard areas with adequate sewer and water service availabilities.
▪ Subsidiaries for ADUs and lighter septic requirements

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-40
▪ Prioritize retaining current low density and semi-rural character of town with lots of open space and nature
▪ Preserve our one acre zoning and setbacks.
▪ I appreciate that you are doing this survey to get our inputs. Reduce ADU / house building fees to encourage construction.
▪ Join with woodside, Atherton and other acre zoned towns to resist or overturn this legislation.
▪ Fight Sacramento.
▪ Families who have lived in LAH for a long time enjoy the rural environment and as a result pay higher property taxes. Crowding the City with additional low income housing next to multi $million houses makes no sense. Also not only is it not desirable but the road system is not laid out to take much more traffic. ▪ Resist the state mandate
▪ Los Altos Hills has high fire danger areas and needs easy access for the fire department trucks. More housing means more water usage, more cars, more children for school. Current state legislation says more Housing but no reference to AFFORDABLE housing.
▪ Reduction of lot size requirement
▪ Infrastructure needs of additional residents.
▪ I think we all moved here in order to enjoy our semi rural atmosphere. We should keep that in mind while developing any new housing policies. ▪ Traffic and parking impact especially on narrow town roads. Fire safety issues resulting from increased housing in fire prone areas of the town. Putting sewer hookups throughout the town to support the development. ▪ If you are considering on promoting ADU or high density housing, I recommend that you provide reasonable solutions about the consequences. For example, the setbacks doesn’t allow home owners to build an ADU with enough dwelling space, it would ended up allowing home owners to build a shed. Or, if there are not enough transportation alternatives, the increase cars on the street would cause traffic jam, resulting in decrease in lifestyle satisfaction or overall productive time of residents.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-41
▪ Infrastructure needs improvement to support growth: sewer being the top issue.

For youth, add high density housing near & around Foothill College. For affordable housing, encourage ADU's & encourage placement of local workforce in these ADU's.
▪ The legislation should be used to ensure developers do not profit from building multiple, expensive single-family homes on smaller lots. ▪ ADUs should be upto 1,800 sq ft. For example, my working daughter (single mom) and child (and occasional overnight nanny) would find 1,200 sq ft too small. On the one hand, the town wants ADUs. On the other hand, these tiny ADUs would be more suitable for a well-off single person than for a family with kids looking to be closer to good schools and outdoor beauty. If the town had made ADUs more attractive, it would have reached its housing goal. Now any homeowner who wants to make money can sell to a developer for SB 9 construction.
▪ We really like the look and feel of Los Altos Hills with space and no apartment style housing. Please don't change that. ADU's are probably the best solution if you need to add affordable housing. Don't do lot splits, you can't ever take that back. ▪ Not in favour of SB 9.Owners move here because of space and small town atmosphere
▪ It’s past time LAH did it’s fair share . Apts at FHill College would be a good start . We can’t continue to be NIMBYS
▪ Local control should be kept over state control! There is no way the state should be allowed to control rezoning. The land we all hold so dear would be taken from us all my ruthless developers!!
▪ ADUs and/or lot splits would have a severe negative impact on town ▪ Make the ADU and JADU process as easy as possible.
▪ Ways to keep seniors in their homes. If you want to bike but live on a hill and must drive to Fremont, safe place to park while using bike to get to town. Safe place for bike when not in use.
▪ No commercial development.

Maintain low density housing.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-42
Preserve beautiful views.
▪ Pls don’t ruin the essence of Los Altos hills, which has the rural charm in the heart of Silicon Valley!
▪ Must keep the l acre minimum lot size for LAH.
▪ Pls maintain the rural, suburban Los Altos hill character that is the essence of the city
▪ Please change the setback rules from the main roads! We would love to build an ADU (or a 1500 sf home), but because of the 30' setback plus 10' easement, our ADU would have to be long and narrow (and within 6' of our main residence) in order to fit on our property! If the setback from Elena Road would change to 10' (or maybe even 20'), we would finally have enough usable land to build an ADU that wouldn't crowd our current house.
▪ The permitting bureaucracy is still a massive obstacle to building additional gousing especially around septic tanks.
▪ No-I appose the whole issue of forced “9” and “10” demands made by our state government. Please find away out of this decree.
▪ If needed keep density on flat ground and near the cities ▪ 1) develop covenant for maintaining a rural atmosphere where horses, cows, chicken etc would be allowed
2) Wild animal could still co-exist
3) Current Environmental policies are not compromised
4) No wide multi-lane roads
▪ Fire safety
▪ Increasing the housing density in LAH is an incredibly bad idea when we currently have grave concerns for providing water, sanitation, fire safety, traffic flow-through, etc. for our existing low-density populace.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-43
▪ Please don't ruin the ambiance of LAH by allowing non-R1 zoning, such as apartment complexes.
▪ Take over private non-housing areas, such as horse areas and tennis courts, to build townhomes
▪ Consider infrastructure, fire safety, parking on narrow roads, access to public transportation, protecting rural environment that is part of the charter, protecting easements and wildlife, protesting SB 9 and 10
▪ If we're going to raise the housing density, where's the water and power going to come from? We already don't have enough water or power for the current residents.

Why are we trying to increase density? Nobody voted for SB 9 & 10! ▪ The impact upon existing infrastructure (water, power, sewer/septic, roads) and the Town itself should be considered not just for an individual application but for the aggregate. Costs to the Town need to be identified and not absorbed by the Town. ▪ Buy Lehigh Quarry and build low income housing there
▪ Please preserve our town's valuable rural atmosphere as much as possible. ▪ Since the Housing Element proposals will be reoccurring every 8 years, if possible master plan Foothill College to allocate space for 400+ units every 8 years, especially affordable housing. Maximize housing potentials on institutional sites. Retain the rural neighborhood vernacular with height and coverage restrictions, but make it easier to build 1-2 small one story ADU’s for each one acre lot. Discourage lot splits under SB-9 by allowing three housing units per one acre-lot. Encourage planting shade trees and low water landscaping and reexamine wildfire danger potentials at least every three to five years.
▪ septic system limitations and proper sewage connection responsibilities per residence.
▪ Amend Emergency Ordinance to allow for single family home construction on subdivided lot with less restrictions
▪ Plan for parking in all development activity. Consider making all of LAH to be no parking on the streets except in special areas that can accommodate on-street parking. Most LAH streets are narrow and cannot accommodate on-street parking.

Find a way to limit the use of NO PARKING signs.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-44
▪ Los Altos Hills should be pushing for dense market rate and significant truly affordable housing units on the Foothill College Campus (parking lots) with priority going to Firefighters, Police officers, Nurses, Teachers, Librarians, Foothill College and city employees. Also, on Foothill’s campus, there should be affordable housing dedicated to college students who attend Foothill and the surrounding colleges/universities.

In the neighborhoods, Los Altos Hills should push for continued ADU construction but retain reasonable height, coverage and parking requirements to maintain the rural atmosphere we all love about the town. I think a main house with two detached 800-1000 sqft ADUs and parking for 5-6 cars per acre lot should be allowed as an alternative to lot splitting under SB-9.

Also, the town needs to reassess fire propensity at least every five years. Climate change is here and we should not be building density in high fire areas. ▪ 1. Replace Hillside Development Ordinance’s restrictive MDA & MFA formulas tied to lot’s slope when it comes to rezoning and lots splits with a reasonable lot coverage percentages.

2. Promote sewer system expansion to support new development. 3 Adhere to SB 9 setback requirements.
▪ Circulate and Sign the initiative to overturn SB 9
▪ Higher density may require upgraded utilities, concrete sidewalks, widened streets.

Existing property values may be negatively impacted.

Additional schools, parks, emergency services, downtown parking may be needed. ▪ Good luck fighting state bureaucrats.
▪ Multi-family housing is not appropriate for LAH, given the topography and lack of infrastructure to support such housing

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-45
▪ Must maintain the rural appearance when changing zoning, splitting lots, modifying design requirements, etc.
▪ Please keep a strong focus on LAH original charter and why that has been important for the existing residences. Also evaluate the impact on infrastructure including water, sewer, and power
▪ Traffic and noise
▪ Build denser housing where utilities, public transport, etc. are available. North of 280.
▪ This irresponsible state law would deny cities the opportunity to provide unique and very necessary housing opportunities by dictating California's nearly 200 cities all must look like a Los Angeles slum. There are very serious health consequences from this irresponsible law
▪ Traffic and transportation, and our hilly geography is not terribly conducive to lot splits or separate ADUs.
▪ Is there recourse against SB 9? It does not account for the needs of each community, rather puts requirements in a one-size-fits-all model. LAH does not have nor is it close to public transportation. Our town rules reflect our homeowners desire for privacy and space. If there is no recourse, then I would favor building large apartment units in the local school properties for the low income units the state is (unreasonably) requiring.
▪ HELP US. Make LAH affordable. How can you expect low income to afford this area? Maybe they can buy but property taxes require a mortgage. ▪ Los Altos Hills should retain its one-acre minimum lot size and single family zoning, and provide any required multi-family or lower income housing in nearby cities, such as Mountain View where there is already much multi-family. ▪ I have lived in Los Altos Hills for over 40 years. It started out as a pretty nice place to live. This law has nothing to do with affordable housing. It is a money grab by developers and they don't care if they ruin the communities. time to move out of the state, I guess.
▪ Consider the loss of the existing neighborhood and the creation of an overbuilt area with not enough parking, privacy, fire safety, etc.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-46
▪ weekly office hours to explain ADU regulations to residents; financial incentives to those interested in ADUs ( lower fees, additional financing); webinars to explain SB 9 to local residents
▪ Don’t let the loud anti-9 voices overwhelm you!! Stay strong and keep up the good fight for more housing units in LAH.
▪ Do not destroy public lands by rezoning them for other purposes, these public reserves and park lands are key to Los Altos Hills enjoyment etc... ▪ Please fight to maintain the semi-rural character of the town that has brought most of here in the first place
▪ LAH should expand municipal sewer to all residents as this is a limiting factor in building a home for bigger families or adding an ADU.
▪ Like any city, leaving property vacant causes blight—there is not enough housing ▪ Tax the LAH population to (1) improve regional transportation and (2) accelerate construction of multi-family units near transportation corridors. ▪ Retain the rural nature of the town.
▪ Beyond institutional sites, if re-zoning for greater density must occur, the town should create a map that shows which properties would most-certainly be off-limits due to fire, slope and environmental concerns. Also, debate whether it's best to spread impact evenly across town or to consolidate it to neighborhoods situated nearest to shopping/public transportation/jobs, ie: downtown Los Altos and El Monte Ave bus route.
▪ The charter of the property owners and the city is to do what is right for us and that is to maintain a beautiful rural look and feel. The state cannot impose on us what to do. That is simply NOT right.
▪ Zoning changes (for affordable housing only) should be considered at the border of town. This will reduce the strain on infrastructure like sewer, roads, power, water etc. and maintain the towns core values. Think of it as changing the rules for all the areas we annexed maintaining the original town to its core values. ▪ repeal SB 9 - preserve the rural character of our community ▪ LAH should fight these state requirements. We want to retain the 1 acre single family community as well as much open space. LAH should make it very difficult to build

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-47
multi family and lots splits that are not based on our current set. backs. I do not want my next door neighbor to suddenly be a 4 unit property!!! ▪ Consider the impact of greedy property developers who don't live in the area.

Having lived thru mandatory rezoning overseas, the quality of homes and life does not improve just because more homes are permitted.
▪ Kill the bill. California needs two-party system.
▪ SEE MY LAST COMMENT
▪ Avoid multiple family dwellings on existing lots. It would be better to put townhouses on underutilized public land rather the clutter neighborhoods. ▪ Fire safety. Parking.
▪ Maintain open space. Oppose Sacramento & HCD on RHNA numbers. ▪ Provide better wildfire prevention to encourage residents to feel safe in their homes ▪ High turnover at the building department is a big problem.

In our project, onerous fire department requirements completely unrelated to the structure being built have slowed the project materially. Anyone who looks on our property thinks the requirements don't make any sense for our geography. ▪ Yes, don't agree to any changes to current zoning laws. ▪ Please ensure the infrastructure is updated to accommodate the housing policy ▪ Do not allow lots to be split, this will ruin the rural feel of LAH. This land should be not developed it will turn this beautiful area into a parking lot full of traffic jams. ▪ Set backs need to be adhered as they are currently. Views must be protected. ▪ protection and harmony with nature
▪ Fulfill RHNA at FootHill College campus. Follow Atheton's example. They fulfilled their RHNA with Menlo Highschool campus.
▪ Be helpful, not NIMBYs

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-48
▪ I do not believe Los Altos Hills is equipped to handle an increase of volume based on the infrastructure and the rural nature of the town. This is an example of government overreach that I have to say this in the first place. ▪ Please restrict lot splits to only certain streets where there's enough sewer connection options AND where slope is under 10%.
▪ Reconsider your approach to SB 9. Allowing subdivisions would be among the least impactful ways to add new homes in LAH. Consider creating multi-family designs that look like mansions if you're concerned with "neighborhood character." ▪ SC county fire defies State law and prevents LAH residents from adding ADUs ▪ Maintain our semi -rural charters
▪ Put housing at Foothill for students, teachers, and other support groups. Allow multiple stories in that one spot to solve this problem. Let’s not destroy the character of the town with duplexes and split lots.
▪ Explore all options for handling wastewater for ADUs
▪ Embrace change and consider the greater good. Steer away from NIMBY policies and actions (like the SB 9 Emergency Oridnance).
▪ Preservation of Town characteristics and protection of natural resources ▪ Infrastructure required for the development, wildfire risk. ▪ Don't change one acre minimum lot size for new houses. ▪ Yes, fight this nonsense along with other towns.
▪ Put any high density needs at Football College
▪ Sign Our Neigborhood Voices petition to rescind SB 9 and 10. This is a travesty. If I wanted to live in a condo or have neighbors peering in my windows, I wouldn’t have bought in LAH.
▪ Low income housing needs to be near transit routes. Multiple dwelling units need to be on flat areas, with wider roads for on street parking.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-49
▪ Streamline the permitting process. Stop demanding weird easements for no good reason. I know someone who's spent more than a year without a decent roof on their house because the city can't permit things.
▪ The Pink Horse Ranch Property on Tepa is a vacant lot and would be perfect for multi-family housing
▪ The rural character of LAH is no longer popular with the current generation of home buyers. They are looking for modern conveniences that includes sewer connections.

As a result LAH is loosing out to its neighbors like Los Altos, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc. These cities have far higher housing density, yet higher real estate values than comparable homes in LAH. In order to protect the value of our housing stock, the City should keep this in mind and develop future housing policies accordingly. ▪ High density housing really doesn't belong in this town. We should work to protect the qualities that make this a desirable place to live. Trashing the town to drive down housing prices does a dis-service to those who live here. For many of us, our houses are our most valuable investment, posing a direct conflict between the financial wellbeing of existing residents and those looking to purchase. ▪ Ensure infrastructure can accommodate any increased population and/or density.

Current infrastructure (emergency egress, power, data, etc.) is questionable for existing population.
▪ Los Altos Hills has a town mandate to have one acre lots for a reason, SB 9 takes that away. I do not want more housing. We don’t have the water, parking or need for more traffic. Evacuation will become harder in case of Earthquakes or fires. ▪ This ADU/affordable housing issue does not take into consideration the fact that LAH is a rural community in a moderate to high fire risk zone, and the home to many species of wildlife. Additional homes/density will put even greater pressure on the Town's ability to 1) protect residents' safety, and 2) ensure we preserve our open spaces, natural habitats, and the ability for wildlife to travel in and around our town. ▪ Retain setback existing law
▪ Make the process easier. It should not take years to start projects. Planning has too much involvement; more work should be by-right.
▪ Keep Los Altos Hills as rural as possible.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-50
Q14. Have you or someone you know ever encountered any of the forms of housing discrimination described above?
Answered: 440
Skipped: 98
Other Responses
▪ "affordable" is a relative term even if "Market rate" is prevented. Factoring in land cost and building codes we are 10X+ away from anything being 'affordable.' The debate needs to be numerical, location specific, transportation and services specific, consider risks like evacuations for fire and EQ. The ADU approach is OK on the surface but the implementation is way beyond reasonable costs. ▪ No. Why would you ask this question?
▪ Town won lawsuit against this, but now would lose, because they have violated all the tools once used to created a planned ultimate community ▪ I am tired of this survey at this point.
▪ I haven't but many people including a former president have been racially discriminatory.
0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2% 5% 3%
73%
8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-51
▪ Not here but definitely in another state where I lived. Here the prejudices seem most likely to be based on economic snobbishness.
▪ I have faced discrimination in trying to develop housing for people with developmental disabilities in many local communities. Never even tried Los Altos Orr Los Altos hills. We were discouraged right from the beginning. We also faced discrimination in Los Altos in trying to find school site for autistic students ▪ another bullshit question. These laws have been around for decades and every real estate agent has to know them.
▪ Real estate agent discriminating during open house and asking people to leave ▪ BS question- there is no discrimination in LAH.
▪ Realtor jacking up prices to keep buyers out.

Q15. Have you or someone you know ever encountered any of the forms of housing discrimination described above?
Answered: 263
Skipped: 273
6%5% 5%4% 4%2%
9% 9%
4%

81.59% 83.12%

91.53%
Bay Area Santa Clara
County
Los Altos Hills
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
In the last 2 years
In the last 5 years
More than 5 years ago
Not applicable. Not aware of
any discrimination

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-52
Q16. Please check all of the following forms of housing discrimination that you believe are occurring in Los Altos Hills.

Answered: 359
Skipped: 179
Other Responses
▪ All of the above are possibilities
▪ I don't know
▪ We have a terrific mix of people here by background and income. I'm a "white" minority.
▪ Wealth - are you an all-cash offshore buyer with no intent to live in or contribute to LAH
▪ I do not know
▪ I would be very surprised if there is no discrimination taking place (why I did not mark that box), but I am not directly aware of any specific examples. ▪ Not aware of any discrimination
71%
12%
1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 4% 1% 4% 2% 2%
7%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-53
▪ affordabilty would seem to be the larger issue here
▪ No knowledge or comment
▪ We all know, it's all about having the money to live here ▪ B
▪ Arrogant staff
▪ I have no idea about this question.
▪ None experienced or know of such case.
▪ Wealth
▪ No programs to welcome any of the above, especially people with developmental disabilities
▪ Amount of income
▪ There probably are all kinds of discrimination but I have no experience with any specific incidents.
▪ I am not aware of any discrimination
▪ There is an inherent discrimination against low education and low income. ▪ Unknown
▪ Do not know
▪ Just what you hear
▪ I’m sure there is discrimination. But it’s $$.
▪ I don't know
▪ How would anyone know?
▪ Income/assets
▪ I am always amazed when I walk through town by the diversity of people.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-54
▪ We are not a socialist country and some locales (such as LAH) have more expensive property. . . .this is not discrimination. Anyone who can afford to live here is welcome.
▪ None
▪ high costs of housing has priced many groups out of LAH ▪ If it is here, then it is every where
▪ I don't know of any, but I bet there is.
▪ prior to passage of SB8&9, local zoning laws prevented a majority of people from ever living in LAH
▪ I don't know anyone.
▪ DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITHOUT LARGE INCOMES.
▪ The only discrimination I know of would be economic.
▪ dont know if there is or isnt, such a broad question! ▪ LAH is accessible only to high net worth people.
▪ The only barrier to entry is $$. Anyone with $$ can buy in. ▪ Socio-economic status
▪ High cost of housing is discriminatory but I don't have any knowledge of discrimination based on the above categories.
▪ Income
▪ I have no idea but I see every possible ethnicity and race represented in the hills ▪ I don’t know
▪ wealth
▪ Since people are required to buy or rent two parking spaces for every unit of housing, anyone who does not drive is discriminated against

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-55
▪ just price
Q17. Please indicate whether you feel Los Altos Hills is: (Select one) Answered: 407
Skipped: 131
Other Responses
▪ ?
▪ I feel that Los Altos Hills is lacking diversity, but I think it is a function of housing cost rather than discrimination
▪ A meaningless question in the hills
▪ The town segregates low income people to other cities because of lack of housing choice in the town.
▪ Don’t know
▪ Never looked at the data but our community appears diverse as I walk abs drive around, and the students at Gardner Bullis appear fairly diverse.

Racially Segregated
(defined as a high
concentration of persons
of a particular race or
ethnicity in a particular
geographic area when
compared to broader the
Bay Area)
Racially Integrated
(defined as not containing
a higher concentration of a
particular protected class
such as race or ethnicity)
Not sure. (please specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-56
▪ LAH is segregated by income. Racially the Town is reasonably mixed, but nearly everyone has to have substantial assets, which excludes most Black Americans. ▪ LAH is class/wealth segregated. Because of compounding generations of wealth and race being intertwined, that means that LAH does not have the same racial make up of the as the rest of the Bay Area
▪ Don’t know the percentage of racial or ethnic groups in the town ▪ LAH has always been a great place for everyone to live no matter what race or religion , I hope it stays that way .
▪ Exactly how many African Americans live in LAH?
▪ The only obstacle is owning in LAH is having the income to purchase. Many residents have lived here for a long time and can afford to own. There is no racial segregation.

People don't care what race or religion a neighbor is. Neighbors don't go next door to "visit" but that's because people are not friendly inherently. If there are children, particlularly young children, neighbors are friendlier. Pandemics do not encourage ▪ I don't know the racial mix in LAH to answer
▪ Don’t the demographic comparison between LAH and the broader Bay Area ▪ LAH is segregated by wealth and all that that entails ▪ There are few underrepresented minorities
▪ lots of different nationalities here. Fine with me
▪ Have not experienced or seen racial lines
▪ Not sure
▪ It's segregated due to income of course
▪ NA
▪ don't know breakdown of residents
▪ Not sure means not sure.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-57
▪ LAH is mostly white and Asian-American. It would be good to have more racial integration with the Black and Latino communities. (This is related primarily to broader structural issues of racism over generations and therefore different economic situations currently, rather than current overt racism regarding selling properties. However it would be better if our town was more racially integrated, such as with first responders, teachers and health care workers. ▪ Older white folks are set in their ways
▪ People that can afford to buy homes in LAH buy homes. Their race is not relevant. ▪ Very homogenous socio demographic
▪ I don’t know
▪ Definitely income "segregated" but not by race or ethnicity ▪ Segregated with regard to African Americans, not at all with regard to those of Indian or Chinese ancestry
▪ I have no information regarding the existing distribution of any protected calasses in LAH.
▪ There was not any report or news about this subject to learn more. ▪ Does this need to mean black? We are certainly multi racial. ▪ For new comers it is largely based on who can afford to buy a home ▪ Not aware of any incidents.
▪ Don’t know.
▪ walking the hills I see people from various ethnicities and coming from countries all over. The segregation is from affordability not a particular protected class. ▪ Not sure, but sense their is a high concentration of Whites and Asians, and a low concentration of Mexican Americans and African Americans. ▪ Los Altos Hills is economically segregated.
▪ I feel there are a few ethnicities represented, but not all.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-58
▪ Segregated because of housing cost.
▪ I don't know enough about Los Altos Hills' history
▪ The high cost of homes has probably made us less integrated but it's a wealth restriction, not a race restriction.
▪ At first glance it seems none but when considering the Bay Area ethnic distribution, a slew to particular ethnic groups seems palpable
▪ Plenty of people from everywhere in India and China. I don’t see many other minorities and wish there were. Pretty verified up here. ▪ Not racial segregated but economic segregated
▪ Los Altos Hills "segregation" is simply on the basis of financial means ▪ LAH seems no more “racially segregated” than other very expensive areas. My impression is that “race” is not directly segregating; instead, income/wealth is the predominant driver. While race certainly related to $, misleading to call a $ problem a race problem.
▪ We might need more black people
▪ How would I know?
▪ Don’t have data
▪ Don’t have demographic data
▪ Everyone in LAH seems to be well eduacated, nod from all over the globe. I don’t care about what ethnicity anyone is!
▪ None apppy
▪ Not relevant unless income is considered
▪ the town is white and asian
▪ I haven't seen any data on this so my narrow observation of the community I don't believe is a good indication to draw a conclusion.
▪ I have not identified such at all.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-59
▪ Segregated economically, which has unequal racial representation. ▪ Race is factored into income and LAH is a fairly high income community. ▪ Discrimination can be subtle
▪ How would a citizen without city-wide statistics know? ▪ don't see a issue for now
▪ It seems like there is a high concentration of two races: White and Asian. ▪ Affordability is the issue. Not everyone can live in Los Altos Hills. We don't want our environment to be destroyed.
▪ LAH is a very expensive and unusual town. The demographics make it impossible to achieve any "conventional" standard of racial integration. One can't compare LAH to Portland or Detroit. Living in LAH is self-selected for those who can afford it.

There is no inherent racial bias in that selection beyond the extraordinary demographics of who can afford LAH. Clearly those who have the resources to live in LAH may not appear racially neutral. But for people any race that have access to those resources, I don't see LAH as being discriminatory. ▪ .
▪ In a community like LAH each one lives in their own silo, concept of segregation is not valid.
▪ This is stupid. Is California mandating that you do this? ▪ LAH is home to several groups -- white, AAPI -- but few Hispanic and Black residents.

I believe the primary reason for discrimination is income based but it does create a racially segregated community.
▪ How would I know?
▪ None of the above
▪ jhgljglgj
▪ Certain races dominate but it is more than one

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-60
▪ Any disparities in racial concentration is most likely due to disparate economic situations than any sort of discriminatory actions.
▪ Unsure of the latest data for "Broader the Bay Area" [sic] above ▪ Don't know where people live
▪ few black---- many Asian
Q18. Have you or someone you know ever seen or been involved with a property that included a racial covenant?
Answered: 436
Skipped: 102
Other Responses
▪ It was ignored, but existed in the covenants in a home I used to own in a neighboring city.
▪ When I lived in Virginia near Washington DC.

No Yes, please describe below:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-61
▪ Disgusting to see this during title insurance paperwork for Los Altos Hills home purchase
▪ my home has an outdated racial covenant in the original CCR's attached to the property.
▪ Yes in ours.
▪ Our home on the buy cycle. The HO association is not even active ▪ I think our deed has a racial covenant and I want to get rid of it! ▪ Racial covenant in previous home in Los Altos. It was accompanied by a document stating the covenant no longer applies, but this was still very insulting to my Latina wife. We should no longer provide these covenants when one buys a home - don't even show them. Hopefully this is no longer done.
▪ In San Mateo, there are old covenants that still remain regarding race. ▪ Just read Palo Alto Title Reports. Shocking Racial Covenants. ▪ Yes, in a Sunnyvale property, but I knew it was unenforceable ▪ Everyone ignores such provisions in my experience.
▪ Old Redwood City house
▪ Almost every property on lah restricts race. Since these restrictions are illegal, everyone ignores them
▪ Before I bought it, my property was in a white-only covenant, but this was clearly negated by the time I purchased in 2003
▪ I believe Redwood City has such a covenant and it is no longer applied but does exist. ▪ The property I had in Los Angeles had such a covenant on it, from the 1920s, i think. ▪ A friend - in Sunnyvale
▪ Purchased a home with a racial covenant in the past
▪ it is in our deed dating back to 1935, but those sections are no longer valid

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-62
▪ Home purchased in Los Altos had a covenant
▪ As a youth in San Francisco they had CC&R's that were discriminatory...but none of my neighbors abided by them.rs
▪ Covenant in property deed in East Bay
▪ On a old deed to our property. Of course, not valid anymore. ▪ Co-worker’s house had one. Tried to get it removed but couldn’t change history. ▪ Some homes in the City of Santa Clara have unenforceable restrictions by race ▪ Every house I've bought still has racial covenants in the title, they just aren't enforceable anymore so we ignore them
▪ See below on #19 response
▪ Our home was subject to a racial covenant — the cover document was stamped with a notice that invalidates it due to the 1968 Fair Housing Act. ▪ my own CCR's indicate that people of color cannot own my own property. obviously, my CCR is outdated and needs to be thrown out.
▪ Fremont Hills Country Club
▪ A house we owned in another county that was built in the 1940s ▪ Not uncommon for older properties, especially in exclusionary areas ▪ was on a house we owned, but they are unenforcible
▪ When reaching Pathway Easements we found such language. ▪ Yes, deed had racial covenant even though real estate agent confirmed that it was no longer legal. Even being exposed to a defunct racial covenant was highly distasteful.
▪ Palo Alto house
▪ current deed has racial covenants

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-63
Q19. Have you or someone you know ever experienced discrimination with the purchase or rental of housing?
Answered: 431
Skipped: 107
Other Responses
▪ Our agency serves over 10,000 individuals/year and many face discrimination in rental housing
▪ landlords discriminating against children living in apartments ▪ For many years I worked as an attorney and checker for project sentinel and Midpen citizens for fair housing so saw many .
▪ In the 70s on East Coast
▪ It is common practice to provide a letter to the homeseller when buying a house, especially if the house is a hot property. The white family usually wins if the seller is also white.

No Yes, please describe below:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-64
▪ Yes, I have in-laws who grew up in an area of the East Bay where there were designated "Asian neighborhoods" and realtors would not show homes to Asian families outside out of those neighborhoods.
▪ Asian Senior Client: Called Zillow re: a SFH rental. Zillow Agent ignored her, but immediately picked up after my VM. We concluded it was her accent. This happened in past 3 months.
▪ Black friend was told on phone rental available and when he went to the door was told it was already rented
▪ Growing up on Chicago’s North Shore
▪ It was in another state
▪ Trying to develop housing for people with developmental disabilities ▪ No thanks
▪ I had a property in Los Angeles that had such a covenant, against blacks & Asians.

Ironically, the neighborhood is primarily black & Asian now. ▪ Rental housing in SF
▪ When bought in lah a decade ago
▪ Rental in SF
▪ In San Francisco over 20 years ago.
▪ Tax man
▪ In Phoenix, AZ
▪ Steering toward majority asian neighborhoods
▪ When we were building our house, one of our neighbors came to our public hearing and made negative comments on how their family wished their white family friend would have bought the property instead.
▪ as a Stanford college student, my roomates and I experienced discrimination renting in Palo Alto.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-65
▪ A black friend (single woman) had a hard time finding an apt. in SF. ▪ They were not rented to due to ethnicity.
▪ Income discrimination against voucher holders
▪ I know of younger families—all of South Asian descent—who were denied the opportunity to rent because they had multiple children
Q20. Please share any comments or recommendations that will help Los Altos Hills meet our fair share of housing needs of at least 489 units over the next 8 years (2023-2031) including 279 units that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

Answered: 166
Skipped: 372
Other Responses
▪ I think upzoning and actively encouraging and helping homeowners divide and renovate their properties and build ADUs could help get us our market rate units, but the affordable units would likely have to be new construction using a combination of public and private funding.
▪ I rent out rooms at below market rate to two tenants, but this “doesn’t count.” Work with the state to refine their definitions of “units.” (The rooms both have private bathrooms and shared kitchen access)
▪ Traffic problem needs to be addressed
▪ With about 3500 SF homes, you could likely do what you need with more ADU's. To get the price down you will need to have a fast pad approach - x slope can have y design for a foundation. Use your satellite and GIS to survey the place. Eliminate anything over 10% slope - cannot economically grade that or safely navigate it.Provide a bonus to a homeowner to design, designate. For properties that were sub LAH, country, or in a grey area, i.e. impacted by 280, consider relief on setbacks for something well engineered. Consider prebuilt - fly in housing modules. Crane or aircraft.
▪ Don’t want low cost housing in the hills. Not the place for it.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-66
▪ We're a town of rich white, Indian, and some Asian families. Would love to see us contribute meaningfully to helping teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, all have access and integration into our lovely community.
▪ Partnering with neighboring cities may be a way, also looking at land next to schools/fire stations for housing for local workers in low and mid-incomes. ▪ Make it easier for homeowners to get permits for Duplexes, Lots Splits and ADU's ▪ Streamline permitting. Upzone. Offer city-owned sites to nonprofit housing developers.
▪ We cannot just open applications for the low income units to "friends and family" of LAH. They will look so similar to the current demographic. I hope outreach is done to open applications to the wider bay area region-- so many people would love to live here if they could afford it!
▪ I do not think so
▪ Less restricted zoning to help alleviate housing shortages. ▪ 1. Allow taller buildings. Tall buildings are not evil. They can be beautiful and can hold lots of people. 2. Stop dragging your feet on approving buildings. It should not take years and years to get a design approved. 3. Stop trying to design all the buildings yourself. Let people design buildings how they want to. We do not need building beauty police. 4. Allow smaller lots.
▪ As stated above this is a bogus requirement. What defines affordable ? Low end? Moderate?
▪ Low and moderate-income households must be tied to creation of a "Margueritetype" bus that can take them or others to downtown Los Altos and/or El Camino and the train station.
▪ Please think creatively about finding housing solutions for teachers & first responders...we need them in our community and not commuting from over an hour away! Simply having people build ADUs does not mean that they will rent them out. Some sort of multi-unit housing is necessary to support this need. ▪ Buy land near transportation and build lower-cost, higher-density housing. Increase property taxes on existing homeowners if necessary to fund.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-67
▪ Please discourage as much as possible the subdivision of 1 acre lots. I'm concerned that the rural feel of Los Altos Hills will be destroyed by SB 9. I think the best way to build the 489 units is through encouraging small ADUs for young adults who are lowincome and multigenerational families with retired family members who can live in the ADUs, who are also low-income. If necessary, allow institutions in Los Altos Hills to build multiplex units on their property, which is already zoned nonresidential. I don't support allowing developers to subdivide single family home residences and residential properties, thus ruining our beautiful town of Los Altos Hills!! ▪ Dorms for college students at Foothill College. Eliminate property taxes for 8 years and more people can afford to build an ADU. Fund the ADU ▪ Need to build multi-unit apartment/condo buildings with high proportion of affordable units. Current new development in downtown Los Altos currently includes 2 or 3 affordable units, that is not enough
▪ See above for making ADUs simple, no-fee, supported by Town, etc. ▪ Please build higher density housing close to schools, public land, and close to bus stops and busy streets like Arastradero. It is difficult to build housing since we have many areas that are in protected ecological sites that are prone to fires. We also need to ensure that every unit has access to two parking spaces to avoid cluttering streets.
▪ Multi family housing on the Okeefe open space property left over from the construction of 280
▪ Building 6 Story High Density adjacent to Freeway or on Foothill Corridor.

Additionally, build High Rise (shocking I know) on El Camino Real. Make these darn units ONE STORY w/ elevators so local Seniors can live in them without fear of falling on stairs or being isolated by stairs.
▪ Fight SB 9. The financial ability to live in expensive neighborhoods is a privilege based on wealth, not a right. Allow more ADUs, but resist lot division. ▪ Please join Our Neighborhood Voices. Also consider subsidies for qualified workforce (first responders, teachers).
▪ I do not believe the government has the right to dictate housing to any community, including Los Altos Hills. It should be up to the community on how they wish to structure living options. I do not believe Los Altos Hills should be subject to building

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-68
structures or pricing such structures that are not in alignment with market forces for this area.
▪ Building apartments on Foothill College property for students and faculty. Housing for town staff in town hall property. Turning Pinewood School into afforadable housing for teachers and first responders who service Los Altos Hills. ▪ It is very hard to be optimistic about meeting these mandated goals . I imagine that whatever degree of success that is to be achieved will result from actions taken by individual proprty owners responding to changes in statute and town zoning . ▪ Encourage the building as many ADU dwellings as would meet the quota. Many people may like to move their aging parents in. Could also provide housing for students or local workers with lower paying jobs.
▪ Rezone the Deer Creek area away from business to residential and allow condos to be built where we currently have Tesla, etc. These are areas that can be accessed by public transit and will not impact the rural feeling of other areas of our town. ▪ Use whatever tactics necessary to resist the state in taking over planning for LAH ▪ More ADUs seems like the least disruptive way to do this ▪ I would start by helping existing home owners make expanded or better use of their existing homes and helping home owners create ADUs. Developer driven multi unit housing dilutes the value of the town.
▪ Multi unit housing near freeways and neighboring communities ▪ I believe we all want the beauty of the housing to match the beauty of our natural environment. Garden apartments and townhomes, if properly designed, could easily meet that desire. Like the senior residential homes at the Forum San Antonio ▪ Permitting process is onerous. Particularly with regards to County Fire Dept requirements. Process needs to be less bureaucratic, less time consuming. ▪ Why not put together a deal with another town that has more property available for low income housing.
▪ Reduce setbacks (both side and front) for ADUs. Don't take forever to approve permits.
▪ consider tax policy

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-69
▪ Hey Siri is getting very boring.
▪ Building more at Foothill College and at religious institutions. ▪ Some multi unit buildings, limit lot size to one acre if single family home ▪ Tax businesses that need to hire the folks that need low-income people ▪ This would be a mistake to add more traffic, more people, and more construction to a bucolic town
▪ Suggest home owners built homes for their married children and sell or re t to them to keep them from moving out of the area for affordable homes. ▪ Only consider areas that already has appropriate infrastructure, roadway, power grid, water, etc. Or seek public funds to remdy them prior to development. ▪ Los Altos Hills should allow condos to be built
▪ Bulldoze the NIMBYs houses
▪ Is there a large plot of land on which a community can be built? Something like The Forum at Rancho San Antonio?
▪ We need to do a better survey of the numbers actually living here, such as in adu's or mini-adus. I don't think the town knows. But do it nonpunitively or it will have the wrong effect. Otherwise ease construction, permitting, inspection (etc) requirements on edus.
▪ who are going to pay for those units?
▪ Shared above
▪ See Question 12, Other.
▪ We do not need these units already have an over supply of new apartments . Utilize them first
▪ No subdividing lots
▪ Overturn SB 9

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-70
▪ Do an economic and environmental impact study - Excessive building of this nature is not sustainable.
▪ FIle suit against the state. Ignore the mandate.
▪ Allow development of housing for people with developmental disabilities. Or work with Los Altos to develop appropriate housing. These individuals come with services that allow them to participate in the community very nicely ▪ None
▪ ease county septic requirement based on number of bedrooms ▪ The "fair share" rhetoric is Communist propaganda.
▪ Encourage to build ADU or second family unit with limited property tax increase. ▪ Thanks
▪ Housing on baseball diamond. Or in another park.
▪ Allow property owners to build structures that meet their needs. ▪ The roads are too busy with commute traffic already - this will jam them up even more.
▪ In a capitalist country like the USA that runs on a market based system, I do not support the new SB passed mandates. Exception may be given to Emergency workers who need to be close to where they are called on demand to provide services. Creating affording housing them while they remain employed in that capacity as rental housing seems reasonable. This should be done in a manner that does not affect the overall character of the town.
▪ Even if we built more units, they certainly won't be affordable. The law is unrealistic ▪ Encourage ADUs by allowing those who are maxed out on development area and by lowering fees. Reduce fees on new/modified construction. ▪ Good luck with an unpopular and nearly impossible job. ▪ High housing costs have led to racial segregation

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-71
▪ ADUs and SB 9 units. I think the town should not discourage lot splits because the number and size of units affect the look of the community more than the number of lots. Lot splitting can help fund new homes, and generate property taxes for the town and schools.
▪ Make it easier and cheaper to build ADU's. Also, Foothill College has land used by the baseball and softball fields that can be used for housing. ▪ Resist the mandte. There is no public transport to support low income workers and the price of land makes the "fair share" impossible
▪ No thoughts
▪ Build apartments 4 stories at Dog Park and adjacent strip of land along the freeway ▪ We can ask people who own large lots if they’ll be willing to build an ADU if given some incentives.
▪ Building high density housing (apartments/townhouses/condos) near Foothill College since there is a bus line that comes up to the college and close access to 280 could be a possibility.
▪ Please ensure that the future residents have enough space to experience the beauty of the nature in LAH.
▪ Resist SB 9 and 10, but promote ADU's
▪ Student housing around Foothill & ADU's for the local workforce. Short term rentals make these two items less affordable.
▪ Whatever real estate developers ask for, do the opposite ▪ No idea
▪ I believe LAH and other cities can achieve these recommendations without imposing SB 9 on cities throughout CA!!
▪ Make ADUs and JADUs as easy as possible. Oppose non-market solutions. ▪ I am married in to living up here. It was a tough adjustment. But I know our neighbors now at least superficially. You have to define your community not by where you live. But the beauty and open space compensate.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-72
▪ Define "fair share."
▪ Encourage people to build ADU
▪ no additional comments.
▪ ADU is the most sensible option
▪ Make the whole permitting process easier including connection to public sewer or septic approval. Construction during winter should be easier ▪ Provide incentives for adus.
▪ ADU anf if needed density near cities not up in hills ▪ Encourage ADU, Develop affordable housing for service personnel like police, fire service, city staff and teachers in city lands like schools etc. ▪ The best thing that we could do for ourselves (LAH) and for our fellow Californians, would be to contribute to a sustained effort to create more high-quality, low-cost housing in places where the the new residents would have access to the features that they value most...ready access to jobs, transportation, and vibrant local communities (think down-town Mountain View). Turning LAH into something that it isn't, and never really can be, is simply destructive, with no hope of providing the real housing relief that we all recognize needs to occur regionally. ▪ Join with other towns in the state to contest imposition of a statewide policy that ignores town’s safety and rural foundation
▪ It would be interesting to formulate a process for (anonymously?) identifying 'underground' low cost housing which already exists in LAH. ▪ I think beyond Foothill College as a potential site for dense affordable housing, the 41 acres below the old Fenwick Estate have significant potential for smaller 1 to 2 story homes (with 2 ADUs each) for multigenerational family housing. (Ladera in Portola Valley would be a good precedent project for the old Fenwick property.) ▪ ADUs have most potential without negatively impacting property values. Allowing elderly couples to move out of big main house into ADU will free up housing supply for younger families to rent larger main house - help meeting moderate income requirements and attracting new energy to the town

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-73
▪ I have lived here 60 years. Please don't let this happen to LAH. ▪ Give priority to those who have jobs within the immediate area or are essential to the functioning of our community.
▪ Encourage building of ADUs. Offer affordable to teachers in LAH. ▪ Amend SB 9 Emergency Ordinance to be less restrictive ▪ LAH either needs more land or needs to convert public lands to multi-use affordable housing units or acquire lands that are available currently outside of LAH. Since LAH has no business properties available to rezone, the State mandate should not apply when land is not available. Open space MUST be protected! ▪ The Foothill college parking lots are perfect for dense market rate and truly affordable housing units.
▪ Pursue initiative to maintain local control over housing ▪ Locations with easy access to town, freeways, etc would best serve families & elderly. ▪ got to do it and i support doing it- suspect one approach is not the way to go ▪ Good luck.
▪ Used land that is an owned by private people
▪ I am all for this, but don't do it in a woke manner.
▪ "Fair" is a fake word in this context. It is highly political and smarts of campaign contributors idea
▪ No comment
▪ This is not a reasonable demand by the state.
▪ not an affordable area for this discussion. cut taxes since we get no benefite. ▪ See comment above regarding providing funds for multi-family in nearby cities. ▪ Good luck. With lots worth 6M an acre, it would be impossible to to create something afforable that someone could buy.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-74
▪ i like the idea of allowing rental units on existing properties with certain requirements to uphold community standards
▪ ADUs
▪ Can the town do anything to prevent/limit a property tax re-assessment when adding an ADU?
▪ Like the idea of concentrating units at FH college to meet a real need but also keep LAH values intact
▪ Require ADU construction for major remodels and construction of new homes. ▪ Ideas listed in the previous page are good ideas
▪ Check all nonprofits in the area. How are they assisting employees? ▪ make it easy to build ADU, find a designated land to build condo as affordable housing
▪ Lot-splitting would be a death-knell to the relatively tranquil, rural feel of our community. So, my hope is that our institutions, particularly Foothill College, but also other schools, religious institutions, Hidden Villa, Fremont Hills Country Club, the fire department, LAH Town, will step up to create 2/3 of the necessary units. And that homeowners will do the rest with ADUs or homes remodeled into duplexes. I think we should go for the low-hanging fruit this cycle as we don't know how the winds will blow 8 years from now.
▪ Since 99.9% of LAH residents are white, the questions seem self-fulling. Whites haven't faced discrimination in LAH!
▪ Very excited that LAH is supporting more housing!
▪ In a high real estate cost town like ours, the only way to do so is based on deed restrictions and tax benefits to developers as incentive. Tax all parcels in town to fund rebates to deed restricted affordable housing units. ▪ repeal SB 9
▪ If any additions it should be for small inlaw type units. These could either be rented or used by family or caretakers. I am very against additional housing on LAH lots.

Also, just because the housing becomes affordable, everything else in LAH is

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-75
expensive, from water to garbage. People need to be have the economic means to live in their neighborhood.
▪ Avoid lot splits!
▪ WHILE ALLOWING THESE MULTIDWELLING LOT SPLITS THE TOWN SHOULD WORK

WITH A PUBLIC AGENCY THAT WILL OVERSEE , CONTROL AND MONITER THAT THES

NEW DWELLINGS ARE INDEED BEING INHABITED BY LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE. OTHERWISE THE ULTIMATE JOKE WILL BE THAT THE ABOVE 489 UNITS END

UP WITH VERY HIGH RENTS OR RESALE PRICES PAID BY THE VERY WEALTHY PEOPLE THAT THE LAW IS TRYING TO AVOID! A LAH ADDRESS WILL GIVE INSTANT APPRECIATION TO ANY FOUR PLESX OR ADU CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE FLAW IN THESE GOVERNMENT OVER REACH LAW!!
▪ Identifying a site to build ~500 units will be a major problem. Nothing is near transportation, so one might argue that this is a bad plan. Can the house contribution be outside the township on the basis that LAH is inaccessible. Clearly some large space closer to major roads (along 280 or Arastradero?) would be best.

No one would want to give up a major park space or try to displace Poor Clare's.

This is alot of units and would increase the population of LAH by 1500-2000 people (18-24% of the current 8500).
▪ Develop public owned land.
▪ Build high density housing on Foothill College property ▪ Amend property tax assessment laws
▪ Make it easier for more buildings to be developed. The frictions are very painful. ▪ Fight this NOW! Join other towns in fighting this.
▪ Housing in the bay area is very expensive. Putting high density housing in a rural area makes no sense. It should be near public transit and where there already is high density.
▪ Most discrimination happens discretely and is not obvious ▪ high density housing near mass transit
▪ California is saying we are running out of water and to conserve on one hand and then telling us to have more people move in to consume the same water on the other.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-76
▪ Let us build JADU's outside of MFA and in 30' setbacks. ▪ Find a lot of land that can have low income apartment housing. ▪ The absence of apartments in LAH is discriminatory. Having only multi-million dollar mansions means that LAH is disproportionately inaccessible to BIPOC, femaleheaded households, people experiencing homelessness, etc. Legalize apartments! ▪ set specific target to add 50 ADUs per year for next 5 years; maintains rural character while adding housing
▪ Use of Foothill College vacant land.
▪ Focus on our local service providers
▪ No public hearings for anything
▪ There's no chance of even making a dent in that goal if the sentiments of the planning office and city council don't dramatically change. LAH's SB 9 emergency ordinance is a perfect example of how the city is fighting tooth and nail against any opportunity for new housing. Stop thinking about property values and density. The "I've got mine" attitudes have to shift. There is a middle ground that will benefit the greater good.
▪ provide student housing at Foothill College
▪ None
▪ Keep us out of this mess.
▪ It is not a fair share.
▪ There are local laws that make housing unaffordable. You could fix them if you wanted to. It's not a mystery.
▪ Look at any vacant lot as a prospective multi family housing development ▪ We will need access to public sewer first before we can attempt this level of housing density. So the City needs to figure out a plan to increase access to this critical utility. ▪ LAH needs to be brave about meeting this need. It can’t try the tricks that of places (see Woodside trying to declare itself mountain lion habitat to avoid SB 9 projects).

If LAH doesn’t take this process seriously, the state will enact more incisive

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-77
legislation. If we do the Housing Element well, we can improve our tax base without further taxing ourselves
▪ Re-zone 2 acres near a border, build garden apartments and put them all under section 8. Near public transportation.Don’t subdivide the whole town. ▪ Build, build, build. Supply needs to go up fast.
▪ Continue to lobby lawmakers to repeal this requirement under certain conditions. ▪ maybe build apps at Foothill college
▪ Allow more housing, the bay area needs it, every town in the bay area needs to do its part to encourage new and more housing.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-1
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest
This Appendix contains the following materials that documents and demonstrates RHNA site owner and developer interest, and other relevant evidence and support for development of housing on LAH RHNA sites and similar projects in the region.

Contents:

1. 2021-2022 Foothill-DeAnza Community College Board priorities

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-2

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-3

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-4

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-5

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-6

2. Recommended Projects for the 2021-22 Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program Appropriation

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-7

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-8

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-9

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-10

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-11

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-12

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-13

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-14

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-15

3. Letter from Foothill to Town acknowledging affordable housing needs and affirmative steps (Updated correspondence)

Judy C. Miner, Ed.D.

Chancellor
12345 El Monte Road • Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 • 650.949.6100 • Fax 650.941.6289 • www.fhda.edu Board of Trustees Patrick Ahrens Laura Casas Pearl Cheng Peter Landsberger Gilbert Wong April 10, 2023
VIA EMAIL – [email protected]; [email protected] Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council | Town Hall Council Chambers
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Acknowledgment of the Town of Los Altos Hills need to identify sites allowing construction of Affordable Housing
Dear Councilmember George Tyson and City Manager Peter Pirnejad:

The Foothill-De Anza Community College Board of Trustees (“District”) acknowledges the Town’s need to identify sites allowing construction of all levels of housing affordability.

Previously, through a unanimous vote and by resolution dated November 25, 2019, the District Board of Trustees authorized a new $898 million bond measure and special election, Measure G, to fund a comprehensive set of improvements including “repair, renovation and construction projects may include, but not be limited to, some or all of the following: … plan, construct, acquire or contribute to affordable employee and student housing units;”. Measure G was put on the March 3, 2020 ballot and was approved by a vote of 59% of the 122,000 votes cast for the measure.

The District’s 2022 Quarterly Summary Report of the Measure G Program allocated $200 million for employee and student housing (line item DW-006) for the period of January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2027.

This program reflects the Foothill-De Anza Community College Board Priorities for 2021-2022. Priority number 4 of 6 states:
“4. Through the Chancellor and Presidents, work with District constituents at all levels to identify systemic inequities and elements of institutional racism in District policies and practices and adopt strategies … including attending to student’s nonacademic needs, such as affordable housing and setting clear expectations for law enforcement.” The Board Priorities included the following note to expand on the meaning of the listed priorities and to provide the District’s faculty, staff, students, and administration with a more complete understanding of the Board’s expectations regarding its priorities:
“Note 3: Adopting Policies, Procedures, and Budgets that will Help Achieve Student Success and Equity Goals and Eliminate Systemic Racism. The Board will look to the Chancellor for recommendations on a workable answer to that question, but suggests the following as examples of topics that warrant early consideration:”

Councilmember George Tyson and City Manager Peter Pirnejad April 10, 2023

• “Attending to students’ nonacademic needs, including coming up with a coordinated approach to homelessness and affordable housing for students and employees; responding to food insecurity; and providing better support for student mental health.” More recently, the District applied for and received two California Community College Planning Grants totaling $264,000 for the 2021-2022 Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program to determine the feasibility to construct and offer affordable student rental housing for the Foothill and De Anza colleges.

These feasibility studies are currently underway, and a report is expected to be issued later this year (2023).

The District has taken affirmative steps toward the allocation of funds, analysis, and discussions with the board on the provision of fair and affordable housing. The District has met with the Town over six times (including calls or meetings on January 27, May 11, May 24, July 7, August 22, 2022, and April 3, 2023) in the last year to discuss the Housing Element and the inclusion of the College in the Town’s proposed Cycle 6 Housing Element. The District will continue to maintain an open dialogue and communication with the Town of Los Altos Hills toward meeting mutual and complementary goals that improve the quality of life for students, faculty, staff and the residents of Los Altos Hills and the greater community.

Sincerely,
Judy C. Miner, Ed.D.

Chancellor
A

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-17

4. Examples of faith based and educational institutions are pursuing lower-income housing development across the region and state.
a. Casa del Maestro - Santa Clara County, 30-unit affordable housing project located on a 2-acre underutilized portion of Stratford Elementary, developed through a public-private partnership with the Santa Clara Unified School District.
b. Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church - San Diego, CA. Yes In God’s Backyard is building 16 units of affordable housing on-site to support seniors and veterans with disabilities.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-18
c. Cañada Junior College - San Mateo County. Developed apartment complexes on underutilized parking lots on campus.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-19
d. College of San Mateo - San Mateo County. Developed apartment complexes on underutilized parking lots on campus.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-20
e. College of the Canyons – Santa Clarita, CA. 100 new single-bedroom affordable housing units were constructed on former parking lot on the COC campus. The Department of Finance approved the CCD for 100 student housing (per 3/1/22 Dept of Finance memo)

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-21

5. Letter from property owner of 27690 Arastradero Rd to Town to request multifamily residential rezoning with commitment to build affordable housing in the next 8 years.

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-22

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-23

From: Rajiv Patel
To: Linda Swan; Stan Mok; Kavita Tankha; George Tyson; Lisa Schmidt; Peter Pirnejad Cc: Deborah Padovan; Elaine Ling; Jim Waschura; Rajiv Patel Subject: Housing Element Updates regarding SB 9 program and policies.

Date: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:18:43 AM
Dear City Council members and Town Manager Peter Pirnejad, The Planning Commission ad-hoc subcommittee on SB 9 implementation is working with staff on developing the upcoming revised SB 9 ordinance. This effort involved many meetings with staff and multiple planning commission study sessions to obtain resident feedback on this subject. It also required studying the ordinances of other relevant local jurisdictions like Portola Valley and Woodside to understand what they are doing. The subcommittee's goal is to develop a good solution for Los Altos Hills that will be consistent among our neighbor jurisdictions and be acceptable to our residents. This effort produced a set of criteria that we discussed with staff and the town's attorney, who now are working on drafting the revised ordinance based on the criteria.

Meanwhile, the staff is also undertaking revisions to the Housing Element Update for approval by City Council and resubmission to HCD. Just prior to this week's planned City Council meeting, these revisions were published and they contain significantly different SB 9 criteria than what the subcommittee provided to staff. Upon raising this discrepancy, we were told that staff had already discussed these items with City Council members, and that it would be best for the subcommittee to address reconciliation directly with City Council members.

Specifically, subcommittee members carefully limited the size of SB 9 developments to be compliant with state law; to be based on a baseline MFA/MDA square footage calculations - as compared to developments that utilize our standard hearing process that allows for minimum sizes to be applied to the baselines; and to offer incentives for complying with standard Los Altos Hills zoning rules such as setbacks and easements, so applicants may achieve increases in size from the state required 800 SF minimum. In contrast, the new revisions to the Housing Element Update includes the following in Program B-10:
(1) Allow SB 9 units to have floor areas larger than 800 sf., with a maximum floor area of 2,500 sf. for SB 9 units constructed on newly created SB 9 parcels. Maximum size of SB 9 units constructed on existing parcels will be determined through the Town’s Maximum Floor Area/Maximum Development Area formula applicable to single-family residential developments in the Town.

This appears to suggest 2,500 SF maximums for newly created SB9 lots, irrespective of available MFA and setbacks.

This would neutralize the ability to use incentives for adhering to standard setbacks and easements that support the semi-rural character of our town, which is an approach based on feedback we received from residents, and what other local jurisdictions seem to be using in their ordinances. The subcommittee suggests this item be changed to say: "Allow SB 9 developments to have floor area greater than 800 sq-ft state minimum, based on availability of MFA, adherence to standard setbacks and easements, and in compliance with the town's objective design standards for development."
(2) Remove affordability restrictions to promote development of units of all income levels, rather than only affordable units.

The subcommittee is in agreement with staff on this item. (3) Only subject a newly created SB 9 lot to the development standards applicable to constrained lots in the Town
The subcommittee suggests this item be removed. The description in Item (1) covers this category, and development standards for constrained lots only apply to a few historically very Supplemental No. 1
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/14/2023

small lot sizes whereas SB 9 lot sizes may be larger, and thus should benefit from baseline MFA/MDA calculations.

The subcommittee hopes you will consider these suggestions that will keep the Housing Element Update in line with the SB 9 ordinance revision that is underway, and which we believe are responsive to the March 17, 2023 letter from HCD that provided feedback on the town's previous Housing Element Update relating to SB 9 in the following manner:

Senate Bill 9 (Statutes of 2021) Projections: While the element was revised to include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, it must still include programs and policies that implement incentives to encourage and facilitate SB 9 development.

The subcommittee recognizes and appreciates the Herculean effort being undertaken by staff to turnaround a very meaningful revision to the Housing Element Update, and though we would have appreciated discussion on changes to what was already completed, we understand the expediency of going directly to City Council. We hope this letter can assist City Council members to be alerted to the discrepancy and to understand the subcommittee's reasoning for the criteria that had been established, so you may weigh offering more and more inducements to HCD against undermining the inclusive process the subcommittee has undertaken.

Both of us who are on the subcommittee share your goal for successfully navigating both of these important challenges for the benefit of town residents. We know that the extent of the details and nuances for an appropriate SB-9 ordinance are difficult to explain in a brief message, and we are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rajiv Patel
Jim Waschura
CC: Deborah Padovan, Elaine Ling

2023-04-09
To: City Council, Town of Los Altos Hills
CC: California HCD
Sasha Zbrozek
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
According to the weekly update email sent out to subscribers on Friday, the Council will meet on Monday to adopt another Housing Element into the General Plan. The event is identified as a special meeting and has no agenda nor packet associated with it. I had hoped to read the draft Housing Element prior to its adoption so that I could make public comment. Note that California government code § 65585.(b)(1)1says that all follow-up drafts must be published on the Internet and emailed out to subscribers at least seven days prior to sending the new draft to HCD.

The Town should be aware of a recent court decision in Martinez v. City of Clovis2 which clarifies what it means for a town to be in “substantial compliance” with state housing law. It largely defersto HCD, making moot the recent self-certifications that have been trendy among exclusionary Bay Area enclaves.

Furthermore, part of achieving “substantial compliance” is doing public outreach about Housing Element updates. Unfortunately, by sending nothing out—not even an agenda—the Town appears to doing its best to avoid public engagement or even awareness of the process.

The Town should also be aware that California government code § 65358.(b)3 decrees that a General Plan cannot be amended more than four times in a calendar year. It would be regrettable if Los Altos Hills found itself with a non-compliant Housing Element and no more opportunities to fix it until 2024.

Under current statute and case law, it would be prudent for the Town to publish a draft for at least seven days and then gain HCD’s positive feedback—a letter indicating substantial compliance—before adopting another Housing Element into the General Plan. Anything else is a waste of limited opportunities to make General Plan updates as well as of the Council’s limited time.

On another topic, I challenge the feasibility of the ADU-heavy site inventory in our already-adopted Housing Element. It fails to call out specific parcels on which construction will occur. In most municipalities that is fine, but in Los Altos Hills many roads are narrow and/or private. California fire code 503.2.1 stipulates that any fire access road that serves two or more dwellings must be at least twenty feet wide.

Even a single home will trigger that requirement as soon as an ADU is proposed, leading to economicallyinfeasible construction. The Town needs to show that this constraint does not make-infeasible the large number of ADUs that it needs to achieve its RHNA, or if it does, commit to a program to mitigate the constraint.

Thank you,
Sasha Zbrozek
1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65585 2 https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F082914.PDF 3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65358 Supplemental No. 2
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/14/2023

April 8, 2023
Re: April 10 City Council Special Meeting on the Housing Element Dear Mayor Swan and Members of the City Council:

The League of Women Voters believes that governmental bodies must protect the citizen’s right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings and making public records accessible.

We are concerned at the lack of transparency with the city’s intention to adopt the Housing Element this Monday. This action has not come up before the Planning Commission, and this action does not follow the usual 72-hour agenda and materials posting for regular meetings.

Importantly, the Town has not published what revisions were made despite state law (Gov Code 65585(b)(1)/AB 215) requiring at least one week of public viewing. This omission prevents meaningful public feedback on the effectiveness of the proposed changes, especially in light of the changes requested by HCD and that this is an amendment to the Town’s General Plan (which additionally falls under the four amendments annual limit under Gov Code 65358(b)). (Please send any questions about this email to Sue Russell at [email protected]) Karin Bricker, President of the LWV of Los Altos-Mountain View cc: Peter Pirnejad HCD
Supplemental No. 3
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/14/2023

A
April 17, 2023
Re: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Agenda # 6 Ongoing Business -Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element - Council Meeting April 20, 2023
Dear Mayor Swan and Members of the City Council:

The LWV wants to comment again on the HEU published on the Town's website to be discussed April 20th. As of this writing, the last paragraph on p. 13 is concerning as it states, amongst other questionable points, "On April 10, 2023, the City Council reviewed the proposed Update, considered all public comments and testimony and approved the Update via resolution .... " Not only was the April 10th Council meeting abruptly canceled, but so was the April 11th meeting immediately scheduled thereafter. So, of course, this statement is not true. Hopefully, this paragraph will be corrected before the April 20th meeting.

As we have written earlier, the LWV supports an overall State plan for housing that includes Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and certified Housing Elements. We also support policies that encourage the development of housing, particularly affordable housing. We made many suggestions for the Los Altos Hills HEU based upon successful policies in neighboring cities as well as participation in the earlier discussions with the Planning Commission and HEU consultants. Most were not incorporated in the HEU. We will not repeat most of them here.

The LWV also supports transparency in government. We have been especially concerned about the lack of community engagement surrounding the latest HEU draft, as we have previously written to the Council.

The clearest shortcoming in the latest draft is still the failure to identify sufficient sites for development of housing, notably sites with densities high enough to accommodate multi-family housing, and especially affordable housing. We note that the Town received another letter dated April 10 from Foothill College which still does not make it appear likely that housing will be built on the campus, especially considering that Foothill was anticipated to provide much housing in the last RHNA Cycle, and no housing has been built. The noncommittal letter simply states that "The District will continue to maintain an open dialogue and communication with the Town of Los Altos Hills toward meeting mutual and complementary goals that improve the Supplemental No. 4
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/17/2023

quality of life for students, faculty, staff and the residents of Los Altos Hills and the greater community.” (p. C-16A)
Those in control of St. Nicholas Catholic School made it clear that they have no interest in developing housing. It is disingenuous for the Town to state on p. 204 that they had “positive initial feedback” from St. Nicholas, when the letter from the Archdiocese dated October 17 states “…my client requests that the Town remove the St. Nicholas School Site from the Review Draft as a proposed site for multi-unit housing.” Perhaps the owner of the Twin Oaks Court parcels has now expressed an interest in development, but the Town has not provided any documentation, and the owner of the contiguous sites on Arastradero has simply stated they would like their property rezoned for high density/multifamily housing with no estimate of how many units they plan to build on these steep hillside parcels. (p. C-22). On p. 195, the HEU states “The Town has received a preliminary application form the owners of the Twin Oaks Court rezone site to develop mixed-income senior and farmworker and employee housing including a community center, gymnasium. The project proposes to construct at least 80 lower and moderate-income units ...along with 120+ units of senior housing….as well as some limited ownership housing.” The copy of the preliminary application is not attached, and the number of units proposed is far higher than the Town’s estimate of what is feasible on these parcels.

Despite the possible interest from the owners of the Twin Oaks and Arastradero parcels, if the 285 units proposed for St. Nicholas School and Foothill College are removed from the site inventory, the inventory is severely deficient.

A program to provide Town-owned land to a nonprofit housing developer and to rezone these sites for multi-family residential are programs that could incentivize multi-family housing and help the Town achieve its RHNA numbers. On p. 157 there are references to one vacant Town-owned parcel of 1.4 acres and three underutilized parcels of 10.8 acres but there is not a program to offer these to a nonprofit housing developer. Program A-3 simply states that the Town will assess Town-owned properties for potential redevelopment and sets a timeline of early 2025 to develop a list of nonprofits: such a list is readily available today.

One new program A-12, Conversion to Duplex or Triplex is an interesting new concept.

However, the timeline for amending the Zoning ordinance to allow these conversions should be accelerated if the Town expects to achieve the stated goal of 50 conversions by 2031. Similarly, the A-1 rezoning program to create a new multifamily zone with a minimum density of 20 units per acre may hold promise, but there is no indication of where this rezoning might occur.

Program E-11 to provide incentives for lower-income housing development has a quantified objective of development of 62 ELI units by Q3 2025, which seems very unrealistic given that the Town has no funds to contribute to help finance such units. The Town is still not proposing residential impact fees, real estate transfer taxes, or any other methods to finance affordable housing projects.

Regarding inclusion of SB 9 projections, HCD has asked for a site-specific inventory. On page 192 of the HEU a table shows “32 SB 9 and Associated ADUs,” but the site-specific inventory

today, proposes to build 240 units of senior housing, along with 80 low and moderate income units and 10 to 15 other housing units. Accordingly, under the draft Housing Element the Twin Oaks owners are already seeking approval to build over 330 units on the Twin Oaks parcels alone. The adjacent 2 acre parcel would presumably add another 60 units under the proposed 30 units/acre zoning.) The draft Housing Element is further materially misleading in its assertion/assumption (at p. 204) that "a realistic capacity of 77 total units would be built within the next eight years." This is simply nonsense when the Town already has in its possession a development application for construction of over 330 units on the Twin Oaks parcels. No rational developer would move forward with a piecemeal development of a senior and low income housing project such as shown in the Twin Oaks development application. Rather, for efficiency purposes, and to minimize noise and disruption, the entire project will be built at once during the next 8 years.

It is also clear that there is no need for the Town to zone these parcels to allow a density of 30 units per acre. The Housing Element is only required to allow 20 units/acre density to satisfy the State Housing Element Law. The draft Housing Element admits that the current proposals to rezone Twin Oaks and the Arastradero parcels, and overlay zone Foothill and St. Nicholas will allow "for more than twice the total RHNA." (emphasis added, see p. 149) The draft Housing Element further shows that the Town will still easily meet its mandated housing allocation if Twin Oaks and the adjacent Arastradero parcel are zoned for 20 units per acre rather than 30. Taking into account the projected ADU and SB9 units, the draft Housing Element projects that to meet the RHNA only 249 more housing units are needed between all of the sites proposed to be rezoned (Foothill, St. Nicholas, Twin Oaks and Arastradero). See p. 192. Thus, rezoning the 15 acres of the Twin Oaks and Arastradero parcels to 20 units/acre by itself, without any units on the Foothill or St. Nicholas sites, would still exceed the RHNA by 50 units! Furthermore, under the "Program A-12" proposed in the revised draft, the Town would facilitate additional housing units by permitting at least 25% of the lots in the Town to be converted into duplexes or triplexes. (See p. 229) (It should be noted that the draft Housing Element drastically, and absurdly, underestimates the "total projected capacity" of the combined Twin Oaks/Arastradero parcels over the next eight years at only 92 units. (See p.192) This is simply indefensible, and incomprehensible, when the Town has in its hands a development proposal for construction of over 330 units on Twin Oaks alone! As pointed out above, when Twin Oaks is developed, it will be developed all at once, not in a piecemeal fashion.

As shown above, clearly there is no need for Twin Oaks and Arastradero to be rezoned for 30 units/acre rather than the State mandated minimum of 20 units/acre. If the Town were to rezone these parcels to allow 30 units per acre, it would not only further overburden the road, evacuation, sewer and water infrastructures (i.e. an extremely adverse environmental impact), it would substantially impair the views and property values of homeowners along Saddle Mountain Drive. This is because, as admitted in the draft Housing Element, allowing a density of 30 units per acre (as opposed to a 20 unit/acre density) will require the Town to deviate from its height and setback limits. See p.150.

For all of the foregoing reasons, I strenuously object to the draft Housing Element's proposal to rezone the Twin Oaks and Arastradero parcels to allow a density in excess of the 20 units/acre minimum required by the State.

Most sincerely,
Michael F. Grady

From: Deborah Padovan
To: Emina Steta
Subject: Fwd: Objection to Housing Element B-16 and B-10 Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 10:41:45 AM
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Birgitta Indaco
Date: April 19, 2023 at 7:30:26 AM PDT
To: City Council <[email protected]>, housingelement <[email protected]>
Cc: Deborah Padovan <[email protected]>, Planning Commission <[email protected]>, BCC - Birgitta Indaco Subject: Objection to Housing Element B-16 and B-10
Dear City Council members,
I object to the Housing Element program B-16 Story Pole Policy revisions.

Story Poles are not a burden to the applicants who are investing $3M an acre or $600 per square foot (starting at $5M or more for a new house). Story Poles help identify potential problems before construction begins to the benefit of applicants and neighbors. Story poles are part of the design and discovery phase of house plans and siting the house in our hilly terrain.

If a story pole policy revision is needed by HCD, I recommend the following guidelines to be followed.

To qualify for an alternative to story poles, submit a 3D model for projects that meet the following conditions.
1 – new house applications < 2500 sq ft or additions/remodels < 1000 sq ft 2 - building height <= 19’
3 - construction built out of the setbacks
I am also in agreement with Planning Commissioners Rajiv Patel and Jim Waschura with their letter to City Council on April 13, 2023 on Housing Element Program B-10.

Program B-10 item (1)
The Planning Commission ad-hoc subcommittee suggests this item be changed to say:

Supplemental No. 6
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/19/2023

(1) Allow SB 9 developments to have floor area greater than 800 sq-ft state minimum, based on availability of MFA, adherence to standard setbacks and easements, and in compliance with the town's objective design standards for development.

I am appreciative to the tremendous effort of our Town staff and City Council members to respond to HCD but let’s not lose our town’s General Plan in the process.

Sincerely,
Birgitta Indaco

From: George Perlegos
To: housingelement; City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: Re: Objection to Draft Housing Element proposing to rezone Twin Oaks & adjacent property to 30 units/acre Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 6:11:47 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners:

I am a property owner at Elena Rd adjacent to the Twin Oaks and adjacent property that the Town is looking at to propose
an "UPZONING " to 20 or 30 units per acre which we oppose because it will be a horrible precedence for Los Altos Hills to enact and go away from the single family home and destroy the scenery, the trees , the hillside view and most of all the Animal pathways that exist .

There is nothing here in terms of transportation , shops , stores that senior people need to create an UPZONING to 30 units/ac we only have wild life and deer.

I am certain that most property owners in Los Altos Hills would be against the idea that their Town Council would consider rezoning their properties in a manner which precludes them from building their dream homes on their own property. I have previously written to enumerate why the proposed rezoning site is neither suitable, nor needed, in order to meet the State's housing allocation. But even if the site were an appropriate site for potential multifamily housing, there is nothing in the law or State housing regulations which would mandate that the Town rezone the property so as to deprive existing property owners of the ability to choose whether to forego their current right to build their dream homes in favor of a multifamily development.

Furthermore the presently proposed properties are too steep and would require many changes to the town hillside development guidelines. It would require changes to all of Los Altos Hills planning guidelines on slopes, Hight, Animal pathways, tree removals , Roads are not sufficient, Sewer infrastructures is not sufficient , and I do not know what else need to change in the town Hill side areas to allow for such change whether it is the 240 units of the planned site or the original unit Town's target. Bringing all this utilities, facilities, roads and etc will make an old persons home or low income homes so expensive that not the old people or low income people can afford.

In Summery allowing any "upzoning" of this SITE will be a complete change to the Towns rules and regulations for all hillside lots in the area or all over Los Altos Hills. We are opposed to any proposed changes in the Tween Oaks Property and the adjacent property. It is not the right location to meet the States requirements. Such a high density leaving proposal is only appropriate at the Town center where all the facilities needed do exist to accommodate old peoples homes so they can survive and accommodate high density leaving.

Thank you
George Perlegos
Please include in the public comments.

Supplemental No. 8
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/20/23

From: LanVi Evans
To: housingelement; City Council; Planning Commission
Cc: Michael Grady
Subject: Re: Objection to Draft Housing Element proposing to rezone Twin Oaks & adjacent property to 30 units/acre Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 11:31:57 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners:

I reside at 14321 Saddle Mountain Drive. I object to the draft Housing Element's proposal to rezone the Twin Oaks and Arastradero parcels to allow a density in excess of the 20 units/acre minimum required by the State.

I strongly agree with the objections of my neighbor, Michael Grady, as detailed in the below email.

Sincerely,
LanVi Evans
14321 Saddle Mountain Drive
From: Michael Grady <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 5:57 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Objection to Draft Housing Element proposing to rezone Twin Oaks & adjacent property to 30 units/acre
To all:

I reside at 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive, which adjoins the Twin Oaks subdivision. At 3:15 pm on April 14, I received an email from Elaine Ling advising that the Council agenda packet including the revised draft of the Town's Housing Element had been uploaded and could be accessed at a link provided in the email. As many very material revisions have been made to the draft Housing Element from what was previously presented and approved by the Council, I do not think Town residents have had sufficient time to review, and be adequately informed about, the major revisions proposed in the revised draft Housing Element. Accordingly, I object to the Council considering the revised draft of the Housing Element at the April 20 Council meeting.

Substantively, while I have not had sufficient time to study the revised draft Housing Element in full detail, I do wish to state my strenuous objection to its proposed rezoning of the Twin Oaks development, and the Arastradero Road property just to its north, to allow a density in excess of the 20 units per acre minimum required by the State.

I believe that the road capacity and configuration, the sewer and water infrastructure, and the emergency evacuation infrastructure at the Twin Oaks location is clearly inadequate to support the 400+ housing units that the proposed 30 units/acre zoning would allow. (The revised draft Housing Element is materially misleading in describing the Twin Oaks development Supplemental No. 9
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/20/23

application submitted to the Town as proposing "120+ units of senior housing." See p.195 of the draft. In fact, that development application, which I viewed at Town Hall today, proposes to build 240 units of senior housing, along with 80 low and moderate income units and 10 to 15 other housing units. Accordingly, under the draft Housing Element the Twin Oaks owners are already seeking approval to build over 330 units on the Twin Oaks parcels alone. The adjacent 2 acre parcel would presumably add another 60 units under the proposed 30 units/acre zoning.) The draft Housing Element is further materially misleading in its assertion/assumption (at p. 204) that "a realistic capacity of 77 total units would be built within the next eight years." This is simply nonsense when the Town already has in its possession a development application for construction of over 330 units on the Twin Oaks parcels. No rational developer would move forward with a piecemeal development of a senior and low income housing project such as shown in the Twin Oaks development application.

Rather, for efficiency purposes, and to minimize noise and disruption, the entire project will be built at once during the next 8 years.

It is also clear that there is no need for the Town to zone these parcels to allow a density of 30 units per acre. The Housing Element is only required to allow 20 units/acre density to satisfy the State Housing Element Law. The draft Housing Element admits that the current proposals to rezone Twin Oaks and the Arastradero parcels, and overlay zone Foothill and St. Nicholas will allow "for more than twice the total RHNA." (emphasis added, see p. 149) The draft Housing Element further shows that the Town will still easily meet its mandated housing allocation if Twin Oaks and the adjacent Arastradero parcel are zoned for 20 units per acre rather than 30. Taking into account the projected ADU and SB9 units, the draft Housing Element projects that to meet the RHNA only 249 more housing units are needed between all of the sites proposed to be rezoned (Foothill, St. Nicholas, Twin Oaks and Arastradero).

See p. 192. Thus, rezoning the 15 acres of the Twin Oaks and Arastradero parcels to 20 units/acre by itself, without any units on the Foothill or St. Nicholas sites, would still exceed the RHNA by 50 units! Furthermore, under the "Program A-12" proposed in the revised draft, the Town would facilitate additional housing units by permitting at least 25% of the lots in the Town to be converted into duplexes or triplexes. (See p. 229) (It should be noted that the draft Housing Element drastically, and absurdly, underestimates the "total projected capacity" of the combined Twin Oaks/Arastradero parcels over the next eight years at only 92 units. (See p.192) This is simply indefensible, and incomprehensible, when the Town has in its hands a development proposal for construction of over 330 units on Twin Oaks alone! As pointed out above, when Twin Oaks is developed, it will be developed all at once, not in a piecemeal fashion.

As shown above, clearly there is no need for Twin Oaks and Arastradero to be rezoned for 30 units/acre rather than the State mandated minimum of 20 units/acre. If the Town were to rezone these parcels to allow 30 units per acre, it would not only further overburden the road, evacuation, sewer and water infrastructures (i.e. an extremely adverse environmental impact), it would substantially impair the views and property values of homeowners along Saddle Mountain Drive. This is because, as admitted in the draft Housing Element, allowing a density of 30 units per acre (as opposed to a 20 unit/acre density) will require the Town to deviate from its height and setback limits. See p.150.

For all of the foregoing reasons, I strenuously object to the draft Housing Element's proposal to rezone the Twin Oaks and Arastradero parcels to allow a density in excess of the 20 units/acre minimum required by the State.

Most sincerely,
Michael F. Grady
14313 Saddle Mountain Drive

Los Altos Hills

1 Housing Element Draft
City Council Meeting Item 6. A.

April 20, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to reject the draft housing element update and create a draft that can be found compliant by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The draft before you and the resolution to adopt it contain fatal flaws that will extend the window the Town’s Housing Element is out of compliance.

The Resolution Claims the January 30 Housing Element is in Compliance and Current Changes are Insubstantial “Clarifications” and “Enhancements” without Legal Authority The Resolution to approve the Housing Element update (Att. 1 pages 209-214 of the packet) claims “The City Council hereby finds that the 2023-2031 Housing Element, inclusive of its Update, continues to be in substantial compliance with the State Housing Element Law based on substantial evidence in the record.” [Item 7, page 213 of the packet, emphasis added]
This statement is in direct contradiction to the HCD. In its March 17, 2023 letter to the Town (attached as Ex. 1 to this letter) the HCD states unequivocally “the following changes are necessary to bring the Town’s housing element into compliance…” (Ex. A page 3)
The Town does not have the legal authority to decide whether the Housing Element is in compliance with the Housing Element Law, only the HCD can determine compliance. On March 17, the HCD made a determination that the Town’s adopted housing element was not in compliance. The Resolution before you claims the Town’s housing element was in compliance on January 30 when it adopted its January 26 housing element draft despite the HCD “not in compliance” determination. The Resolution further claims the current draft is merely insubstantial “clarifications” and “enhancements” to that existing compliant housing element.

These statements are directly contradictory to HCDs determination and demonstrably false.

Every eight years since 1969 the Town has been required to produce a housing element. As with other municipalities, past housing elements have been approved by the HCD, not by the local jurisdiction itself. We are now on the 6th housing element cycle: the Town cannot claim the authority to self-certify. Even after the HCD has declared its previous housing element non-compliant, the Town continues to try to usurp the authority of the HCD and claim it was compliant all along. This act is a violation of state law and draws unnecessary scrutiny to the other problems in the Town’s housing element.

The Town Has Not Had an Open Process with Community Involvement The Resolution recitals to approve the Housing Element (page 210 in the packet) update claims the Town “conducted extensive community outreach over the last twelve months,” the exact opposite is true. This process has had virtually no community involvement. Its January 30 housing element adoption was scheduled as urgency meetings. The draft housing element was dated January 26, the Planning Commission approved it Friday January 27 and the City Council adopted it Monday January 30. The public was not provided sufficient opportunity to review the draft.

The current housing element update was scheduled on the afternoon of Friday April 8 for approval by the City Council on Monday April 10. In an embarrassing series of blunders, that meeting was called off and re-noticed for Tuesday April 11, which was then called off in the afternoon of April 11, before being rescheduled for April 20.

Supplemental No. 11
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/20/23

2 If you go the LAH website even today, the link to the Housing Element Update (2023-31) still links to the January 30, 2023 version and the meeting identified there is the January 27 planning commission meeting (see EX. 4 to this letter.)
Los Altos Hills must have an open process with real community involvement to meet the requirements of the Housing Element Law. Instead, the Town has held tight reigns over the process and tried to minimize public participation and review contrary to the requirements of the Housing Element Law.

The Site Inventory Does Not Meet the Requirements of the Housing Element Law The Resolution to approve the Housing Element update (Att. 1 pages 209-214 of the packet) claims “…existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified on the non-vacant sites are likely to be discontinued during the [eight year] planning period and therefor do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the site during the planning period.” Foothill College and Saint Nicolas Catholic School, which make up a vast majority of the acreage in RHNA site inventory do not intent to discontinue operations in the next eight years. No one believes these sites will discontinue operations in the next eight years.

Knowingly passing a false resolution could open up the individual councilmembers and the Town to potential litigation. It is also showing a level of disregard for good and honest government that should be beneath us.

Another problem with the Site Inventory is that to meet the requirements of the Housing Element Law, the Town must expect 85% of the development housing in the element to be built in the next eight years. At least three of the four properties on the Town’s RHNA site inventory have significant issues that make it unlikely that the Town will get even 10% of housing it claims to expect on these sites. By having only four property owners, just one owner not building as expected in the next years means the Town will not meet its planned RHNA requirements. At most, the Town would only get the smallest two parcels built.

Site 1- Foothill College: Foothill campus has been proposed for multifamily housing in the Town’s housing element in the fourth and fifth cycle. In 16 years of relying on Foothill College, not a single unit of housing has ever been built on the campus. The Foothill-De Anza Community College District has repeatedly stated it has no intention of building any housing on the Foothill Campus in the next eight years. It sees its De Anza campus in Cupertino as a much better place for housing. The Town, through its municipal authority, has a great deal of power over the Foothill campus. In an email to the Chancellor on September 1, 2022 (Ex. 2 to this letter) the Town has inappropriately pressed the District to provide ever warmer letters, even to the point of modifying the District’s letter language itself, to suggest they may build housing at Foothill while privately assuring them they do not have any obligation to do so. At this very City Council meeting, the Town has offered what appears to be a quid pro quo for Foothill’s letter by recommending approval for changes to a historic building at Foothill long desired by the District.

The final letter by the District (page 583 of the packet) still does not state the District plans to build any housing on the Foothill campus, although compared to letters provided in previous drafts it sounds warmer without making any statements of intent. As the largest property in the site inventory, if housing is not built at this campus the Town has no means within the housing element to meet its RHNA requirements.

Site 2- Saint Nicolas Catholic School: The Archdiocese of San Jose, the owner of the school, has asked the Town in writing to not include the school in the site inventory as it has no plans to build housing in the next eight years. Despite this, the Town has included the school in its site inventory. Saint Nicolas is the second largest of only four sites on the inventory. If no housing is built on this site the Town has no means within the housing element to meet its RHNA requirements.

Site 3: Twin Oaks Court: This parcel is only 7.5 acres and the Town claims to have gotten a proposal for housing on the site. They have not provided any letter or other information from the developer or owners to

3 show interest, despite there being a section of the housing element devoted just to this. In addition, I made a public record request for communication between the Town and properties on the site inventory, and the Town has provided no such documents to me. If there was a project in the pipeline, the Town should have provided it in Appendix C Owner, Developer Interest section of the housing element (page 568 of the packet) and as a response to my Public Records Request. Just a few months ago, the owner of this site stated through their attorney that they had no intention of building housing on the site. If there has been a change or heart, why has the Town not shown any documentation of it?
Site 4: Arastadero Road: This site is the smallest site on the inventory and the only one with a letter of intent to build. It cannot alone provide the housing needed to meet the site inventory requirements of the housing element.

With only four sites on the Housing Inventory, the town cannot afford to not have the three largest ones built out and still expect to meet its RHNA requirements, yet all three appear unlikely to have housing. The Town needs to greatly expand its Site Inventory to include many more owners and a larger reservoir of sites to build its required housing.

The Government Constraints- Land Use Controls Section Does Not Acknowledge or Correct Crippling New Housing Constraints
I own three parcels of bare land in the Town at 10728 Mora Drive, 10758 Mora Drive, and 27101 Moody Road. I have proposed many projects on each of these sites over the last decade. In the last four years I have proposed eight different proposals on these three parcels with careful legal attention to state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), SB 9, and the Builder’s Remedy among others. In each case, the Town has willfully violated these and other housing laws by applying subjective zoning ordinance standards, minimum lot size, LUF, MDA, FMA and setback requirements that made it impossible to build even a modest home. The Town’s highly subjective Conditional Development process is also employed, in violation of the HAA, to hinder, add unreasonable costs, and deny housing on these sites and many other perfectly usable infill sites in Town. In fact, at last count, the Town has only allowed three new homes in the last eight years on lots under one acre, all of them where there was no neighborhood opposition.

The Town also has an SB 9 Ordinance (Article 15 in its Zoning Ordinance) that is extremely similar to the one the HCD has said violates multiple state housing laws in its famous Temple City violation letter (EX. 3 to this letter). These laws, while pretending to be supportive of SB 9, are actually anti-housing policies that constrain housing development.

The Town is currently using all of the above Land Use Controls to stop legal development on perfectly legal parcels of land, in violation of multiple state housing laws. The Town has continued to enforce ordinances on its books that are plainly illegal under the HAA, SB 9 and other state laws while claiming it will make changes during the housing element process. If it was serious about these changes, it would stop enforcing current land use controls that violate state laws. For the Town’s housing element come into compliance, it must acknowledge these problems and come up with specific corrections in its implementation of land use controls.

The Development Review and Permit Processing Time Does Not Fix Real Harmful Constraints to New Housing
The Town has also uses its development review and permits processing to violate current state housing laws, such as the Permit Streaming Act (PSA), on each of my projects eight recent applications. The Town should

4 immediately come into compliance with the PSA and other state laws. To have its housing element come into compliance, it must acknowledge these problems and come up with specific corrections to its development review processes
Conclusion
In the January 30, 2023 meeting, where the Town adopted its earlier draft of the housing element, Staff and the City Attorney assured the City Councilmembers that the draft was in compliance with the Housing Element Law. Others, including myself, wrote thoughtful letters showing the Town why it was not compliance and the ramifications of continuing forward with a draft that was non-compliant. After the HCD’s March 17 non-compliance letter, it was manifest that Staff and the City Attorney were wrong, and the critics were correct. Here we are again, with the Town taking the position of self-certification; refusing to make an honest effort at reforming Land Use Controls and Development Review and Permits Processing Times, and providing a Site Inventory that cannot possibly accommodate its RHNA requirements.

This draft seems destined to be rejected by the HCD. The Town’s efforts to self-certify and claim its January 29 Housing Element is compliant, contrary to HCD determination, will likely lead to righteous lawsuits either by the State or non-profit housing groups. This could open the Town up to significant expenses and financial liability. These maneuvers will also leave the Builder’s Remedy window open for other land owners to propose projects free of the Towns development standards. Instead, I urge the Town to step back, provide firm direction to Staff to meet the Housing Element law with real reforms and create a housing element that meets the needs for housing in this state.

I understand the Town is concerned these housing requirements will allow outsiders and low income households into the Town. We have heard concerns that more housing will invite illegal activity by these potential new residents. The irony is that in order to keep these potentially law-breaking outsiders away, the Town has been reduced to breaking state housing laws itself.

In a housing survey of Town residents, 78% of respondent were concerned about the affordability of housing (page 596 of the packet.). The Town should be worried about the cost of housing on our children and elderly, which is tearing communities apart all across the state, including our own. Los Altos Hills should do its part to honestly meet the housing needs of our community and the state.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
March 17, 2023
Peter Pirnejad, Town Manager
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear Peter Pirnejad:

RE: Town of Los Altos Hills’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the Town of Los Altos Hills’ (Town) adopted housing element adopted on January 30, 2023, and received for review on January 31, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from California Housing Defense Fund, Elain Haight, and the League of Women Voters of Los Altos-Mountain View Area pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The adopted housing element addresses some of the statutory requirements described in HCD’s January 25, 2023 review; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

As a reminder, the Town’s 6th cycle housing element was due January 31, 2023. As of today, the Town has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The Town’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the Town to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the town should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Peter Pirnejad, Town Manager

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c), shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Please be aware, if the Town fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites are completed.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the Town will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the Town to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

We are committed to assisting the Town in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Reid Miller, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure

Town of Los Altos Hills’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Page 1 March 17, 2023

APPENDIX

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
The following changes are necessary to bring the Town’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/buildingblocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
The element now states rezones in Program 19 (Support Foothill College) were not necessary to meet the Town’s 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), however, it generally was not revised to address HCD’s prior finding. For example, as noted in the prior review, rezoning to allow multifamily uses and promote a variety of housing types was essential to meeting statutory requirements, regardless of RHNA. The element should discuss the progress or lack of progress in implementation. Then, the element should discuss the effectiveness of efforts to determine appropriate actions moving forward into the 6th cycle. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Income and Racial Concentration of Affluence (RCAA): While the element was revised to include some analysis on income and RCAA, the analysis must still address trends, conditions, coincidence with other fair housing factors (e.g., race, highest resource, overpayment), effectiveness or absence of past strategies (e.g., lack of publicly assisted housing and lack of multifamily zoning), local data and knowledge and other relevant factors.

Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element now includes some general discussion of identified sites and concentrations of socio-economic characteristics. For example, the element states the entire Town is the highest resource

Town of Los Altos Hills’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Page 2 March 17, 2023
category and all of the sites are in a highest resource area. However, to understand whether identified sites AFFH, the element should discuss the location (e.g., planning area, neighborhood, census tract) of the RHNA by income group then evaluate the impact, including any spreading, mixing, isolation or lack of identifying RHNA in certain neighborhoods. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should re-assess contributing factors and prioritize those factors then formulate appropriate policies and programs.

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Realistic Residential Capacity: While the element was revised to utilize a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, the realistic residential capacity must still account for the likelihood that development will occur according to the uses allowed by the proposed multifamily overlay zone as opposed to the base zone. Please see HCD’s prior review.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element generally was not revised to address this finding. The element must still demonstrate the potential for redevelopment on nonvacant sites. For example, the element must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, including market demand for the current uses, leases or other indicators of turnover in uses. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

In addition, regarding owner interest in development, the element indicates owner interest but the documentation does not appear to match or is irrelevant to the element’s conclusion. For example, the element includes a letter from the College but the letter does not affirmatively state an interest in development. Instead, it mentions a willingness to work with the Town if housing is pursued. The element should either provide affirmatively documentation of interest in residential development in the planning period or other analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment in the planning period.

Finally, while the element notes that greater than 50 percent of the lower-income RHNA is identified on vacant sites, upon a complete analysis of identified sites, if this conclusion changes, specific actions are necessary if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. While the resolution of adoption includes the appropriate